by Peter Gauvin
To get anywhere with alternative transit, Palo Alto is going to have to come up with more than bus fare. That was a financial reality that glared back at the City Council Monday during discussion of the transportation section of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
"I'm sure it's the most expensive section of the Comprehensive Plan," said David Ross, the liaison from the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
But, he said, the consequences of not addressing expensive projects as soon as possible will only get worse and the costs only higher by waiting.
"If we could only ask for projects that we have funding for, there wouldn't be anything in the section," added Marvin Overway, the city's chief transportation official. "The whole package is unrealistic."
Some of the loftier projects include such ideas as extending light rail up El Camino Real or linking up to a BART-type system that circles the bay, both far-off dreams that would require regional cooperation and probably state and federal funding.
As a cheaper, local alternative, Council member Gary Fazzino likes the idea of shuttle bus system that makes frequent stops through the city. In fact, Fazzino suggested that the Council move forward with this proposal and not wait for approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Joe Simitian dissuaded him, saying the Council should not act in a de facto fashion.
The shuttle system would be similar to and perhaps operated in conjunction with Stanford University's Marguerite shuttle. Staff said it would cost about a $100,000 per bus to implement such a system.
There was also extended discussion on the philosophy of market-based pricing for car drivers.
Council member Jean McCown said the true costs of driving should be passed on to car users. While the public moans about the cost of providing alternative transportation, people don't realize that "we subsidize the automobile more than any other form of transit," McCown said.
Simitian said he is not fond of applying market-based pricing because it hurts the poor more than the rich.
If people are to be penalized for using their cars, there must be some legitimate and convenient options, he said. "Before we start wagging our finger to get people out of their cars we better give them some alternatives to get where they want to go."
In regard to traffic mitigation for development, the Council dropped a controversial recommended policy that stated: "Within limits of state law, approve a project based on overall benefit regardless of traffic impacts at particular intersections."
The vote was 5-3 to delete the policy; Simitian and Council members Ron Andersen and Micki Schneider voted to keep it. Council member Liz Kniss was absent.
While that wording went too far for some, it was clear that the Council wants to keep some flexibility to decide when a project provides a substantial community benefit that supersedes adverse traffic impacts. The example raised was the potential hotel and conference center site at Page Mill Road and El Camino, which the city is pursuing.
The compatibility of the transportation section with recommendations in the business and housing sections of the Comprehensive Plan, which the Council has already completed, was a key issue during public discussion of the transportation section two weeks ago.
"It's inevitable there are some inconsistencies," said Sandy Eakins, co-chair of CPAC.
Planning Director Ken Schreiber said the section's focus on "calming" traffic and creating a pedestrian friendly environment dovetails nicely with the housing section.
But, he said, "there has to be some acceptance that we cannot have a world where there is no increase in traffic" in order to maintain the economy that helps pay for city services.
Back up to the Table of Contents Page