News

Senators push for rail oversight, outreach

Residents and officials from Palo Alto, other Peninsula lobby Sacramento for more transparency, community involvement

Palo Alto city officials and residents aren't alone in their concern about a "lack of transparency" and oversight in the state's quest to build a $40 billion high-speed rail system.

A state Senate subcommittee Thursday expressed concerns about the structure and business plan of the California High Speed Rail Authority -- the agency charged with building the $40 billion rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Senate's budget subcommittee, which includes senators Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), John J. Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes) and Alan S. Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), heard a request from the rail agency for about $130 million in bond funding.

Simitian said the community's message was "loud and clear." The subcommittee agreed to hold off on authorizing the funds and urged rail-authority officials to expand their outreach efforts.

The senators heard from about 30 concerned Peninsula residents who made a morning trek to Sacramento to lobby for more oversight and transparency.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"What we really asked for is for them to change the structure of who is running this," Palo Alto Vice Mayor Jack Morton, one of the speakers, said.

"It's quite clear that the high-speed rail staff is insensitive to the community and has no ability to be responsible for the funds," he said.

Simitian said the nature of the rail authority has changed over the past few months from a small study group advocating a high-speed rail line to an organization actually building the line. Now is the time to consider changes that would bring more oversight and more community outreach to the process, he said.

"We deferred action in part to ensure that before the funds are authorized for the coming year that we see a stepped-up program for outreach and oversight," Simitian told the Weekly.

The Thursday hearing came about six weeks after the state Legislative Analyst's Office released its review of the rail agency's business plan for the proposed 300-mile line and found many details missing. The March 17 analyst report said the authority's business plan failed to disclose expected service levels, assumed train capacity, ways in which funds would be secured, the schedule for completing design and environmental clearance and other critically important factors.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

The analyst report said the structure of the rail agency is unusual in that contractors are providing both the technical work and the oversight. Typically, state employees are in charge of managing large infrastructure projects, not contractors.

"The philosophy of the (rail authority) has been that it should avoid developing a large permanent organizational staff because the project is a one-time endeavor, requires highly specialized skills, and will require limited on-going support," the report stated.

"On the basis of this approach to project management, the (authority) is relying upon outside consultants to provide both technical and managerial services."

The report also mentioned a letter that Quentin Kopp, chair of the rail authority's Board of Directors, sent to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, listing elements of the high-speed rail project that could qualify for federal funding.

The list of projects – which has since been revised -- was not discussed with stakeholders in the area, the analysts' report states. The rail authority's board plans to review and tentatively approve the list at its May 7 meeting.

"There has been no public review process for determining the list and there does not appear to have been a collaborative technical review process among the stakeholder agencies," the analyst report states.

"Because of the lack of a transparent, inclusive process for selecting projects, the reasons for including some ready-to-go projects and excluding others are unclear," it said.

California voters approved Proposition 1A last November, which provides $9.95 billion in bonds for the rail project.

But while many residents still support the concept, a group of Palo Alto residents and officials have grown worried in recent months about the project's potential impact on their neighborhoods.

Hundreds have attended community and council meetings to raise alarms about the potential of an elevated wall splitting the city, and to express concerns about the possibility of having portions of their property's seized through eminent domain.

Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt emphasized the eminent domain issue at Monday's council meeting, calling it the "elephant in the room."

Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto, who organized a coalition of Peninsula cities that meets weekly to discuss high-speed rail issues, said city officials are now discussing a variety of proposals they'd like Sacramento legislators to consider.

The coalition, which met Friday morning, wants the rail authority to use the "Context Sensitive Solutions" developed by the Federal Highway Administration in designing the new rail line. The method emphasizes stakeholder involvement and design elements that integrate the project with the surrounding communities.

Kishimoto said the coalition also plans to request that the rail authority conduct an economic analysis for the various design alternatives concurrently with its environmental review of the options.

"We don't want to go through all the environmental analysis only to find at the very end of the two-year process that the tunnel is not feasible," Kishimoto said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Senators push for rail oversight, outreach

Residents and officials from Palo Alto, other Peninsula lobby Sacramento for more transparency, community involvement

by / Palo Alto Online

Uploaded: Sat, May 2, 2009, 12:41 pm
Updated: Mon, May 4, 2009, 8:51 am

Palo Alto city officials and residents aren't alone in their concern about a "lack of transparency" and oversight in the state's quest to build a $40 billion high-speed rail system.

A state Senate subcommittee Thursday expressed concerns about the structure and business plan of the California High Speed Rail Authority -- the agency charged with building the $40 billion rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Senate's budget subcommittee, which includes senators Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), John J. Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes) and Alan S. Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), heard a request from the rail agency for about $130 million in bond funding.

Simitian said the community's message was "loud and clear." The subcommittee agreed to hold off on authorizing the funds and urged rail-authority officials to expand their outreach efforts.

The senators heard from about 30 concerned Peninsula residents who made a morning trek to Sacramento to lobby for more oversight and transparency.

"What we really asked for is for them to change the structure of who is running this," Palo Alto Vice Mayor Jack Morton, one of the speakers, said.

"It's quite clear that the high-speed rail staff is insensitive to the community and has no ability to be responsible for the funds," he said.

Simitian said the nature of the rail authority has changed over the past few months from a small study group advocating a high-speed rail line to an organization actually building the line. Now is the time to consider changes that would bring more oversight and more community outreach to the process, he said.

"We deferred action in part to ensure that before the funds are authorized for the coming year that we see a stepped-up program for outreach and oversight," Simitian told the Weekly.

The Thursday hearing came about six weeks after the state Legislative Analyst's Office released its review of the rail agency's business plan for the proposed 300-mile line and found many details missing. The March 17 analyst report said the authority's business plan failed to disclose expected service levels, assumed train capacity, ways in which funds would be secured, the schedule for completing design and environmental clearance and other critically important factors.

The analyst report said the structure of the rail agency is unusual in that contractors are providing both the technical work and the oversight. Typically, state employees are in charge of managing large infrastructure projects, not contractors.

"The philosophy of the (rail authority) has been that it should avoid developing a large permanent organizational staff because the project is a one-time endeavor, requires highly specialized skills, and will require limited on-going support," the report stated.

"On the basis of this approach to project management, the (authority) is relying upon outside consultants to provide both technical and managerial services."

The report also mentioned a letter that Quentin Kopp, chair of the rail authority's Board of Directors, sent to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, listing elements of the high-speed rail project that could qualify for federal funding.

The list of projects – which has since been revised -- was not discussed with stakeholders in the area, the analysts' report states. The rail authority's board plans to review and tentatively approve the list at its May 7 meeting.

"There has been no public review process for determining the list and there does not appear to have been a collaborative technical review process among the stakeholder agencies," the analyst report states.

"Because of the lack of a transparent, inclusive process for selecting projects, the reasons for including some ready-to-go projects and excluding others are unclear," it said.

California voters approved Proposition 1A last November, which provides $9.95 billion in bonds for the rail project.

But while many residents still support the concept, a group of Palo Alto residents and officials have grown worried in recent months about the project's potential impact on their neighborhoods.

Hundreds have attended community and council meetings to raise alarms about the potential of an elevated wall splitting the city, and to express concerns about the possibility of having portions of their property's seized through eminent domain.

Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt emphasized the eminent domain issue at Monday's council meeting, calling it the "elephant in the room."

Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto, who organized a coalition of Peninsula cities that meets weekly to discuss high-speed rail issues, said city officials are now discussing a variety of proposals they'd like Sacramento legislators to consider.

The coalition, which met Friday morning, wants the rail authority to use the "Context Sensitive Solutions" developed by the Federal Highway Administration in designing the new rail line. The method emphasizes stakeholder involvement and design elements that integrate the project with the surrounding communities.

Kishimoto said the coalition also plans to request that the rail authority conduct an economic analysis for the various design alternatives concurrently with its environmental review of the options.

"We don't want to go through all the environmental analysis only to find at the very end of the two-year process that the tunnel is not feasible," Kishimoto said.

Comments

Eric
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 2, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Eric, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 2, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Typical. These people of Palo Alto/Peninsula are just not happy that the CAHSRA hasn't bent over backwarks for them to give them exactly what they want. Now they are crying for change. Just like a child who doesn't get what they want from one parent, so they go to the other. Pathetic.


Palo Alto Process
Crescent Park
on May 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Palo Alto Process, Crescent Park
on May 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Lets apply the Palo Alto Process and kill the entire HSR from SF-LA.

Palo Alto Process has yielded the following messes:
1. Alma Plaza
2. Edgewood Plaza
3. Huge, Huge JCC
4. Hyatt Rickey Housing Mess
5. etc. etc.

Can Yoriko Kishimoto do the right thing for a change. Can Palo Alto get out of the way of the HSR.

PLEEEEEEEEEESE...


pat
Midtown
on May 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm
pat, Midtown
on May 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm

“Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto, who organized a coalition of Peninsula cities that meets weekly to discuss high-speed rail issues … “ is the same Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto who urged us all to vote YES on HSR.

But now that all the problems have surfaced, she is suddenly our savior, hoping that – in her run for state assembly – people will forget she was a champion of HSR.

Web Link
“The council plans to discuss … a colleague's memo from Mayor Klein and Council Member Kishimoto requesting adoption of a resolution supporting Proposition 1A (high-speed rail). The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 6, in the Council Chambers at City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave.).”

See CMR:441:04 OCTOBER 4, 2004, ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 1A – PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Web Link

and

Web Link
Resolution of the council of the City of Palo Alto supportinhg Proposition 1A – Protection of Local Government Revenues.


Jay Tulock
another community
on May 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Jay Tulock, another community
on May 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm

The Senate Budget Subcommittee and the Senate Transportation Subcommittee both understand the truth: the High Speed Rail Authority is corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, has wasted nearly $80 million in taxpayer dollars, and has a board staffed by persons who are hypocritical liars, have conflicts of interst that will net them personal gain with the Pacheco route, and have acted on their own at public meetings making statements they were not authorized to make on behalf of the High Speed Rail Authority.

If you doubt what I am saying, listen to an archive of the hearing of the Senate Budget Subcommittee. (If I find a link I'll post it later.)

In testimony after testimony in the public hearing, the same thing was said over and over again: 'Mr. Diridon came to our town in Fall 2008 and told us one thing, then came in 2009 and told us another.' In other words, multiple residents from several towns all testified that Rod Diridon had lied to them. Some residents testified similar sentiments of Mr. Kopp.

Most telling, the Rail Authority's Executive Director, who serves at the pleasure of his board, said after the testimonies that if members of his Board made these statements, they made them as individuals, not as persons officially representing the policies of the Rail Authority! This is a damning accusation for a senior staff member to make, and in fact he stated: "I may be fired tomorrow for saying these things." For those not familiar with laws governing boards, the Authority is held responsible for statements made publicly by members of its board -- and if you haven not seen, the hypocritical lies of Mr. Diridon at Palo Alto Council Meetings are documented on You Tube.

I am a railroad man. I built railroads in this country and overseas. I believe in high speed rail for California. But those of you who want this project so badly that it hurts are allowing yourselves to be blinded to the obvious corruption of members of the High Speed Rail Authority board and the leaky tap of taxpayer money being funneled without proper oversight to outside consultants. The quickest way to grow a healthy high speed rail system is to first cut out the cancer and then let it grow.

Diridon and Kopp must be jettisoned from any further involvement with the project. The entire route selection must be revisited from the ground up looking at high speed rail as part of the total system. Do not mention the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, that was a multi-million dollar joke and everyone in the industry knows it. The Authority must be restructured or eliminated. Intercity rail planning must be folded into current Caltrans programs or a new Department of Railroads, both seeming political impossibilities. However, it must be done because running intercity and high speed rail as separate functions is a travesty to the people of California. The two functions must be under one roof to avoid duplicative or even competing planning processes.

Barring all of the above happening by the end of the summer, all of you fighting this project as it is must sever the jugular vein and organize to repeal Proposition 1A. Florida did it when they saw their high speed rail project spiral out of control, and the sooner the better for California to either clean house with a flamethrower or terminate this project.

Jay Tulock, Vacaville


Travis
Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Travis, Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2009 at 5:09 pm

"I am a railroad man. I built railroads in this country and overseas. I believe in high speed rail for California. But those of you who want this project so badly that it hurts are allowing yourselves to be blinded to the obvious corruption of members of the High Speed Rail Authority board and the leaky tap of taxpayer money being funneled without proper oversight to outside consultants. The quickest way to grow a healthy high speed rail system is to first cut out the cancer and then let it grow."

What? Makes me laugh at "I believe in high speed rail for California" No you don't. Is that a typical NIMBY comments? Not sure, but my guess, since you are in Vacaville and made a comment on the route decision, that you do feel that if it doesn't directly benifit you, get rid of it. Your last comments sums it up. All you really want is to terminate the project.

Your comments on corruption are meaningless without supporting facts.


Jay Tulock
another community
on May 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Jay Tulock, another community
on May 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Travis, sir.

Your guess is not correct. High speed rail would benefit me. NIMBY comment? Hardly, as you are at least correct that the line will not be in anywhere near my backyard. An Altamont Pass route would put a station closer to me, because I could drive down the 680 to the Amador Valley and board it there, or take the Amtrak to Fremont. Using Pacheco, I would have to take the Amtrak to San Jose or drive to San Francisco, if there will be any parking there, which I doubt. Though it would benefit me personally, I base my objection not on personal convenience, but because a route including skip stops in Fremont, Amador Valley and Tracy would better serve MILLIONS of people. I object to the current buffoonery because if they continue to lead none of us will live to see high speed rail. You appear typical of my claim that those who believe in so much in high speed rail that it hurst do not want to believe the current leaders might not be the best men for the job. Thankfully, that matters not anymore, as the State Senate leaders get it. You want meat, watch the latest hearings in Transportation and Budgets on line. You want a metaphor, watch the Simpsons espisode "Monorail".

Jay Tulock, Vacaville


kelvin.prera@gmail.com
Registered user
Meadow Park
on May 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm
kelvin.prera@gmail.com, Meadow Park
Registered user
on May 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Simitian said the nature of the rail authority has changed over the past few months from a small study group advocating a high-speed rail line to an organization actually building the line. Now is the time to consider changes that would bring more oversight and more community outreach to the process, he said.

"We deferred action in part to ensure that before the funds are authorized for the coming year that we see a stepped-up program for outreach and oversight," Simitian told the Weekly.
--------------------------------
kelvin
[url=http://www.legalx.net] Criminal Attorney [/url]


Allen Edwards
Old Palo Alto
on May 3, 2009 at 7:55 am
Allen Edwards, Old Palo Alto
on May 3, 2009 at 7:55 am

I don't understand why they would want the line to go to SF instead of SJ. There is already an underutilized rail line between the two. Wouldn't a few express trains on the existing system be just fine. Spend the money connecting the existing train to Bart in SF. I think someone took "HS rail between LA and SF" too literally. If you want to run it beyond SJ, how about connecting it to the train in SJ then running it up the bayshore to SFO so you could catch your plane to Hawaii. What I am saying is to connect the thing to the existing systems, don't ignore them.


Spokker
another community
on May 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Spokker, another community
on May 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm

"There is already an underutilized rail line between the two."

I wouldn't exactly call Caltrain under-utilized.


Phil
Fairmeadow
on May 3, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Phil, Fairmeadow
on May 3, 2009 at 7:56 pm

I would like to see the HSR stop in Palo Alto. Let's work for that.


James Hoosac
Green Acres
on May 3, 2009 at 9:00 pm
James Hoosac, Green Acres
on May 3, 2009 at 9:00 pm

This is called "The Empire Strikes Back".


Palo Altan
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Palo Altan, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Dear Jay,
Thank you for your intelligent comment. I wouldn't take "Travis"s message too seriously, he sounds like a troll, not a regular resident.


citizen
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2009 at 10:17 pm
citizen, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Hi Allen,
I brought up that point in previous discussions, too. We have a real problem with dysfunctional transportation in this country in general. Nothing connects up with anything else.

That said, I have been told by reliable sources that the existing rail is limited in its capacity because of all the at-grade crossings. Long-term, we probably need to think of tunneling or other ways to get around the grade crossing limitations anyway. But sacrificing the communities on the peninsula for the sake of point-to-point transportation between to cities (that already have transportation between) is ridiculous, as you point out.


resident
Charleston Meadows
on May 3, 2009 at 10:25 pm
resident, Charleston Meadows
on May 3, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Phil,a resident of Fairmedow ,

Do you want distructive HSR ? Fund the whole project.Start working for that.


THETRUTH
Palo Alto Hills
on May 3, 2009 at 11:01 pm
THETRUTH, Palo Alto Hills
on May 3, 2009 at 11:01 pm

WHY does someone from Vacaville care about what happens in Palo Alto?


NoNIMBYS
Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 10:57 am
NoNIMBYS, Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 10:57 am

This is so typical of people who feel entitled. They perfect projects to death. Some Palo Altans are so NIMBY that they'd destroy a transportation system that benefits the whole state. They're all for environmentalism as long as it doesn't inconvenience them. Calls for greater transparency and other demands are what people use as strategy to kill a project. These efforts are so insincere. If this project was going through another community Palo Altans could care less. Privileged people demand privilege. It must be nice to feel so entitled.


Floyd
Green Acres
on May 4, 2009 at 11:56 am
Floyd, Green Acres
on May 4, 2009 at 11:56 am

I rode the TGV from Paris to Lyon (461km/285 miles) and I don't remember it speeding through residential areas of any town or city.
Maybe I have a poor memory.
Instead of dams now it's high speed rail.


elliegms
Palo Verde
on May 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
elliegms, Palo Verde
on May 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm

The main problem with building the HSR from San Jose to San Francisco is that we already have a usable and well used train system between the two cities. Caltrain is used daily by thousands of people to commute on the peninsula. With the growing popularity of allowing bicycles on the train a great deal of local car use is eliminated, at both ends of the commute. It is ridiculous to spend the enormous amount of money needed to tear up the old tracks and rebuild four new tracks. It would completely eliminate train service for several years,if not longer. This is in addition to all the other drawbacks of tearing up the adjoining streets, trees and residences and having a wall dividing the community. Tunneling would be just as disruptive and also possibly damage our aquifers (remember we are in a serious drought) and almost certainly kill our 300 year heritage redwood tree, El Palo Alto.

It would be much less expensive to use the federal money to upgrade Caltrain with improved tracks and electrification. The work could be done in small increments on the weekend minimizing the disruption.
The electric connection could be on the ground eliminating the need for overhead construction that is obtrusive and blighting to the area. Our remaining at grade crossings could be closed and replace with pedestrian and bicycle overpasses. We already have underground crossings at San Antonio, Oregon, and University avenue. The remaining three, Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill, all are routes traveled by school children. Safe overpasses would encourage more bicycling and walking by both children and adults, giving them healthy exercise and helping to curb the long lines of parents picking up their children in front of the schools.

Our main problem is really not long distance travel but local car traffic. The lines and wait at lights on El Camino and Foothill Expressway at rush hour are enormous. It took me over an hour to get from El Camino and Page Mill to Foothill College at rush hour Anything we can do to help reduce local traffic has a much greater environmental effect than this multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Increasing the utility and quality of
Caltrain would go a long way to helping us achieve better local transportation.

The best thing would be to kill the current plans and start over with a better route for the whole project. Choosing Pacheco Pass over Altamont Pass is probably the worst part of the problem. It was was opposed by all the environmental groups in the state and will cost three or more times as much because of the extensive tunneling required. That it would benefit San Jose, instead of the communities in the central valley which have millions of people that would benefit, is obviously part of the problem with the whole process. I am very happy that our state legislators are looking into the process that resulted in these decisions. Hopefully they can bring some more sense and accountability to the process.


good enough HSR
Midtown
on May 5, 2009 at 8:27 pm
good enough HSR, Midtown
on May 5, 2009 at 8:27 pm

When did the route get changed from Altamont to Pacheco Pass? Altamont seemed like incredibly smart thinking... connect the east bay with jobs on the Peninsula... what happened to that?


Palo Alto Idiots
College Terrace
on May 6, 2009 at 5:17 am
Palo Alto Idiots, College Terrace
on May 6, 2009 at 5:17 am

We need a PRESIDENTIAL ORDER to let the HSR work towards the benefit of the region and get Palo Alto's sticky fingers out of the jar.


Jim H.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jim H., Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Some say the SF to SJ corridor run by Caltrain is underutilized, some say it's well used. Either way, they're running out of money.

Web Link

And the HSR numbers are pie in the sky pipe dreams that will end up costing taxpayers even more money when their ridership numbers fall well below their "plug in a number until it makes a profit" estimates.

So, Caltrain will get money from the state and the feds, HSR will get money from the state and the feds and we'll be left with the most heavily subsidized railroad line in the country, if not, the world. Whatever happened to projects making a profit on their own, without the help of the taxpayers?


Donald
South of Midtown
on May 7, 2009 at 10:49 am
Donald, South of Midtown
on May 7, 2009 at 10:49 am

Jim H,
What transportation system makes a profit on its own without the help of taxpayers? I can't think of one. The airlines wouldn't be able to function if they had to pay for airports, air traffic controllers, etc. Left without taxpayer subsidies they would collapse and/or be so unsafe that most wouldn't want to use them. Shipping companies don't pay for the ports, Cost Guard, etc. Trucking companies don't pay their full share for the roads that they beat to a pulp; you and I subsidize them for that. Why should we expect rail to be any different? Trains have been on the decline in this country for decades because the government reduced train subsidies in favor of roads and airplanes. In the interests of efficiency and environmental impact it would be good to reverse that trend.


member of CMeadows
Charleston Meadows
on May 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm
member of CMeadows, Charleston Meadows
on May 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm

It's not a question of acting like spoiled children, it's a question of supporting a sensible proposal--with sensible fair people in charge of the project. The recommendation of a high speed train system in the middle of a highly populated residential area, isn't a reasonable solution.
For starters, it is over scaled for our city, it can't run as a 100 miles/hour High Speed Train through a residential area anyway. And Just imagine trying to go from downtown PA to MV on Alma in your car with the amount of construction and disruption this project will create for all of us in Palo Alto.



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.