November 18, 2004


Winfield Boulevard connector bridge caught in ‘opinion’ traffic
To build or not to build—that is the question

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

Construction of a $4 million connector bridge on Winfield Boulevard that has been in the city’s general plan since 1960 and that transportation officials say would decrease traffic volume on congested Almaden Expressway at the intersections of Coleman Avenue and Blossom Hill Road received mixed responses last week during a neighborhood group meeting.

Ray Strong, secretary of the AVCA, spoke about the pros and cons of leaving the Winfield Boulevard connector bridge in the city’s general plan. Photo by Sheila Sanchez

About 30 residents heard from Hans Larson, deputy director of San Jose’s Department of Transportation and David S. Tymn, a planner with the city’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, who discussed the pros and cons of building or disassembling plans for the bridge in a heavily congested valley.

During the Nov. 8 Almaden Valley Community Association (AVCA) meeting at the McDonalds restaurant on Almaden Expressway and McAbee Road, Larson and Tymn explained the city’s general plan calls for the construction of an 80- to 106-foot bridge over Almaden Lake that would unite two discontinuous sections of Winfield Boulevard and create a through passage to Coleman from McAbee.

The roads would either be widened to four lanes or re-striped for about a mile eliminating bike lanes and the $1 million strip of landscaped medians recently installed on McAbee.

Because of opposition from many residents, concerns about the safety and welfare of the nearby Almaden Lake Park and the possibility of increasing traffic around surrounding neighborhoods, the city’s planning commission and city council will consider whether to remove the proposal from the city’s general plan Nov. 29 and Dec. 14, respectively.

“The rationale is that if there’s not a community will or support for the project, let’s not keep it in our plans and hold out hope that it’s going to be there,” Larson said about the move to eliminate it from the general plan.

Following the meeting the AVCA board of directors voted 5-1 against scrapping the proposal from the general plan and posted on its Web site a survey allowing its 300-member e-mail loop to vote in favor or against removing the bridge from the plan.

In voting against the elimination of the bridge, Boydston wrote, “People who support the removal, object to additional traffic on the east side of the Lake Almaden Park. However, the Almaden Expressway is on the west side of the park and Coleman is on the north side of the park. Both of these arterials contain much more traffic than Winfield will have and a Winfield Bridge will reduce traffic on the other arterials.”

Boydston further wrote to support the board’s decision that suggestions to use money that could be allocated for the bridge in the future be used to widen the Almaden Expressway instead are not feasible as Almaden Expressway is a county road and Winfield Boulevard is a city road. The board is also against increasing the width of McAbee to build the bridge.

Larson said the San Jose City Council asked planners to hire a consultant to conduct an environmental impact report, released Aug. 17, which cost the financially strapped city $85,000.

The report revealed traffic levels on portions of Almaden Expressway are unacceptable and the proposed bridge would help reduce levels of congestion found at the intersections of Coleman Road and Blossom Hill Road by 28 percent, from 142 percent over capacity to 114 percent over capacity.

City officials put the project on hold in 1995 after several neighbors opposed its construction. Transportation officials put the money to build the bridge in a reserve account until the Highway 85/87 interchange was completed to see if anticipated traffic circulation patterns changed to consider the project again.

With the recent downturn in the economy, the money for the bridge is gone due to cuts in the city’s transportation program. If there’s no change made to the general plan, the department doesn’t have the money to build the bridge and will have to go to the city council to see where funding can be obtained for its construction, Larson said.

Another more expensive alternative to alleviating traffic jams is the widening of Almaden Expressway down to McAbee Road, which would be even more expensive and produce the same traffic congestion benefit the bridge would offer, Larson explained. That remedy would cost about $40 million.

Larson said from a transportation point of view, the bridge is a cost-effective project. “If you look at transportation benefits and the bang for the buck this is a very good project,” Larson said. “I’m not advocating one way or another because this is a public process. Input from the community is important to us in deciding where we make our investment.”

Almaden resident Jim Riley said those who opposed the bridge’s construction were not just residents who live in the Almaden Hills Estates neighborhood, but residents from all over Almaden Valley.

“We need to take a look at this project in terms of what it will do the quality of life in the valley. That’s why there was so much opposition to it. Yes, we all want traffic relief. We all drive Almaden Expressway every day and we hate it…The more bridges, roads and infrastructure you build, the easier it will be for development to happen and for a developer to put 55 homes in the orchards,” Riley said.

“The perspective 10 years ago wasn’t, ‘We don’t want a bridge in our backyard,’ but ‘We shouldn’t surround a relatively pleasant lake park environment with a four lane road that could cause damage to the riparian corridor,”
Riley added.

AVCA President Bob Boydston, who favors the construction of the bridge, urged residents to keep an open mind and be willing to make compromises. “When I look at this I see no reason why not to have a bridge in the plans,” he said.

Almaden resident Joyce Niven, who’s lived in the valley since 1964, also would like the bridge constructed and not taken out of the city’s general plan. “It will not only alleviate traffic north of Coleman but it will alleviate traffic at the Highway 85 exit being dumped onto Almaden Expressway,” she said.

Other meeting attendees also supported the bridge’s construction. “We need that traffic relief on Almaden Expressway at Camden and Coleman to serve all the people in Almaden Valley. The people who bought homes along that corridor knew that the bridge was in the plans,” said one unidentified attendee. “Unless these people here who don’t want that bridge on Winfield Boulevard tell me they never travel on Almaden Expressway, they never travel on Camden Avenue, I think the whole argument is fallacious.”

Longtime Almaden resident Alex Fraser fears there are so many strong opinions about the proposal that the bridge will not be built in the near future. “This will get studied and studied and studied and it will continue to drag on and on,” he said, recalling how in 1995 about 2,000 signatures were collected to oppose the bridge’s construction.

Fraser thinks instead of building the bridge residents need to unite to change traffic conditions on Almaden Expressway, which is a county road. “We’re focusing on the wrong issue. We’re beating a dead horse and exhausting a lot of energy trying to resolve this when we should go after the expressway. Let’s work with the county. Let’s work with the feds.”

Others echoed Fraser’s comments. “Let’s work with the county to widen the expressway,” said Gary Nielson.

Niven said termed-out Vice Mayor Pat Dando promised those living along McAbee that she would remove the bridge from the city’s general plan before leaving District 10 at the end of the year. “It’s not really for the community. It’s really self serving.”

A resident who lives in the Almaden Hills Estates neighborhood who identified himself as Armando said those who want the bridge removed from the plan want to protect the park.

Other residents like David Noel would like the bridge to be a two-lane connector rather than a four-lane connector.
One resident who referred to the EIR said traffic conditions would get worse when the bridge is built. Larson admitted there would be a slight increase in traffic at the intersection of Almaden Expressway, McAbee Road and Winfield Boulevard. “There will be more car traffic,” he conceded. “It’s a fairly minor change in congestion. It will still be a good operating condition.”

Leo Persley asked how soon the bridge would be built so he can sell his house and move out of the area. “My wife and I have always said that if the bridge is built, we’re out of here. I need as much notice as possible because I’m leaving,” Persley said. “If you throw another piece of concrete there my concern is that not only will it spoil the park and the area around it, but the question is at what point in time do we have enough concrete to deal with.”

Another resident who didn’t identify himself, said: “I live on that road and even as a single lane road from my front door to where the park passes our front door is 15 feet and that includes biking. The only way you’re going to do this is take away the parking in front of my house and move the bike lane over …. Myself and all those who live there will be adversely affected. Nobody is taking into consideration or respect the fact that we need to find other ways to relieve congestion, but not at the detriment of homeowners. It will also adversely affect the value of our properties.”

Larson said if the bridge is built there would be 10,000 cars a day that would be diverted from the daily 40,000 cars a day that travel on Almaden Expressway.

The other option that’s being considered is widening the Expressway from McAbee north and address some of the congestion at the intersections of Coleman and Blossom Hill.

Ron Blake, who’s lived in Almaden Valley for 35 years, said the bridge will help alleviate traffic and doesn’t want it removed from the city’s general plan.

“It’s going to take many years before (this bridge) is ever built so I don’t see the need to remove it from the general plan … The current EIR is a wasted effort and the proposal to remove it from the general plan,” Blake said. “There’s no need to do this. Leave it alone.”

The San Jose Planning Commission is scheduled to review the Draft EIR at 6 p.m., Nov. 29 at City Hall in the council chambers. The City Council is expected to decide the issue on Dec. 14.