So we now have another 101 Alma. There are now no zoning regulations enforceable around transit corridors?

More like a laboratory for creating immense profits for the landowner and developer. Proximity is not a benefit the project is providing. public art (wow!), a garden (likely to be leased for use to the unneeded cafe as with High Street PC), a unit (or several units) of affordable housing (bone toss)and a small cafÈ on the ground floor (hmm is there shortage?). Hey what about forcing them to provide a market!! JK
City, please at least figure out how to monetize some of the windfall profits from their density upzone to mitigate more congestion and service demand. Maybe figure out how to trade some downzoning away from Caltrain for upzoning here (developer pays downzoned landowner for their rights). Do we really want all policies to support more density in an area with infrastructure built to support a suburb? We really don't need to cram more space and people into Palo Alto just because it is near transit. It would have been a good idea 50 years ago. 525 University would ideally be sited there.

There is NO believable formula where adding dense housing doesn't increase congestion. More people is more people.

Anyone remember that the City Council has already approved a plan for a mammoth train station that will include a new downtown park--that will cost about $250M. How can the planning process involving any huge new building that is so close to the train station not be evaluated in light of this train station design/plan?

Or has time dimmed the minds of the City officials that created this massive downtown building project?

I wish the city council would wake up and smell the coffee. More and more service cuts are coming to Caltrain, and it is not a reliable alternative to commuting by car. These dense housing projects will put more cars on the road. Building them close to the tracks won't reduce the impact on traffic congestion in any meaningful way.

There is an underlying logical contradiction to the 101 Lytton project. This is an _office_ building for people commuting from _outside_ Palo Alto. It does nothing to reduce vehicle trips inside Palo Alto, but rather increases them.

The 150-200 jobs expected for the location will inevitably lead to a mandate for Palo Alto to build a corresponding amount of housing, and that housing is unlikely to involve transit. For housing very near transit, transit accounts for only 3-10% of the commutes. And for those who use transit for commutes, when you look at their _total_ trips, transit accounts for one-third or less.

The argument that transit use will increase as gas prices rise is based upon a fallacious generalization. Transportation planners report that people overwhelmingly choose driving over transit when transit takes 30-50% longer than driving. When gas prices go up, you see people whose commutes are within this band switch to transit, plus probably some widening of the band (the people I listen to don't know of studies of this).

However, in studies of this region, for many commuters transit routinely takes 3-4 times longer than driving. Anecdotally, colleagues and friends who moved here from European cities expected to use transit, but quickly gave up because they didn't have the hours per day to waste.

Studies of where transit is successful (NYC, SF, ...) point to much higher population densities than are likely to occur on the Peninsula.

A complicating factor is the rise of Hybrids and electric cars, which result in price of gas being less of a forcing factor for transit use (Yesterday, GM reported that Volt owners were getting roughly 1,000 mpg).

This article states that city managers and planners up and down the Caltrain line on the Peninsula are basing their long range development plans on Caltrain as their transit-oriented focus and solution. But they are also all worrying about Caltrain's viability and proposed station closures. The obvious solution is that cities and businesses along the route need to be pitching in and helping fund Caltrain. Caltrain is obviously working as a transit option, that's why it is so hard to decide where to close stations in this fiscal crisis. They are all being used.

> Caltrain is obviously working as a transit option

With only 18,000 to 19,000 people using the train on weekdays, out of about 3.5M in the service area, it is clear that Caltrain IS NOT WORKING as a transportation option. It should be shuttered as soon as possible.

The real point is that although all these transit density hubs are being promoted, it is Caltrain that is not working to market itself.

In the real world, Caltrain should be offering discounts, promotions, to those who live near the stations. They should be marketing and advertising to those nearby residents. They should make themselves attractive as a viable option. Where is the advertising? Where are the promotions? Nowhere. Caltrain can't market itself or won't market itself. It should have schedules in the sales offices of all nearby residential complexes. It can't even put up the time of the next train and where the next train stops on its electronic signs. These signs should be in the next street where people are walking to the station, they should be in the parking lots, they should but they are not.

Caltrain are forgotten about by all who don't regularly use it. Pathetic marketing, pathetic advertising and becoming a pathetic service.

You do not say no to Jim Baer in this town. It ain't done.

Baer knows how to work the system, how to tell the city government the little white lies it likes to hear and that sell development projects. And he spreads $$$ around too.

The transit fable is a reliable old chestnut. The truth about it is that nobody important wants the truth. There has never been a scientific survey of how many people who already live near CalTrain stations use the train regularly, and you can bet there never will be. The truth could (would) be...inconvenient.

WeakiLeak: an informal survey in the condos by the CalAve CalTrain station found 1 in 20 residents (5%) used the train. The rest drove to work like everyone else.

I have to agree with Resident - that Caltrain ought to market itself better; it would help.

And Vehemently disagree with Douglas Moran when he says "The argument that transit use will increase as gas prices rise is based upon a fallacious generalization" - as someone who's ridden Caltrain for years it is a fact that when gas prices go up so does ridership and when they come down so does ridership.

But this is besides the Article which was about transit oriented housing which I think is great. Remember it's not just young hi tech workers going to SF, we have an aging population who might not like driving (or be able to) should they be locked at home? Does housing which is near transit command a better price than housing far from transit? It's been a while since I was house shopping but last time I was shopping I noticed quite a premium to live near the stations.

Caltrain needs to improve service - later and earlier trains, weekend service and nicer trains (their current stock is somewhat threadbare). It also needs a better funding model and a reliable customer base.

Respond to Paul - 5% is significantly higher then the population at large or even the population of Palo Alto who takes Caltrain. More than double.

Frank, if 5% is so significant, why isn't anybody rushing out to confirm it scientifically and shout the result from the over-height-limit rooftops? Hmmm?

Personally, I think it's pathetic transit participation for a population living 5 walking minutes from a CalTrain station, and a compelling reason to doubt the shrill claims of transit proximity benefits, which nobody wants to validate for some strange reason.

I support Caltrin; I don't buy a certain posters arguments that it doesn't serve enough to justify the costs vs just making averybody drive, as the true comparison with all transit subsidies is elusive, AND I would use taxes for the train as a "luxury amenity". If Caltrain did not exist but the current right-of-way was available, I'd bet anything the powers that be would create it as was done with BART (electrified of course). So I am confident that out of this crisis resulting from a lack of dedicated funding (subsidies), which all other transit options enjoy, dedicted funding will be found. However the argument about high gas prices increasing ridership may work in the short-term, but remember that trains use massive amounts of fuel. I think the UCB study said about the same per passenger mile as two people in a Prius (and likely train much more on low-rider mid-day trips). Not sure if the % of operating costs fuel is compared to a car, but if gas prices go up Caltrain fares must follow.

More people around the train, more people will get killed. Another one just killed by Caltrain this morning...
Take a look the MTV of "Grenade"(hope you know this song), it is just a culture that glorify the killing by a train. But for those train lovers, those people just the weakest links in our society, not worth saving, I guess.
That is wrong.

Selling your project on a failing mass transit option is ridiculous. Maybe Baer doesn't read the news. CalTrain stealing money from voter approved funds for the Dumbarton Bridge project and other voter approved projects to fix a $30 million one year deficit is criminal. Developers and groups like the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (once more appropiately known as the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group) will be held accountable. Their plan to bilk taxpayers to finance their projects with non-exsistent transit ammenities for personal profit is outrageous. How unfortunate that city leaders(?) kowtow to this nonsense.

Isn't it the case that every Planned Community project has ended up with no public benefit?

> Isn't it the case that every Planned Community project has
> ended up with no public benefit?

Pretty much. The PC concept has been so abused that it should be terminated. Looking around the Internet, it's hard to find any other cities that have a similar zoning type.

A couple years ago someone did a bit of research and put together a nice web-site that listed most of the PC projects which have been approved, and built, here in PA. It was difficult to see anything that benefited the public in these projects.

The PC designation is just another variance scheme. It benefits the developer by allowing larger, denser, projects that ultimately increase the developers' profits.

The Planning people have never developed a way to set value on the so-called "public benefits" that are offered. It's not even clear that anyone is tracking the developers to see if they build what they promise.

Underneath this is the zoning code--which has been developed over time, but to what end? Zoning codes ultimately set the value of land--which is something that is of more interest to developers than residents. The zoning codes also ultimately control how dense the residential areas can be, which leads to how large the population will grow. Most of these underlying issues are not on the table when the zoning codes are developed. It's not clear who actually designed the current codes, or why. Having something akin to a "legislative history" (a complete chronology of every change to the codes) is something that every city needs--since there are always tensions between residents, and commercial interests. In small towns like Palo Alto, these tensions flare up frequently--particularly when you have people like Jim Baer, who seems hell-bent to tear down everything in sight, and rebuild it with large (often ugly) multi-story buildings.

Here'a a 12-year old article (from the Weekly's archive), dealing with another Jim Baer "Mega-building" at 390 Lytton--

COUNCIL PREVIEW: 'Public benefits' in zoning questioned:
Web Link

In terms of "public benefit" --

"At the 390 Lytton site, which the council approved in July, Baer will include as public benefits a 10-foot-wide walkway on the building's west side, a sculptural wall mural depicting the history of the automobile, a $75,000 contribution toward the study of traffic in the Downtown North neighborhood, installation of a new bus stop bench and the replacement of the existing bus stop sign and trash can on Lytton Avenue. Baer also proposed the repair of four existing tree wells and the addition of six new street trees. In exchange, the 18,900-square-foot building is allowed to be 80 percent larger than would otherwise be permitted under current zoning regulations."

How much of these "benefits" were actually offered, and how many were actually delivered, is a question requiring a bit of research--but repairing "tree wells" certainly seems to be an example of the kinds of big-heartedness we have come to associate with the name "Jim Baer".

> You do not say no to Jim Baer in this town. It ain't done.

Too true. Baer just won the Tall Tree award. Or was it the Tall Building award?

> Vehemently disagree with Douglas Moran when he says "The argument that transit use will increase as gas prices rise is based upon a fallacious generalization" - as someone who's ridden Caltrain for years it is a fact that when gas prices go up so does ridership and when they come down so does ridership.

I think you just provided that fallacious generalization that Doug mentioned.

Palo Alto tries to locate missing 'public benefits'
Web Link

Skeptical says: "Isn't it the case that every Planned Community project has ended up with no public benefit?"

You are so right. We are still waiting to see the jitney bus promised as a public benefit to those living and visiting the new Campus for Jewish Life but it has never appeared. It was promised to keep traffic off neighboring streets and to save on parking at the JCC. In return for the PC they were permitted to build up to 62' but where is the bus!!!

What astounds me is that the City doesn't push them to provide the bus, they've just let it go.

re: Vehemently disagree with Douglas Moran when he says "The argument that transit use will increase as gas prices rise is based upon a fallacious generalization" - as someone who's ridden Caltrain for years it is a fact that when gas prices go up so does ridership and when they come down so does ridership.

Anyone notice the price of gas lately?
America has: Drivers start to cut back on gas as prices rise -
San Francisco Chronicle, April 11, 2011
Web Link
"Across the country, some drivers are already hunting for cheaper gas, sometimes with the help of a mobile phone app. Others are checking out bus and train schedules, reconsidering mass transportation, or trading in their SUV for a more fuel-efficient model."

Read more: Web Link#ixzz1JEjVyC6d"

The housing will be built, and even if it isn't, population will rise by simple laws of economics. Would people rather these new residents not have access to transit?

"Transit Use Up Again, Thanks to Expensive Gas",
(San Diego Union-Tribune, April 10, 2011 via Planetizen)
Web Link
Article explains the "one-two punch" of higher gas prices and improving economy (increased employment).
You don't need to be a planner here - put the jobs and housing close to transit and commuters and residents are more likely to use it.
However, planners can improve the likelihood of using the transit by strategies like decreasing parking and charging for parking, designing the project so that walking and biking are encouraged - the opposite of Eichler-style development where the garage opens into kitchen - driveway is often the main thing one sees in the street-facing property.

Thank you for the in depth article!

Adding 12,000 new Palo Alto homes in 2014-2035 planning period will improve Palo Alto and the Bay Area, provided Palo Alto imposes a "no new net trips policy." Under such a policy, EXISTING residents, visitors, and workers would be subjected to the same strong, effective auto trip reduction policies that Palo Alto has demanded of Stanford over the years.

I am concerned that Palo Alto has not shown a good faith effort in updating the 2007-14 Housing Element / General Plan to comply with the Association of Bay Area Governments (Palo Alto is a member city) Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a regional smart growth policy designed to minimize GHG and other externalities. I fear that Jerry Brown will embarrass Palo Alto, as he did to Pleasanton when he was Attorney General. Brown’s argument against Palo Alto will be that Palo Alto is "anti-climate."

My March 2010 advice to Council and Planning Commission re the 2007-14 Housing Element Update. Web Link

to: Caltrain, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 8, 2011 who wrote:

This article states that city managers and planners up and down the Caltrain line on the Peninsula are basing their long range development plans on Caltrain as their transit-oriented focus and solution. But they are also all worrying about Caltrain's viability and proposed station closures. The obvious solution is that cities and businesses along the route need to be pitching in and helping fund Caltrain. Caltrain is obviously working as a transit option, that's why it is so hard to decide where to close stations in this fiscal crisis. They are all being used.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I agree entirely - it's as if everyone expects the train to be there, to run, and that "our taxes pay for it". End of subject.
What is described above could be viewed as an assessment district.

Also, if cities and businesses by the Caltrain station should be considered as a potential source of revenue, the same must be said of employers - I like the 'go-pass' (Web Link that Stanford buys for its faculty - this is a major source of revenue for the train - but what of other employers who don't subsidize the train (in exchange for passes for all their employees)?
What about a payroll tax?
In fact, that's how the transit system in Portland is funded- about 75% comes from payroll taxes, including a self-employment tax (Web Link - remember, OR does not have sales taxes.