Modern Transit Society

moderntransit.org   PO Box 5582, San Jose CA 95150   phone: 408-221-0694

 

Sept. 14, 2004

Supervisor Pete McHugh, Chair
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

cc: each Supervisor
Ms. Decker, Deputy County Executive

Subject: illegal "pedestrians prohibited" signs and another fatality.

Dear Supervisor McHugh,

Violation details:
Only about 12% of the illegal "pedestrians prohibited" signs were removed so far this year. After Mr. Murdter's May 4 promise to the BOS to comply, and almost two months of no-action, I wrote this letter to Ms. Decker, Deputy County Executive. It contains violation details:
http://moderntransit.org/expy/stonewall.htm

I wrote another letter to Ms. Decker on July 20. The subject was "illegal signs are still posted." This also was completely ignored.

So I wrote a letter to Supervisor Jim Beall, C/O Jean Cohen, who forwarded my letter on August 9, and obtained a response from Mr. Murdter with the brief but false statement that
"We have completed removal of the signs on Central and Foothill per the Board's direction on 5/4/04."
He said this despite the fact that every block of Foothill Expressway today still contains these signs. This is obvious to anyone traveling along that road. The other tactic of Mr. Murdter was to not even address illegal sign violations on other expressways which I had pointed out. 

My speech to the BOS on Sept 14:
A pedestrian fatality occurred on Capitol Expressway in the same block another fatality occurred in 1992. State law was violated by Roads and Airports in both fatalities. Both drivers were misinformed by illegal signs that pedestrians are prohibited; and, therefore, that they don’t need to watch out for them. Furthermore, the first fatality would not have occurred but for the refusal of the Department to comply with BOS policy to trim shrubbery at expressway intersections for walkers' safety.

In the recent fatality, the pedestrian was crossing the expressway. Crossing is the most dangerous action a pedestrian can take. The illegal signs force detours and unnecessary crossings of the expressway and/or other roads.

Mr. Murdter broke his promises made to the Board, on May 4, to remove illegal signs. I ask that staff be directed to fully comply with the law and what was promised.

Waste of staff time, and staff wasting BOS time.
The staff time spent fighting compliance is over 10 times greater than simply complying. This matter has been settled by State Law, City Ordinances, BOS policies, and Mr. Murdter's promises to comply made to the BOS on May 4, 2004. The below letter regarding my recent phone discussion with Ms. Decker demonstrates there most definitely is a compliance problem and a disregard for the law.

Conclusion
I ask the Chair to end this matter by directing staff to comply by setting a date for that compliance. 

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay,
President

==========================================================
Modern Transit Society
web site: moderntransit.org address: PO Box 5582, San Jose CA 95150 phone: 408-221-0694
Sept. 8, 2004
To: Peter Kutras, Jr., County Executive
Jane Decker, Deputy County Executive
Cc: Each member of Board of Supervisors

Dear Mr. Kutras and Ms. Decker,

I talked to Ms. Decker on Wednesday (9/8/04) and was astonished at statements she made. Below are her statements (to my best recollection) and the MTS response after each:

Ms. Decker: I don't understand why anyone would want to walk on an expressway shoulder anyway:
MTS: Because the typical detour is one mile long --that's a walking mile, not a driving mile. For those living, working or shopping on the "expressway," there is no alternative. Frankly, the matter has been settled by State Law, City Ordinances, BOS policies, and Mr. Murdter's promises to comply made to the BOS on May 4, 2004. There must be action, not re-evaluation for the purpose of endless delays in compliance. BOS policy --and other government levels such as FHWA and local cities-- support pedestrians on shoulders where sidewalks are lacking.

Ms. Decker: [If] there's a sign out there, they shouldn't be walking passed the [illegally posted] sign.
MTS: They should because:
(1) There is no practical alternative. If there would be a quiet residential street to walk on, one can be sure walkers would take it because it is more pleasant.
(2) It is much safer, according to accident statistics, to walk on a shoulder rather than to cross an intersection, especially arterial intersections which include expressway intersections. In fact, many intersections have to be crossed by almost every detour forced upon walkers.
(3) They are not violating the law. You are! (and also, BOS policy and promises made to the BOS).

Ms. Decker: Mr. Murdter has to check city ordinances.
MTS: You or your assistant can do that because they are on the web. If Mr. Murdter intended to, it'd be done by now. It's been four months since his promise to the BOS --that's more than enough time. I already have given detailed instructions to you on how do that, including at
http://moderntransit.org/expy/
Contrary to your statement that Mr. Murdter said he is doing that, Mr. Murdter stated that he is talking only with San Jose staff, and then regarding only San Tomas. He is not talking with other cities where illegal signs are posted. (Re San Jose: The City does ban use of pedestrians paths on San Tomas and paved sidewalks on Lawrence, but does not prohibit walking on the shoulders of Almaden, Montague, Southwest, and Capitol Expressways, nor are there prohibitory signs posted on these except a few remaining illegal ones on Capitol due to stonewalling by Mr. Murdter's Department.)

Ms. Decker: There have been layoffs and ...
MTS: The County Executive's Office, Mr. Murdter and Mr. Murdter's Department EACH are spending many times greater staff time fighting compliance with what was promised the BOS, fighting the law, and fighting BOS policy, rather than simply spending 3 hours --by field staff-- to remove the illegal signs.

The pedestrian who was killed last week while crossing Capitol Expressway was run into by a driver who went passed your illegal sign --and probably assumed that pedestrians would not exist on the public roadway. Accidents usually occur when something unexpected happens, and the illegal "pedestrians prohibited" signs send the message to drivers: There are no pedestrians, don't watch out for them. The walker was NOT killed walking along the road shoulder, which is no more dangerous for walkers than for bicyclists using bike lanes. Crossing arterial roads --including expressways-- is by far the most dangerous according to statistics, and the risk is increased by misinforming drivers. That accident might not have occurred if staff would have complied.

I again urge that prompt compliance be achieved. For further details and links for documents, please see our letter to Ms. Decker (of June 27) at this link:
http://moderntransit.org/expy/stonewall.htm

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay
President