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.

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.

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

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.

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

* 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.