City Hall Diary
A few months ago I wrote about the chronic problem of speeding in San Jose. My concern about this problem peaked when two parents were killed recently by a speeding driver while walking on Graystone Lane in Almaden Valley. At that time, I proposed that the City of San Jose review its traffic calming policy in an effort to update it so that it reflects the needs of residents today. For example, the current policy refers to using NASCOP (a photo radar device) that would take pictures of drivers in their cars as they sped by. Recently, NASCOP was ruled illegal by state courts, leaving a hole in our current policy.
Although I am concerned about speeding that occurs on expressways and freeways, my main concern is speeding on our neighborhood streets. Eighty percent of our streets in San Jose have a speed limit of 25 mile per hour. These 25 mph streets are where people live, kids play, and seniors walk. Speeding is a serious issue that does not discriminate against any neighborhood. Streets in Almaden, Willow Glen, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Northside and others echo the same sentiments: Stop speeding cars on our neighborhood streets.
Speeders affect our quality of life in San Jose and limit our outdoor activities—for example, not being able to allow our children to play in the front yard. In addition, another limitation speeding causes is that many people will not walk in their neighborhood for fear of crossing the street—and I am not referring to Almaden or Capitol Expressways, but 25 mph neighborhood streets which drivers continue to speed on, even where there are crosswalks.
In an effort to address the neighborhood speeding problem, the San Jose City Council unanimously supported Mayor Reed’s memo to update our traffic calming policy (on September 18) which would allow the City of San Jose to have a series of traffic calming meetings throughout the city—one meeting in each district. I am proud that the mayor recommended that I chair the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Hearings because this issue is important to me.
The meetings will begin on October 18 and run through November 29 (see link below). Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation (DOT); Laura Wells, DOT Division Manager; and Captain Diane Urban and Lieutenant Jeff Smith from the San Jose Police Department are members of the traffic calming meetings. Our group is required to attend the meetings and then from the input received, write a report that will be presented to the city council in December.
The purpose of the meetings is to gather input from all residents in San Jose on what they would like to see us do. Residents can share any ideas, suggestion and concerns. From what has been shared with me thus far it seems that many residents would like to see more enforcement, the appeals process for traffic calming expanded and funding allocated to traffic calming efforts.
In 2001 our city had $5 million budgeted for traffic calming; this last year we had zero. Our budget should echo the priorities of our residents and I believe after the traffic calming meetings are completed, money to slow cars down on the neighborhood streets will be validated as a priority.
The City of San Jose has not stopped collecting taxes; therefore, we need to prioritize the funds we do have on items and issues that are important to residents. Erik Larsen, President of AFSCME, MEF Local 101, shared with me at a meeting recently that he is looking forward to the traffic calming meetings because they represent a democratic process which encompasses the needs of San Jose residents directly. I agree.
Check out Newhall between The Alameda and Park for a glimpse of San Jose’s traffic calming practice (vs. policy). The pavement is so riddled with potholes, raised sections and drop zones, going over 10 mph puts your suspension and/or oil pan at risk. Avoiding this brain-rattling section pushes traffic to Hedding, which can handle it, and to Hilmar, which can’t.
And don’t get me started about The Alameda from 17 to the Arena. Farm to market roads in Texas have a better surface.
Pierluigi,
What are you expecting to hear at these meetings? I am sure everybody will agree they do not want people speeding through the neighborhoods. Do you expect residents to find their own solution? It would be more productive if you, Mr. Helmer, Ms. Wells, Ms. Urban, and Mr. Smith could present what is possible. But with no budget, they can offer little. I get the sense these meetings are more for building support for the budget than finding any true solution. If speeding is a real priority, why can’t you and your colleagues on the council allocate a budget then let’s talk about solutions.
Pierluigi,
The city council needs to put its money where its mouth is. The traffic enforcement unit of the San Jose Police Department has been cut in half over the past 4 years due to budget cuts. You can have all the neighborhood meetings and dog and pony shows but the solution is pretty simple. More traffic cops equals more enforcement. More cops making traffic stops equals more cars being impounded by those that drive without a license or insurance. Beef up the traffic enforcement unit and it will have a direct impact on speeders. There is not some magical computer program or electronic gizmo that takes the place of good old traffic enforcement. The fear of getting a $400 ticket is what slows drivers down. The fear of losing a provisional under 18 year old license is what slows down the younger drivers. If we suddenly had no traffic cops, what would happen to speeding then? There is a direct relationship between numbers of traffic cops and speeding. No studies needed. Get more cops on the street. You have the power to do so. Don’t replace the nets at the city golf courses as planned and you will have an extra $2-3 million dollars to work with.
#4 Steve. Good remarks, all very true.
What I would like to recommend to the city council is: “RESULTS NOT EXCUSES” for all matters.
Thanks Napper,
These ad nauseum meetings with the community to show something is being done is a bunch of pomp and circumstance. To cut to the chase, everyone in every community does not want speeders on their streets. Put more traffic cops on duty, cut down on speeders, unlicensed drivers, and uninsured drivers, and everyone in the community will be much happier. No meetings needed. Wasted time. It is preaching to the chorus. The community already has your support. Fill the slashed traffic enforcement cops. Take a clue from the CHP; they target problem areas with massive enforcement such as Highway 17 over the hill. They have issued thousands of extra tickets and deaths/injury accidents have plummented. Do the same in San Jose and the results will be the same. No need to stick your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
#3 and 4- Very well said. I completely agree.
I do have faith in Mayor Reed though. I don’t think he’s going through all of this for show, but we’ll see.
Pierluigi, why does it always take someone getting hit by a car, injured in a crash, or killed before the City does anything? Speeders have been a problem for decades now. This is not a new thing.
This year, my neighbor was in her car with her elderly Mom, her young son, pulling into their driveway when a speeding fool bashed into them and drove off. They were badly hurt, so an ambulance was called to transport them to the hospital. This isn’t the first time this has happened here on Woodard Road. Speeders have bashed into streetlights, homes, other cars, and driven off. Why? Because there are no Police Officers around enforcing the law, and sending a message to these pinheads, that breaking the law won’t be tolerated.
There’s a school right next to my fourplex, and I’m just waiting for the God forbidding day, a group of children crossing the street, or a child running to her parent’s car is run over. It’s just ridiculous that the City has cut Traffic Enforcement Officers back the way they have. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
We have an overpriced City Hall, complete WITH a rotunda, leaders have wasted MILLIONS of dollars on a grand prix, that eventually took the money and ran, as well as having spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars on other irresponsible financial expenditures. All the while Police Officers are overworked, under appreciated, people are getting hit or killed, and property is getting damaged because budget cuts didn’t allow for traffic enforcement…. This whole thing is just another perfect example of unbelievably bad priority setting by the former Mayor and Council.
Pierluigi,
Steve has it right; make bad behavior painful and behavior will change. There are many officers on the patrol though probably not enough.
I may be wrong here, but it appears that all patrol officers can and are authorized to write speeding tickets but only a very few are assigned to Traffic. Is this correct? Most patrol officers would probably stop anyone driving recklessly fast or in a way that would draw suspicion for some other serious offence. However, they would likely pass on stopping Jane or John Doe in a nice car driving 5 or maybe 10 mph over the speed limit if it were close to the flow of traffic or it appeared safe at the time. Enforcement of the prima-facie limits is a Traffic Detail job.
With little to no money for traffic calming construction projects, and photo-radar vans now unlawful, the only two choices seem to be some combination of neighborhood action and change in the enforcement policy and resource allocation; or some combination of the two.
How many radar guns could the City buy for just one traffic calming construction project?
How long would it take to perform the study, make the determination, schedule the construction and inspect the completion of one traffic calming construction project as compared to take delivery on one, two or half a dozen radar guns?
How many neighborhood streets can be calmed by one construction project, as compared to how many streets could be calmed with two, three or a half dozen radar guns on patrol?
Here’s a radical thought, if the policy and allocation of enforcement does not change, why should the wage and retirement benefits change? Is it not the door-to-door neighborhoods that vote? …elect the Council? …and pay taxes? I’m sure it’s much more complicated than this, but what are the options? Just a thought.
Nice try, P.O., but meetings are little more than a feel good “solution” for you folks who are our alleged leaders. At least it’s cheaper than a few hundred K on consultants, which is the council’s normal approach when it hasn’t a clue and knows that staff hasn’t one either.
Oh, yeah, it does calm the seething folks who show up to have their point of view heard; so they go away assuaged for a bit. And the meetings are filled with a bunch of folks like The Buffalo Springfield sang of in the ‘60s—“singin’ songs and a carryin’ signs, mostly say hooray for our side.” So all ya’ll will sit there and listen patiently and sympathetically to everyone’s horror story, but they’re really all the same story, retold with a different street name.
And your solutions so far really suck. Traffic “calming” barriers and medians and circles may calm down the people who live on the streets where they are placed, but the infuriate drivers…not calm them.
Take the stupid little median barrier @ Hicks and Curtner, for example. Before it was placed, Hicks was wide enough for two cars abreast, so that cars turning right on Curtner could go when oncoming traffic on the near side of Curtner allowed. People turning left onto Curtner had to wait until both sides cleared. Your stupid traffic “calming”median pinches it to one lane, so that if a car is turning left, even the right hand turners have to wait until the guy ahead turning left has a clear lane in both directions. It infuriates everyone, including me. It did nothing to “calm” traffic approaching it on Hicks, since Hicks ends at that point. It may slow people turning right off Curnter to Hicks, but that was never a problem. Your so-called calming “solution” made a bigger prooblem than the non-problem it “solved”.
I’m sure there are a gazillion examples of this “calming” nonsense throughout the city.
Cancel the meetings and hire more enforcement, as many above have suggested. Stop trying to fool all the people all of the time with these ridiculous meetings that do nothing but prove you haven’t a clue, and show us some leadership.
It is impossible to have a police officer on every corner. Hiring bodies will not solve the problem overnight. Work with the police unions and use technology and bring back photo radar vans, install Red Light Runner cameras at the 100 busiest intersections and increase fines to where it really it hits the violators wallet.
PO:
When people started driving cars, the speeding tickets issued resulted in a fine that at that time was stiff. A stiff fine makes a great deterrent. When I was younger and saw the red light flashing in my back window, my heart went in my throat and I could feel it in my wallet. Now, $100 or so is not a great deterrent to most people. I get caught speeding about once every 2-3 years (usually on the highway, not a city street) and consider it a cost of driving. It’s no longer a big deal. A stiff deterrent may stop that. Perhaps starting speeding tickets at $500 and then enforcing it would make a great deterrent. Just a suggestion.
#10—The camera “solution” was ruled unconstitutional a couple of years ago in San Diego…unless a sworn police officer was there and actually saw the violation.
When traffic calming measures are not thought out carefully, they cause more problems than they solve. Case in point, a stop sign was installed on my corner (a T intersection) to “calm traffic/slow speeders.” Unfortunately it caused traffic to speed up because drivers no longer had to slow down to check for cross traffic.
Another pedestrian dies in SJ because someone does not value the safety of our neighborhoods:
84-year-old San Jose woman killed by car while crossing street—Article below.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7129037
Pierluigi,
Keep up your good work. Those of us that have worked with you and seen results so far know you are moving in the right direction. You have done more than the two city council people previous to you, and they had a budget to work with.
The point that seems to be consistant here and, I agree is,” we need more police enforcement officers”, we need the officers we do have to become proactive, they have been in a reactive mode. Sometimes when you pull over a person for a minor violation like speeding you catch bigger criminals with bigger violations.
Mayor Reed and our present city council seem to be going in the right direction. They have been given a city with a lot of problems created by the previous administration and a check book with no money in the bank and loads of debt.
Keep up the good work.
#12
Radar at stop lights is still legal in California. NASCOP is not.
Enforcing traffic laws in urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for police, who in most cases must follow a violating vehicle through a red light to stop it. This can endanger motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and police cannot be everywhere at once. Traffic stops in urban areas can exacerbate traffic congestion. Communities do not have the resources to allow police to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Red light cameras allow police to focus on other enforcement needs like in our neighborhoods.
Good for you Pierluigi for leading this effort. I hope you will guide the process at each meeting so that we hear ideas about concrete solutions and ideas on updating the policy. (No more stories; we all have those – from community members. We already know there’s a problem.)
You also have the dubious honor (congratulations!) of educating the “powers that be” (your colleagues) that changes are needed because policies have NOT worked and the sames problems are just getting worse. I use Jim Helmer’s quote at the end of this blog as one example. (Source: UNSCC email) I found it scary that he thinks the previous policy served the city “well.”
Another example: Some of your council comrades think educating drivers is the answer. Puleez. Fact is, people won’t “get it” until they’re impacted. Pain is a great motivator. Hit them in the pocketbook, and make it significant.
I really like your idea Pierluigi, about Traffic Cops who serve no other purpose than to hand out tickets. (Source: D6 Summer Newsletter) Again, make the fine signficant.
What about exploring a hybrid model of self-monitoring solutions coupled with Traffic Cops. (And lets not take years to explore it!)
And the petition requirement process in the current policy…while we’re exploring, let’s put that on the radar too.
Thank you again for your efforts Pierluigi. I look forward to hearing the ideas at the upcoming meetings.
Tina Morrill
Vendome neighborhood
“I am looking forward to updating the Department of Transportation traffic calming policy.” stated Jim Helmer, Director of Department of Transportation. “The current policy has served the city well, but now it is time to update the policy to meet increasing needs in traffic policy. I am pleased to see the unanimous support of City Council for this issue.”
Mr. Luigi:
Please consider using your power as a city councilman to do the two following things.
1. Change the public street standards in San Jose’s Subdivision Ordinance to specify a narrower width for neighborhood streets. Currently, the streets are as wide as some countries’ regional highways. They are wide and straight enough that a safe and reasonable speed for the motorist is much higher than it should be. Streets that look more enclosed force lower speeds. Try driving as fast as you would down Via De Las Abejas down some of the tiny state-named streets in Willow Glen. The vehicle travel lanes are just as wide, but it feels narrower because there is no excess width for parking on two sides AND a double-parked moving van AND two travel lanes.
2. Buy smaller fire trucks when it’s time to replace the old ones. The Fire Department demands huge, wide streets to accommodate their huge, wide trucks. (Let’s all be adults and not make big truck/little weenie jokes, please.) Huge, wide streets allow people to drive faster than is safe for kids, dogs, and cyclists.
The Fire Department will cry to high heaven that it needs ever bigger toys, but it really doesn’t. Buildings are safer now than they ever were due to the excellent work of the City’s fire engineers enforcing our fire codes. Every fire house doesn’t need an airport-size super rig. Please, consider the total safety instead of pure fire safety when it’s time to buy fire trucks. Weigh the safety given by oversized fire trucks against the safety of narrower neighborhood streets.
This is all capital investment, rather than the continuous drain on the budget that additional traffic officers would require.
The cost of this is marginal when road narrowing is incorporated into the regularly-scheduled repaving of streets.
It not only makes streets safer, but it makes them more attractive and friendlier. (Again, look at the difference between Willow Glen “state” streets and, say, Sunset Avenue.)
It’s easier and gets more attention to demand stricter enforcement of laws and to put more cops on the streets to punish speeders, but making it impossible to speed works much more effectively.
Read up on your Dan Burden and your William Whyte if you don’t believe it’s this easy.
NASCOP gave other city employees to be trained other than LE under City ordinace 25009 enforcement by photo radar under CVC 40802(b). Traffic laws are regulated by the State. In NASCOP I believe there is was no higher court rulings against the program, only traffic courts based per case heard. CVC 21455.5.
Traffic Signal Automated Enforcement: Photographic Records AND 21455.6 c) The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction. arguments have been used. Which tends to differ from NASCOP program but raised concerns until legislation can clarify such so the elimination of the program became until such clarifications. NASCOP didn’t enforce near ‘red light’ cameras. And in the City of San Jose, there are no ‘red light cameras’ that I am aware of.
If I recall from newspaper articles, San Diego’s ruling came in light of red light cameras, not speeding by photo radar and a huge conflict with the citation issuing vendors contracting with San Diego. I just think a lot of misinformation is out there and always will need to be up for corrections.
IMO
I live on Woodard and I am scared to go to my front lawn due to being hit by a speeding car. I have compliant to everyone from CHP, Capt. Patrick McGrady in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office, District 9, District 4, Sadegh Sadeghi in the County’s Roads and Airports Department ,Code enforcemet regrading speeders and Motorycycle noise from The Main Bar, GP Sports testing bikes on Woodard (the manager of GP Sports said, “Sorry but that’s our test run”) Cambrian GO Karts testing motorized scooters on Woodard. Nothing has changed.
#19- AJ come to Thursday night’s Traffic Calming meeting. 6:30-8 pm., 1780 Hillsdale Ave. in San Jose. It’s the Cambrian Library.
We will be talking about it with City Council Members, and I think the Mayor or his staff. I too live on Woodard, it is awful.
Thanks Kathleen,
I for sure will be there with a few others. I have been passing out the meeting date and time to a lot of our neighbours on the Union Esther side of Woodard. Will be passing out flyer tomorow too.
A.J., thank you for getting the word out! See you Thursday night.
Nancy, great ideas! Hope you come to the meeting!
I am glad something is being done about this issue. I shall be at this meeting.
That is right that speeding is a serious issue that does not discriminate against any neighborhood. More policing is needed and more education is needed. It’s time for new rules and policies and strict enforcements and higher fines.
for driving too slow. For turning into my own driveway. I can’t drive out of my drive way between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. due to so many people driving too fast.
What’s an old lady suppose to do?
I get honked
I am hoping to reach out to my local authorities to do something about improving my and all the local residents’ sense of well being about our neighborhood streets and enhance traffic safety in our residential areas. My concerns are the streets of Esther and Woodard. I have bought this issue up with various local authorities for almost a year now. I am glad District 9 is having this meeting to hear the voices of homeowners being effected by the traffic and the noise caused by it.
My suggestions:
§ Stop traffic from spilling onto Esther and Woodard from Bascom, Camden and Union- especially during peak traffic hours.
§ Put speed bums on Woodard. NO ONE STOPS AT STOP SIGNS-they rolls and then hit the gas.
§ A photo radar device by the stop signs.
§ Reduce speeds on residential streets from 30MPH to 25MPH due to 2 schools on Woodard (Farnham and St. Francis Cabrini).
§ Triple speeding fines in residential areas- it’ll pay for the extra officers required.
§ More CHP presence on Woodard.
§ Get GP Sports and Cambrian Go Karts NOT to test their motorcycles/Moped on our residential streets as they are also speeding and can cause an accidents.
§ The Main Bar to post a sign requesting all bikers stay off residential streets and only exit from Union not Woodard and Esther.
§ Enforce the loud motorcycles with legally loud pipes laws
§ Do something about Motorized Scooters. Here is what DMV says Sec. 21226
PLEASE FIND MORE INFORMATION AT:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21226.htm
§ Restrict truck coming into residential areas except at designated times.
§ Provide a process that includes a clear opportunity for residents of the affected neighborhoods to be informed and be able to participate in the progress and process.
Any updates on the traffic calming?
Report is completed and coming before Transportation and Environment committee March 3rd at 1:30PM