Alejandro Soto, WLCA President: Was another bridge at Woodlawn Lake promised and if not, is there a better solution?

In two postings, this site has publicized the cause of the folks who believe a second bridge over Woodlawn Lake was promised and is the best solution to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from automobiles. Alejandro Soto, President of the Woodlawn Lake Community Association presents another point of view in a piece that first appeared in the San Antonio Post (except for the last three paragraphs which have been added by Mr. Soto). It is published here with his permission.

There is a campaign going on concerning a pedestrian bridge for Woodlawn Lake Park. Area residents have been receiving recorded telephone messages and door flyers saying that the 2007 City bond paid for a new bridge and that Councilman Justin Rodriguez has been "dragging his feet" in getting it built. I do not know who is behind this campaign, but I do know that it is spreading incorrect information.

The 2007 City bond package says: "Woodlawn Lake Park--Pedestrain Bridge and Playground $400,000. Development of basic park improvements including a pedestrain bridge and playground expansion." That is all it says in reference to Woodlawn Lake Park. It does not say to "build" a bridge. City officials have said that "development" of a pedestrain bridge can be to reconfigure the existing bridge for use by people on foot and on bicycles, to the exclusion of cars. That is what the Woodlawn Lake Community Association (WLCA) has been advocating since 2005.

Some voters might have voted for the parks bond thinking that they would get a new bridge. Yet others might have favored it because they want the playground expanded. Compare the Woodlawn playground with the one at Lion's Field. Aren't our kids being short-changed? Overall, though, as the Woodlawn provisions amount to only one-half of one percent of the total park bond package, I believe that most people were motiviated to vote for the parks bonds because of other provisions, such as the purchase and improvement of Voelcker Park.

WLCA has been trying to get the City to place a safe bicycle path around the Park. We want to do it without additional paving and we want safety at the bridge. At Earth Day in 2006 and again in 2007, we circulated a petition that says: "I support the plan of the Woodlawn Lake Community Association to create a bicycle lane on the perimeter streets of Woodlawn Lake Park by making the eastern boundary streets from Woodlawn to Cincinnati (N. Josephine Tobin, French, & Alexander) one way south and east, the western boundary street from Ashby to Woodlawn (S. Josephine Tobin) one way north; and closing the bridge on S. Josephine Tobin between Craig and Woodlawn to motor vehicles."

Our petititon gathered 450 signatures from people from the various parts of the City. Yet, our then-councilwoman Elena Guajardo would not work with us in trying to make this plan come about. Instead, she became insistent on building a new bridge alongside the existing bridge. The new bridge idea was brought up at the Parks Bond Committee in December 2006 and January 2007, where it was opposed and turned down. Guajardo then moved it to Community Initiatives without giving the history of the opposition, where it was approved in the form shown above. WLCA decided not to oppose the bond package when it was explained to us in a meeting with the Assistant City Manager, the Parks and Recreation Director, and representatives from the Department of Public Works, that, as written, the provision did not require that a new bridge be built. Also, because of this interpretation, I did not pursue an Open Meetings violation charge (Guajardo held a meeting with her bond committee appointees and City staff and excluded the public, in violation of City Attorney instructions to the bond committees).

There are several problems with building a new bridge. The first is cost. The estimate last year was $350-400,000. That would take up the entire bond provision and would leave nothing for the playground or other improvements. How much would a new bridge really cost? Main Plaza is 80% over budget. Would we only get half a bridge? The existing bridge can be reconfigured for under $100,000 and the playground expanded for under $150,000, leaving money for picnic and other facilities.

Also, the Park is a single use historic district and is in a flood plain. Before building a bridge, you would need historic review, environmental impact studies, engineering studies, and so on. This won't happen overnight, leaving the safety problems pending for perhaps several years. Closing the bridge gives instant safety, as we saw when the bridge was closed to cars for six weeks last spring. This closure did not result in traffic snarls elsewhere as predicted by some.

Finally, we have to look at protecting the Park. When Brackenridge was improved a few years ago, a lot of the car traffic was removed. We should not have cars criss-crossing our parks, leaving their exhaust, heat, and noise pollution and creating safety hazards. A new bridge for pedestrians would encourage more car traffic on the existing bridge. I do not find this to be good for the Park nor for park visitors. Also, a new bridge would be 20 feet wide (the existing foot path is 10 feet wide; plus to-and-fro bike lanes that the City insists on, each 5 feet wide). You then need 20 foot wide approaches on either side--about 25 yards long to the north to connect to Woodlawn, and 75 yards long to the south to go past the old bridge at Craig. That's a lot of grass and trees to be removed, resulting in what would be an environmental disgrace and eyesore.

Also, bond money will not be available for Woodlawn Lake Park improvements until later this year. To say that our councilman Justin Rodriguez has "dragged his feet" is simply not true. Although various options to deal with the safety problem at the bridge have been discussed and are being looked at, nothing can actually be developed until there is money to pay for it.

There are three proposals on how to make the crossing at S. Josephine Tobin and W. Woodlawn safer. These are to build new bridge for people on foot and on bicycles, to make existing bridge one-way north for cars leaving more room for people on foot and on bicycles, and close existing bridge to cars and leaving it exclusively for people on foot and on bicycles. Of these, erecting a second bridge would be the least safe. People on bikes and on foot are currently separated as they circumnavigate the Park. They do come together at the bridge and are side-by-side for about 60 yards. If the bridge were to be closed to cars, or if the bridge were to be made one-way, that 60 yards joint crossing would still exist. If a new bridge were to be built, the side-by-side bike and foot traffic would increase by about 100 yards. As stated above, the approaches to the new bridge would have to begin past the old bridge at Craig and would continue to W. Woodlawn, a additional distance of about 100 yards. Now, bicyclists would be speeding for about 160 yards next to walkers, joggers, baby strollers, wheel chairs, dogs on a leash, etc. Those of use who use the foot path frequently know how children and dogs tend to meander and could walk into the path of a bicylce. We would have eliminated a dangerous condition but created a new one.

Some people say that the bridge is needed for emergency vehicles. The Fire-EMS station for this area is at Culebra & Zarzamora. If there is an emergency north of Woodlawn, the emergency vehicles will come up Zarzamora, Elmendorf, or Wilson to Woodlawn and beyond. They would not cut through the Park to the bridge. That would add too much time in responding. If the emergency is south of Woodlawn, they would come up Culebra or Cincinnati to one of the cross streets south of the bridge. They would not go on Woodlawn, cross the bridge and head south. In my 9 years here, I have never seen an emergency vehicle, red-lights flashing, cross that bridge. A police car might have given chase across the bridge, but if it were to be closed, no bad guys would be crossing either, so there would be no one to chase.

There is no good reason to add a bridge to the Park and there are several reasons not to. I hope that the people in this area will take a walk to the Park and imagine the various options for dealing with the crossing and consider what I have stated. We can have safety, protect the historic and natural character of the Park, and keep costs minimal. Adding another bridge is a bad idea.