A well deserved slap in the face for Liz Kniss. As most of us realize this was a campaign ploy to help her election campaign for the city council. After all, Kniss, a career politician, is owed a new elected office once she is termed out of another one. Bravo to her colleagues for seeing that they were being manipulated and exploited for her personal gain--a trait that Kniss is well known for.

Liz Kniss should be remInded that the campus residents are also her constituents.

How, exactly, would a bicycle bridge over 101 mitigate the loss of use of land on Stanford campus? It wouldn't. While a bicycle bridge may be a good idea for Palo Alto, it does nothing to directly or indirectly improve the lives of those people effected by Stanford's expansion.

My advice to Liz Kniss: if you think Palo Alto needs more money, take on Prop 13. I'll be behind you 110% if you do.

If you like the big developments being built all over Palo Alto, support her. If she gets on the council, you'll see more and more.
Her support for major developers is well known. We saw it when she ran for Supervisor and when she was on the city council.

This is a fantastic project for the Palo Alto and Stanford communities. There is a huge demand for pedestrian and bicycle safe routes from Stanford and southern Palo Alto to the Palo Alto baylands and Mountain View Shoreline areas. If the cities and county are unwilling to make San Antonio Road bicycle and pedestrian friendly (especially for children), this is a fine alternative. Please get it done ASAP. The cost for this project is minimal compared to what we spend on car projects like those brand new $100 million boondoggle merging lanes on Hwy 101 (paid for by county sales taxes). Thank you Ms. Kniss.

I spent a minute or two counting the individuals using the new 101 lanes until I got to a hundred, and the same amount of minutes counting the individuals using the bike bridge at Oregon. The ratio is infinite as the denominator was zero. (Go ahead and yell at me but these data are factual. Feel free to collect your own numbers.)

Pertinent to the editorial, I do agree that a newer bike bridge is a good idea, but this specific Stanford money should be spent much closer to Stanford.

And the additional cost to Palo Alto tax payers cannot be justified. Certainly not under the current economic climate, with the city facing annual budget deficits, and essential civic needs that remain unfunded. This project represents another example of city management caving to special interests and not considering the greater good of the city. This bike bridge is a want, not a need.

Spending hundreds of millions of the public's dollars always seems like a good idea to the Weekly--particularly if the money benefits a small special interest group. There is simply no need for this bridge--no matter what Liz Kniss thinks, or says!

But of course, she could pay for it .. even get her name on it. Now that would be a great idea!

Would you let Liz pay for it if you knew Palo Alto would get stuck with the maintenance costs?

> it if you knew Palo Alto would get stuck
> with the maintenance costs?

It does depend on what those maintenance costs might be. If those costs are not identified up front, then we would have to believe that they would be unnecessarily large, and the Palo Alto taxpayers might well get stuck for hundreds of thousands a year in otherwise hidden costs.

Not only saddled with the maintenance costs, but also the cost overruns for the construction. So I'll ask the question. When has our city built within budget. One only needs to look at the Mitchell Park Library for the answer. No bike bridge. There are too many other priorities for this project to even be in the discussion.

Maintenance costs for ped/bike bridges are nearly zero, and the last for a long time. The old one near Embarcadero was here in the mid-70s (perhaps earlier) and has has needed no major repairs since then. Compare that to the cost of maintaining the lanes of 101 that it crosses.

Why does this project come in at $10 MM+?

There are several new/recently constructed bike and pedestrian bridges over 101 in the San Francisco direction. Why not use the design of one of these?

It'd be a bridge over an ugly freeway. Give up the nonsense that everything Palo Alto touches has to be upscale; with special design, curved materials, etc.

Take care of the shabby streets with the savings.

Donald, there will undoubtedly be maintenance costs. Painting, graffiti clean-up, and normal wear will result in some cost. I'm not suggesting it would be a major cost, but to suggest that it would be "nearly zero" is a bit unreasonable. Regardless, that is additional cost that we cannot afford during these very difficult and challenging times. This is not the time to be making non-essential investments.

My biggest concern is that tax payers will also be left on the hook for any cost overruns on this project. Really? We're going to put our faith in a city management team that hasn't constructed anything within budget in I don't know how long? Just look at the current Mitchell Park Library budget and you'll have some idea.

This project is a nice idea, and in a favorable financial climate I would have no issue with the implementation. However, we shouldn't even be considering a non-essential pursuit such as this when we still face annual budget deficits and can't pay for essential civic needs that doesn't involve another bond measure and tax increase. City management's irresponsible spending and catering to special interests hast to be curbed.

>Maintenance costs for ped/bike bridges are nearly zero,
> and the last for a long time

One might think so, but in the public sector there are always some sort of County/State/Federal/OSHA/EPA/UN requirements that must be met. At the very least, all such structures need safety inspections—particularly after earthquakes.

The City is currently spending $150K to measure the "reflectance" of all of the street signs in Palo Alto, per Federal Directive. This is a lot of money for something that is not very valuable. Not hard to believe that sooner-or-later some requirement for bicycle bridges won't come along that will cost the City money in order to be in compliance.

The City of Palo Alto is desperate for revenue, so they will find a way to charge for something, under their famous “full cost recovery” model. Anyone who believes that the City will not find some way to exact revenue from this structure is not being realistic.

Marrol, read the editorial. This money isn't taxpayer money -- it's money Stanford was obligated to use "to build trails that would help complete the county's regional trail plan." It can't be used as a slush fund to fix other problems in Palo Alto. Either it's used for these projects, or for other trails. So choose what trail you want to spend it on, but one way or another it's going to be used for a trail.

Personally I think a bike overpass over 101 is a good idea. The only other suggestion I saw in the article was for bike paths on the periphery of the Stanford campus, and that seems pretty redundant seeing as how the campus is crisscrossed with bike paths already.

First Time, look at the entire picture. The grant money will pay for the initial cost of the construction, but is not structured in any way to cover the cost overruns and ongoing maintenance. There will be undoubtedly cost overruns. Palo Alto is infamous for never completing a project within budget, and there is no reason to believe that this one will be any different. That leaves tax payers on the hook for the remainder of the cost. Sorry, but we can't afford the risk. Certainly not while we face annual budget deficits and a mounting price tag for absolutely vital and essential needs that exist in infrastructure and public safety.

So you don't want the money spent on any projects in Palo Alto? How about elsewhere in the county? By your logic, nothing should be built anywhere with this money because then there would be upkeep costs.

Not true First Time. All I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't build this bike bridge, a want and not a need, when our city is in dire financial straits. If you'd read my entire commentary you'd find that I'd have no issue with this project if and when we can afford the expenditure. This isn't the time. We still face annual budget deficits and do not have the money to fund our vital and neglected civic needs in infrastructure and public safety. You're in a convenient position to offer support when you're not going to be hit with another significant tax increase to pay for these essential needs. Sorry, we can't afford it.

Wake up people -- this is just another tactic by Stanford to avoid paying this money as long as possible!! They don't want to do anything unless they can do it THEIR way, so of course if Liz Kniss says let's build a bike bridge, they say no way. They tried to force their plan on the Alpine Road neighborhoods, now they'll do the same here. Liz Kniss is not the bad guy here.