Option 1 is too short sighted. What we do now, we will have to live with for the next 50 years. Option 2 is a much more complete solution for the entire city, for not much more money.

I am glad that Menlo Park has already eliminated the outrageous billion dollar moon shot options that Palo Alto is considering.

Where is the math that shows the costs and the potential revenue for trench or undergrounding? In other words, what might the ongoing net fincial impact be? Only talking about costs is highly misleading. This is the best option for additional reasons. It wouldn't divide the city. It would allow for revenue generating uses at the ground level and create an expanded core for our town. The net costs and funding alternatives need identified before making a multi-generational decison like this.

The designs shown for the alternatives seem to have major problems that must be addressed before proceeding if that is how the council decides. Not connecting Alma with the civic center? Really?