Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 1:56 PM
Town Square
Mayor pitches pod cars to solve Google housing dilemma
Original post made on Jul 10, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 1:56 PM
Comments (16)
Posted by Sully
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm
OMG!!! What an eyesore that would be! But hey, it's in a business district where there's not much housing or neighborhoods to speak of.
I can probably live with "pod cars", but I don't care to see "High Speed Rail" stop here!
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm
a resident of another community
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Start from ECR, right up Shoreline to Crittenden Land and the new Google headquarter building. We are either going to have so many cars that no one will want to have a office with a bunch of ugly slow buses. We could also have pod cars run down Central Expressway by putting it on a road diet but still maintain 4 lanes or Middlefield Rd.
Posted by Dominick
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:09 pm
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Two comments. What is plan B if plan A does not work?
Second Comment
Laura Macias, Ronit Bryant, Jac Siegel, and Margaret Abe-Koga
Why am I not suprised that they don't like it?
Posted by Go Large
a resident of Castro City
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm
a resident of Castro City
on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm
The city most definitely needs to ban fast food joints since it doesn't look like most obese people would fit in one of those pods. They appear to be made for the Googler stick figure types.
Posted by Stephanie
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm
The opposing council members seem disconnected from reality. Why is this area so precious, apart from the owls? The area between 101 and Charleston is not some pristine piece of land that would be forever damaged by the addition of apartments. It's already developed! And as for disconnecting people from services, have they ever been to the Google campus? Do they realize how many services are provided by the company ON CAMPUS for its employees? Not to mention the Starbucks, laser tag, multiplex cinema, Shoreline recreation area...and the "20 minute walk" to downtown that the council members already pointed out. This area is NOT disconnected from anything. I guarantee you that a bunch of young Google employees who want to live close to work are going to find plenty to do, and will be riding their Google bicycles to work every day, not driving their cars. I just don't see why this particular area is getting such scrutiny, when they are perfectly happy to okay dense commercial enterprise and apartment complexes over on my side of Mountain View, right at San Antonio. What about the environmental impact in this corner of the woods?
Posted by Doug Pearson
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jul 10, 2012 at 9:04 pm
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jul 10, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Traffic in North of Bayshore is already a serious problem and solutions are needed. The question is, are any of them really cost effective.
Pods have the advantage that there are no drivers, but the disadvantage that they can't use existing streets so they have to build their own "road". (That's a disadvantage they share with High Speed Rail and light rail.) More VTA or shuttle buses between Downtown and North of Bayshore would probably make the traffic on the Shoreline interchange worse. The "20 minute walk" (Using the Stevens Creek Trail for part of the distance?) each way between downtown and North of Bayshore eats up 40 minutes of a lunch hour--not what I would want.
Posted by Otto Maddox
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 11, 2012 at 7:53 am
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 11, 2012 at 7:53 am
I can't decide which word to use to describe this idea.
The choice is between LAME and STUPID.
I swear the city council is going to start buying magic beans pretty soon.
Posted by B Minkin
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 8:18 am
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 8:18 am
This was a lightweight proposal intended to go nowhere. One company that wants to make this system has been pitching it for years, but it is always too expensive to imagine building it. The proposed free system would have ultimately cost the city plenty
So why would Mike Kasperzak make a proposal like this? He must have known it would not have approved.
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 8:50 am
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 8:50 am
But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
Great idea from Mayor Lyle Lanley...
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:22 am
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:22 am
What we need are more ideas to solve this problem, for instance since Moffett Blvd already goes over highway 101 extending this road down the west side of NASA for a short distance then a bridge over the creek to the North Bayshore area would provide more traffic capacity.
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:43 am
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:43 am
This is something worth following, we could build lines through out Mtn View.
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Not any more ludricrous than the multi-thousand dollar per unit taxpayer funded bicycle sharing program that was already approved. Or Buck Rodger's very own high speed rail to nowhere.
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 11, 2012 at 9:36 pm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 11, 2012 at 9:36 pm
...or moving 47 low income residents out, so 51 low income residents can move in at a cost of 9 million! Oh yea, forgot-there were "code" violations.
Follow the money
Posted by mrweidler
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm
a resident of another community
on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm
In looking over the other comments, the two biggest misconceptions I see are size and traffic conflicts.
First, there are no traffic conflicts and no appropriation of precious road lanes. PRT is usually elevated about 20 feet in the air. It does not interact with ground traffic.
Second is the size of the guideway. This is differs depending on which system is implemented. ULTra runs on a road-like guideway which is a little wider than a golf cart. Skytran's guideway is so small you could literally put your arms around it.
Posted by Kristine
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Isn't google developing self driving cars over there? Thus making something like this redundant?
Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:16 pm
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:16 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.
