News

Editorial: The war on cars

Palo Alto stays the course on bold paradigm shift on parking and transportation

It's been many years since it became obvious to almost everyone that parking problems and traffic congestion in Palo Alto, fueled by a robust economy and too much new commercial development, required bolder action and stronger leadership by city officials.

This week, the City Council reaffirmed its resolve to do just that and approved two important new measures that will move the ball forward in what is becoming a steady march toward a comprehensive parking and transportation plan for the city.

In approving the city budget for the upcoming fiscal year, the council adopted staff recommendations to greatly increase the cost of employee parking permits for downtown and California Avenue to bring them more in line with the fees charged in other cities and to use the revenue generated to pay for a variety of transit subsidies and other programs to reduce the number of commuters who drive solo to work.

It is the latest element of a multi-pronged set of city initiatives that now includes the construction of two new parking garages (downtown and California Avenue,) four neighborhood parking-permit programs (downtown, Evergreen Park/Mayfield, Southgate and College Terrace) and the fledgling downtown nonprofit Transportation Management Association (TMA) to promote and administer alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commuting. The budget also includes major improvements to the city's bicycle routes.

Later this fall the council is expected to approve a transition to paid street parking in downtown Palo Alto along with the abandonment of the ineffective color zones, with the goal of completely overhauling the current pricing model and shifting all-day parking by employees to where it belongs — in parking garages — and freeing up street parking and most surface lots for short-term shoppers and visitors. By making the garage permit-parking rates cheaper than street parking, employees will naturally migrate to the garages, while street parking for shoppers and customers can turn over frequently without employees competing for those space.

There are a lot of moving pieces and variables to these plans, and policymakers acknowledge the need to treat the measures as experimental and be ready to make adjustments, just as changes were made to the downtown residential parking-permit system after it was initially established in 2015.

We urge residents and employers to defer judgment and withhold criticism about these initiatives.

If thoughtfully and nimbly implemented they hold the best hope of reducing traffic congestion and creating a parking system that puts financial incentives in the right place to benefit all constituencies.

Complaints that residents will be bearing the costs of transit subsidies for employees are misplaced. Funding for the TMA subsidy programs will come almost entirely from the parking-permit fees collected from employees, which in many cases actually comes from their employers.

Employers and their employees, especially those in lower-paid service jobs, have valid concerns that the cost of parking permits will make employee recruitment and retention even more difficult. But with the addition of new parking garages and subsidies for both transit passes and parking permits for lower income workers, it should be possible to limit these impacts while creating a better parking experience for employees and the customers on which business owners depend.

The council-approved budget anticipates about $480,000 in expected downtown parking-permit fee revenues going to support the activities of the new downtown TMA, which will use the money to subsidize train or bus transit passes for lower income workers, organize car pools and conduct outreach to employers. The goal is for these programs to change the commute methods for at least 450 downtown employees this year, representing an estimated 8 percent of those currently commuting solo to jobs in downtown Palo Alto. And that number is expected to grow substantially the following year.

After years of discussion and studies, the city staff and council appear to be getting this new strategy right and are moving carefully and deliberately to implement it.

Of crucial importance will be to provide lower cost permits for service workers and to overhaul the city's administration of the employee permit system. The process for buying permits and the communication with business owners has been awful, and the city must recover quickly from these mistakes.

Setting aside the debate over how much more new commercial or housing development Palo Alto can absorb, there is uniform agreement that transportation management needs to be our top priority. The new parking and trip-reduction measures being implemented are important steps forward.

---

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

Comments

23 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2017 at 8:34 am

I do find it amusing that the Weekly Is telling people to "defer judgment and withhold criticism " after they have spent the last few months attacking the city council ( while true that these actions by the weekly have come in their role as the attack dog for a certain citizen organization, they have appeared as " editorials" ).
So basically it is do as a say not as i do.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2017 at 8:43 am

I think homeowners in Palo Alto have always owned multiple cars. Even when there is only a one car garage and one car width driveway, there have always often been more cars than what can be parked on the driveway. There are a large number of driveway extensions around town (I have been watching them) where often 3 cars can be parked side by side and when this happens by two adjacent neighbors, the amount of street parking is adversely affected by these. Now that we have these huge cans which have to be put on the street instead of the previous stacking crates or just one can as when most of the houses were built, we are getting more and more neighbor disputes about parking. I know of one homeowner who has had to start putting their 3 refuse cans across the street rather than outside their own home because of lack of space.

I know that this is an aside from the editorial, but I do think it is worth bringing up as "Car Wars" is becoming a neighborhood issue.


67 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 30, 2017 at 9:21 am

This is a fake and very insincere "war". Palo Alto keeps allowing commercial development and is pulling out all the stops to enable hyper housing development. This would bring in a massive amount of cars, anytime. This is as absurd as a person setting himself on fire while declaring war on severe bodily burns. This is not a war on cars, over development is a war on livability and quality of life.


49 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Older Guy
a resident of Green Acres
on Jun 30, 2017 at 9:40 am

Palo Altans are now subsidizing commercial property owners without benefits. (Prop 13 protects the property owners) by making their properties more rentable. The fact that they've developed their properties without sufficient parking (shame on City Council) pushed those costs onto Palo Altans by congestion and a reduction in the quality of life. (Contrast who can pay better rent - an art/toy store versus a high tech startup funded by Venture Capital).

The argument that it provides relief to low paid employees is a red herring as well. That means we're subsidizing business operations (which increases the profits of the landlords). In a market economy, if a business needs to hire employees they need to pay a sustainable wage (to include their costs of transportation). And we're keeping the wages down for the day to day workers downtown. Let businesses pay them a greater wage. Why should Palo Alto subsidize commercial businesses. The past City Council's action has destroyed the small and local nature of downtown.

I would say no to any further traffic/parking subsidies until downtown agrees to become a Special Tax District to pay for all the congestion and Traffic Management Program.

Oh wait, I forgot. The majority of City Council was funded by the commercial interests of downtown. Never mind. . .


26 people like this
Posted by Robert Smith
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 30, 2017 at 2:06 pm

The city has done little to provide us with alternatives to cars. They would do far better to work on proactive solutions than to continue to punish us.


23 people like this
Posted by mj
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jun 30, 2017 at 2:20 pm

@Grumpy Older Guy

That's a fast way to put the few remaining small businesses that are still trying to hang on out of business. They can't pay higher wages and keep operating on their razor thin profit margin without pricing themselves out of business. I would support retail and other neighborhood businesses that serve us have free parking passes for their employees, since this cost is being put on them by the pro-development councils who have allowed and encouraged under parked offices, which are now occupied by quadruple the number of office/tech workers they were designed for.

And why is the city even thinking about adding another employee (with the unfunded pension problem) for economic development? Unless companies provide a product to which sales tax can be applied, there is no benefit to the city's budget. The property owner is probably paying almost nothing in property tax given that commercial properties are owned for decades, often for more than one generation, and when they do change hands there are legal ways to get around the property tax reassessment. Prop 13 benefited commercial property owners far more than residential property owners.


34 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 30, 2017 at 2:36 pm

When is the City and the TMA going to provide us -- the resident taxpayers -- with the same free Lyft service they expect us to provide for the commuters via the TMA who outnumber us FOUR to ONE?

Until the City starts recognizing that residents need to visit their medical and personal services people downtown and on Cal Ave and that the employees of those small practices and business ALSO need parking permits, this whole "get out of your car" nonsense is simply a blatant way to force us to subsidize the the commuters who now quadruple our population each workday.

Why are we expected to provide the same Lyft services to our well-compensated city employees under the TMA plan? Let THEM get out of THEIR cars and give up THEIR FREE parking spaces and car allowances and practice what they so hypocritically preach?


36 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 30, 2017 at 5:28 pm

" We urge residents and employers to defer judgment and withhold criticism about these initiatives."

I'd love to, but being a longtime council observer, and given the presence of the Gang Of Five on the council, I cannot.

The scheme is obvious: to noisily promote alleged car-free commutes then, without achieving any actual car usage reduction, front the hype as a real solution in order to justify more underparked commercial developments. Don't forget, the aforementioned deciders owe action in return for payment already received.


54 people like this
Posted by Over populated
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 30, 2017 at 8:28 pm

I love how past and present city councils have allowed developers to abuse and enlarge the zoning, add many thousands of workers and then let them under park their massive developments. Now they are spending city money to build parking garages to park these developments. A huge give away to the developers.

The money paying for parking garages could be paying for services to residents, new parks, new pools, more summer classes for kids, cleaner sideways or any number of city improvements. Instead we get to spend $50 million building parking so that more people can poor into the city and degrade the quality of life here even more.

Remember to vote for anti-growth candidates next election. We are full and over populated.


44 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:57 am

Exactly right. Palo Alto is full and overpopulated. No scheme that would increase the overpopulation and what it creates::parking problems and further degradation of livability should be approved. This can be achieved only by replacing all pro development CC members by anti growth members.


39 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 8:35 am

@Over Populated,
Why not start a recall of those Councilmembers? All the ones who campaigned on being moderate on growth, while loaning themselves money to avoid disclosing that they were ultimately funded in large part by big development? And don't forget the one who claimed twice during elections to be turning over a new leaf only to go back to Build Baby Build once elected?

I'm not sure how this editorial can claim the public isn't paying. Who is paying for the parking garages? Who is paying with the transformation of a city center built with public money turned into an office park? Who is paying with the loss of both longtime retail centers being destroyed? Who is paying with the loss of time sitting in traffic and not being able to get places to do business, go to CC, and enjoy the area? Who is paying for the overtaxed infrastructure, over full schools, and pollution? Who is paying for the emergency services that won't be adequate for residents because of the office population every day?

A paradigm shift comes from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of a Scientific Revolution, and described when everything changes cause because of some major problem that is solved so fundamentally that it changes everything about how things are done and thought. the situation we are in, in which there are incremental changes using e siting knowledge or solutions, at great expense of effort or debate or money, etc, characterizes the end stages of an existing paradigm. A monumental shift in policy from a City serving residents to serving businesses while making the public pay for it isn't really a paradigm shift, anymore than a squatter taking over someone's home is. A paradigm shift might be businesses making a practice of collaboratively moving together to dilapidated towns and re-energizing America from the ground up whenever things get overcrowded rather than pushing for overdevelopment, buying politicians, which is the way of the world now,

No, paradigm shift isn't really the right term. I think you were looking for "bait and switch".


16 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:42 am

Okay Joe, start a recall. We have been hearing about starting a recall since day one of the new council. Yet I havent seen one petition yet. Bottom line is that these councilmemners were elected by the people and the overwhelming majority of residents support them. The minority that posts about recalls. With the encouragement of the Weekly do not represent the voters.


35 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:44 am

Thank you @Joe Public, well said. You make many excellent points, one of which I'll repeat here for emphasis:

"A paradigm shift might be businesses making a practice of collaboratively moving together to dilapidated towns and re-energizing America from the ground up whenever things get overcrowded rather than pushing for overdevelopment, buying politicians, which is the way of the world now,"

Here in the Bay Area we're all suffering mightily from the consequences of far more growth than the region can support, while many areas of this country are equally suffering from just the opposite. Let's restore a little balance and _everyone_ benefits.


33 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 11:18 am

The "war on cars" is just an attempt to re-brand the same old economic warfare the real-estate industry has been waging on Palo Alto residents for several decades now.

Why would the Palo Alto City Council wage war on the one mode of transportation >99% of all residents depend on for their daily transportation needs? What kind of "war on cars" would spend $100M building two giant parking structures for cars?


43 people like this
Posted by Another PA Grandma
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 11:40 am

The only way to get control of the cars/traffic/parking is to stop allowing commercial development. Full Stop. The Council proposal shifts the burden of parking costs from developers and commercial to Palo Alto residents and the people working in Palo Alto, particularly downtown. And if there is a recall of the council members who support our almost unbridled development, I will join it.


36 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 1, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Slight topic swerve, but in the city's never-ending quest for revenue and hyper-development it's penalizing residents in many many ways besides parking meters, parking permits, building parking garages and TMA services for commuters and PA CITY Employees-- not for us -- including LYFT, public transit and and carpooling

Residents routinely beg for neighbors' help in housing friends and family because they can't afford the high hotel/motel rates for more than a few days. (Normal motels run $300+ a night!) We see the RVs for Stanford patients/families and construction workers. The city generates about 15% of its revenue through the hotel/transient tax and hence is rushing to build more and more hotels that are often under-parked and contribute to our gridlock.

We're told to stay out of our cars which means we can't visit friends across town or get anywhere in a timely fashion. We're being soaked for new sales taxes, gas taxes, ever-increasing utility rates (and user fees, surcharges, local use fees, etc.) We're told to sacrifice our privacy in the rush to build ADUs that won't make a dent in the "affordability" problem because there are no rent limits.

The city still continues to take in lieu payments for developers who continue to under-park their developments. But do WE ever get anything in return for these in lieu payments besides more congestion?

Enough.


31 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 3:01 pm

@Shame,
If you recall, the Councilmembers to whom you refer expressed great outrage during the election at being described as development centric, even lambasting opponents for saying so, and hid the true nature of their donations from voters. Kniss even admitted publicly in a Weekly story that she did this because people don't like developers. For you to now say that gives them a mandate to over develop is like the current administration claiming their "landslide" gives them a mandate despite their party having been put into power by a minority of voters and the fewer votes of the top two.

Lots of people are ready to help with a recall, the hard thing is finding leaders to start it, If you are willing to help, go to neighborhood leaders like Bob Moss, Enid Pearson, PASZ, others who know what to do and can offer advice. Once things are rolling, theire will be many to join. I can't be that leader now. To people who have suggested you would help, please consider being the one to get the ball rolling, you can get help.


3 people like this
Posted by It is SO True
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2017 at 3:11 pm

[Post removed.]


35 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm

When Trump was still just a real-estate developer he (and his extended family) made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation and to Chuck Schumer, but you don't have to go to Washington to find politicians corrupted by developer money, nor is it limited to Palo Alto.

Many of Mountain View's city council members were also funded by developer money. Marc Berman raised $3M for his state assembly race mostly from developers. Diane Feinstein's husband is a billionaire real-estate developer. Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul owns and operates a real-estate investment company.

Why do developers contribute so heavily to local political campaigns? Because they have the most to gain.


7 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 1, 2017 at 4:16 pm

Joe - they were elected overwhelmingly. The voters had enough of two years of pasz talk -i.e. against any and all development. I made non claim about any mandates. And the majority of those that voted, voted for them. So your claims about a minority of voters and fewer votes is irrelevant.
And of course you cannot head a recall. All the recall talk is from a few People one TSF. There is no consensus or desire from the public to waste money on a recall. Just to make sure you understand, i am against a recall. I support the current majority one the council. This recall talk has been one the weekly since day one.


10 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:05 pm

"When Trump was still just a real-estate developer he (and his extended family) made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation..."

Relax. It's not Trump's own money. He solicits contributions to the Trump Foundation, then passes on the $$$ to his beneficiaries as his own.


17 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:37 pm

The other paper reported that 3 of the "residentialist / slow growth" CC members Kuo, Hollman and Dubois are looking at ways just short of rent control to rein in the ever-increasing rents to help out our large population of renters.

Given how hard the "fast-growth / developer-friendly" candidates pushed to rush through the ADUs with no limits on rents or occupancy or other provisions to ensure the "affordability" angle they kept preaching during their campaign(s), it will be interesting to see how they come out on affordability and renter protections.

Will they support renter protections at the expense of their developer backers? Will they do anything to moderate the ever-growing jobs/housing imbalance which is now 4:1 and which of course increases competition for housing and of course rents.


27 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:45 pm

@Shame on them says " The voters had enough of two years of pasz talk."

Yea, too bad PASZ isn't so well funded and/or well-staffed as PAF and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce which endorses the hyper-development candidates in what was called politely "an unprecedented" move. Too bad PASZ doesn't give lobbying lessons, create mass-mailing for its acolytes and have big-company backers, too.

As A PA taxpayer, I wonder why I'm paying so CoC gets subsidized rents from the city while failing to support the needs of small business services companies and medical practices while expecting US to pay for the commuting and parking expenses of city employees and big-company commuters.

Well, not really. Money talks and WE the residents. taxpayers and Middle Class pay.


6 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 1, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Online name-pasz did quite well in 2014. I did not hear you complain then about funding and lobbying. After two years of holman et al. No to everything, the voters decided a change was needed. Always easier to blame others for your failures instead of looking at the real cause.


45 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2017 at 1:40 am

@Shame
They did not "win overwhelmingly". Adrian Fine barely squeaked by Kou with less than half a percentage point more votes. Tanaka was only a percent more than Kou, and Keller was not far behind Kou. It was an extremely close race. The only one who pulled ahead was Kniss, and she has the longest history as a politician and strong roots in the Democratic Party, so that's not a surprise. She also got Bob Moss's endorsement (he had her sign in his yard) and actively avoided her true hyperdevelopment inclination during the election.
Web Link

All of the hyperdevelopment candidates did that, walk back on and deny their true positions on development during the election. They lambasted Kou and Keller for pointing out their ties to development, even while, as we all found out only after the election, they were all actively hiding major amounts of developer donations so they didn't have to disclose them to voters. Given how very close the race was, what would have happened had all three owned up to their true inclinations and disclosed the developer cash?

Above you claimed that an "overwhelming" majority of residents support them, but they hid their true leanings during the election, and even then only each got around 10,000 votes give or take, hardly a "majority" of the town. (When .I was speaking of minority vote before, I was speaking of the federal administration. The last two Republicans to take office did not get the most votes and did not win by a majority of the country - but you are right, that point was just an aside.). I see no evidence that a majority of residents support the overdevelopment policiesor or even those Councilmembers. Just as with the current federal administration, winning an election is not the same as overwhelming support, particularly locally where it was such a squeaker and the winners aggressively disclaimed their developer ties and hid the donations from disclosure. To claim now that the public support the hyperdevelopment agenda is just more deceitful manipulation.

The calls for recall have mainly stemmed from the disclosure, after the election, that Kniss, Fine, and Tanaka had all taken a significant portion of their donations from major development interests despit claiming otherwise during the election, and loaned themselves money then paid themselves back later with the development money when they no longer had to risk disclosing before the election. This thwarted the intent of election disclosure. A recall would give residents a chance to weigh in with accurate disclosure. The rules only allow recall after six months, so there is nothing to be concluded from the fact that people are talking about it now.

I have led major civic change in my life, so I'm not sure why the snide comment about my not being able to lead this time. It's just a statement of fact. To the many people who have spoken of recall: look again to the next election. The number of Councilmembers drops. This has been engineered as a development takeover. If you don't want this, and the consequences to our City for decades or fordvet,you must take a recall seriously. If you think you are able to participate but can't lead, try to locate someone who could be convinced to lead. When I haven't been able to lead, sometimes I've done that and been very successful. These kinds of things take leadership to get the ball rolling, but then it gets easier. The residents at Maybell were told they were just a few isolated cranks and no one agreed - no one listened until they won against huge headwinds. The people who got the ball rolling were just ordinary people, who got help from civic leaders.

All over town, people are tired of the assault on quality of life. I will certainly help, too, if someone does start, but that's the key, finding someone to start the ball rolling.



42 people like this
Posted by Dogfooding / Dog's Breakfast
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 2:00 am

Thank you, Joe Public. Excellent post.

Don't forget their well-organized and nasty attacks on anyone who disagreed with them, their repetition of Kate Downing's ridiculous lies that PA was trying to ban tech companies when in fact the former mayor noted that billion-dollar companies like Palantir were displacing the small startups that made the valley great and their perpetuating Downing's claim through their "symbolic" legislation to make PA safe for technology companies.

How long will they continue to perpetuate these lies? How long will they continue to skirt the issues while continuing their personal attacks?

How long will they continue to allow in lieu payments and other payoffs to let the developers off the hook? How long will they refuse to make businesses pay their fair share? (For Edgewood where the developer still owes half its fines, how about standing up and saying no more building permits in PA until you pay up and honor your commitments.)

Sure sounds like PA's climate in becoming like Washington, DC. Gee, I wonder why that could be.


27 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 2, 2017 at 8:07 am

mauricio is a registered user.

The claim that the hyper growth candidates won overwhelmingly is just as deceitful and ludicrous as Trump's claim that he had won by a landslide.


17 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2017 at 9:47 am

@mauricio,
You make such insightful comments defending quality of life - would you be willing to start a recall? Meaning, put together the process, paperwork, and find the local volunteers who would then take it forward once the ball got started? Or would you be willing to ask around for someone to start the process? The key thing is to be able to describe the urgency to someone else who might be willing to do that if you vpvan't, and you do that quite well. Although, your writing is compelling enough, I would hope you would write it.


12 people like this
Posted by Pat Burt
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 10:47 am

The title of the editorial is a bit of a misnomer.
First, the problem is primarily traffic congestion, not cars. The city is not and should not treat car drivers as the enemy in a battle. Instead, we should strongly support convenient alternatives and incentives to car travel for commuters and residents. For example, my wife Sally and I prefer to ride to downtown and most everywhere in the city. It's fast, very easy parking and we get our exercise rather than driving to a gym to sit on an exercise bike, but that's not for everyone. Second, what the city is waging is more of a skirmish than a war. Last year the city council requested the downtown TMA to come up with a plan and cost to meet the adopted city goal of reducing single occupancy vehicle trips in the downtown (SOV's) by 30%. This reduction would solve both the parking problem and greatly reduce congestion, helping residents and merchants. They came back with a good plan at a cost of $1.4 million per year. We also requested an estimate for the cost of the same goal for the greater downtown area, including SOFA and along Middlefield downtown. That cost is probably around $2M. The city council just approved allocating the additional revenue from worker permits, around a quarter of the funds needed. A good start but well short of what's needed to achieve the goal. at the same time, the city is spending tens of millions of dollars on a new downtown garage.
Cal Ave permit prices were also increased drastically, but these funds are going exclusively to a large new parking garage. The city has no program and no funding to reduce the worker car trips to Cal Ave while large new offices are being built which will compound the problem.
Last year the city council voted unanimously to create a stakeholder group to pursue a business license tax devoted to funding local transportation needs. This year the council majority at the behest of the mayor has abandoned that approach and have made it very unlikely that the measure will make it onto the 2018 ballot.
Our traffic and parking problems are solvable, but we need to apply the right funding and programs and those funds should come from those who are doing the most to create the problem and benefiting from it the most.


24 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 2, 2017 at 10:59 am

@Joe Public: although I still own a house in Palo Alto and spend about two weekends per month in it, my main residence is now in rural Monterey County. I just refuse to live in the depressing mess Palo Alto has become due to hyper development, overpopulation and the total capitulation, and worse, by city politicians to the land development industry. I would gladly support a recall effort financially. I'd be willing to contribute up to $25,000 toward that goal.


5 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 11:07 am

Well, maurucio. In 2014 when the pasz, anti - everything candidates won. The mauruciois on TSF were claiming that this was a landslide for their side. Now info 2016, the sensible growth candidates won. They elected 3 members. These 3 for more virtues then the other candidates. It wad a landslide. Trump. On the other hand, got less votes than Clinton, so mauruciois claim is deceitful and ludicrous. Joe/ maurucio- I look forward to you starting the recall effort. It would be nice to see people actually
Follow up on their rhetoric on this forum


17 people like this
Posted by Extended Family
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2017 at 12:24 pm

Many houses, even new ones, have been built with 4-6 bedrooms and even more bathrooms, but have only a one-car garage!

Considering that most families have 2-3, and that blended, extended and three-generation families usually have 3-6 cars, families are forced to park on the street and in the driveway!

Why on earth would a builder build a huge house with a small garage??? Why on earth would a large family buy one??


17 people like this
Posted by Builders/developers
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm

@extended,
Home builders/spec developers follow the minimum required so are building these preposterously tiny one car garages. Only if one has a Smart Car -- and only one vehicle -- (very few around here!) could one use this garage. So of course our streets are being cluttered by our new residents' vehicles. It is tiresome and increasingly an eyesore - some of my neighbors for some reason feel the need to own more vehicles than the number of drivers in the family. Philosophy at odd with our city leaders ("walk or bike everywhere.")
Meanwhile, they (home builders) usually max out the lot in terms of square footage of the residence. It's called profits (spec building). It's all a game, really.


13 people like this
Posted by Dogfooding / Dog's Breakfast
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 1:47 pm

@Extended Family and Builders/Developer, good points.

Maybe our city employees and consultant and commissions involved with transportation/planning could coordinate with the parking/planning and building/planning folks and the utilities/ZerpWaste folks whose cans also take up parking spaces. And of course the transportation/bike lobby/infrastructure folks.

Maybe our ever-vigilant bureaucrats could take a look at the building codes since they care so much about other silly and costly codes that make PA's construction costs the highest in the region. Smart cities like Cupertino let developers file their plans electronically so ALL relevant planners and bureaucrats get copies saving time and hassle.

Maybe our hyper-growth tax-and-spend CC members and commissioners could address this as quickly as they pushed through ADUs.


28 people like this
Posted by Dogfooding / Dog's Breakfast
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 2:00 pm

@Shame, "pasz, anti - everything candidates." Anti-everything?

Like quality of life? Like serving residents as well as developers and big business instead of making residents support them with OUR tax $$$ while refusing to enact a business tax?

By the way, has anyone else ever gotten a mailing from the all-powerful PASZ?

I sure haven't. But I could wallpaper a few rooms with all the mailings from the well-funded hyper-growth candidates who refused to enact a business tax or bar in lieu payments from developers who continue to under-park.


5 people like this
Posted by shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Pasz dogfood- how convenient that you forget the attack pieces sent out by pasz acolytes Keller and kuo during the last election cycle.
The rest of your post Is the typical "if we repeat it enough it becomes true " propoganda put out by pasz, their council members, the weekly and a few unhappy posters one this forum.
Btw, dog food, how Is the recall coming along?


29 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 2, 2017 at 5:37 pm

@shame, if you mean the SINGLE mailer from Kuo and Keller, they were entirely right about their opponents' stances re development and its impact on transportation and parking and quality of life. I don't recall it being funded by PASZ but maybe it was or mentioned PASZ's endorsement.

I do remember MANY slick mailers for the pro-development candidates listing endorsements from SO MANY developers, real estate lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce and, allegedly, the Democratic Party they had to list them in multiple columns. You get what you pay for.

Why pick on the Weekly? It endorsed half pro-growth candidates and half "residentialist/ quality of life" candidates?? Yes, a few of its editorials condemned the current city council because that's what editorials do.

You do know the difference between editorials and reportage? Or maybe you're looking for a job in DC? I hear Palantir and the CoC have great contacts there.

Re a recall, we all know that PASZ and/or individuals lack the resources and well-funded platforms like PAF's. But we don't have to like, respect or accept the dishonest smears and attack-dog politics, giveaways to their backers and refusal to address the ISSUES any more that we have to like or respect what's going on in DC.

But thanks for cherrypicking.


18 people like this
Posted by no way
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2017 at 7:21 pm

As for the Council election results, highly touted in some posts here, keep in mind,a cloud hangs over these results. The IT Director of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters abruptly resigned on election eve and the County Registrar of Voters is currently under a State audit. The Council should have called for recounts in some precincts in Palo
Alto in both 2014 and 2016 but it never happened.

Our traffic and parking problems are getting worse
by the day - huge projects like the Stanford Med
Center are not even online yet, as well as Downtown office buildings. There is simply no transportation
infrastructure to support this level of development
and the consequences are disastrous. Call it like it is.




20 people like this
Posted by I LOVE cars
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2017 at 12:25 am

When did it become an unquestioned, foregone conclusion that cars are necessarily bad? Isn't it the #1 form of transportation and the catalyst to the advancement of our modern Western economy quality of life?

I refuse to take part in this "War on Cars". I LOVE cars and will never, ever stop driving.

How about a War on Collective Groupthink


11 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2017 at 3:49 am

@mauricio,
That is a very generous and helpful offer. How do I get in touch with you?


20 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2017 at 8:14 am

@LOVE Cars,
The behavior of Council could better be described as a War on Infrastructure, a War on Holistic Thinking, or just a War on Good Sense in Favor of Short Term Interests. They give lip service to getting people out of cars, but leave the walking infrastructure so neglected, it's impossible and unpleasant to use the sidewalks in this town in any way except single file obstacle course style. I bought into the Arastradero changes because it promised to make things better for pedestrians and lo and behold they did nothing to improve the sidewalk rhroughways and admitted as much.

The worse thing about the way things are being developed is they preclude solutions that are in the offing with new technology by throttling down the transportation arteries in ways that are basically impossible to undo, so that we won't be able to take advatage of new technology or even make truly separate bikeways that most people want when they are talking about safety being the reason they don't bike. No exoensive management will ever get everyone out of cars here, but destroying the infrastructure could mean we always have a huge hit to produtivity and quality of life no matter what.

Any "management" plan that requires so much money to keep it going is no solution. The public should not be paying for any of this, Council should get it from their developer friends or their pet project genie.

Mauricio, your offer could be most helpful for convincing someeone who might lead - seriously, how do I connect to discuss details? Does anyone in the community that I might inow, know that you are mauricio so that we have a trusted intermediary?


10 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 11:26 am

Joe, once I'm convinced there is a serious recall effort, I will pitch in, generously so, despite living most of the time now about a 100 miles to the South. I've heard too many times the word recall mentioned without any actual action taking place.

Additionally, I will not support any future candidate who doesn't pledge to never accept one cent from developers and support withdrawing Palo Alto from ABAG.


13 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

@Mauricio, absolutely. ABAG is corrupt; one of their financial guys embezzled $%M. In the last election I used PA's ABAG participation as my litmus test for candidates and based on that, withdrew my support for Corey Wollbach early on. .

I too would love to meet you the next time you're up here. Maybe we can set a time to meet at Peet's or somewhere?

@Dogfooding, excellent idea. High time for city employees, commissioners, CC members and MTA to practice what they preach. Let them give up their free parking spaces and get out of their cars first before demanding that WE pay THEIR commuting expenses.


2 people like this
Posted by R. Winslow
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2017 at 12:26 pm

More cars = more parking ticket revenues for PA. The only other alternative would be to offer a shuttle service.

Palo Alto is getting way too gentrified with all of its petty rules and ordinances.


10 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 1:09 pm

@R, Winslow, PA DOES offer a shuttle service such that it is. It's why we got stuck paying an added sales tax for VTA bus services we don't get BECAUSE the shuttle allegedly duplicates the bus service. Double whammy.

I do agree about the "petty rules and ordinances" that are often mutually exclusive hence Dogfooding's point that our bureaucrats should try practicing what they preach before imposing more of them.


3 people like this
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Jul 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm

The residentialists don't know how to fix anything. Their cluelessness is what put Palo Alto 10 years behind in dealing with issues. The current city council is dealing with the bad hand dealt by the lack of foresight by the previous residentialists on the city council.

Saying NO to everytihing is not a sustainable policy.


18 people like this
Posted by Paid Parking Hurts Retail & Residents
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 3, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Residents continue to pay for the city council and staff's parking exemptions given to downtown property owners and their developers. The paid parking for folks to shop and eat downtown will hurt local businesses as well.


26 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2017 at 1:59 pm

@Online Name,

In your earlier post, why did you say the pro-development candidates were "allegedly" endorsed by the Democratic Party?

Liz Kniss was was endorsed by every Democrat imaginable. Even Fine, Tanaka, and McDougall (the forgotten developmentalist) were endorsed by Joe Simitian (d), Anna Eshoo (d), Jerry Hill (d), and Rich Gorden (d). Tanaka's list of Democratic Party endorsers is too long to re-post here and included the Democratic Party itself.

What most Palo Alto residents do not seem to understand is pro-development/urbanization is not a movement indigenous to Palo Alto. Urbanization of the Peninsula between highways 101 and 280 is the policy of the local Democratic Party, and is supported by a whole host of democrat-leaning organizations like the local Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the NRDC, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Friends of CalTrain, ABAG, and a whole host of other regional YIMBY organizations.

Kniss, Scharf, Wolbach, Fine and Tanaka are not the generals who authored the regional urbanization policy, they just ambitious sergeants and lieutenants who have been given the opportunity to prove themselves by implementing the broader policy on the provincial level. If These sergeants and lieutenants prove themselves to be loyal and a least a somewhat capable, their ambition to advance through the ranks will be supported by the local Democratic Party and large campaign contributions from wealthy real-estate developers.


26 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 2:57 pm

@chris, you got it all wrong. All the problems the current CC is dealing with were caused by the various pro development members, past and present. Now that the CC has a hyper development majority, which means the problems will increase at an ever accelerating rate.


20 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm

@Ahem, I said "allegedly" because the mailer implied that it had been paid for BY the Democratic Party. Apologies for using the wrong word. Since the local Democratic Party endorses this type of over-development, it simply makes me and lots of others less likely to contribute to them at a time when they need all the help they can get on a national level.

True, the candidates didn't author the hyper-growth policies but they can oppose them like other nearby communities have by refusing to abide by ABAG's "guidelines." More importantly, they can stop pushing for ever-higher rates of jobs/housing imbalances while hypocritically claiming to support "affordability" but not subjecting their pet ADUs to any rent or occupancy limits.

It will be interesting to see who supports the Kuo/Hollman/DuBois affordability plan.


29 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm

The Democratic Party may be a better alternative to Trump, but they are no friend to Palo Alto.


18 people like this
Posted by R. Winslow
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2017 at 7:00 pm

> Kniss, Scharf, Wolbach, Fine and Tanaka are not the generals who authored the regional urbanization policy, they just ambitious sergeants and lieutenants who have been given the opportunity to prove themselves by implementing the broader policy on the provincial level. If These sergeants and lieutenants prove themselves to be loyal and a least a somewhat capable, their ambition to advance through the ranks will be supported by the local Democratic Party and large campaign contributions from wealthy real-estate developers.

Good Lord. You mean we're going to have to tolerate/stomach these self-serving political aspirants as they ascend to even higher levels of public office?

Whatever happened to the independent candidates? You know, the ones who didn't 'sell-out' based on an inherent sense of integrity and principles?


6 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2017 at 7:04 pm

@Joe Public, @mauricio, @Online Name - perhaps the Town Square might be willing to help you connect. You could each use the "Email Town Square Moderator" feature to send your contact info and request it be shared with the others. The mod could simply send an email to all of you.

(Yes I live in a different city, but I care about the entire region.)


11 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2017 at 7:05 pm

Marie is a registered user.

Permit prices increased for private employers. For employees of the City of Palo Alto, the increase is $0 and their cost for parking permits is still $0, unless other employees have a different deal than the SEIU which is highly unlikely.

FREE PARKING FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO EMPLOYEES:

The Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the SEIU as of 4/16/2016 covering 2015-2018:

Web Link

Article XVI starting on P. 51 addresses Commuter incentives and Parking: "Free parking permits are provided to all civic center employees."

I assume the other 7 labor agreements are no less generous and probably far more generous in some cases (car allowances and so forth). While there are some incentives to carpool or bike or walk, none required giving up single cars. Employees get approximately $20-$30 per month for carpooling biking or walking to work 60% a time. How they enforce that would be interesting to know. It would be even more interesting to know how many employees give up their cars 60% of the time, which the city must know based on their payouts of the incentives.

When the city employees and city council members pay for their parking downtown, then I will know the city is getting serious.


9 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 3, 2017 at 7:17 pm

@Anke, brilliant suggestion. I wrote to the moderator and will let you know his/her response.

@Marie, interesting. Thanks.

They could still VOLUNTARILY set examples for the rest of us, esp. the folks from the Transportation and Planning Depts. Nowhere does it say we also have to pay their commuting expenses via the MTA plan just which just adds insult to injury.

Maybe our City Council members and the various commissioners, esp. those running the MTA will step up to the plate and set an example..


9 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2017 at 7:32 pm

@Online Name, glad to hear you found my suggestion helpful, and thank you for your contributions. Palo Alto used to be a leader in city planning and the envy of the Peninsula. For example, it was the first city to introduce bike lanes and bike trails back in the day.


17 people like this
Posted by no way
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2017 at 8:47 pm

The Palo Alto City government is out of control and is causing substantial harm in terms of safety, quality of life,etc. The first step should be to obtain a court injunction against the City for the immediate removal of the street bollards and elimination of lane reductions at Jordan School which constitute a significant danger to the public and a permanent injunction against any such further actions by the City without approval of an appointed citizen committee with oversight authority.


9 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2017 at 10:37 am

@mauricio,
My experience with these things is that the key is the person or persons willing to start the ball rolling. Your offer could make the difference to finding that person and that's not just a general statement. Getting the help downstream, as you are offering, is a lot easier. You can make a big difference here. Pick someone you trust, who has been civically active, who can vouch for you, and if I know them and they could vouch for me, we could connect - your offer will be the seed to get things rolling. Having the funding up front to get a recall vetted legally, and provide for other costs up front will make it easier for volunteers who would start the ball rolling. You are right, people are just rmbling about it, but this is what always happens, and is a precursor to action. But some individual has to decide that nothing will get done unless they stop waiting for someone ekse to do it and takes responsibility to do it themselves. Your offer could make the difference to people I know who could start the ball rollong. I can't be that person, but I am willing to help find the person who will.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2017 at 12:24 pm

It would be interesting to know how much of the traffic is caused by Uber and Lyft drivers circling while waiting for their next ride.


12 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 4, 2017 at 12:50 pm

@Resident, good question. As I posted in another traffic topic, from yesterday's SF Chronicle, they ended up with an extra 282,000 trips a day and are now considering adding an additional tax for all rides. (That's on top of all the ticket revenue they're getting from all the new bike lanes that the GPS's haven't caught up with yet.)


SF’s traffic planners weren’t expecting rise of Uber, Lyft

Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Here's an update on Anke's brilliant earlier post:

---@Joe Public, @mauricio, @Online Name - perhaps the Town Square might be willing to help you connect. You could each use the "Email Town Square Moderator" feature to send your contact info and request it be shared with the others. The mod could simply send an email to all of you.

I just learned we can indeed connect with each other and see who's behind our screen names. Sort of like a Facebook "friend" request to share email addresses that you can accept or decline.

Neat!


8 people like this
Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2017 at 10:09 am

@Online Name
I would only connect through a trusted intermediary. I see Maricio is from Barron Park - Bob Moss, Lydia Kou (though we would not want tp put her in a difficult spot, so maybe not through her), Doug Moran. Know me.


4 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 6, 2017 at 10:17 am

Online name - one the 3rd tot said yippy write to the moderator. Did help not respond?
Today you basically compliment anke again. and you accidentally include yourself in the list of people that should contact the moderator. so did you contact the moderator? Did you forget which identity you ate posting under?
They're is little real demand for a recall.
And I can put two and two together about able, online name , joe public and maurucio.


2 people like this
Posted by Shame on them
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 6, 2017 at 10:21 am

First part of above should read;" one the 3rd you said that you contacted the moderator. Did he not respond? "


10 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 6, 2017 at 11:11 am

@Joe Public, I'm pretty sure Mauricio is from Embarcadero Oaks/ Leland Manor. Scroll up and you'll see.

@Shame, I'm confused by your question. Let me try again. I contacted the moderator a few days ago and several days later got a response from the Weekly saying they'd be glad to facilitate the email sharing if people wanted to share. The TS Moderator is presumably the "trusted intermediary" mentioned by Joe Public.

I copied Anke's post to remind people of our discussion and the instructions.

@Joe Public, the TS Moderator is presumably the "trusted intermediary."


9 people like this
Posted by Polli S.
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 7, 2017 at 1:35 pm

I support the recall but then what?

As long as the same corrupt developer/democrat urbanization enterprise in still in place, won't the enterprise just find another ambitious Wolbach, Fine, or Tanaka to to shower with campaign funds and endorsements? The Council majority has already seeded important commissions with PAF aspirants and if they are really desperate there are several flexible ex-mayors waiting in the wings.

Palo Altans are mostly technically sophisticated but politically naive low-information voters that feel satisfied they have fulfilled their civic duty by transcribing the names of candidates endorsed by Democratic Party, the Weekly, or the Sierra Club, onto their ballot.


9 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 7, 2017 at 4:05 pm

I too support the recall but realize that it's likely to be too expensive for mere individuals to execute. TBD.

Maybe Mauricio's $25,000 pledge could be channeled toward the next election to offset all the big-money donations likely to pour in for the incumbents?

I totally agree with the rest of your post, especially your last paragraph. How people can keep buying the argument that pushing for more jobs and offices helps housing affordability defies logic.

It's critical to get people to pay attention for the next election when the council makeup will shrink by 2 seats thanks to former Mayor Shepherd's cynical lame duck move to ensure a hyper-development majority forever.


8 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 7, 2017 at 4:14 pm

PS: Scanning up to review comments here, the email sharing could also be used to 1) Draft Mauricio to run for office ;-> , 2) followup on Another PA Grandma's idea to declare a moratorium on commercial development via a petition, 3) organize complaints to City Hall re common problems like Utility rate hikes and the fact that we're STILL paying a $25 drought surcharge even though the drought was officially over in Feb,

Opportunities abound.


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2017 at 9:01 am

Hopefully the three of you can get some traction. Thank you.

But to get back to the CarWars issue, I think traffic is marginly better now that school is out, but I made the mistake of attempting to use Arastradero/Charleston mid morning on a week day this week and it was still a very slow drive requiring stops at all lights. This should not be happening at what is a non-commute time.

I feel that at non-commute times the lights are on demand for side street traffic entering arterials rather than sequencing the arterials to have green lights for traffic moving at the limit.

Traffic lights should be there for the purpose of traffic flow rather than traffic slowdowns. In countries that use roundabouts rather than endless series of lights, traffic flow is much faster in both heavy traffic but also in lighter traffic as through traffic slows down but doesn't always have to stop. Our traffic lights appear to impede efficient traffic flow by design rather than anything else.


2 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 9, 2017 at 12:37 pm

@Online Name, @Joe Public, @mauricio -

This post from a different thread might be of interest:

"Posted by Zoya
a resident of Barron Park
PNQLnow.org is fighting hard, very, very hard to rid city council of corrupt figures who vote with their personal future opportunities in mind, Tanaka and Schaffer recuse yourselves as you care not about the people of this town. We all need to stand together to protect Palo Alto Neighborhood Quality of life. PNQLnow.org"

Web Link


@Resident, I too am a fan of roundabouts, for the reasons you mention. Unfortunately, building them after the fact usually ends up opening a huge can of worms because they require considerably more space than a regular intersection, which means encroaching on existing property.


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 9, 2017 at 5:33 pm

^ "... which means encroaching on existing property."

A good case for not developing the corner VTA lot at El Camino and Page Mill.
How many fans would support a big roundabout at that bottleneck?


2 people like this
Posted by Love roundabouts
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2017 at 6:10 pm

I love roundabouts! they really work! You slow down to check whether any cars are approaching and who might have the right of way, but most often you move right through, slowing but not stopping. It feels safe as well.

For the corner of PageMill and ElCamino, wow, wouldn't that be great.


4 people like this
Posted by $350K Flowerpots
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Roundabouts are just great if you like spending $100K+ for each flowerpot in the middle of streets. To put one @Page Mill & El Camino would probably cost more than $350 since it's not a city street and would be great if you like playing bumper cars.

Have you ever watched an ambulance trying to get through that intersection? No one yields and the ambulances often have to go down the wrong side of the road.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2017 at 7:47 am

In the UK roundabouts come in all shapes and sizes. Some are huge and some are little more than painted raised humps that take no extra space as cars can roll a wheel over them.

Many intersections around here would work well with roundabouts.


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

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,124 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 1,928 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,467 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,276 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,009 views