Undemocratic and deceptive tactics used by staff;
disinformation and false statements.

 

The below email (excerpt) was sent to the Santa Clara City Manager and the Director of Public Works on 4/6/06:

 

Your staff used undemocratic and deceptive tactics at the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) as follows:

 

First, staff undemocratically censored my letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee on this agenda item. Mr. Pitton, City Traffic Engineer, refused to either forward my email to the Committee or include it in the agenda packet.

 

Second, staff deceptively distributed a document at the meeting (10 pages from the County Expressway Master Plan), then contradicted the document by saying the opposite of what it actually states. Staff should have enabled the Committee to actually read it by including it in the agenda packet.

 

Third, staff undemocratically put themselves above the City Council and the Board of Supervisors when they stated, "Both City and County staff do not support removal of the pedestrian prohibitions on San Tomas." [quote from staff report.] Staff omitted the fact that the City Council endorsed, and the Board of Supervisors approved, this statement: "Shoulder or path facilities can serve ... for occasional pedestrian use." That is part of the County Expressway Master Plan, approved in 2003, and this Master Plan explicitly shows these shoulders on the pedestrian map of San Tomas in the San Tomas Appendix. Both this quote and this map were omitted from the staff report.

 

Furthermore, staff used disinformation and false statements in the written staff report. These are rebutted on this web page (also contains a link to the staff report):

 

http://moderntransit.org/expy/sc-rebuttal2.html

 

Staff cannot claim ignorance. I emailed them the information 3 times and gave them 2 paper handouts since last August. This web page lists (and has links to) all the information that was given, and which was ignored:

 

http://moderntransit.org/expy/st.html

 

The preceding link also has comprehensive information, including:

Reasons why the prohibition increases accident risk.

Why people walk on San Tomas, despite the "pedestrians prohibited" signs.

Policies and laws violated.

Link to a pictorial report of San Tomas:

         http://moderntransit.org/fotos-santa-clara/fotos-santa-clara.html

Link to pedestrian maps of San Tomas:

         http://moderntransit.org/expy/santomas-map.html

 

The tactic of saying anything to get votes while completely ignoring real safety issues actually increases accident risk. Mr. Pitton completely ignored what is, by far, the greatest danger, as proven by accident statistics: crossing roads. His and County highway engineers' false claims have greatly increased danger by forcing many extra intersection crossings (sometimes even crossing the expressway twice) as a result of detours forced by prohibitions. Minimizing crossings maximizes safety. Further safety is achieved by eliminating prohibitory signs that mislead motorists into not watching out for walkers on the expressway -- most of whom are actually crossing it.

 

The real reason for banning walking (and formerly, bicycling) is that the County highway engineers don't want to spend a penny of their roads budget for walking/bicycling facilities. However, they have been over-ruled by the votes of the Board of Supervisors in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, they continue to oppose County policy and the Master Plan. The next link contains the federal law that will require sidewalks, at no cost to the City, if walkers are allowed, which is the real reason for fighting against walkers. This law was quoted in the VTA BPAC's unanimous votes last November:

 

http://www.moderntransit.org/expy/bpac-vote2.html

 

City staff was also over-ruled in two 1991 votes before the City Council, one that resulted in all "bicycles prohibited" sign being removed from the City. The other vote resulted in partial removal of the pedestrian prohibition on Lawrence. However, all signs were removed and subsequently sidewalks were constructed along Lawrence when adding more lanes, at no cost to the City.

 

If Mr. Pitton continues to claim, as do the County highway engineers, that shoulders are dangerous, no matter how wide, then look at these photos of Caltrans' roads showing pedestrians on shoulders:

 

http://moderntransit.org/expy/st.html#caltrans

 

Mr. Pitton stated at the BAC meeting that the lack of a curb is the reason for prohibiting walkers. This is proven false by looking at the Hwy 9, Hwy 99 and Hwy 395 photos of walkers (previous link). There isn't a curb in sight, but all allow walking in suburban areas with speed limits identical to San Tomas. El Camino (Hwy 82), in some portions such as through Atherton, also has shoulders, not sidewalks, for pedestrians.

 

Yet, Mr. Pitton also opposes pedestrian use of paths even with a curb. For example, San Tomas from Cabrillo to Monroe contains a walking path with a curb (on the southbound side) the entire way (but needs 100 feet of trail improvement, although I've walked it the entire way). Just today, I saw a pedestrian walk on this path and continue walking on the shoulder at the next block to El Camino, probably to the El Camino bus stop. If ticketed, as I recently was, the fine for not using a car is $149. That's an outrage!

 

In fact, all State highways (other than most, but not all, freeways) allow people to walk on shoulders. The City, in fact, has shoulders for walkers on some roads such as Lafayette (with 40 mph speed limit vs. 45 mph for San Tomas). The assertion by City staff that shoulders are unsafe for walkers and their former assertion that shoulders are unsafe for bicyclists (which staff claimed from 1987 to 1991) contradicts accepted roadway engineering design practice.

 

People walking along shoulders are always safer than bicyclists because they are further removed from vehicle traffic. Notice the walking and riding positions in the photos, which are actual (not staged). If Mr. Pitton truly believes that shoulders are dangerous for walkers, then he can simply tell the County to trim the shrubs to create dirt paths for the entire block. There has been $75,000 allocated annually to do exactly that, approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1991. However, the money, in my opinion, was misspent because one year's allocation alone would have been more than enough for creating paths along the entire San Tomas expressway. This involves mostly shrubbery trimming, with only a few locations needing trail-building. Typically, 10 feet of roadway property extends beyond the pavement on "expressway" roads, and two feet is sufficient for a path.

 

Path creation is already required at all expressway "intersection areas" by the Master Plan. This policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1991, at my request. I had noticed, for years, that drivers turning right on red often look left or backwards as they turn right and continue forward, trying to merge. Despite this requirement, reiterated in the Master Plan, the County highway engineers continue stonewalling and using any excuse they can to avoid compliance, including, "[Creating paths] would encourage people to violate the 'pedestrians prohibited' signs."