Original post made
on Nov 2, 2011
Really "No One" wants a better bike path? I am disappointed with the one-sided view that this opinion letter offers. And since when is attracting more walkers, runners and bikers a bad thing?
The author is perhaps suggesting that we should all drive, and not ever walk or bike. I have seen a number of others who have suggested that they, or their children could benefit from a new path that would allow the hundreds of kids, parents, etc. to opt out of their cars to get from Portola Valley or Ladera to Menlo Park.
Perhaps the author of this piece prefers cars to walking, or has no interest in other perspectives. I wonder if we should reconsider what a Committee Member for Green Foothills should mean?
I am someone -- not a No One.
This will give you some insight as to who the letter writer is.
The title of the guest opinion makes me think this paper has become "The Onionac". The title is false.
The existing trail desperately needs repair (and that is an understatement).
$10,000,000 is available now to fix the trail. The money does not come from San Mateo County, it comes from Stanford. No bond is reqiured, there will be no increase in my property tax bill.
If one's agenda is to have a better alternative to the automotive commute on Alpine, then this is a no brainer. Fix it!
Reasons NOT to fix it:
I'd like to spend the money elsewhere. - Great there are lots of places to spend money but, if the funds are not used for the trail, they will go for improvements to recreational facilities that benefit Stanford residents(more volleyball courts? a skateboard park?).
Not in my front yard (NIMFY). - This is an incredibly selfish attitude that is frustratingly depressing to me. The existing trail and land that the trail is on belongs to all of us.
It would encourage people to use it. - YES! How could this be a reason to not improve the trail?
It would make SWA more difficult to get in and out of. - If I am not on my bike on the trail then I am on the road with my bike or my car. The impact is the same to the SWA ingress and egress.
The existing trail is ok - oh come on, try using the trail.
It is dangerous - yes, mostly because of it's current condition but, how is the road less dangerous?
The improved trail will be more dangerous. - Since no plan exists to fix the trail, how can anyone make statements about an increase or reduction in hazards? But seriously, does anyone really believe that when a plan to improve the trail is created, a plan that makes the trail more dangerous will be approved?
There are alternatives. - No, the agreement for the money is specific, improve the trail or use the money for the benefit of Stanford (basketball courts, frisbee golf?).