Two emails to Santa Clara (City) staff, Date: March 10, 2006 Return to San Tomas Expressway main page at this link: http://moderntransit.org/expy/st.html ============================================== To: Rajeev Batra, PE, City Engineer Dave Pitton, City Traffic Engineer Cc: Councilmember Moore, Chair, Bicycle Advisory Committee Subject: Repeal Resolution 5603: prohibition of pedestrians Dear Sir: Two weeks ago, I was given a ticket by CHP for "21461.5 signs posted no pedestrians" (quoting the ticket) when I got off the bicycle and took a photo while on the 9-foot wide shoulder of San Tomas. I also took a photo of that (see that in the next link). Advocates were disappointed that for the third time (since this was put on the agenda in August for the October BAC meeting) staff did not write a staff report for Tuesday's Council meeting. Staff asked for a delay, for the third time. Hopefully, the Council directive to write a staff report will end the delays. Prompt repeal is both a safety and a justice issue, as described below. I have more information regarding this topic which I put on the website and had sent to the City Council (next 3 links). I took photos and created a new web page of photos (with captions): http://moderntransit.org/fotos-santa-clara/fotos-santa-clara.html A new section, "The prohibition increases accident risk for three reasons", was added to this web page: http://moderntransit.org/expy/st.html The maps web page was made more understandable and succinct, and clearly states our two objectives for Santa Clara in this regard: http://moderntransit.org/expy/santomas-map.html The end result of 40 years of prohibitions and 35 years of fighting by the County Roads Department against bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons --about half of pedestrians along expressways are going to/from transit stops-- and also by most City traffic engineering departments --typically for 2 years each-- was a tremendous waste of staff time and budgets, totalling thousands of man-hours. Despite tremendous staff efforts, we won 100% of all final votes: all city council bicycle repeal and pedestrian repeal votes, and all five votes before the County Board of Supervisors. The first Board vote was in 1988, when County staff had asked the Board of Supervisors to seek legislation in Sacramento to over-rule the cities by preventing repeals and, where it already had been repealed, re-impose bicycle prohibitions. Instead, the Board of Supervisors voted, as I and other requested, to "support bicycles on expressways" by a 4-1 vote. The other Board votes in this regard were unanimously against their own Roads Department desires and were pro-bicycle, pro-pedestrian and pro-transit. In addition, the County Expressway Master Plan, endorsed by the City Council in 2003, is pro-pedestrian. There were recent attempts by Michael Murdter, County Roads Director, to make it anti-pedestrian. He lost three votes in this regard: two unanimously by the VTA BPAC in November, where he dropped one issue but then again lost the other issue, also unanimously, before the Board of Supervisors in January, this year. Santa Clara (City) was the last city to repeal bicycle prohibitions, had the greatest staff opposition to bicycles, and took the longest: 4 years. During this time period, I was being repeatedly ticketed and harassed by Santa Clara City police for using the only bicycling route to Lockheed from the southeast (Santa Clara), which was the 8-foot wide shoulders of Lawrence Expressway. I was also ticketed for not using a car to go to the nearest supermarket. One purpose of stating this information is to try to save time. The three delays in writing the staff report, and staff's attempt to drop the whole matter at the last BAC, already made clear staff's position: to keep the status quo. Statistically, looking at all the prior votes, I'd say the Council vote outcome can already be predicted. Opposition by Santa Clara City staff to safety and justice would have no other result than to add to the time already wasted by Santa Clara City staff in fighting the bicycle prohibition repeal (1987 to 1991) and the Lawrence Expressway pedestrian prohibition repeal (1991). The second purpose is to stop ticketing non-motorists for something that has no logical reason --it's irrational discrimination. It originated by County highway engineers who pretend that the only safe pedestrian or bicyclist is a prohibited one. That mentality is no longer the case for Caltrans (e.g., DD-64), but still persists at County Roads. The third purpose, safety, is the most important and urgent, yet has been ignored by County staff and Santa Clara City staff because that would contradict their departmental goals to retain prohibitions: Increase safety for the walking/bicycling trip by not forcing the crossing of intersections unnecessarily --that's where most accidents occur. This sometimes forces crossing the expressway twice. This is the most dangerous because risk increases exponentially with road width for walkers crossing the road, and the expressways are the widest streets in the City. These unnecessary crossings are part of the detours currently forced upon those complying with the prohibitory signs. Let me know if you would like to meet and/or view San Tomas. My phone is 221-0694. Sincerely, Akos Szoboszlay, President, Modern Transit Society ================================================ Federal funds have been used for lane-addition projects on expressways, so this law (below) is applicable. Notice the word "existing ... route ... for non-motorized transportation". If the City still prohibits when the County applies and gets approval for federal funding for the next San Tomas project (already planned, see the map on the wall near the conference room), the City can be out of free sidewalks due to the word "existing". 23 U.S.C. 109(m) (m) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic. --The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists. Here is the federal link for the above: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/sec217.htm The real reason for prohibiting is: Reduce the budget cost of the lane-addition project by prohibiting non-motorists instead of relocating their facilities. The greatest evidence we have of this was the new "pedestrians prohibited" signs the County highway engineers posted at each approach to the pedestrian underpass under Central Expressway at Lawrence, in 1987. While the Santa Clara (City) made no exception for that underpass, sidewalks nor bus stops when originally enacting the prohibition in 1966, signs were not posted there until 1987. The County highway engineers real reason for prohibiting was that they planned to destroy the underpass when adding more lanes. They did, in fact, destroy the underpass, but only as part of relocating it circa 1995, because by then, in 1991, the City Council repealed the prohibition on Lawrence. This underpass was used primarily by Caltrain patrons. Between 1987 and 1991, half these Caltrain patrons risked ticketing by police for using the underpass, including my brother, while the other half risked death by jay-walking across 50 mph Central Expressway, which had poor visibility due to thick hedges, just to avoid ticketing by Santa Clara police. Clearly, lack of safety was not the reason for prohibiting use of the pedestrian underpass, and it is not the reason for prohibiting elsewhere. On the contrary, prohibitions increase accident risk as I clearly show in my detour maps on our web site. Akos