Apparently VTA loves bad ideas

Underpasses are loud, ugly, smelly, exhaust collecting, dark, unpleasant things. As a committed bike commuter, I find them intimidating and never feel safe or healthy in them. Just go spend some time in or near the University Ave underpass under El Camino to get a feel for what we could turn the end of Castro street into.

I'm all for the street closure as long as a bike/pedestrian bridge is built. We had a nice dinner at Blue Line Pizza the other night and enjoyed the outdoor seating (and the pizza!). It would have been even nicer if that end of the street were closed. On the other hand, sitting right at the opening of a dark, echoing underpass that collects exhaust fumes would not be so nice. I would think the restaurants on Castro would be in favor of street closure for that reason. I have seen multiple cities where street closures like that were very positive changes for the city in general. A downtown without cars is always a more pleasant place to be, and so people seek it out. My 0.02.

Does anyone know Margaret C. Abe-Koga's position? Does she support the truncation of Castro or the tunneling of Castro recommended by the VTA?

It doesn't matter. That failed career politician is on the way out and not welcome here, thank you very much.

The VTA officials who wrote the "formal letter" seem to be looking at this project from a simple-minded, blinkered viewpoint.

Optimum through-traffic connectivity for buses and other vehicles can't be the sole criterion for this. The leave-it-open option would have started the underpass at the Villa/Castro intersection, degrading the ambience of the first block of Castro. There were other problems as well with that option. It wasn't just about the cost or the construction impacts, although those probably figured into the City Council decision too. I'm pretty critical of the City Council, but they got this one right.

What happened to the VTA Board is indirectly elected politicians? Looks like they do not run the show - or even watch the show. And they want billions more in November. How do you say NO in Spanish?

The only VTA route that currently crosses Central at Castro is the #81 bus. Rerouting on Shoreline would add perhaps 5 minutes to the trip from the transit station to NASA/Ames. Why would anyone propose spending tens of millions on an underpass for this outcome?

It is amazing how the right side of the tracks wants to get rid of us who live on the other side of the tracks. You have no idea how busy Shoreline is at all times of the day. Rush hour in the morning last until 11AM and a lot of time you can't go left or right because the intersection are blocked. An underpass at Moffett/Castro would be great for us. I am sure a good engineering firm can come up with the right design.

[VTA Letter Head]

Dear Mountain View,

We think you should spend $120 million dollars. We'd help, but we only spend money in San Jose. Anyway, good luck!

@Bruce Karney: The underpass would serve not just the 81 bus (which I commute to work on) but all other traffic between Middlefield Road and El Camino Real on Castro-Moffett.

It's true that routing that Castro-Moffett traffic via Shoreline would add only moderate time and traffic to Shoreline, but as indicated by @reside, Shoreline is a major rush "hour" choke point already--it doesn't need more. Shoreline, 85, 237, and even Central Expressway are all very popular ways to bypass downtown. Do we really want yet another way? A downtown that is the end of Castro St does not sound like a downtown to me.

Also, the City Council and maybe even the Mountain View General Plan envisions the inclusion of Moffett Blvd between Central Expressway and Middlefield Road (or even 101, where a shopping/hotel complex is envisioned) as an extension of downtown. Without an underpass, that idea is doomed--a bike and pedestrian underpass or overpass would be too little.

The current city council was able to make a difficult, but sound decision to truncate Castro Street at the tracks, considering all the noise/influence peddling from the VTA. Additionally, there will no longer be a need for VTA buses to lumber along just a few blocks of Castro Street between El Camino and the tracks. A solid design for the new transit center will allow the VTA to get their riders N, S, E, or West. Now is not the time to elect and/or support pro VTA council candidates to the city council. No one needs a humongous bus careening down an already traffic calmed street to get riders downtown from El Camino or the transit center. Everyone says they want a walkable downtown Castro Street. Eliminating bus/corporate shuttle traffic along Castro will be a good first step (pun intended). For our friends and neighbors that do need transportation up and down these 9 blocks, the city and/or the VTA should provide a small trolley service that will assist these residents/visitors along Castro Street. I suspect a paratransit vehicle and/or trolley will be all that is required.
This is preferable to shutting Castro Street completely and denying those with special needs access to downtown Castro Street.

If VTA wants MV to do something, maybe they should say the opposite.

Severing Castro may or may not have a net benefit for downtown itself. I think it would have a clear positive effect for the rest of town, though. Here's my breakdown of the situation:

* Shoreline traffic: Not a problem. Only a trickle of traffic crosses the tracks on Castro during rush hour. Some of this will be diverted to Shoreline (but not all). However, a grade-separated crossing at Rengstorff will help divert traffic on Shoreline that isn't bound for downtown. I reckon that the net effect of these two changes on Shoreline will be positive.

* Central Expwy traffic: Clearly a plus. The intersection today is a disaster for Central in the evenings.

* Buses: VTA has several routes serving downtown. As has been mentioned, only one actually crosses the tracks (guess why? it's already impractical). This one route could take a short detour along California, Shoreline, and Central, stopping in front of the Adobe Building for downtown passengers (remember, we'll have a pedestrian overpass). Considering the congestion downtown, this would hardly take longer than the current alignment. Private shuttles bound for North Bayshore could stop there too.

That bus that VTA has serving Castro/Central runs from San Jose to Mountain View/NASA. It's not a popular route. It's likely going to be axed going forward.

How Ironic.

I couldn't agree more with @reside.

We have a bit of divide in Mountain View, with the RR tracks. It determines school boundaries, real estate prices, etc. The last thing we need is to reinforce it. To close off the tracks is to limit opportunity for businesses wanting to further the Castro St. mood onto Moffett as well.

Also, I understand that that the 'data' that is being cited by proponents of the closing is incorrect. When we are told that only X cars pass through the intersection, therefore only a tiny Y% of business will be potentially lost, we are being mislead. Apparently the cars were counted at non-peak time(s) of day, so it's rather irrelevant, giving us an incorrect picture.

We hear that a bridge will be built for people wanting to cross the tracks on foot. Our older folks will not be able to all climb those stairs. I plan on being old one day, and don't want to have to be in fantastic shape in order to get to the coffee shop. I hope a group files a suit because it is not right to cut off the elderly pedestrian population from downtown. Old people are customers, too.

"Apparently the cars were counted at non-peak time(s) of day"

In other words, when there are few trains and you can actually drive on Castro?

Presumably there will still be a crosswalk for people who can't go over the bridge. Or maybe we'll have an undercrossing, like the one that goes under the tracks at San Antonio. Much less of a climb that way.

And I live on the "wrong" side of the tracks too, FYI. I just don't think that level crossing counts as a connection. It only works when I don't need it.

Closing Castro is not selling Castro. If it is wrong, and a big problem, then we can re-open it (I hope we do not) It is not like Steirlin Road, or Permanente Creek where Chris Clark and council GAVE AWAY the best bike path routes in the city to developers for nothing at all!

Here's an even better idea. Make Castro a one way street. No need to rebuild roads.

The VTA position is antithetical to anything a public Transportation Authority should be promoting. This is truly upsetting. An underpass would be awful. Nobody who lives in the downtown uses Castro/Moffet because the traffic is so bad and we are doing fine.