I think MV should invest in Pneumatic Transport Tubes ( Web Link )

The good news is that more jobs are coming to Mountain View.
The bad news is that will result in more traffic.

Traffic can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by connecting Caltrain/Light Rail with North Bayshore. That way, commuters from San Francisco to Gilroy could take public transportation. When Bart to Milpitas is completed, East Bay commuters could also take public transportation.

However two problems remain. First, which technology should be used? I suggest that we go to the experts in moving a great deal of people smoothly and timely using a variety of technologies. Yes, I mean Disney.

Who will pay for it? Mountain View residents will benefit by mitigation of traffic on North Shoreline Boulevard, Rengstorff Avenue, and route 101. Therefore, the City should pay for a share of the costs. However, the biggest users will be Google employees and Google will receive the largest benefit. Therefore, Google should absorb the majority of the costs.

It looks like some of the council member are thinking the this may not be a good idea!

This is a repeat of a previous post:
The pod car concept is a small cramped space and engineering wise a very stupid idea with too many drawbacks to list here and no real advantages. It is even dumber than the failed dial-a-ride concepts.

Transit has never solved transportation problems. It only feeds the overpopulation problem that most city leaders fail to face up to.

It is like feeding an overweight person because they are hungry instead of restricting there calorie intake and making them exercise.

"by connecting Caltrain/Light Rail with North Bayshore"

There are already shuttles

The pod car is nothing but a fancy, enclosed ski lift, which is proven technology. Maybe the mag-lev technology isn't nesessary. We just need to move people, and encourage them to take mass transit to M.V. Anything would be better than the traffic we have now on Shoreline, Rengstorff, etc. And if we don't do something, it's going to get worse.

One thing that would greatly improve traffic is synchronizing all the lights. I see a lot problem areas, that do not let enough traffic through or some side street light comes on as soon as one person gets there. Lot of improvements can be made.

Very sad to hear this.

Don't know what it is, but at the heart of Silicon Valley with all the innovative ideas spawned here, it seems to run on infrastructure that is so last millennium.

We are lagging behind third world countries when it comes to basic stuff like public transportation.

Ever tried getting from downtown Mountain View to SFO by anything other than a car on 101?

Sounded like a good thing to put some money into. City spends amazing amount on road and parking lots. Seemed like a small price to pay for the future, even if a long-shot.

Thanks Mr. Kasperzak, for continuing to have vision for a possible solution to our traffic troubles. Disappointed that none of the other council members can see to put a trifling amount of money behind the idea.

Sanity breaks out at a City Council session? Has the world turned upside down?

And for those who think this boondoggle is a great idea: put up your own money for it. Otherwise, zip it.

I think a pedestrian/bicycle friendly tunnel/bridge that connects Castro St to Moffet Blvd (over Evelyn Ave and Central Expy) would do much more for traffic than "pod cars".

Half of the journey to North Bayshore by bike is waiting at those damn lights!

It would serve to connect the downtown to Moffat Blvd, too.

PA resident asks if we have ever tried to get to SFO by something other than a car.

I have, by two different systems.

20 years ago, there was a great free shuttle from Caltrain to SFO. It met the train, and dropped you off at the terminal. It was cheap, simple, and really efficient.

Then, some politicians sold us on building a train. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and is considerably slower. It now takes 3 trains just to get to the wrong terminal. And the operating costs have crippled San Mateo County's bus system.

This doesn't make me want to get rid of our shuttle system and trade it for someone's pod car promises.

Greg Perry's comments are correct, but only if you live on the Peninsula and are taking Caltrain as part of your journey on a weekday.

The BART extension to SFO/Millbrae comes primarily from federal funding if I understand correctly. The extension itself is geared toward where the vast majority of riders are from: SF and the East Bay. BART trains run directly to SFO.

The problem are northbound BART trains from Millbrae. There simply isn't enough weekday SFO traffic to justify full service from Millbrae to SFO, then onward to the rest of the BART system.

Let's look at the situation from a different perspective: that of an SF/Oakland BART rider. You take BART to Daly City, then sit on a SamTrans bus to SFO. Not terribly efficient.

Note that arriving SFO passengers/visitors/tourists can take a quick free AirTrain to the SFO BART terminal, then get on BART up to the City, and disembark at stations that are better located to popular tourist centers (Moscone, Market Street hotels, Financial District, Embarcadero).

From a visitor's perspective, the SFO BART connector is brilliant. You don't need to get on SamTrans to go to the Daly City BART, nor do you need to take a shuttle bus to Caltrain (which dumps you off at 4th & King) .

Anyhow, there are cabs at the Millbrae station if you don't want to do the whole Millbrae-San Bruno-SFO BART dance on a weekday. On weekends and after evening rush hour, the northbound BART trains departing from Millbrae stop by SFO anyhow.

"One thing that would greatly improve traffic is synchronizing all the lights. I see a lot problem areas, that do not let enough traffic through or some side street light comes on as soon as one person gets there. Lot of improvements can be made."

I second this!

Our city council has been pretty good at saying no for many years. Such cautious timidity is understandable. Its hard to make errors if we dig in and just say no.
While working with the Mountain View transportation awareness group some years ago members were shown a concept proposed by Google. The plan included mixed housing and business, a monorail and one would assume much better traffic management. The council concluded that allowing this project would lock the city into a precarious situation if Google whent belly up all of a sudden. So the council said no. Fast forward and Google has not yet bitten the dust. Google has instead grown much stronger and has added many more people. Yet our city council continues to puff themselves up for protecting us all from the likes of Google. And naturally the council blames Google for a traffic situation Google foresaw and wanted to remedy.

"Ever tried getting from downtown Mountain View to SFO by anything other than a car on 101?"

This has nothing to do with getting from MV to SFO.

Something has to be done, PRT, Light Rail system, BART, Rapid Bus Transit or shuttles, each has its pro and con, each one with a set amount of costs. We might need more then just one or two to get us moving.

Face it is cheaper then building a new 6 lanes freeway, we will take less amount of time.

Steve,

This has everything to do with backward thinking public transit. For anyone who wants to get to Google from Mountain View or from Mountain View to SFO or SJC, the first thought is get in the car. Public transit needs to be a better option for all types of trips - whether it be a solo driver to work or dropping someone to the airport. Most people drive to the airport (or get a ride) because the alternative is a nightmare. At present, there are no viable alternatives for either.

We have a few options if you don't drive to the airport. The crazy transfer system into or from SFO can work if you know the system. Taking a taxi, limo or hiring a driver will cost you money.

Or you can drive yourself to the airport, parking can be high.

Each option takes time and effort.

The pod car will most likely not get you to the airport but designed right will get you to the train station, a place that rents cars or some other means of getting to the airport.

I know that as a Mountain View resident that works in S.F. my number one concern is making it easier for Google employees to get to downtown M.V. When will they catch a break?!

And down with HSR! That only goes from S.F. to L.A. It doesn't even include a Google stop!

I doubt that any amount of cajolery, re-branding, bribery, or outright arm-twisting will get people to use public transit, as it currently exists and is likely to exist in the near future, in great numbers, as compared with the personal automobile. Simply put: people's time and convenience are too valuable, and all too readily wasted by traditional transit modes. A promising thing about PRT is that it really can (meaning, has been shown in real life to) shorten and/or make the passenger's trip more convenient than alternatives, at a fare cost that is competitive with traditional transit. PRT doesn't have to replace the personal automobile. It just has to attract enough riders at the prevailing fare-rate to pay for its own construction, operation and maintenance. Existing transit is very unattractive to many for several reasons, which are not issues with PRT. As attractive as they are, automobiles have drawbacks that PRT lacks. PRT's mix of features and advantages combine to create a transit offering that is reliable, convenient, and inexpensive enough to be a credible alternative to using one's own automobile or a cab on many occasions. This is the kind of thing that public transit needs to be competitive -- to lure people out of their cars because, many times, the public transit option will be more attractive than owning, maintaining, driving, and parking one's own car. This "sweet spot" can be achieved by traditional transit in some special circumstances, or on occasion, but a well-designed PRT system would hit that target every day for thousands of riders. Someone in the US will finally do it; they and the PRT concept will be vindicated. But at the moment, it doesn't look like Mountain View will be the one, or at least, anytime soon, despite the council's "embrace" and "endorsement" of the idea.

Interesting to read what is considered too out of the box in MV is already being done in Bolivia. Can you imagine how this might be used to connect North Bayshore with Caltrains downtown?

World's highest urban cable car proves 'a success'
BBC Article Link:
Web Link

World's highest urban cable car proves 'a success'
Passengers inside the cable-car that links the city centre of La Paz with its neighbour El Alto, Bolivia, on 2 June 2014 The cabins can hold up to 10 people and reach a height of more than 4,000m above sea level

The state-run company operating the world's highest urban cable car in Bolivia says its first two months in operation have been a success.

Mi Teleferico's chief executive said it had exceeded its goal of making eight million bolivianos ($1.2m; £685,000) in the first 60 days.

The cable car connects the capital, La Paz, with the nearby city of El Alto, high in the Andes mountains.

More than two million people have used it since its inauguration on 30 May.

"We've already surpassed our most optimistic financial forecast," chief executive Cesar Dockweiler said.

The cable car was built by an Austrian company at a cost of $234m and financed by the government of President Evo Morales.
President Evo Morales waves from inside the cable car on the right, during the inauguration ceremony in La Paz President Evo Morales tried out the new cable car on the day it was inaugurated
A passenger leaves a cable car decorated to look like a football on 24 June 2014. During the World Cup, some of the cabins were painted to look like footballs
Cable cars decorated to look like soccer balls are pictured over La Paz on 24 June, 2014. Once finished the cable car line will be 10km (6.2 miles) long

Mr Dockweiler said that in light of the surprisingly good figures it would now take 25 years rather than 40 originally estimated to pay for itself.

The line has made it easy for thousands of people to commute between the two cities in less than 10 minutes.

Two more lines are still under construction. It is hoped they will cut down road congestion.

Each car can carry up to 10 passengers, and according to official projections, once the two additional lines are finished, up to 18,000 people an hour will be able to board the system.

Tickets cost three bolivianos ($0.45; £0.25).

Last month, there was a hitch when passengers were stuck in the cabins in mid-air for 25 minutes during a signal failure.

But Mr Dockweiler assured travellers there had been in no danger at any time.