Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council deadlocks on Google bridge idea

Original post made on Dec 12, 2013

Though it might stop them from meeting goals for keeping cars out of North Bayshore, a slim majority of council members are so dead-set against building a shuttle bridge over Stevens Creek that they refuse to allow even a study of its environmental impacts.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 12, 2013, 8:26 AM

Comments (16)

Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community
on Dec 12, 2013 at 9:41 am

A north to south connection sound, but reality is a great east to west connection is needed. 101 gets to crowed, a underused light rail line, planned 70 acres over at Moffett Ames South Gate


Posted by Ron, a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Dec 12, 2013 at 11:22 am

The article seems to be written from a perspective that is biased toward having the bridge. For instance, why is "character" in quotes? Maybe its just me but saying someone is "so dead-set against" something has negative connotations and implies obstinance, stubbornness, or unreasonableness.


Posted by resident, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 12, 2013 at 11:37 am

How often will this bridge be used? A few times a day? Once an hour? More often than that?


Posted by OldTimer, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm

Bryant and Siegel will term out next year -- thank goodness! Then, hopefully with more thoughtful, objective Councilmembers, we can finally begin to address the issue of placing housing where people work -- and that means North Bayshore. It's time the City stops being held hostage to the demands of one special interest group -- the Audubon Society -- and objectively address to concerns of the citizens of this City, who have to endure all the housing development (and the ensuing traffic) that is forced to locate on the south side of 101. If you want to be green, then build housing in North Bayshore.


Posted by Matt, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm

Perhaps that is why they bought the new property in Palo Alto.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Council has to check with prometheus before doing anything.


Posted by vkmo, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 12, 2013 at 6:09 pm

I am a retired silicon valley tech employee. I agree with Google. Google's presence has been very beneficial to Mountain View residents. I like Google's proposals. Let's implement them quickly!!


Posted by NewTimer, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm

I agree with 'OldTimer'! Let's pave over everything, chop down all the trees and allow open hunting on all animal species--endangered or otherwise. We should not be standing in the way of corporate progress and their desire to enhance our lives while increasing profitability. Capitalism is the system this country runs on and we need to just let the free market determine our environmental policies.


Posted by stevens, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 13, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Hopefully no bridge over poor Stevens Creek means less development at North Bayshore. Let some of them work from home.


Posted by Alex Z, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 16, 2013 at 2:12 pm

No cars means if there is a terrorist strike, google collects buku bucks for each employee life lost, and gets free publicity, to boot. A purrrrfect way to save the corporation, if it ever starts to go under. And they all, eventually, do


Posted by Hmm, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 16, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Hmm, I'm with newtimer, who agrees with oldtimer.


Posted by Nnnnup, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Google is trying to build their own "Google only" route and leave the traffic jams to the suckers. No way a bridge over SC reduces traffic coming in. Not gonna happen.


Posted by Greg David, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

Build the thing and let google pay for it. The city will get a free bridge and can decide later if they want to change how it its utilized. For the eco-freaks that think this will harm the creek, let's get real...


Posted by Future Seer, a resident of Stierlin Estates
on Dec 17, 2013 at 6:32 am

The bridge won't do much, the endless stream of traffic will though. Google wiould use it until it needed repairs, then flop it to the city. It won't address traffic on Shoreline, its for private Google use only, a Google only path to Google. Its all about helping Google only, that's it, it serves ZERO benefit to anyone else in MV, and would actually be zero use to most Google employees. Think beyond the end of your nose people. This is exclusivity, not even a well hidden attempt at it. Google doesn't like to wait in traffic so they want to build their own PRIVATE route to their campus. Its pure BS to assume anything else, and I'm glad the Council sees this as (most) all others do.


Posted by MVResident67, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 17, 2013 at 8:09 am

@ Future Seer:

"This is exclusivity, not even a well hidden attempt at it."

BINGO.

Google put their plans to build their ONE MILLION SF office complex at NASA-Ames "on-hold" back in July, and some have speculated that one of the main reasons for the project being indefinitely delayed is related to the approval, or more accurately, the lack of approval of the Stevens Creek "shuttle" bridge. There has also been public speculation that google is waiting for certain council members to term out, and be replaced by council members who will be more favorable to google's agenda.

The vitality and solvency of Mountain View does not depend solely on google, and the city should NOT be selling it's soul to them, as it seems to be doing...piece by piece.


Posted by NotAFanOfNoseCutting, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Good point. Let's stop the increased property taxes which this will bring in. Sunnyvale needs some love to.
While we are at it let's continue to push policy which won't reduce traffic just so we can annoy employees of the city's largest employer.

Seriously though what is the problem with creating a road which will only be used by a subsection of people if that road radically reduces the traffic in the neighboring shared roads? You do realise that Google is the cause of most traffic jams in the morning. Removing that traffic from the main road just decreases traffic elsewhere.
Also what is the problem with adding additional corporate buildings if if can be done in such a way that it doesn't impact the environment?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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 and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Veggie Grill coming soon to Mountain View's San Antonio Center
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 3,136 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 19 comments | 2,040 views

The No Sweat Way to Bike to Work
By Janet Lafleur | 6 comments | 1,823 views

Finding mentors in would-be bosses
By Jessica T | 0 comments | 1,770 views

Analyze data yourself with R - a fast growing language for statistics, forecasting and graphs
By Angela Hey | 1 comment | 730 views