New Year update: e-mail your comments before the end of tomorrow!
After you e-mail Caltrans, post your letter as a comment on this post below!
Caltrans is making plans to address the automobile traffic problems surrounding the 280/880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange near Valley Fair Mall. However, their plans do not include provisions to fully address the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians travelling through the area. In addition, the existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass “may” need to be removed and rebuilt to make room for a flyover freeway ramp for a FUTURE connection from Hwy 280 to Winchester Blvd.
This month’s Christmas in the Dark ride went through this area. Now that you’ve seen it, let Caltrans know what you think about it!
Caltrans is collecting input from the public, but has set a deadline of Monday, December 20th January 3, 2011 for comments!
For more information, please see the following pages:
- Caltrans 280/880/Stevens Creek Blvd project page
- VTA I-280/I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard Improvements Project page
- Carlos Babcock’s blog entry about the Caltrans meeting at SVBC’s website.
Please send your comments via mail, email, fax, or the project website, with attention to:
Sheryl M. Garcia
California Department of Transportation
111 Grand Avenue, Mail Station 8-B
Oakland, California 94612
Fax: 510-286-5600
Email: 880_280_StevenCreek_EIR_EA_Comments@dot.ca.gov
scott
December 14, 2010
This has got to be one of the most dangerous intersections for cars and/or bikes in the whole valley, not just San Jose. It’s crazy and shortsighted to think that this $140-175M project can not implement something as simple as what they’ve put on Market Street in SF!
We only have till Dec. 20th to get your comments known to CalTrans, VTA, etc! If SJ is going to claim to be a bike friendly city and CalTrans and VTA claim to support cyclists (and all taxpayers) then they need to hear us loud and clear… make this intersection safe and very visible for ALL cyclists! (my 2 cents, what’s your opinion?)
We will be riding over this dangerous section of Stevens Creek Blvd over Hwy 880 this friday night! So please be careful, be alert. We’ll definitely need BIRDs assistance before Monroe and over the freeway near the four entrances and exits.
This intersection will be slightly safer after this construction in my opinion. But will fall far, far short of making it much safer. We need to find out IF they have enough width for a bike lane and if not, why not! And why they can’t make a green bike lane for us! Am I too strident? Perhaps, but this is a “now or never” moment.
Our vocal and visible presence made it easier for SVBC to fight against the bike ban that the county wanted. I’d think they’d welcome our support again!
San Francisco Gets Its First Green Bike Lanes on Market Street
“The new green bike lane approaching Market and 10th Streets. Photos: Bryan Goebel.”
high cadence
December 18, 2010
bike ban my ass. they better not bring that noise down our streets. they will lose that battle.
it’s not hard to create the lane for bikes. just remove 1 car lane, put in a wide bike lane, paint it green, put up yield signs (if they’re not there) for freeway traffic trying to merge and add a “share the road” sign. it’s not rocket science.
Jo
January 2, 2011
This is what I just sent in. I know it is long but I live in this neighborhood. The 4th paragraph is my rant for cyclists and pedestrians.
Dear Caltrans and VTA planners,
It is very understandable that you would zero in on such a congested area and look to improve the conditions at 880 and 280 near Stevens Creek Blvd. Your two plans proposed to address the situation both have major flaws. You are not even looking at the cause of the problem you are only treating the symptom. Valley Fair Shopping Mall and Santana Row along with commuters all clog this area. The cities argue that these malls are profitable but Westfield Mall is an Australian company filled with national and international chain stores who only circulate money back into our economy at a meager level. Even the sales taxes that that the city gets is split between Santa Clara and San Jose. I have already heard that if this interchange expansion happens Valley Fair is planning on expanding to include a Nieman Marcus and other large scale shopping attractions. Your plans are only encouraging the cause of the traffic. The infinitesimal amount of money that can be extracted from the malls to fund the Stevens Creek Blvd. expansion would just be an investment for more customers for the malls. It is not a discouraging fine for causing such a headache for the people that live in the area.
As a resident I feel we are getting the short end of the stick once again when it comes to these freeways. The neighborhood meeting was full of people tired of being fed the same lines about sound walls and ever widening streets isolating residents.
I understand how a well trained group of engineers would look at this situation, you are right the clover leaf design is outdated and inefficient. It should be changed but I don’t think it should be expanded at San Jose, Santa Clara and Santa Clara Country residents expense. Streamline the design within the space you already have even if it means shaving a lane or two. Our cities do not need anymore spaces that are only designed for car use only. Use what you have already and don’t carve into our community only to appease the people that pass through to shop and get to work.
Both plans once again do not account for cyclists, transit users and pedestrians in a realistic manner. Already the Stevens Creek Blvd. overpass over 880 is void of these modes of transportation. I am loathed to expand into this concrete deserts where only cars travel. By raising the cyclist path over 280 you are manufacturing mountains in a cyclist commute and even cutting off the flatter option of going down Winchester and turning down Tish by making Tish a one way. It is increasingly hard to swallow a plan that makes alternative modes of commuting harder in order to elevate the stress of single car commutes. You will only put more drivers onto these roads when you make it easier to get from point A to point B. If you build it they will come.
Your two current expansion plans are unsustainable. If you build the freeways up then the Mall will expand and become an even greater attraction that more people will flock to and once again clog the roads. Causing you to go back to the drawing board. Do you have professionals on your planning committee that deal with the social implications of an expansion process? There needs to be some discouragement to having a long commute or driving so far away to visit a mall or the traffic jam will happen again.
Why not spend the funds needed on this project to build up local businesses and make new destinations all around the county where people would want to go to. Santana Row owes much of its success to its walk ability and aesthetic attraction. To bad so many people have to drive so far to get there. It would be adventitious if people could walk to a thriving social place in their neighborhood. With closer options people won’t have to commute so far to have fun or shop. By building up local business projects like the San Pedro Market more money stays in circulation within our community rather than lining the pockets of huge mall chains owned over seas.
Thank you for hearing the concerns of a citizen who has to live with the changes that you plan to implement. Please realize that our goals are the same. To minimize the congestion within our cities with long term planning for the betterment of our community; be it pedestrian, public transit user, cyclist or driver.
Jo Vadeboncoeur
nick
January 2, 2011
Highlights of the plan:
* this plan will rebuild the existing Monroe St. bike/ped overpass of 280, raising it to four stories (!) high
* this plan will WIDEN Stevens Creek Boulevard as it crosses 880, making it even scarier for cyclists and pedestrians to cross
* this plan serves primarily to improve access to Valley Fair and Santana Row, corporate-owned shopping centers filled with chains that send most of their revenue out of the area. Valley Fair is owned by Westfield Group, an Australian company which is the world’s largest retail property owner.
* Santana Row and Valley Fair do not contribute to the cost of this project, borne by taxpayers: while the “improvement” plan will likely cost over $150 million, Valley Fair contributes roughly a mere $1.6 million/year in sales taxes, split between Santa Clara and San Jose – using these figures, this interchange would take over 93 years to pay for itself.
* this plan ignores the concerns of people living in nearby neighborhoods, transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists – all in the name of shaving a few minutes off of car-drivers’ trips to work and shopping.
Talking points:
* California needs to build smart cities based around pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit use – not more single-occupant car traffic. The Complete Streets law requires Caltrans and other agencies to include all of these other users in every plan.
* Santa Clara County needs to support its local business districts like Winchester Boulevard and West San Carlos Street, which include many locally-owned businesses and have the potential to become true centers of vibrant urban life.
* California’s transportation planning process is dominated by engineers working to maximize automotive “throughput” of all roads without any serious consideration of social factors such as trying to motivate more people to walk, bike, and use transit, thereby improving our personal and environmental health.
Katie
January 2, 2011
Here’s my letter. Jo is a much better writer than I am (I love your letter Jo!), but I thought it would be good to add my voice to the complaints.
Dear Caltrans and VTA planners,
I would like to commend you for your goal to improve the 280/880/Stevens Creek interchange. This area has long been congested and dangerous for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
However, I am disappointed in the structure of these plans. As a cyclist who rides in this area regularly, I am shocked at the plan to make a four story high bridge for cyclists and pedestrians. This bridge sounds like an inconvenient eyesore. Plus, as a cyclist, this bridge sounds extremely difficult and dangerous to traverse, as the incline will be difficult for San Jose riders that are not used to uphills, like children. The four story decline encourages unsafe speeds as cyclists descend, which will cause crashes. This design tells me that the engineers designing the plans are not cyclists themselves and cannot forsee the problems this design will pose for us.
This plan is not worth the $150 million expected cost. I am saddened that this plan prioritizes the needs of car drivers and commercial retailers at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. Please reconsider this ill conceived design.
Thank you,
Katie
Sharlene
January 2, 2011
I did my part — I encourage everyone else to do the same:
My email:
As a bicycle commuter I am concerned that the current project does not realistically address pedestrian and bicycle access across 880. Currently, it is a bone chilling proposition to cross 880 at Stevens Creek/San Carlos, so I opt to go out of my way and take the ancient (and barely bicycle accessible) overpass that is currently in place at the end of Monroe, crossing 280 to Moorpark and then weaving back over 280 at Leigh to get back to San Carlos with my final destination San Jose State University. Please do not move backward in accommodating alternatives to single-passenger automobiles. Requiring users to climb a mountain to cross the freeway will do nothing to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use.
Personally, I loathe Valley Fair. The traffic and parking are untenable any time of the year. I rarely go there. Unfortunately, I do travel near the area and have to at some point cross 880 on my commute to work. My commute by bicycle (18 miles round trip) takes only a few minutes longer by bicycle than it does by automobile. I quite enjoy traveling at my own speed while traffic on the freeway is at a near a standstill. If the framework were in place for more people to realistically and safely commute by bicycle they would. Build a wider bigger freeway and you will accommodate more cars. Make the city more bicycle friendly and more people will opt to leave the car at home. Take a look at Portland and some of the other cities that have a successful model for getting people out of their cars.
I challenge you before you move forward with adopting this plan to grab a helmet and your bike and drive both Stevens Creek and the current bicycle overpass across 880. Please make an effort to see this asphalt jungle from a bicyclist’s perspective. With increasing gas prices and the negative effect of automobiles on the environment, every effort should be made to facilitate and encourage bicycle use.
Tian
January 2, 2011
This is the email I sent them:
Attn: Sheryl M. Garcia
California Department of Transportation
Dear Sheryl M. Garcia, and Caltrans and VTA planners,
Gas prices keep going up. I remember $1/gal. gas, but I feel like a member of a dwindling population that can say that. We’ve not seen that
price in years. Widening roads is just going to make it harder to wean
ourselves of oil. Please do something else.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people tell me the bike bridge
is going to be four stories above ground level. That is a big hill to
many local cyclists. Please don’t make us climb it. The current bridge
is high enough!
Don’t be fuelish! replan this intersection change to make it walkable
and bike friendly.
–
Tian Harter
nick
January 2, 2011
Dear Ms. Garcia:
Please do not continue Caltrans and VTA’s plans for the Interstate 280/880 interchange “improvement” plan without first considering for whom we intend to improve these roads. The plans I have seen call for improving for these roads for the benefit of car drivers and Valley Fair and Santana Row retail operators. The plans as they exist show only a passing thought towards bicyclists, pedestrians, and anyone concerned for the viability of the West San Carlos Street urban corridor.
For bicyclists and pedestrians, the current plans call for erecting a four-story bridge to replace the current Monroe Street bicyclist/pedestrian overcrossing of 280. Creating an obstacle this severe along an otherwise excellent bike route is akin to asking car drivers on the way along I-280 from San Jose to Palo Alto to drive Highway 9 through Saratoga up to Skyline Road before continuing to their destination. We need a fluid and easy transition from one bicycle facility to another, just as cars receive well-signed ramps from one freeway to another. Likewise, plans to widen Stevens Creek Boulevard as it crosses I-880 will only make that route less accessible to pedestrians and cyclists who are already afraid to set foot in that highway wasteland. Stevens Creek should be a pleasant path between the major shopping areas on Bascom and Winchester, not a major obstacle that divides our city for non-automotive road users. This is simply unacceptable and shows a negligent approach toward including cyclists and pedestrians in this project.
This project does not make economic sense. Increasing traffic capacity of any given road, as has been proven again and again, only increases the vehicle traffic on that same road to meet the new capacity – if you build it, they will come. In this case, Valley Fair’s operator the Westfield Group is already planning to expand the mall with a new wing of 70 stores and 3,000 more parking spaces. This company is based in Australia and leases retail space almost exclusively to international chains. Retail dollars spent at these chains circulate in our local economies 2 to 3 times less than dollars spent at locally-owned businesses such as those found on West San Carlos Street. Why spend over $150 million to support a mall that pays a mere $1.6 million annually in sales tax? At this rate, this project will require 94 years to pay for itself – likely beyond its planned lifespan. With the same transportation dollars, we could improve the streetscapes of streets such as West San Carlos Street or Winchester Boulevard to create viable “Complete Streets” business corridors that support local businesses and unique, walkable, cyclist-friendly urban spaces. If we continue with the planned expansion of the Stevens Creek/I-880 interchange, we will merely stare at the same problem of congestion again years from now, with state coffers further drained and lacking the economic benefit strong local businesses could bring.
Finally, it is clear that although traffic engineers have given a great deal of technical thought to this project, social concerns have been neglected. This project does not address the need to create disincentives for solo driving and powerful incentives for walking, cycling, or taking public transit. This project does not address the concerns of local residents, who have again and again complained that our public dollars should not benefit multinational corporate retail centers alone. Last, the callously short comment period allowed for this report (including the cynical extension through the holidays when many residents are otherwise busy with vacations) clearly displays a neglect towards positive urban planning that we can no longer support as we struggle amidst economic crisis to make the best use of each marginal dollar available to our cities.
For these reasons, I ask you and fellow administrators of this plan to reconsider how this plan may be modified to create a Complete Street urban corridor that is inviting and safe for pedestrians and cyclists.
Thank you for consideration.
ryan
January 3, 2011
This is what I sent in this morning:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed changes to the 280/880/Stevens Creek interchange. The current road configuration of this area is awful for all users, not just cars, but pedestrians, bicyclists, and any one else trying to cross the freeway on Stevens Creek. The situation is also not ideal for residents of the area who are forced to deal with the traffic created by Valley Fair and Santana Row. The current proposal to fix this situation addresses only automotive traffic – a large amount caused by the two malls – and does not consider the needs of pedestrians or bicyclists. The solution presented will widen the roads, allowing for future congestion problems, without mitigating these effects in any way by offering alternatives through pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In fact, the proposal is to tear down the existing bicycle bridge at Monroe Street to make way for a fly-over ramp, which is an insult to people living and working in this community. It is in the best interests of CalTrans, VTA, and the State of California to design roads to support multiple users rather than just the mode of transportation that is causing the congestion in the first place – namely the automobile.