Posted by janet, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on May 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Before they pave the trail they need to install drainage otherwise any paving will get washed away/eroded/subsided as before.

Posted by lmggolfer, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 30, 2012 at 3:18 pm

I am glad the county supervisors understand the severe safety issues with the current county trail/path and that they intend to move forward in a reasoned and strategic approach to resolve some of the acknowledged safety issues. Thanks to the Supervisors for realizing the risk to individuals on the trail and the county for addressing the risk.

Posted by Brian Tetrud, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 30, 2012 at 3:54 pm

This is a great step forward. It was a sad day when the supervisors shot this down as I would love to be able to bike and walk around our neighborhood safely. I hope the people of Stanford Weekend acres can realize the potential this improved trail has to our community.

Posted by janet, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 8:56 am

The paving will by from Piers Lane to Ladera where there are few safety problems associated with driveways and cross streets or with vehicles using the path/bike lane for inside overtaking

Posted by question, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 11:20 am

Can we also assume that the 2 million will also address the creek situation?

There are still other situations to be resolved, but this will at least address the path from AFTER Stanford Weekend Acres to the new path that comes out of Portola Valley (that will eventually connect to the new path that comes out of Los Altos ... on Stanford money)

One being the county's maintaining what the state has created underneath 280. Repainting lines might help, but this all should have been wrapped into the same project since there is a need for more space. Can anyone answer why there is a need for a nice concrete sidewalk on the north side of Alpine when there is no connecting sidewalk in either direction on Alpine Road?

Drainage? That's will be one of those other situations that local residents might end up having to convince their neighbors to add as a local property fee.

PAINT? That should be easy!

We should ALL still question the logic that says we can't have 35mph along the entire length of Alpine just as Portola Road is 35mph. Absolutely insane to say that a minority breaking a law can determine what the law should be. Odd that even this easy consensus was not reached in the past 10 years. The expense to try to reduce speeds at key points is going to be painful.

Posted by PVrez, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm

@question: not all of alpine is 35 mph through pv - there is a stretch of 40 mph past westridge. and what "creek situation" are you referring to in your post?

Posted by Dave, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 10:36 pm

I've been trying to find statistics for number of accidents and injuries at the section of the trail to be paved. Does anyone know what they are?

Posted by question, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 10:44 pm

If you didn't know that the creek is undercutting Alpine at a couple points, then, you do now.

Exactly why does the speed after Alpine Hills increase to 40 mph after essentially leaving (or entering) Portola Valley? You can do the math to figure out how much time you save. It certainly doesn't help people get back to 35 mph for Westridge and Ladera as they go to 280 or beyond.

The posted speed after Ladera going toward Junipero Serra makes absolutely no sense, but I'll let the residents of Stanford Weekend Acres add their arguments about what living with that speed limit is like.

Our point would be that if the speed within Portola Valley is 35mph, and that is respected by the county, then why can't the road to get out to peaceful tranquil (speed trap) Portola Valley be equally peaceful ..and helpful to the county budget ?

We're still wondering why we can't have the same "crossing guard" signs that are popping up all over the place. Too costly or short sighted and not respecting the voters' wishes? Not the flashing lights... the nice Green Signs that explain the law to cars. At this point, with the county's debt, just tell us how much!

Posted by Dave, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 pm

question: As a newcomer to the area, I appreciate your prompt, friendly and courteous answer. Now I know what my neighbors are like.

Posted by question, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2012 at 6:22 am

@Dave. Sorry. This has been going on for over 10 years. The county turned down 10 million to do the job. Some of us are a bit envious of the nice path that PV allowed Stanford to put in. After watching the path degrade (literally) and get covered as Alpine widened, it would be nice to see the county take care of its assets instead of planning a new prison, which I'm sure the contractor assures us will solve the problem of those who love prisons so much they keep smoking marijuana to go back again so we can continue to pay $40K a year to feed, house and watch them. Funny, the schools have to pass bonds with 67% for such luxuries. Put the prison to a bond vote and see what happens!