Town Square

Post a New Topic

MV council declines to revisit El Camino bus plan

Original post made on May 20, 2015

A proposal to dedicate lanes of El Camino Real for bus traffic continues to be a lightning rod of controversy in Mountain View, but council members indicated they weren't inclined to revisit the issue in the coming weeks.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 20, 2015, 11:45 AM

Comments (59)

Posted by Whatever
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 20, 2015 at 12:45 pm

I'm tired of hearing about BRT. Let's move on. The VTA board will make the final decision, not the MV council.

Posted by Start the Recall
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

It's time to start the recall of Rosenberg, Kasperzak and Showalter. The Daily Post had a big front page story on Tuesday about the recall. Gary Westly is organizing the recall.

Posted by Whatever
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 20, 2015 at 12:50 pm

What a waste of time and taxpayer money. It'll cost over $100,000 just to put it on the ballot.

Posted by Yep
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm

Time to move on.
We need to focus on building more high-rent apartment buildings. The best place to do it is in an environmentally sensitive area like E. Bayshore.

Posted by Snakes hiding in their holes
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 20, 2015 at 1:07 pm


Posted by Makes no sense
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 20, 2015 at 2:14 pm

I get that McAlister and Clark can't vote on the BRT plan, but why can't they vote on having a meeting? So silly.

Oh, I can't be impartial about whether a meeting can be held even though the MV electorate respected my intelligence enough to vote me onto the council.

Personally, this whole thing wouldn't have happened if the city attorney had allowed McAlister and Clark to participate in the process. I can't imagine that owning property near El Camino is really that big of a "conflict" and would cause them to vote in a way that doesn't represent the views of their constituents.

Posted by Shannon
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 20, 2015 at 2:16 pm

I'm not sure why McAlister and Clark had to recuse themselves from a vote just on whether or not the issue could be added to the agenda for more discussion. They don't have to take a position, but they could at least (possibly) support the idea of more discussion and clarification.

Posted by Don't leave it to VTA
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2015 at 2:18 pm

VTA is a cumbersome bureaucracy, that has a track record of making bad decisions. Mountain View had best watch its own concerns, as other cities have been done. I can't imagine anyone would sanely say leave it to VTA, unless they don't have anything to do with Mountain View, i.e. one of these diehard VTA advocates for religous reasons. The VTA board are the priests, and these supporters worship at the alter of ALL TRANSIT IS GOOD TRANSIT, no matter what the cost.

Posted by Simple Math
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2015 at 2:27 pm

$100,000 is too much? A simple drive down El Camino during rush hour shows all lanes occupied for three blocks or more in many places. Huh? Somehow taking away a lane in each direction makes sense on any level? This will be a nightmare! Worth the price of holding them accountable. The crazy thing about this is that we NEED this as people without cars have to have a way to commute. I could swear that currently there is a solution in place including an express option, no? Make the 22 and the 522 effective first to show that the public will ever ride th bus. Then propose this very expensive boondoggle, and only then, no? Road Diets just don't make sense, they don't add up with very simple math!

Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2015 at 2:28 pm

Where was Rosenberg?

Posted by Simple Math
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Btw, this will affect all of Mountain View, the affected arteries discussed include all the way to Central Expressway and Cuesta or Foothill Expressway. How can anyone vote without recusing themselves? Everyone on Council has some sort of interest within the "actually affected" corridor. Am I missing something?

Posted by DJ
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm

If BRT does come to MV and we lose a lane, the traffic on the side streets are going to be a nightmare. Traffic is already increasing on side streets and we have not yet lost a lane on El Camino. Last night at around 5:15pm, the traffic on Cuesta was backed up from the stop sign at Springer all the way back to the stop sign at Campbell. That is the first time I have seen traffic backed up this far. Luckily I was driving West on Cuesta so I wasn’t trapped. It is a 1/3 of a mile from Cuesta to Springer. It was probably a 10 minute wait to get through the stop sign. If we lose a lane because of BRT, this is going to happen even more in Los Altos and Mountain View. It is very easy to look at a map and see what roads parallel El Camino. El Camino was designed to be a major carrier. If you take a lane away, it is obvious that traffic on side streets will increase. Traffic on side streets are already increasing! Why not spend money to make El Camino flow better. Let’s keep the cars on the roads that were designed to be major carriers.

Posted by HOV Lanes
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2015 at 2:50 pm

This discussion took place in two parts, at the public comment portion of the meeting and at the end of the meeting regarding future agenda items.

The description in the article leaves some important info out. The only way to let other vehicles use the VTA dedicated lane for BRT would be to switch to it being an HOV lane. That was clearly the idea for consideration, i.e. converting the dedicated lane to be a full-use HOV lane instead of BRT dedication. This makes so much more sense than hogging the whole lane for 1 car every 10 minutes, which Rosenberg has publicly objected to.

Oddly, I can't help but wonder if Rosenberg wouldn't have supported this discussion at a future agenda. He was simply absent from this Special Meeting. If he did support it, the discussion would be OK'd 3:2 instead of tied 2:2.

Posted by oldabelincoln
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 20, 2015 at 2:53 pm


Posted by True
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 20, 2015 at 4:00 pm

True is a registered user.


I might (reluctantly) support a combined HOV/BRT lane but before I would do so I would like to see the city run a test for at least a month. Cone the lane off or use temporary signage and let us all see how this might actually impact ECR and surrounding arteries. Run the test for at least a month as combined and at least a month as bus only.

Posted by norcalfellow
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2015 at 4:17 pm

Mountain View should experiment with a dry run of the BRT project by closing one lane to traffic in each direction on ECR and block all turn lanes where they will be removed to let drivers better understand how these changes will affect their drive time. This dry run should last at least two weeks to allow drivers enough time to get used to it or find alternate routes to avoid ECR, and see how the BRT project will impact other roads in Mountain View as well as neighboring communities.

Posted by HOV Lane
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm

An HOV lane might only be in effect say from 3pm to 7pm. Or 3:30pm to 6:30pm. Make it on the right lane so it could serve buses and carpools and also allow turning for all cars if there's no dedicated right turn. I think the test would need longer than a month.

Posted by Great Idea
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 20, 2015 at 4:25 pm

I like norcalfellows idea. Lets try the experimental BRT lane idea for a few weeks. Lets see what happens and if it turns out as bad as i think it will, lets hope some of the saner politicians will reconsider.

Posted by No
a resident of Cuernavaca
on May 20, 2015 at 4:28 pm

Keep all lanes completely open! Don't settle for some HOV compromise. Cars would need to be jumping lanes all over the place to get in and out of the HOV. What a mess.

Many BRT articles aren't careful in describing Mcallister. He does not own property. He owns a business that leases property. I suppose he must still technically recuse himself. But renting a 40 foot storefront on a 2+ mile stretch of mountain view el camino seems pretty dinky to not be able to weigh in on a major issue.

Posted by Test Engineer
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm

It's so unrefreshing to read bad ideas like coning off a lane temporarily as a test.

There is no evidence to support that blocking off a lane like this would be a fair test. We have all experienced construction projects that have closed lanes on freeways and major inroads that seem to go on forever. There is always a big slowdown as people to slow down and gawk. That's what coning off a lane would do.

With respect, it seems that people that are arguing with the data model or are demanding a live test just simply do not want the project done. Performing a half-assed test would show a big problem, but not with the project. Simply the test is flawed. The best "test" will be to complete the project and fine tune it to an optimal state.

If it makes test-addicts happy, it should be pointed out that there is testing going on every day at rush hour. It shows the DO NOTHING option being championed in this forum is a disaster. And the forecasting shows this problem is getting worse and worse.

Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2015 at 5:51 pm

Where do sign for the recall election?

Posted by psr
a resident of The Crossings
on May 20, 2015 at 7:21 pm

@ Test Engineer

Your sarcasm is unrefreshing, as is your contention that running a real-world test won't work. I have a few questions for you, since you seem to think you have all the answers.

First of all, running the test for at least month, as suggested, gives people enough time to adjust without the "gawking" phenomenon causing a great effect. Do you object because of the possibility that this test will show just how foolish this proposal truly is?

Second, do you REALLY suggest that we spend the money and time to do this, only to discover that it is flawed from its very concept? Sounds vaguely like "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." That is NOT what "test engineers" do, at least not test engineers who are worth a spit.

It sounds much more like you just want the public to shut up and not object so you can subject them to YOUR version of a real-world test. The difference being that, after the money is spent and the damage is done, the people will NEVER have a chance to get what THEY want because the VTA will have what they want and they are not likely to back off, even if their plan is an unmitigated disaster. I'm sorry, but I don't plan to oblige you on that front and I am quite sure I'm not the only Mountain View resident who feels that way.

Finally, how long have you worked for the VTA?

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2015 at 7:23 pm

Speakers at the City Council meeting raised the prospect of an HOV lane on El Camino that buses could use. Councilmember Siegel apparently later moved to place on a future agenda a discussion of alternatives to the plan of VTA staff for one bus every 10 minutes hogging an entire lane in each direction on El Camino. Councilmember Inks agreed but Kasperzak and Showalter would not agree and the motion failed to pass 2-2 (Rosenberg missing and two other members allegedly disqualified from participating even to give advise to the VTA Board). There is a bigger, special-interest-laden plan for El Camino operating behind the scenes of city council meetings. It is called the GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE. And there are even bigger plans at work - existing residents be darned.

Posted by Cynical
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 20, 2015 at 8:33 pm

@ Test Engineer

How long have you been employed by the VTA? You suggest that the "DO NOTHING option being championed in this forum is a disaster". Closing down two lanes of heavy non-bus traffic, for a bus that comes every ten minutes is ludicrous. That would cause an unmitigated disaster! It appears that the VTA proposes this extreme plan to punish non-bus drivers, in order to force more people to ride their buses, without regards for the interests of the citizens who live here.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 20, 2015 at 8:51 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

well, there you go, there certainly is "a plan".

Web Link

So Mountain View, how does it feel to have all these special interest-groups and politicians working behind the scenes....excuse me, behind YOUR BACKS, with their idea of the utopian plan. Isn't it great to be part of the process?

And just why do you think we're not part of the process? Think about it. Scary. And all the more reason to stand up and fight this.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 20, 2015 at 9:15 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

But hey, once this passes we can all look forward to this !

"Rail stations and bus facilities are valued not only as vital transportation services, but as public gathering places"

Yes, this is the reason I bought a home in MV, so I can "gather at the rail/bus station". Not.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 20, 2015 at 9:48 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

reading more of the "grand plan", just keeps getting better and better.

Guiding Principle 2, “Encourage compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and construction”.

If I wanted to live in a compact city I would have bought in SF. But hey, special interest groups and politicians undoubtedly know better than I what is needed.

Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 20, 2015 at 9:59 pm

If you haven't already, I suggest reading the Plan Bay Area and ABAG websites...

Web Link

VTA's dedicated lane BRT plan is a cog in the social engineering wheel

Posted by Simple Math
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 21, 2015 at 3:26 am

Test Engineer, I was confused, did you mean that your comment was about this proposed test? Hmmm, I thought it was more relevant to the entire project altogether. Your quote:

"do you REALLY suggest that we spend the money and time to do this, only to discover that it is flawed from its very concept? Sounds vaguely like "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." That is NOT what "test engineers" do, at least not test engineers who are worth a spit. "


For what cost? Fix the bus service and deal with this once there is at least a reasonable occupancy rate on the existing buses before ruining what was built as a traffic thoroughfare just to spend money. It really is as simple as that. Spend money on something really innovative like a monorail, something that actually extends / connects to the Transit centers at Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

We are not anti-public transit. This is simply the wrong choice!

It really is as simple as that.

Posted by MVresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 21, 2015 at 10:38 pm

wow. just re-reading the opening comments and it's "whatever" "tired of this" "lets just move on"

So...what? You give up your city, your lifestyle, because you can't be bothered with getting involved, helping to stop this?

Maybe you feel that way but SOOOO glad there's others willing to step up and fight.

Posted by Concerned
a resident of Bailey Park
on May 22, 2015 at 7:54 am

Test Engineer says "The best "test" will be to complete the project and fine tune it to an optimal state."

Define FINE TUNE and how much more will that cost? Does that include those in power who are being paid off to support this debacle?

Posted by bjd
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 22, 2015 at 8:13 am

I like the idea of simulating the loss of a lane with cones etc, but one thing to note is that part of building the BRT lane is replacing some stop signs with traffic lights at some currently congested intersections just off of ECR.

Adding traffic cops to manage these intersections might add too much cost and complexity to the experiment, but I'd be interested to see what they could do for traffic in those corridors!

Posted by Council watcher
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 22, 2015 at 8:50 am

Let’s not forget how Rosenberg and Showalter managed to get elected to the City Council: about $100,000 in dark money from the cynically-named “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition," a front for developers that only existed for the purpose of obscuring the source of election funds. Some details are in this Voice article: Web Link

The posters here who are calling attention to the El Camino “Grand Boulevard Initiative” have pretty much nailed it.

Follow the money.

Developers are looking at a gold mine: high-rent “luxury” apartments all along El Camino, sucking up large shares of those tech salaries - a fat money stream for many years to come. A key element of the project is selling the fantasy that this will not create gridlock, as we “incentivize” people to stop driving, and use bikes and buses. This supposedly can be accomplished by “favoring” these “transit modes,” bikes and buses, at the expense of auto use.

But it won’t work. Public transit cannot serve enough destinations to replace autos, for drivers using ECR. Dedicating 1/3 of ECR’s capacity to buses that only travel North and South on ECR would force 1/3 of existing ECR traffic into already-congested alternate routes and into neighborhood side streets. It's an awful idea, that has to be stopped.

Rosenberg, Showalter, and Kasperzak have bought into the fantasy, the lie, or whatever you want to call it. Their endorsement of closing lanes for BRT serves only the developers, at the expense of all the rest of us. I can only think that they are trying to curry favor from the big-money interests that they believe are the key to a political career.

Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 22, 2015 at 10:04 am

I find it interesting that according to the Daily Post article published on 5/19, neither Showalter nor Rosenberg returned calls seeking comment, but evidently Kasperzak was more than happy to defend their positions saying "during the campaign he didn't recall either of them saying, "I promise on my dying breath to oppose dedicated lanes." ... "People want elected officials who think."

How about this Mr. Kasperzak, your constituents want their council members to represent the best interests of - THE RESIDENTS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. Evidently many who voters who elected Showalter & Rosenberg to office cast their votes, in no small part, based upon their stance on VTA's dedicated lane BRT proposal. You think it's acceptable political practice to flip-flop, er "change your mind" on the issue AFTER being elected to office claiming...what?

Evidently Rosenberg is now saying he feels BRT dedicated lanes is a "social justice" issue? And in November, it wasn't a social justice issue? Really? Doesn't exactly pass the sniff test. And, what was the other one...oh, someone spoke with Showalter after the election, but before the council vote, and that conversation convinced her to change their opinion on BRT dedicated lane option, yet she has YET to publicly disclose WHO this person/group was that she spoke to that convinced her to change her mind, er vote, on the proposal. Yeah, that one doesn't exactly pass the sniff test either.

Add to that the PAC money that was poured into certain council campaigns this year, and it seems pretty clear that Mountain View city government seems to have been co-opted, at least in part, by other interests besides those council has been elected to represent, the RESIDENTS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW.

Sunshine laws, we have them for a reason.

Posted by Odd
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 22, 2015 at 10:36 am

That's odd. A thinking, feeling human being actually changes their mind after thoroughly studying the issue. I thought sentient beings were supposed to make a decision and never waver from it despite a mountain of information to the contrary. Hmm....

Posted by IP Address Tracer
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 22, 2015 at 10:46 am

@Odd. You've said that already and used your other identity to agree with yourself in earlier post just like you did on this one.
You DO know how visible you are right? Funny behavior. I'm going to dig deeper.

Posted by Simple Math
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 22, 2015 at 10:54 am

You forgot to add, "after thoroughly studying the issue, realizing that it makes sense, and then openly discussing why this might make sense and convincing those that voted for you to consider another view"

That part was left out of both your statement and the thinking of all three Council Members. No Transparency, plus just a bad idea. I've researched BRT lately as a concept. It works in some places. There simply is not enough real estate on ECR for this to make sense without creating a huge mess for MOST of the people that live there. "Social Justice Issue?" Again one and all, this is not adding bus service in support of those that need to use it because they can't afford a car or some other reason. WE ALREADY HAVE BUS SERVICE ON ECR. THIS INCLUDES AN EXPRESS SERVICE THAT ACTUALLY IS A DECENT SERVICE. BUT NO ONE RIDES THESE BUSES. WHY WOULD THEY RIDE SOMETHING THAT MAKES EVERYONE ELSES LIVES MISERABLE BUT COMES EVERY 10 MINUTES? GIVING PRIORITY TO TRAFFIC LIGHTS, HMMM, THE LIGHTS ARE SYNCRHONIZED ON EL CAMINO BETWEEN AT LEAST MOUNTAIN VIEW AND PALO ALTO ALREADY. MORE THAN HALF THE MORNINGS, I TRAVEL FROM SYLVAN TO PAGEMILL WITHOUT STOPPING AT A SINGLE LIGHT. HOW MUCH QUICKER CAN THIS MULTI MILLION BILLION DOLLAR SOLUTION PROVIDE?

Not do anything? Okay, not okay, but until these buses connect to the transit centers, just doing something on ECR does not makes sense. Let's say I ride the bus to Castro from Sylvan, then I have to walk 15 to 20 minutes to catch my train, Light Rail, or transfer to another bus........THIS SOLUTION SOLVES SUCH A SMALL PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED WITH THE RAPID VTA 522 BUS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATES ON ECR.

Posted by MVresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 22, 2015 at 9:45 pm

I saw this comment on another thread and feel like it represents a lot of the discussion going on here regarding development or lack of.
Restricting development is self-preservation. No, I don't hold any anger for this, even though it priced me out of the area.

I can remember when houses were being built all over the hillsides, and fortunately, people saw that the area would soon be covered with buildings and pavement and there would be no natural beauty left, at the rate things were going. They saved the Bay Area from developers who didn't care if the area lost what was left of it's beauty.

The SF Bay Area is not required to create housing for everyone who would like to live there. It would end up a mass of high rise construction, 100's of stories high, with impossible gridlock traffic - if you think it's bad now, what would it be like with wall-to-wall high rises? And what do you do with the waste?

And even if you allowed this, there will still be a point where no more can be built. And then what happens to the people who want to come then? Same story, in a way uglier environment.

Unless you are Bill Gates, you can't have everything you want. I would rather go visit a beautiful SF Bay Area, than live in an ugly one.

Anyone who gets so angry about this is like a two year old throwing himself on the floor in the grocery store because mommy said he can't have the candy he wants.
All I can say is "hear hear".

Posted by Blossom Valley Resident
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 23, 2015 at 5:51 pm

The response by Test Engineer above looks familiar to me. It is almost word for
word the same response I received from him/her when I advocated a live test on a similar discussion thread last December.

After reading over many articles and discussion boards on this topic over the last
year, I do believe the pro-VTA postings are written by a small number of people.

Posted by @Blossom Valley Resident
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 23, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Nobody believes you are a resident of Blossom Valley. Your writing style matches a resident of Los Altos with an inability to defend a point and instead retreats to personal attacks. You may as well use your registered real name since you are fooling no one.

In any case, Test Engineer has raised some good points that remain unchallenged.

Posted by Common Sense
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 24, 2015 at 1:41 pm

"It's so unrefreshing to read bad ideas like coning off a lane temporarily as a test. "

Really. Whats your alternative, build a permanent structure and watch it fail. A temporary test makes sense even if it is not perfect test. Given the disagreement over the impact of BRT and the lack of serious study by VTA and the lack of critical thinking by the council, a short temporary lane reduction would shed a lot of light on the issue. My guess it would go two days before staff shut it down.

Posted by Driving somewhere else
a resident of another community
on May 24, 2015 at 8:37 pm

The promoters should be eager to demonstrate what they have planned and show people how well it would work. How come not here? A test run would help sell their plan, unless they know it won't work.

This sounds more like just another civic planning fad, along with the old pedestrian malls and town centers. Bad for local businesses and years to get rid of.

Posted by whisman station not
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 25, 2015 at 1:36 am

That nut claims to be from whisman station but he then claims also to be very familiar with los Altos. I don't believe he is from where he says. Test Engineer talks of futility of a test but not all tests would "cone off a lane.". VTA will finish Alum Rock and start running VTA to Palo Alto around January. They are a year behind their own schedule. Why not see ho all door boarding and no cashtickrt sales will speed up 522? Idiots have waited too long to make these simple changes Muni did 4 years ago now. Traffic tests can be made with these overdue fixes.

Posted by vta stinks
a resident of another community
on May 25, 2015 at 1:47 am

They really are fools and bums. Suck the taxes dry with lousy service and few riders, 90% empty runs. That's the end state of all this mess. It comes down to sloth and waste. Like feed the hungry with $100 meals of burgers with gold for topping. Oops we lost the gold. More donations please we shall try to lose less of the gold next time. we don't know who got it .... Trust us. Let's put all our money together in a big pile and vta will sort it out.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 26, 2015 at 9:10 pm

I'd say we are the fools and bums if we don't come together and form real coalition to fight against this. Because guess what people. This is a well-oiled (think big $) machine already planned in the background and if we don't get the word out, talk about it, spread it around and educate everyone to the truth then again, we are the fools and bums. Easy to sit on this forum and make posts, a little more work (BUT WORTH IT) to get out and actually do something.

Certainly we will be hit with request for another tax to promote this "progress" which is code for massive urban development to the advantage of a certain three MV council members and the transportation and development groups in their pockets.

FIGHT THIS. TALK ABOUT IT. EDUCATE EVERYONE who likely has no idea this is going on their own backyard.

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 27, 2015 at 6:18 am

In addition to speakers from other cities about VTA's (and CalTrans') plan for combined HOV and toll (rich man) lanes on Highway 85 (but NOT in Mountain View), the Mountain View City Council heard from more opponents of bus-only lanes on El Camino including a blind woman who explained why she would not walk to board a bus in a center island on El Camino. There is (or will be) a MEDIA link for the May 26 City Council meeting at the City's website with the agenda materials. Watch item 5 "oral communications from the public." Lots of useful comments.

Posted by Neighbors Locked Arm in Arm
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 27, 2015 at 7:06 am

So it seems even some of those most in need of public transit are still opposed to the lane grab by VTA. If even the blind, CURRENT users of the bus don't want it, how much chance do you see it working as VTA says it will?

We need to stop this terrible idea right now and make sure it is not brought up again. Send the message loud and clear with the recall. Even if you corrupt our politicians, you cannot corrupt the united citizenry. There are simply to many of us who are vehemently opposed to this and will stand arm in arm to defend our city and our quality of life.

Posted by History
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 27, 2015 at 10:23 am

Don't forget that when the issue of women's right to vote came up, some women came forward and campaigned against it. Doesn't make it the wrong thing to do, does it?

I think it is a great idea to have a bus lane. Happy that MV council voted approval!

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 27, 2015 at 11:43 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@history what a nonsensical comparison. "Some" campaigning against something is far different than a MAJORITY which we have here. Apparently because you agree with it, you think that makes it right. Not.

Posted by Majority?
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm

What majority?

A majority of the council voted to support the dedicated lane.

Most of the speakers at the council meetings before and at the vote supported the project.

A majority of the residents of MV STILL have not signed the online recall petition. Weeks later and still under ONE PERCENT!

So, it seems the majority is actually supportive. This is hardly surprising though. The proposal is well thought out and supported by the data. The arguments against hold no water.

Posted by Council Vote
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 12:11 pm

3 out of the 7 MV City Council voted to support the VTA Dedicated Lane proposal. After the fact, 1 of the 3 says he wasn't voting to support dedicated lanes,but instead voting to support a dialog. Well, that's what we're doing here, at least. A dialog. It's no majority. Fuzzy thinking to say that.


Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 27, 2015 at 12:17 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@majority? Quite simply, people aren't aware of this. It is being pushed thru behind backs. I am telling you NOT ONE PERSON I have mentioned this to thinks it's a good idea. NOT ONE. And I haven't just talked to 6 people as a pevious poster mentioned. I have discussed this at school, swim team practice, baseball games, cocktail parties and in line at the dang grocery store with strangers.


Posted by Blind Bus Rider
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 12:20 pm

Maybe she's right, and maybe not. But no matter how you view it, unlike women and voting before universal suffrage, she's already riding the bus TODAY. VTA is proposing to change the character of their service, not to offer it for the very first time.

It won't only be the blind who face a new obstacle to transferring buses, where the local bus stops at the curb, and the so called Rapid Bus will maybe be more Rapid, but will definitely be more difficult to reach when coming off a local bus like the 22. Could be waiting through 2 pedestrian signal light cycles, whereas before, it was the same stop, shared. Also any bench space for the Rapid bus will be of no use to those waiting for local, and vice versa. Terrible design.

Posted by Majority?
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Aren't aware? Everybody I know is aware, but my friends and associates are thoughtful, educated and infomed residents here, so it's hardly surprising. If a crazy looking person came up to me and said, "OMG, did you hear about that horrible BRT?!?! What do you think?!?!", I would be afraid to express support. Many people who read these forums don't want to argue either. It's just not worth arguing with fringe elements.

I have no doubt that if we didn't have conflict-of-interest laws, our council would have voted to not support it. Fortunately, we do so the members were able to make a decision unbiased by their own monetary self-interest.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 27, 2015 at 12:32 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

I meant to add, not only has no one I mentioned this to thought it a good idea but every single one of them was shocked, had no idea this was being discussed, couldn't believe it's even being considered. And these are educated, typically involved and aware citizens. A few of the comments I hear (others I won't post due to language LOL)

"No way"
"Are you kidding me?"
"They are NOT"

Pushing this thru behind our backs. If it's such a great idea and everyone is so for it then why haven't we heard it promoted, lauded and bragged upon? Because they don't want anyone to know about it, they want to sneak it thru because that's the ONLY WAY it would pass.

Again, if it's such a great idea then you can be damn sure this council would be taking credit for it and bragging about it. That simply is NOT happening, they're hiding it.

Posted by @Blind Bus Rider
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:33 pm

So, before you kept up an unending, "The buses are empty!" and now you are gravely concerned with a previously unheard of army of blind people who will be massively disrupted.

So are the buses empty or are there a lot of people riding them that would be disrupted?

Posted by IP Address Tracer
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 1:34 pm

also, the buses are both minimally used AND VTA is going to make things more difficult for those few who currently ride the bus. It is not either or, it is bad x2.
Please reply.

Posted by IP Address Tracer
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm

[Deleted for violations of Terms Of Use. Please do not threaten the personal safety of others.]

Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 27, 2015 at 5:56 pm

Not sure why my previous post was deleted, it was truthful and I don't believe it violated any of the posted TOS. (At least I post using just ONE moniker.)

So, in case anyone was wondering.

Snipped from the MV Voice privacy policy page...

Traffic data

Each time a visitor comes to our web site, our servers collect some basic technical information, including, for example, the visitor's domain name (i.e., the ISP from which the user is logged on). We use software to keep track of traffic to our sites and derive such information as the location from which the traffic originates and which particular pages within the site are being viewed. After we analyze this information, we discard it. We may aggregate information about visitors and traffic and may share the results with advertisers. We will not disclose your individual identity or personally identifiable data that you supply us without your permission. It will only be used for us to contact you.

Web Link

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Sutter and PAMF — protect your patients from coronavirus — not just your employees
By Diana Diamond | 42 comments | 3,872 views

Rozmary Kitchen's weekly sandwich pop-ups return to The Midwife and the Baker
By The Peninsula Foodist | 1 comment | 3,729 views

Is Watching Porn Considered to be Cheating?
By Chandrama Anderson | 11 comments | 2,974 views

What can you do with your EV battery?
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 2,776 views

Sugar – Bigger Sinner Than Wine?
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,812 views