|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposal by Stanford University to convert a strip of land of El Camino Park into a roadway for buses received a mixed reaction from the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission on March 26, with some members urging the university to replace the parkland that would be lost.
The plan, which Stanford and the Palo Alto city officials are looking to place on the November ballot, calls for “undedicating” about about 0.33 acres of land at the park to create a direct connection on Quarry Road for buses between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real.
Currently, buses need to rely on University Avenue and University Circle to get to El Camino, a route that takes more time and creates congestion for other road users, project proponents say.
Leslie Lowe, Stanford’s director for transportation and environmental planning, said that buses currently take more than 1,200 daily trips on University Circle in both northbound and southbound directions. The Quarry Road link would reduce these trips by about 59%, she said, improving throughput on University Avenue and reducing emissions.
The change is expected to reduce bus trips by five to eight minutes, Lowe said. Some bus operators on the Marguerite system, which serves Stanford, would be able to take buses out of service because of the time savings.
“The bus would be able to do the route so much quicker, so they wouldn’t have to run as many buses,” Lowe said. “It’s huge savings.”
But while Stanford and the city’s Office of Transportation fully support the change, members of the parks commission had some concerns about losing parkland. Even though the roads would only take up about 0.24 acres in a largely unused portion of the 10.75-acre park, Shani Kleinhaus argued that these numbers downplay the project’s impact.
Stanford is also hoping to include a buffer zone as part of the park “undedication,” which would raise the amount of needed land to 0.33 acres. The location of the proposed road, she suggested, would also make a larger portion of the park inaccessible to visitors. The actual loss of “usable parkland” is about one acre, she said.
She argued that as part of the project, Stanford should find an acre of space elsewhere that would be dedicated as parkland to compensate for the loss.
“Even if you plant some trees and make it nice for connectivity, that is good,” Kleinhaus said. “But we’re losing parkland, which is really, really precious, and the city keeps trying to get parkland and we’re losing parkland.
“Stanford should find a place to provide parkland — one acre.”
Commissioner Jeff Greenfield also called the loss of parkland a “big deal” in Palo Alto and suggested that finding land elsewhere could make the ballot initiative more palatable to voters. While undedicating parkland is extremely rare, it’s not unprecedented. In 2013, voters undedicated 10 acres of land in the Baylands so that the city can explore the construction of a waste-to-energy facility, a project that never came to fruition. Kristen O’Kane, director of the city’s Community Services Department, said this was the city’s only park-undedication vote since 2000.
“If there are opportunities to do some sort of a swap to … effectively barter some new parkland for the parkland we’re undedicating, I think that would significantly help get this passed,” Greenfield said.
But just like the 2013 measure created a rift between Palo Alto’s environmentalists, the new proposal is raising questions over whether it’s greener to preserve parkland or improve public transit circulation. Philip Kamhi, Palo Alto’s chief transportation official, argued that the proposed transit road would bring environmental benefits because it would reduce the distance buses would have to travel.
He pushed back against suggestions that Stanford should provide parkland at another site and argued that the project would bring “an environmental benefit, a public transit benefit and a local congestion benefit.”
“With the buses doing less travel in the area, the air quality actually improves, even with existing fleets,” Kamhi said, noting that most bus operators will soon be required to go fully electric. “So this proposes a pathway with less vehicular travel, in particular for uses in this area, because they’re doing less turning movements.”
While the commission didn’t take any votes on the project, most members acknowledged the project’s benefits, including the proposed bike and pedestrian paths that would accompany the road improvements. Commission Chair Amanda Brown shared Kleinhaus’ concerns about the new road cutting off access to a larger part of the park but also touted the circulation improvements that the project would bring.
“Whether or not it’s suitable or not, it does slice right in the middle of a site, so I understand the tradeoffs,” Brown said. “It does provide more access to parkland, so that I’m all for.”
The city has until Aug. 9 to place the measure on the November ballot.
This seems like a great idea. My guess is that the people who are opposed to this improvement in transit traffic are the same people who whine constantly about traffic hassles. But, sure, replacement parkland would be good too.
Yes — let’s streamline how the buses enter and exit the transit center. As Philip Kamhi said, it will make the buses much more efficient, reducing travel time AND dangerous emissions. I adore our parks but this is a tiny loss compared to the important gains we can make!
That area of the park is hardly usable and also difficult to get to. The transit improvement project is great to get people out of cars. The other day I met an old Lady on the 21 who said she wish the bus came more often and didn’t have to make a long detour to the transit center on the way to the mall.
From the diagram, it also looks like there would be improvements for cyclists and pedestrians crossing El Camino.
This project seems to be a net positivite for the environment: a little loss in park space but bigger gains in park access , active transportation, public transit (5-8 mn savings on a bus trip is a big deal) and emission reductions.
Given that the Palo Alto comprehensive plan states that the city is suppose to add 4 acres of park space for every 1000 new residents and given that the city has ignored this for decades; the city is now over 100 acres short of what it should have for the current population. The city should not use parkland for this project unless twice as much parkland is found elsewhere and it added to another park area.
Growth is not as important as providing open space and green plants for people and animals to use. I support the parks commissioners who are against this idea, unless a larger, useful park area can be found to offset the use proposed here.
No – unless lost park use is replaced and actually usable.
By far the majority of buses are Stanfords Marguerites. It seems wrong that residents lose in order to shorten Stanfords bus trips.
No net loss of parkland – whether “improved” or not.
Hi, so I ride my bicycle weekly and turn left from Quarry to west on El Camino. This proposed plan is half baked as with most plans when the absence of considerations are made for people ride their bikes on roads made for cars.
A couple of questions.
The article says this part of the park is unused. Do we have unused green spaces called parkland or is it used for some other purpose that we know nothing about. I would like to see exactly what unused parkland we have and how it can be utilized better. It may be better used in a way similar to this, but unless we know commenting on unused parkland seems harsh.
I am all for improvements to public transit but I fail to see how this particular change will affect transit for the average Palo Alto resident? It may help the bus authorities (including Stanford), but will it give better options for residents to get from A to B efficiently by transit?
The 21 is the only bus right now that cuts through Palo Alto and connect several destinations. Its frequency is quite bad but Its route would be improved by the transit way since it would no longer have to make the round about detour on University Ave. This will allow easier transfers to the 522, 22 and the ECR. And reduce overall trip times. It takes about 30 mins to get to cal ave from downtown Palo Alto. It could be 20!
Lets see, Stanford owns over 8000 acres – and they cannot compensate palo alto for the use of parkland by this project? North Palo Alto really needs a dog park.