What is the estimate cost and time to build each one? Shouldn't that be factors in selection?

The simplicity and symmetry in Submission C has a beauty that appeals to me, but yes, we need to know more about costs to make a decision.

I too would like to know the estimated cost for each design, but I FAR prefer design #3.

Saw the designs at the Mitchell Park Library. Very odd.... no cost info there... I'd go for the cheapest one and see if that design could be built any cheaper. The last thing this town needs is another project-in-planning-purgatory or an insane overrun on costs .... like the Mitchell Library.

I'd also just hire the firm that fixed the MacArthur Maze highway fire damage in 1997. Let them build something to last a hundred years but do it super fast and super cheap. What a concept! Demonstrate "world class" by being super efficient! That way we might have "extra" money to throw around on other projects like fixing our buckling sidewalks, failing sewer laterals, and the 15+ year (and counting) San Francisquito Creek farce.

Cheap is relative. Cheap to build, cheap to maintain.
Cheapness needs to be the TCO, total cost of ownership.
( and of course functionality )

I like the simple design number 3 ... it is more inline with what is in other cities.

But, what about a bridge along the lines of those blue metal bridges in Mountain View on the Steven's Creek Trail? Is that an option? Those look nice, uniform and easy to build and maintain, with already a long history of experience in other cities.

Are we trying to compete with Cupertino and its bridge over 280? It seems another crazy idea to build a huge ostentatious design across 101 if we are not going to do what is necessary to make the Palo Alto Baylands a pleasant place to be, i.e. ...

1) do something about the stink from the sewage treatment plant,

and

2) do something about the airplane noise in the Baylands where you cannot even hear music from your own headphones when you are walking out there most of the time because of the low flying planes.

In the long term, having an airport and low-flying airplanes over a recreational area is certainly not the idea of excellence in design and living Palo Alto seems to say it wants to project. What a waste of a natural resource to blow it all on a redundant airport in a crowded metropolitan area that really needs parkland and recreational area that can serve more people.

I think all 3 are obscene and over done. C is the least obscene. Cant we just have a simple functional bridge and not a monument?

overboard,

What constitutes obscene for an overpass?

Have you seen or used any of the other overpasses in the area? Option C is not really out of line with any of them. They must have smooth gradual inclines for bicycles and the handicapped. The rest of what I can see is just a solid bridge across the freeway?

How so "obscene"?

CrescentParkAnon,

I have used many of them. I am objecting to the attempt to make them grandiose. The new one that crosses 101 in Mountain View is more in line with what I think we should be doing. Attractive enough and gets the job done.