When Palo Alto last adopted an official transportation vision, the Prius had just been unveiled in Japan; high-speed rail was something they did in France and China; a Professorville resident could still find a parking spot outside her home; and no one at City Hall was lobbying for a new bike bridge stretching over U.S. Highway 101 toward the Baylands.
The city’s new Transportation Element, a vision document that the Planning and Transportation Commission discussed Wednesday night, shows just how much the times have changed. Loaded with new goals and programs aimed at promoting biking, reducing traffic and preserving parking at residential neighborhoods, the plan is as good an indicator as any of the myriad changes the city has undergone since it adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and of the many challenges it faces today.
The element is one of the most important chapters in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the city’s official land-use bible, which the City Council hopes to approve sometime next year. More than three years in the making, the Transportation Element will have to wait at least another month-and-a-half for the commission’s approval after members agreed to delay a recommendation until Oct. 9.
Aside from a few cavils and edits, the commission generally agreed that the document is a good one. But members voted 6-0, with Carl King absent, to continue the item so the public will have more time to weigh in on the latest draft.
In a wide-ranging discussion, commissioners lauded the many changes in the Transportation Element, including new programs calling for a development of Transportation Management Associations to help solve the parking woes around the city’s commercial districts; prioritizing pedestrian access and bicycle use within the city; officially supporting a below-grade trench on the Caltrain corridor; and exploring an “automobile cap” as part of its review of new developments downtown. Commissioner Eduardo Martinez, who on Wednesday concluded his two-year term as chair, said he likes the document and praised it for having “its own personality.”
He suggested giving the public more time to review the latest draft and having staff post a Frequently Asked Questions section that addresses some of the concerns expressed by the public in the days leading up to the Wednesday meeting.
“I’d like us to move forward with the Transportation Element, but it just doesn’t seem like we have established the base for dealing with it,” Martinez said.
His colleagues agreed, even as they acknowledged that the document, no matter how well refined, will not by itself solve the parking problems.
Commissioner Michael Alcheck described the Transportation Element as a “visionary document” and suggested that it’s not the best place to find answers to the major questions concerning traffic and parking. This despite the fact that the new element includes a list of new parking programs (including car-share programs for downtown businesses; Transportation Demand Management programs for downtown districts; and consideration of metered parking downtown) and a new goal to “minimize noticeable increases in traffic from new development in residential neighborhoods, through traffic mitigation measures.”
Alcheck said he was frustrated with the city’s slow pace in establishing parking-permit programs or coming up with other solutions to give neighborhood residents relief from parking on their blocks. The city, in effect, has “a moratorium on parking strategy implementation,” he said, adding that he would rather see the city institute parking programs that fail and have to be adjusted than to not implement anything.
“I think some of the goals and policies here that address parking are very strong,” Alcheck said. “But I think we need to act on the small issues faster.”
Commissioner Alex Panelli stressed that the Comprehensive Plan, despite its name, isn’t meant to be a solution to all problems. It’s broad, though not deep, he said. It does, however, lay out the “general vector” of the city’s transportation vision.
“I boil this down into three things,” Panelli said. “We want tolerable traffic. We want as clean an environment as possible. And we want adequate parking. To me those are the three overarching things here.”
But Commissioner Arthur Keller, who earlier in the meeting was unanimously elected vice chair, said the Transportation Element could in fact lead to the kinds of solutions the residents want. The new Transportation Demand Management programs – which typically employ tools such as Caltrain passes, car-share programs and incentives to non-drivers to reduce the number of people using cars — would have an enforcement component. This, he noted, would require the city to pass an ordinance establishing such programs.
“While in the past, transportation-demand measures were aspirational, this particular program means that in the future, once we have the ordinance, they will be quantitatively measured and enforced,” said Keller, who was heavily involved in putting the document together.
The commission also heard from several residents who voiced skepticism about the revised document’s ability to solve the city’s worsening parking problems. Ken Allen, president of the Adobe Meadows Neighborhood Association, said Palo Alto is “past the point where models are useful.”
“The citizens can see and experience the gridlock in the city,” Allen said. “And they’d like to see something done today that can relieve this until these things can be figured out.”
Ken Alsman, a Professorville resident who has been calling for a residential parking-permit program for several years, had a suggestion for what this relief should be: a moratorium on new development. He attributed the parking problems in part to city rules that give developers parking exemptions and that, in effect, subsidize developers.
“An immediate moratorium on further construction, building permits and applications (including anything already approved but not built, unless fully parked) is essential to provide time for city officials to address these problems, not only with policy but with immediate actions,” Alsman wrote to the commission. “Failure to stop further construction just digs the parking-deficit hole deeper and deeper.”
Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident who has spent the past year calculating the magnitude of the parking shortage in his neighborhood, argued that the Transportation Element is incomplete unless it includes an accompanying document listing near-term actions that the city plans to take.
“The natives are restless,” he said, noting that the changes in the city’s transportation vision aren’t keeping pace with neighborhood outrage.
“It’s a great visionary document, but many of us in the neighborhoods are interested in what’s going to happen in the next three to four years and what is programmatically feasible,” Buchanan said.
Buchanan suggested giving the public another month or so to review the latest draft, a suggestion that the commission quickly accepted. Martinez and his successor as chair, Mark Michael, both said it’s important for the public to have more time to review the documents and provide feedback.
The Transportation Element and other chapters of the updated Comprehensive Plan are available here.
Not everyone can ride a bike, but bikes replacing cars will reduce congestion and pollution for even non-bicyclists. Also, bikes need much less (and much cheaper) space for parking. This transportation plan sounds great to me. We don’t need and can’t afford new roads.
Bikes are great, especially for the few people who live and work in Palo Alto, but bikes aren’t a real solution to building office space without adequate parking.
This is a lot of work and fanfare over a document that will be treated like little more than toilet paper when it suits the whims of the City Council.
Look at Maybell and how hard they have pushed the rezoning there. There is no way the lack of parking in the plan isn’t going to seriously negatively impact the park and nearby school and rehab center for disabled children.
The previous zoning would have called for a minimum of 104 cars, yet the planned development has only 47 parking spots for 60 units, residents, employees, and visitors. There is literally nowhere else to put excess parking in the neighborhood, especially since there already is a lot of overflow parking from PAHC’s existing affordable development next door, where they already don’t have enough spots for the residents. The closest place is the parking in front of Juana Briones School (the OH side) and park, which is so sparse, the families who use the long-time rehab center for disabled students from across the county often end up in competition with school families for the parking.
But we’re told the seniors living there will not have children in the schools and won’t have cars. Are you a senior? Come to Clemo (not by car) and walk to all of your grocery and medical and other needs for the next month. Do you think it’s a good location for senior apartments? Be sure to bring your bike and strap your walker to the handlebars.
This sounds like a valid use case for transportation demand management tool, TransitScreen, a real time multimodal display promoting all transportation alternatives around a given location. That way residents and visitors have instant access to multimodal data (Caltrain, Bay Area Bikeshare, buses, rideshare, carshare) so he/she can make an informed decision how best to avoid using a single occupancy vehicle (SOV).
http://www.transitscreen.com
Even if it costs $600K for another special election—it would be worth it to allow the electorate of Palo Alto to vote on the questions of: 1) Dismissing the Transportation and Planning Commission, 2) Rejecting any transportation element that focuses on bicycles.
Why spend the time and money on a “transportation vision” when the city is just going to ignore it when the next developer juices them with a new out of compliance project? This transportation plan is just pieces of paper with no real significance.
Without putting a moratorium on new construction, as an emergency
measure, in response to growing traffic gridlock, and a possible
water supply emergency due to drought, this transportation plan is simply a “dog chasing its tail” and is an insult to the community.
It has the appearance of let’s try to appease the residents so
that we can continue the game here, since there are more huge
projects in the wings that we want to push through. The City simply
has no credibility. Following a moratorium on new construction the City needs to review all zoning and FAR’s including residential which
are too high, and state that minimal aesthetic standards relating to all public actions and private projects will be enforced.
Californians have always been in love with automobiles. We live in a car culture. Although the vision is a noble one, it won’t change the fact that people will continue to rely on cars for their primary source of transportation and no effort at legislating bicycle or public transportation use will ever change that.
To “35 year resident.”
I’m a Californian and a car guy. My first was a 1959 Triumph TR 3. Now I have a sports car that sits in the garage. My primary means of daily transportation around Palo Alto and Menlo Park–for shopping, work, everything–is my bike. I’ve never been happier leaving the car, and traffic, behind. Kudos to the city for making that a better and better experience.
The city is not legislating that you give up your car. The lack of privately funded parking is taking care of that. What the city is doing is creating alternatives for you, including safer bicycle routes and safer bicycle parking around town. This is tremendously cheaper for the city than paving new streets and building new parking garages with your tax dollars.
Even if you do not bike, if your neighbors do, there will be more room on the roads for your car.
Like it or not, “35 Year Resident” has a handle on reality. And “Resident” is sadly right about the lack of City credibility.
As a regular bicycle commuter, I can see lots of ways to improve my cycling route, and I’m pretty sure other cycling commuters would say the same… for instance, I know which intersections and traffic lights are not bike friendly, where (illegally) parked cars regularly block the bike lane, where new stop signs have been installed that limit cycling efficiency, etc. One thing I’ve wondered for some time is whether we really need two lanes on Homer and Channing, now that the PAMF is long-relocated from that neighborhood… why not make them each one lane, with a well-marked bike lane, and really concentrate on those as cycling-friendy “boulevards”? This would work especially well now that the Homer Ave. bike/pedestrian tunnel finally has (hurray!!) a sensible cycling accommodation for going eastbound on Homer.
It would be great to have a way (perhaps an open forum, or even better, an online forum with suggestions/responses, etc.) to share these direct experiences with the City’s transportation planners — it’s not always clear to me how many of our planners and decisionmakers have direct experience with regular commuting…
@Carol – there is a “bicycle improvement request” form on the city website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/bicycling/bikeform.asp
I have been submitting my suggestions there for years. Many of the things I suggest do actually appear on the street (sometimes years later).
Also, the article says the city will be taking public comments on the new transportation plan, so this is a good time to organize and send in everything you have.
What about the shuttle?
Why do some kids get free rides to school and others get none?
Why can’t the shuttle be expanded so that all kids get a ride to school and why must it be free? School traffic is a big part of the morning commute and parking around our schools is horrendous at pickup time for those who live near the schools.
The shuttle should be much more available to those who regularly travel around town and it should charge a fare.
California state law requires cities to periodically update their plans and include a Transportation Element. Now and in the future, these MUST include accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan. Palo Alto may be one of the first, but soon every city will be producing similar plans (although most are unlikely to be as good).
Why do you think the City Council will ignore this – they won’t. Bicycles are the Holy Grail of the future. This element gives Council the right to narrow down from 4 to 2 lanes with bicycle paths all collector and arterial streets. Don’t forget the bicycle lobby in PA is much stronger than the auto lobby.
I drive a car every day – not because I want to, but because I cannot afford public transportation. Several trips could be EASILY done by train, with both originating and ending points being walking distance to/from a train station. However, the two stops I would travel are double the cost of the six stops someone else would pay – simply because I have to travel across a zone line. $10 round trip for two stops is ridiculous, driving a car is far cheaper. I keep trying, but have not found a reasonable alternative!!
The bicycling improvement form is good for spot improvements, or maintenance issues, but not for long term improvements.
Currently transportation staff is working on elements of the Bicycle / Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted in 2012. There are community meetings coming up for bike boulevard projects from that document planned for Maybell and Matadero/Margarita (two separate projects.)
A bike/ped project not in the current BPTP document is difficult to get city resources to develop, so it is all a very long, slow process. To get involved, keep track of issues coming before the Planning commission, and you can join the Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
My main suggestion and concern is safety. I believe that Palo Alto is not being sufficiently bold in its “bike path” planning. We need bike paths that are separated from cars – actually separated. Follow the creeks, dedicate a whole lane, but sticking lanes next to rows of parked cars where the lane is so narrow and so close to both parked cars and moving cars is a recipe for disaster, especially when you throw senior drivers, distracted drivers etc. into the mix. It is only going to get “more so.”
I am eager to ride my bike more but don’t want to be fearful when I do. It is equally perilous for the car drivers.
> … the new element includes … a new goal to “minimize noticeable increases in traffic from NEW DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, through traffic mitigation measures.” (Capitalized highlight is mine.)
If new developments in residential neighborhoods follow the zoning laws, why would there be a noticeable increase in traffic? Or is the city planning more PC zoning in residential neighborhoods?
> “…the bicycle lobby in PA is much stronger than the auto lobby.”
True. (1) There is no auto lobby. (2) The bicycle lobby (Palo Alto Bicycle ADVISORY Committee) was created by the PTC to give advice to the Transportation Department and reports to the chief transportation officer. This is why issues sometimes go first to bicyclists in special meetings held just for them.
As far as I know, staff doesn’t consult with drivers.
In July, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a study indicating that if the love affair with the automobile is on the decline, it’s a slow one. “Two in three Californians who work full- or part-time drive alone to work. Far fewer carpool (14%), use public transportation (8%), walk (4%), or bike (3%) to work.”
. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_713MBS.pdf
Until we have some realistic public transit choices (NOT HSR), cars are still going to be the preferred mode — and maybe the only workable mode — of transportation for most people.
There are issues of safety when the City actively promotes more bicycle use on narrow already congested streets, which is what the City is doing, and at the same time approves more and more high density office development. These are not complementary policies as the City suggests but conflicting policies. The City simply does not acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in more and more office development. For the City Council and staff it somehow all works
together, not because it does, but because they want it to.
Having a Bicycle (and Pedestrian) Advisory Committee is a requirement to receive certain categories of government funds. Almost every city in the area has one, as does the County. This is not a lobby, it is a legal requirement.
Bicycles in this area with all of the car congestion is a really bad mix.
Whether you like cars or bikes is irrelevant, because though some can ride bikes not everyone can and not every trip is a bike trip … i.e. if you have passengers or need to carry something large.
The argument that bikes can replace cars to any significant extent is simply foolish. Foolish and dangerous because whatever we do with bikes there will still be a lot of congestion, a lot of frustration which causes people to make jerky or not well thought out moves and puts bikers and pedestrians at risk.
It’s great that people ride bikes, but the city cannot plan for bike use, we simply need to demand that houses and businesses include parking space – period. Not to is completely negligent.
The City’s mantra of more development at any cost to the quality
of life, character of the City,aesthetic values, neighborhoods, safety,environment is the problem. That is the starting point for trying to understand everything else like promoting more use of bikes on narrow congested streets.
The City has put a turn left only sign at Churchill and Alma to protect kids riding and walking to school in the mornings.
Are they going to ban cars from turning into other streets during commute time for the same reason?