Editorial: A first step on bridge Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 am
Representing one of the most bicycle-friendly cities in the state, it was not surprising to see the City Council fall head over heels in love with the proposed bike/pedestrian bridge over U.S. Highway 101 at Adobe Creek on a 9-0 vote Monday.
Read the full editorial here Web Link posted Friday, December 2, 2011, 12:00 AM
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 am
Yes, indeed!! This bike bridge should give access to a wonderful view of Palo Alto's proposed 'tourist attraction', a compost-sewer sludge burning factory complete with smoke vents and in and out traffic on ten acres of Baylands parkland. And how may people will use this? A small percentage of the residents. There is a huge backlog of infrastructure falling apart - including our streets. This bridge and California Avenue should be waaay down on the list.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:04 am
Naturally since this involves "biking", the council is falling all over themselves to support tis proposal (yes, we know cars are evil and drivers must be prevented from driving in Palo Alto--but we still want the revenue from shoppers, tourists etc). As Bob, above and other posters on a different thread have mentioned, do we know how many people will actually use this bridge. Also the cost--$9 million is a bit steep. As for Holman's quote--it still sounds as ridiculous today as it did when she made it. Perhaps Holman should gush over more important issues facing our city. as for the idea of a design contest--really, do we want to go there?
Finally as I have stated before, people will never identify Palo Alto from a bridge over 101--it will be identified as the city where Stanford is located--and thank goodness for that, otherwise Palo Alto would be Gary, Indiana.
Posted by use San Antonio Road, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:24 am
The city should just make the San Antonio Road bridge over Hwy 101 bicycle and pedestrian only. That is a cheap way to solve the problem. Cars can use Rengstorff instead, which is just a minute away at freeway speeds.
And if we want to save even more money, cancel those extremely wasteful new lanes that are being build on Hwy 101. $100 million or our tax money for just a couple of miles? Whose idea was that? A new pedestrian bridge is a trivial amount of money compared to how much we spend on car-only projects.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
I am not sure, use San Antonio Road, if you are serious about your suggestion. But, either way, it is ridiculous. Besides the fact that Mountain View may not be too crazy about your plan.
"A new pedestrian bridge is a trivial amount of money compared to how much we spend on car-only projects."
We spend money on "car-only" projects because this area is dependent on auto traffic. Those are the facts. Some people may be able to make do using a bike everyday, but for most people and businesses that is not a feasible plan.
Palo Alto has, for years, been trying to narrow down main arteries to one lane in each direction with the hope that all the traffic would just disappear.
Posted by Mark A, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm
No, Walter, cars don't pay their way. Not even close. Most road and hiway project funding comes from income,sales,and property tax revenue streams. And everyone pays that. Please reconsider your prejudice. Cyclists are a part of the community too, and deserving of some small considerations. Some people even cycle because it is the only reasonable way they can get around. And of course more cycles means less cars which means less wear and tear on the roads and less traffic overall. You might even benefit.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 3, 2011 at 4:45 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Mark, you are so wrong. The gas tax fund is continually plundered for Toonerville Trolley schemes and, yes, for bike facilities. If bikes are a serious transit answer, then it is long past time for them to pay their way. And along the way they might even try stopping at signals and signs just for the novelty. As a matter of fact, we might even reclassify bikes as pedestrians and put them back on the sidewalks where they really belong.
Posted by Actually, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:11 am
I get that you don't think of bikes as a serious form of transportation, but Mark is right, the gas tax is not high enough just to cover the cost of car infrastructure. What you say is also true that the tax that does not even cover cars needs has in the past been misdirected to the general fund. Since many bike riders get to work on a bike as their only means of transportation. Not everyone is rich and privileged like most PA citizens, some people struggle and can't afford a car. I see them every day riding their bikes to work across 101 to get to work. Like cars, bikes can be used for transportation to get to jobs, buy groceries and other actives that increase the tax base. While it is true that cars dominant the landscape, bikes are also there and deserve their share of the pie.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:33 am
I actually agree with both sets of comments about taxing bikes.
Yes, bikes have a lot of benefits, both to the individual who rides them and also to the community as a whole.
I also think that bikes deserve to have a much better infrastructure as a whole, designated bike lanes, designated traffic signals, better upkeep of bike paths, better bicycle parking and signage would be the place to start. All this does cost money and a dedicated source of funding for these would seem to be necessary.
I feel that a one time tax of say $25 at the time and point of purchase, similar to the tax paid on new tvs, would be the way to go. This tax would be on all bicycles, with perhaps the exception of plastic toddler tricycles, and could also include skate boards, rollerblades, scooters, etc. This would provide funding for upgrades of infrastructure. But, it would have to be statewide rather than just Palo Alto.
But then again, I think that transportation of all kinds should be a statewide and regional issue rather than a city by city issue.
Posted by Money waster, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 3, 2011 at 11:33 am
A far better use for that kind of money would be to install grade separation at Charleston and the railroad tracks, it would benefit many more residents of Palo Alto.
Wasting that kind of money on a bike/pedestrian bridge for the few is Jaime Rodriguez doing what Council hired him to do, waste money on bike/pedestrian paths. Expect to see many more lane reductions and bicycle paths created all over town.
Posted by OY!, a resident of the St. Claire Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 29, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Show me the money! How and where did Palo Alto get hundreds of thousands of dollars to design a freeway overpass while running a $4 million deficit? Where will Santa Clara County come up with $6 to $9 to build a freeway overpass while running a $240+ million deficit? The Weekly suggests some mysterious reserve fund that Stanford appropiated the county for public benefit. Too bad the county used this "reserve" fund to fix the deficit at $240 million. The skyrocketing and ballooning deficit spending by ignorant public officials to fund pet projects at taxpayer expense is a ticking time bomb and is unsustainable.