Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Nov 17, 2011
That looks like a decent development proposal. It's great that Google would pay for it, yet still share it with the walk and cycling public!
Maybe we should rename Mountain View "Google Town" geez..
Flint, Michigan, 1962.
Still no explanation as to why the existing bridges won't work?
I seem top cross the crek just fine on both of them. The fewer bridges the better right? So now we have a huge eyesore in an area that the citizenry use to escape the build up of the area and embrace a more natural setting that we can't use for 50 years?
"In the meantime, agreements would limit public access to walkers, bicyclists, public transit buses and police and fire trucks."
Also, What's the benefit to Mountain View prior to the 50 years until we inherit a worn out bridge in need of regular repair.(ie $$)
I just want to check, am I reading it correctly that for 50 years the public have to stare at this but cannot use it?
Can we at least know how big bribe, er, incentives were made to the council regarding benefit to Mountain View for the next 50 years?
@No Way - Google still has to negotiate an agreement with the City to get these bridges approved. So that will dictate who can use the bridges, when, etc. But my understanding is that the new bridges collectively (the vehicular and new bike/ped bridges) will allow use by general pedestrian and bicycle traffic. That is one of the primary benefits to the City. Also, by allowing shuttles and buses to use the bridges it can help manage the traffic after Shoreline events, etc.
If it's true that "Google's private shuttles would have access to the bridges, but Google employees are primarily going to be using bicycles" then there should just be a pedestrian/bike bridge there.
This ruins the natural environment and is a VERY BAD idea. How can Mountain View continue to push itself as pedestrian/bike friendly and then allow this ode to automobiles to be built?
Kill it. Now.
OMV, where did your understanding of this come from:
"But my understanding is that the new bridges collectively (the vehicular and new bike/ped bridges) will allow use by general pedestrian and bicycle traffic"
...because that understanding is in direct conflict with what the story says: ""In the meantime, agreements would limit public access to walkers, bicyclists"
Yes, I agree that if the general public can use the bridges without restriction AND a cap is oplaced on how many times per day Google vehicular traffic can use the bridge, then we might see a benefit to the city. I stress _MIGHT_
If the panorama of this area is ruined by shuttle busses hopping back and forth all day...well that just sucks.
I'm glad the Audobon Society is involved. With the nesting birds in the area including the endangered clapper rail, this invasive corporate buildout of our prized wetlands might be able to be curbed.
The next step: Well there's already a bridge there, so a few more buildings won't hurt. Friends of Steven's Creek trail, do not be hoodwinked! This is just the beginning of Google's intrusion into our wetland area. Make no mistake about it, they want this area for their corporate needs...You notice Google has stopped touting the phrase "Do no evil". Apparently nobody there could say it anymore with a straight face.
@Catherine and No Way --
I think both of you are mistaken on the intended use of the bridges. Google has made it clear that private automobile traffic will NOT be allowed on the bridges, whether their own employees or the general public.
The bridges will make it more feasible for shuttles to move around in that area and avoid the crazy traffic at 101 & Shoreline - thus making shuttles more attractive. This will take cars off the road.
That's why Catherine calling this an 'ode to automobiles' is extremely misguided.
The more bridges the better, actually. Kinda like how I wish there was another bridge to get to the East Bay aside from the Dumbarton and San Mateo Bridges. I waste a lot of time and gas sometimes.
The density of Shoreline at 101 is outrageous during the commute hours. Google and the History museum need to address this mess and what they plan to do to pay for more ramps.
Lori, talk to the feds, Google has no ability to drive major changes to the freeways.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Draeger’s Los Altos eyes upgrades, expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,808 views
Housing is for People
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,776 views
College Visit: Lehigh and Lafayette
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 4 comments | 1,253 views
Is Coffee a Date?
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 521 views
The Opposite of What You Don't Want
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 348 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.