News

New parking restrictions in Old Palo Alto seek to redirect Caltrain commuters

Council approves Residential Preferential Parking program, with permits only available to residents

In a bid to drive Caltrain commuters out of Old Palo Alto's residential streets, the City Council approved on Monday a new permit program that will limit all-day parking to those who live in the neighborhood.

The City Council swiftly and unanimously approved a proposal to add the neighborhood just east of the California Avenue underpass to the city's expanding list of Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts. Once the program takes effect, only cars displaying RPP permits will be able to park on residential streets for more than two hours. And unlike in similar programs in downtown and Evergreen Park, permits in Old Palo Alto will only be sold to residents.

The new district would be roughly bounded by Alma Street on the west and Bryant Street on the east, between Washington Avenue and Oregon Avenue. Several blocks just north of the proposed district, along Santa Rita Avenue and between Santa Rita and Washington, would become eligible to quickly enter the RPP district once traffic spills over to their blocks.

For the residents, the district represents a solution to a problem they have long complained about: Caltrain commuters who use their residential blocks for free, all-day parking. Earlier this year, they made their case to both the council, which signaled early support for the RPP, and to the Planning and Transportation Commission, which voted in August to prioritize Old Palo Alto over other areas that have asked for parking restrictions.

The program will require residents in the district to pay $50 for residential permits and allow them to buy up to five permits. And even though some aren't thrilled about having to pay to park in front of their homes, the vast majority strongly support creating the new restrictions. Of the 55 households that responded to city surveys, 49 said they support the new RPP — an approval rate of 89%.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Anne Protter, who lives on the block where parking-occupancy levels are around 100% during peak hours, said cars arrive at her block at about 7 a.m. and don't leave until 8 or 9 p.m. While supportive of the program, she argued that residents be given free permits to park in front of their homes.

"I don't think it's fair that we should be expected to pay when there's a parking lot for Caltrain that sits partially open every day," Protter said.

Council members also broadly supported the program and voted 6-0, with Councilwoman Liz Kniss absent, to launch it in November. Councilwoman Lydia Kou suggested that the city issue the first two permits for free. The rest of the council declined to accept her suggestion.

Even as the council approved the new district, transportation staff are preparing to revamp the entire RPP system, with the goals of simplifying and standardizing the five neighborhood programs. The council endorsed in May a report from transportation consultant Wayne Tanda that includes 35 recommendations on parking, including consolidating the five existing RPP programs and establishing a comprehensive parking management system.

Mayor Eric Filseth said he looks forward to the broader RPP review but argued that it should not delay the creation of the Old Palo Alto program.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

"This is a good year for us to normalize these things and have a standard template for the whole city," FIlseth said. "But I don't think we should wait to implement this."

Vice Mayor Adrian Fine agreed, though he cautioned that restricting parking on one block could make the parking crunch worse on the next one. He pointed to the survey, which showed a block with 100% occupancy next to a block where the rate is about 20%. It's likely, he said, that the program will create a "whack-a-mole" situation where drivers simply park a block farther and walk.

Fine also observed that the RPP programs, which cost about $750,000 annually to administer, carry some unwelcome consequences. The new program, he said, makes it more difficult for visitors — including council members — to spend time in Old Palo Alto.

"We are effectively privatizing a public resource," Fine said.

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.

New parking restrictions in Old Palo Alto seek to redirect Caltrain commuters

Council approves Residential Preferential Parking program, with permits only available to residents

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 11:56 pm

In a bid to drive Caltrain commuters out of Old Palo Alto's residential streets, the City Council approved on Monday a new permit program that will limit all-day parking to those who live in the neighborhood.

The City Council swiftly and unanimously approved a proposal to add the neighborhood just east of the California Avenue underpass to the city's expanding list of Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts. Once the program takes effect, only cars displaying RPP permits will be able to park on residential streets for more than two hours. And unlike in similar programs in downtown and Evergreen Park, permits in Old Palo Alto will only be sold to residents.

The new district would be roughly bounded by Alma Street on the west and Bryant Street on the east, between Washington Avenue and Oregon Avenue. Several blocks just north of the proposed district, along Santa Rita Avenue and between Santa Rita and Washington, would become eligible to quickly enter the RPP district once traffic spills over to their blocks.

For the residents, the district represents a solution to a problem they have long complained about: Caltrain commuters who use their residential blocks for free, all-day parking. Earlier this year, they made their case to both the council, which signaled early support for the RPP, and to the Planning and Transportation Commission, which voted in August to prioritize Old Palo Alto over other areas that have asked for parking restrictions.

The program will require residents in the district to pay $50 for residential permits and allow them to buy up to five permits. And even though some aren't thrilled about having to pay to park in front of their homes, the vast majority strongly support creating the new restrictions. Of the 55 households that responded to city surveys, 49 said they support the new RPP — an approval rate of 89%.

Anne Protter, who lives on the block where parking-occupancy levels are around 100% during peak hours, said cars arrive at her block at about 7 a.m. and don't leave until 8 or 9 p.m. While supportive of the program, she argued that residents be given free permits to park in front of their homes.

"I don't think it's fair that we should be expected to pay when there's a parking lot for Caltrain that sits partially open every day," Protter said.

Council members also broadly supported the program and voted 6-0, with Councilwoman Liz Kniss absent, to launch it in November. Councilwoman Lydia Kou suggested that the city issue the first two permits for free. The rest of the council declined to accept her suggestion.

Even as the council approved the new district, transportation staff are preparing to revamp the entire RPP system, with the goals of simplifying and standardizing the five neighborhood programs. The council endorsed in May a report from transportation consultant Wayne Tanda that includes 35 recommendations on parking, including consolidating the five existing RPP programs and establishing a comprehensive parking management system.

Mayor Eric Filseth said he looks forward to the broader RPP review but argued that it should not delay the creation of the Old Palo Alto program.

"This is a good year for us to normalize these things and have a standard template for the whole city," FIlseth said. "But I don't think we should wait to implement this."

Vice Mayor Adrian Fine agreed, though he cautioned that restricting parking on one block could make the parking crunch worse on the next one. He pointed to the survey, which showed a block with 100% occupancy next to a block where the rate is about 20%. It's likely, he said, that the program will create a "whack-a-mole" situation where drivers simply park a block farther and walk.

Fine also observed that the RPP programs, which cost about $750,000 annually to administer, carry some unwelcome consequences. The new program, he said, makes it more difficult for visitors — including council members — to spend time in Old Palo Alto.

"We are effectively privatizing a public resource," Fine said.

Comments

common sense
Midtown
on Oct 22, 2019 at 5:44 am
common sense, Midtown
on Oct 22, 2019 at 5:44 am

Part of the reason the cost of the parking permit is so high is that staff keeps proposing a different set of permit rules for each neighborhood. It should be one free parking permit per house, and up to 4 additional permits available for purchase, like in downtown.

Why does Old Palo Alto get not one free permit, and can purchase up to 5 permits?

And the businesses who got all those density variances and don't provide enough parking, they should be ones who should pay for the program.


Anon
Evergreen Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:18 am
Anon, Evergreen Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:18 am

council member Fine said....
"We are effectively privatizing a public resource,"

Not so, we are ensuring a public resource for the public it was intended to serve so that neighborhoods can be functional, safe and pleasant and have enough on street parking to support visitors, caregivers, gardeners, plumbers and all the other people that visit and serve residents.

In addition, two hour parking for anyone supports anyone who needs to visit for a shorter time which is vital for residents and nearby businesses to function.

The practice of under parking commercial buildings and not responding to changing employment patterns, primarily has resulted in business zones that cannot park themselves.

This was a policy failure that is unfortunate but should be addressed head on rather than by overwhelming the capacity of neighborhood streets with all day parkers
Also contributing to road congestion and greenhouse gas emissions

US Supreme courts upholds the legality of Rpps as does the state of California. The later only allows all day commercial permits to be sold to “adjacent merchants”

Don’t re-elect Council members that don’t support residents and never vote against commercial
office uses!!!!


SRB
Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:20 am
SRB, Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:20 am

Who needs 5 yearly permits to park 5 cars on a public street...in addition to the 2 cars typically accommodated in garage or driveway?


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:40 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:40 am

It can take over 20 minutes to get along Oregon Expressway to get under the Caltrain tracks to reach Caltrain parking from south Palo Alto. The fact that people don't want to cross the tracks in their car makes a lot of sense to me. Why should that tunnel be clogged with vehicles that could remain east of the tracks? It helps everyone if Caltrain passengers (and those who want to visit Cal Ave) remain east of the tracks.

I have used parking east of the tracks when visiting Cal Ave area for lunchtime or other short appointments or meetings. Crossing the tracks is always a hold up and parking east of the tracks makes much more sense.

Now I'm not saying that there is space for lots of cars to park east of the tracks. I am just saying that it makes sense to park east of the tracks. It is not only Caltrain commuters, but all Cal Ave visitors. It is probably also Stanford parkers as the Marguerite is available at the Caltrain station.

When blaming Caltrain commuters for this, it is unfair as who wants to miss a train by getting stuck in traffic under the tracks any more than anyone else who wants to get across the tracks. Our traffic is dreadful and all of us do our best not to get stuck in traffic when we can find alternatives such as a convenient pedestrian tunnel.


Another RPP neighborhood
Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:44 am
Another RPP neighborhood, Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:44 am

Adrian Fine's comment: "We are effectively privatizing a public resource," along with his earlier statement about "The idolatry of single family home ownership," demonstrate a serious deficiency in critical thinking. Residents should consider letting Council know that statements like these disqualify Fine for consideration as our next mayor.


Miriam Palm
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:20 am
Miriam Palm, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:20 am

I live in old PA and find this ridiculous. These are public streets. I do not want my tax money spent enforcing these stupid rules.

Please remind Genady where ONLY belongs in a sentence.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:28 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:28 am

I'm in favor of citywide parking permits, but, we should be -encouraging- people from the east side who ride Caltrain to park on the east side instead of sitting in traffic on Oregon for an extra 10-15 minutes. Simple-- encourage Caltrain commuters.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 22, 2019 at 10:47 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 10:47 am

The non-resident-serving businesses -- ie offices -- whose workers outnumber residents 4:1 -- have been over-running us for uears and still pay nothing for that privilege thanks to deeloper-friendly resident-antagonists like Mr. Fine

Those businesses who waste hours of our time each week as we're forced tu spend more time looking for parking and getting to our destinations should be paying for our parking permits, not US.


Anon
Evergreen Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:00 am
Anon, Evergreen Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:00 am

One more observation regarding Council member Fines comment about “privatization of public streets”

In fact selling permits to workers / cars commuters from large private (maybe even international ) firms could very will be argued as removing those spaces from the public use and selling them to private for profit companies there by removing them from public use.


Recall now
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:17 am
Recall now, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:17 am

It's time to consider recalling some of our elected city council members.


NeilsonBuchanan
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:22 am
NeilsonBuchanan, Downtown North
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:22 am

State legislation clearly allows for permit parking in residential neighborhoods. Residential permit parking is an established, common practice in communities throughout California and the United States. Councilman Fine's comment is not helpful and is contrary to well-established Palo alto transportation policy. I do not understand his intent.

I hope he will clarify his intent publicly.

Moving forward: city staff will be presenting more orderly improvements to parking policy and practices not only for residential zones but also for the two downtown commercial zones. This is the best way to move forward and get beyond the history of fragmented staff work and council actions aggravated by high staff turnover and shallow analysis.

The city has not invested adequately in staff resources and parking management systems. This is the fundamental hurdle to overcome. The next Mayor and current City MAnager are key to forward-looking solutions. We can avoid unproductive one-liners.


More empty recall talk
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:37 pm
More empty recall talk, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:37 pm

Recall now- go for it. Get the ball rolling. I agree that filseth, Dubois and kuo need to be recalled.


LizaTaft
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:46 pm
LizaTaft, South of Midtown
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:46 pm


Where are we suppose to park? I find that there is no place in Calif avenue either. Liza Taft Mid Town


Gigi
Palo Alto High School
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:49 pm
Gigi, Palo Alto High School
on Oct 22, 2019 at 12:49 pm

@Recall Now
Why recall when you can just not vote for these electeds next year?
Adrian Fine's term ends next year if not re-elected.

Now, do you want him to be mayor next year? One's got to wonder how much damage he can cause in one year. One's got to say: LOTS!


Rita vrhel
Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:24 pm
Rita vrhel, Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:24 pm

Last time i looked the residents, thru their taxes, were paying,for street maintenance and parking. I believe residents pay approximately 75% of Palo lato's budget while Commercial enterprises pay 25%.

Every time a commercial development has been under- parked, we were told this was fine as people used mass transit, no longer drove or some other lame lie.

Now all the lack of "private commercial" parking has added up and is spilling over into our neighborhoods. Rather than see A RPP as "a privatization of a public resource" it more accurately is a "return to the rightful owners".

Residents do not flood into Private commercial parking spots every day and leave their cars there are day. This would be greeted with howls from the developers and businesses as unfair. Police would be called and cars would be towed.

Palo Alto would be wise to install a city wide RPP, provide 2 free parking permits per household, require all current and future developers to "fully" park their developments, evaluate all traffic management programs and implement a robust business tax to offset the "real cost" of business to the residents.

Let'


Calif Ave Resident
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:34 pm
Calif Ave Resident, Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:34 pm

I agree it is not fun to try to cross under the tracks to park on the business side of California Ave. If it were me I'd also like to park on the Alma side. But, as a resident I am unable to park in front of my own house. When we bought this house 30 years ago that was never a problem.

If the commuters would have been willing to spread out and walk a little farther, this would not be happening. There is at least one car (a grey Tesla) that will park jutting out into the corners, just to make sure s/he doesn't have to take a few extra steps.

But my real beef is that this issue was created by the city by refusing to make businesses create parking spots and by raising the price of a business permit parking tag. The city now rents out 40 spaces in the Caltrain parking lot, and there are still many empty spots. But they are $5/day. Outrageous. Someone should have addressed this, so that it is feasible to park in an existing parking lot. Now I have to pay to park in front of my own house, plus have the extra hassle of timing any visitors or paying for guest tags for them. Plus watch meter maids all day. I didn't want any of this, I just wanted to be able to park in front of my house!


San Antonio station too, please
Greenmeadow
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:43 pm
San Antonio station too, please, Greenmeadow
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:43 pm

Please implement this in the area across Alma from San Antonio station. Many cars and RVs park here, often overnight. Making your home on a public street in a residential area is not okay.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:42 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:42 pm

@ Another RPP neighborhood.... Adrian Fine loves to bloviate. That's about all he does in his position as Vice Mayor. Not much substance there.


Rivertown
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:43 pm
Rivertown , Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:43 pm

It's not only Caltrain commuters who are the ones parking on residential neighborhoods in Old Palo Alto. This problem became substantially worse when the city increased the parking permit fees for the commercial lots off of California Avenue. Since new building development is severely under-parked and I believe the number of parking permits for businesses in the area are limited or the companies do not subsidize the cost of employee parking permits, the employees of these businesses either park on the East side of Alma and walk over or leave their offices every two hours to move their cars. I don't know if the completion of the new parking lot between Cal Ave and Sherman will alleviate this problem unless companies are required to pay for parking permits for their employees and there are enough parking spaces to accommodate all of the businesses moving into this area. But in case it does, I don't want to be stuck paying for a $50 X up to 5 parking permits to park in front of my house.


Norman Beamer
Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 4:17 pm
Norman Beamer, Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 4:17 pm

One commuter often parks in front of my house, which is just outside the RPP area, gets a bicycle out of his trunk, and rides downtown to wherever he works. He probably gets some sort of credit from his employer for "commuting" by bike.


Palo Alto Resident
Downtown North
on Oct 22, 2019 at 10:12 pm
Palo Alto Resident, Downtown North
on Oct 22, 2019 at 10:12 pm

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Adrian Fine but the whole whack-a-mole situation is true. Palo Alto should take a radious around the caltrains and make ALL those neighborhoods RPP. Right now Palo Alto requires about 70 or 80% of neighbors on a specific street to sign a petition for that particular street to become RPP. If a street is not proactive (i.e. tenanted units) then what happens is it is not RPP. I've noticed the entire street then becomes fully parked by commuters and the next streets over are nearly empty (as it's RPP).

City hall needs to simply just apply RPP ubiquitously for neighborhoods close to caltrain.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2019 at 8:18 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2019 at 8:18 am

The more I think about this, the more I see this as wrong. Public street parking is necessary for all amenities in town.

If you live near a park, you will find people park on the street to take their stuff for cookouts, for games, for sports, for parties, by car and need to park.

If you live near a community center, you will find that people park on the streets for activities at the center, particularly in the evening, the rain, or when they need to take along stuff.

If you live near a church, you will find that people need to park on the street for Sunday mornings, or for midweek meetings, or for large events such as weddings, memorial services, etc.

If you live near a school, you will find that people need to park on the street for evening or weekend activities taking place there.

If you live near a neighbor who has many social gatherings - school PTA meetings, church bible studies, scout leaders meetings, youth meetings, etc. there will be people who need to park on the street.

Many people have large family gatherings for Thanksgiving, for Christmas, for Easter, for Lunar New Year, for Passover, etc. and their guests will need to be able to park on the street.

Let's face it, every body needing to park is not necessarily a Caltrain commuter. They are not the bad guys. In fact, they are the good guys using trains to get to their jobs rather than driving on the highways.

Cars are not bad. They are useful methods of transporting a group of people and stuff that cannot be put on bikes. Forbidding them to park is not going to stop them being used for those purposes.

Parking in Palo Alto is becoming a big issue. Instead of moving the ever changing circle of forbidden areas wider and wider and necessitating people to park outside the forbidden area with innovative methods of skateboards, bikes, etc. to bring them inside the circle we have to start doing a better method of enabling people to park. Parking does not need to be free, but it does need to be available. We need to be able to pay to park by simple methods by apps on our phones or nearby machines, not by visits to City Hall.

If parking costs the same as a designer coffee it will become just one of the expenses of life. If people can buy a $6 cup of coffee as part of their morning routine, then they can pay to park their car as part of a daily routine.

If satellite parking lots were built at off ramps and other peripheral sites with dedicated shuttles, we would not be having as many parking problems for those of us who want to use our cars to live our lives in town.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2019 at 10:37 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2019 at 10:37 am

Posted by Calif Ave Resident, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> I agree it is not fun to try to cross under the tracks to park on the business side of California Ave. If it were me I'd also like to park on the Alma side. But, as a resident I am unable to park in front of my own house. When we bought this house 30 years ago that was never a problem.

>> If the commuters would have been willing to spread out and walk a little farther,

>> Now I have to pay to park in front of my own house, plus have the extra hassle of timing any visitors or paying for guest tags for them. Plus watch meter maids all day. I didn't want any of this, I just wanted to be able to park in front of my house!

Just to be clear, there are two very different types of commuters involved in this. One type, people who live somewhere on the other side of Middlefield/Greene and so on who consider it a little far to walk to the Cal Ave Caltrain station, but, who commute somewhere via Caltrain. The other type, people who live wherever -- e.g. Danville, and commute to the Cal Ave area to work.

Personally, I would like to accommodate the Palo Alto residents who commute via Caltrain in the parking area by Bowden Park. The people who are commuting from Danville, I would like to discourage from using the Bowden Park area, and, I would like their employers to pay for parking in parking garages.


Out of touch PA Online
Professorville
on Oct 23, 2019 at 12:18 pm
Out of touch PA Online, Professorville
on Oct 23, 2019 at 12:18 pm

A lot of folks here bashing the council and vice mayor without actually reading the article or attending the meeting (as I did). All of the council was supportive of this newest RPPP, and some wanted to fiddle with the particulars. The Mayor and Vice Mayor joined together to support the staff position, which was based on the neighborhood input! Mr. Fine supported that, but also cautioned that these programs cost the taxpayers, and he is 100% correct in saying that this is privatizing something that is public. --If you do not live in this RPP, you no longer get to use that parking in the same way--, and you're tax dollars will be used to enforce it It's a balance, people - but then again, this is the PAOnline comments, so reality doesn't matter.


KAG
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 23, 2019 at 2:35 pm
KAG, Old Palo Alto
on Oct 23, 2019 at 2:35 pm

This is a giant nothing burger for the neighborhood. We all know that those 5 cars parked outside our homes belong to the residents of those multi-generational Asian families that live here, as well as our ultra rich neighbors. Its absolutely a laugh, to believe that you will not see these cars parked exactly where they are, all day long, next year after the RPP is in place. Yes, there is a REASON that each house gets FIVE permits. Those aren't commuters parking there.

Honestly, how many of you dear readers, outside of Old Palo Alto own FIVE cars. The parking lot along Bowden Park has empty parking spots every single day. I walk by there for my morning coffee every day. Those aren't commuters parking 3 blocks away from the tunnel, when they can park right right at Bowden Park.

We did have a parking issue with the First Baptist Church in the neighborhood, but since we made them evict all of the community groups that were meeting there, that issue has gone away.

The end result of this needless complaint, by the neighbors that live in houses right in front of the Bowden parking lot, means nothing to the vast majority of us residents here. We don't have a commuter parking problem on our blocks, we have a resident parking problem, because they fail to use their garages, which are storage areas, and they own 4-5 cars.

Thank god the RPP only applies to a small area of the neighborhood. I predict you will see ZERO change next year. Commuters will continue to park at the Bowden Parking Lot, and all 5 cars per residence currently parked in the RPP neighborhoods will all have parking permits.

This is a stick in the eye to the complaining neighbors that live next to the tracks and Alma. Now they have to pay for parking in front of their house. They deserve it. They bought houses next to the train station and have been complaining about the noise and traffic for 30 years. Noise and traffic by the train station and commuter tunnel to California Ave? Gambling in Casablanca. I'm shocked.


Training for my 80's
Barron Park
on Oct 23, 2019 at 4:10 pm
Training for my 80's, Barron Park
on Oct 23, 2019 at 4:10 pm

Whenever I read stories like this I feel blessed that I'm able to use my bike for most trips.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 23, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 23, 2019 at 3:35 pm

This is a direct result of the Cal Ave crossing being closed and the underpass replacing it.

All those who want to get to Cal Ave are now either getting stuck in traffic on Oregon or parking east of the tracks and walking or biking to Cal Ave. If the crossing were open the problem would be less evident.

Don't do the same by closing the Churchill crossing. It would add to the parking mess as students, staff and even Stanford people would park east of the tracks and walk or bike.


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.