News

Anti-idling proposal steers toward education

Palo Alto plan aims to stop drivers from running engines while parked for more than three minutes

Palo Alto drivers caught running their engines without going anywhere could be slapped with a fine but will more likely receive a warning under a pending city law aimed at cracking down on vehicle idling.

In a 3-1 vote, the City Council's Policy and Services Committee on Tuesday night signed off on a draft anti-idling ordinance similar to one in Minneapolis, which focuses more on educating drivers than punishing them.

Under the proposed law, which will go back to the council for final approval, police would issue first-time offenders a warning for idling their vehicles longer than three minutes and could hand out $100 to $150 citations to second- and third-time offenders, respectively, within a calendar year.

While the committee doesn't expect that police will likely punish motorists, members believe the proposed law could be a useful tool in changing drivers' behaviors.

If approved, the ordinance will be tested as a yearlong pilot program, then assessed by the council.

The city's push to ban idling cars as a way to improve air quality has been well-supported ever since activists from a local Sierra Club chapter pitched the idea earlier this year. On Tuesday, however, the committee found itself pondering whether to pass a law without any kind of enforcement mechanism after city staff warned that enforcement will be "challenging and of limited effectiveness," according to a report from the office of City Manager James Keene.

Committee Chair Cory Wolbach, who cast the lone vote against the committee's proposal, questioned the value of passing a law that the city can't reasonably enforce due to lack of staffing. He suggested adding an anti-idling provision to city code as an educational tool to gauge whether that would be enough to curb behaviors so enforcement wouldn't be necessary.

Wolbach was curious to see how many drivers would "flip the bird" or ignore police officers, residents or anyone who may say, "Hey, you've been idling your car for 10 minutes. Palo Alto has an ordinance against that."

Vice Mayor Liz Kniss and council members Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou all agreed that having an ordinance that stipulates consequences is good, even if it's one that might rarely be enforced.

"We should have some form of enforcement even if we rarely use it, just for extreme conditions," DuBois said.

Kniss, who serves as chair on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's board of directors, initially favored an education program over an ordinance with penalties but changed her position.

"It would be embarrassing to go to the next (board) meeting and tell them we turned down the idling ordinance that has been widely touted as something that might help with air pollution," Kniss said. "The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe we have an ordinance, and you don't enforce it. You find other ways to let drivers know they are in violation, just as Minneapolis did, and come back again and look at it after a year and see if it's something that's working."

Keene said he didn't have a problem with the ordinance as proposed since it is clear that it will be a low-enforcement policy.

"It does put us in a predicament sometimes when a citizen in the community sees we have a problem and we're not enforcing it," he said. "You guys will probably get a call ... saying how unresponsive the city staff is, including the city manager."

Keene suggested that the city get "more creative" about what it's trying to accomplish, especially near schools where idling is an issue while parents wait to pick up their children.

He suggested getting students involved in the anti-idling effort through an education campaign.

"We all know from the anti-smoking program, getting kids to bring stuff home and putting it on the refrigerator about smoking being bad actually does have some impact," he said.

He suggested having students give out fake tickets to drivers.

"You don't get a real ticket; you get an embarrassment ticket," he said. "I would be much more disturbed thinking that kids who wanted to deal with health and this sort of thing were sort of calling me out on this much more than if the (police department) stopped me."

In August, council members embraced the idea of creating an anti-idling law to improve health conditions and help the city reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent come 2030, according to a memo authored by Kniss and Council members Eric Filseth, Karen Holman and DuBois.

The council members estimated that idling vehicles produce about 6.2 tons of greenhouse-gas emissions per year. Tour buses, tech shuttles, delivery vehicles and construction vehicles are some of the top culprits.

The pending ordinance lists about a dozen exceptions. These include instances in which a vehicle has to stay still because of traffic congestion or traffic signals; when the driver has to operate a defroster, heater or air conditioner to prevent a health emergency; when the temperature is cold enough (below 40 degrees) or high enough (above 85 degrees) to warrant heat or cooling; or when a vehicle has mechanical problems.

The law also makes exceptions for emergency-response vehicles, private-security providers and armored vehicles that idle in the course of their business.

---

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

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

10 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 13, 2017 at 8:32 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

With mandated exceptions, this law would make lawyers rich and cost Palo Alto some money. Is Palo Alto going to pay for the burned out starters in the cars and trucks? Mandates like this one is how and why the United States Republic came into being. If you want cleaner air, I suggest Palo Alto pass a law forbidding anymore fires in the State of California. That should have as much a " feel good " effect as forcing people to damage their starters in their cars AND cost far less. Or mandate a catalytic Converted to be installed on Mount Lassen which pollutes far more than all the cars in Palo Alto COMBINED.
I have some tar and feathers and I have access to a fence rail; I think that the taxpayers in Palo Alto might be looking for these items in the near future...


27 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2017 at 8:33 pm

I am often stuck in traffic, not going anywhere, for minutes at a time. To get a ticket or even a warning for this would be ridiculous.

To prevent idling, get rid of all the traffic bottlnecks around town and improve traffic flow.


21 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 13, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

This morning, my car had ice on the windshield. I idled for about ten minutes so that the ice melted and the windows defrosted. Would this be illegal under the new ordnance?


6 people like this
Posted by SMH
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 14, 2017 at 7:28 am

@Resident and @Nayeli
For easily available answers provided in the article, do a search in the article for the phrase "dozen exceptions" then read on.

I don't know what's more frustrating - that PA has to waste valuable time on a silly, possibly discriminatory ordinance like this one (e.g. "the hybrid I am blessed enough to afford and not have to live out of turns its engine on and off automatically - does the idling have to be in consecutive minutes?")
OR,
even with a fairly comprehensive article available on the proposal *including a paragraph on exceptions* Palo Altans are still confused.


14 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2017 at 8:30 am

It seems like government is too big and they have too much time on their hands. You don't virtue signal by creating laws. Laws are permanent. Legislation should rarely be used. It should be a delicate process. They shouldn't be able to throw more and more endless legislation at anything they don't like. If they see a problem, they think: oh, we'll just solve it with a new law! This process is utterly broken.

We have a system where bureaucrats and lawyers use legislation (i.e. FORCE) to feed off the citizenry like parasites. It is absolutely destructive.

Hold government accountable. We let them get away with this.
What we have living the the Palo Alto city hall is: waste, fraud, and abuse.
I think some of them are bitter, jaded and deliberately robbing us, while others innocently think that the solution to climate change is legislation.


16 people like this
Posted by StarSpring
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 14, 2017 at 9:41 am

StarSpring is a registered user.

Stupid law, on so many levels. I keep hoping the CC members will start giving me reasons to vote -for- them in the next election, but disappointingly not a lot of joy on that front so far.


6 people like this
Posted by Mike and Ike
a resident of Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
on Dec 14, 2017 at 9:44 am

18 wheelers often leave their engines running for 8 , 10 , 12 or more hours. For instance a truck driver may take a sleeping break and of course his Cab needs to stay heated thus the motor is almost constantly running except for fueling. Is there a way to track tractor trailer emissions?


2 people like this
Posted by new in town
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 14, 2017 at 11:38 am

@ Nayeli - an ice scraper costs a few bucks.

There are enough exceptions here for people to justify ignoring the ordinance - especially in our "to heck with the other guy" society, but feel free to become informed about the cost to the environment and your car:

Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 14, 2017 at 12:51 pm

No one has mentioned the large coach tourist buses that travel through our neighborhoods daily, and also around Stanford, and now Foothill College. Many of these are older (most noisy and polluting) buses have been painted over in white or black, and they have tinted windows. The driver sits in the buses while the tourists (or wanna be residents) walk around our neighborhoods and campuses. These older buses seem to be belching out diesel.
I thought that these buses had to be retrofitted with a filter nowadays.
What can be done about this?
It is getting worse (the air quality, and also the noise from idling buses combined with all the deconstruction noise and equipment used to tear down our homes in order to build environmentally friendly GREEN homes.
Our family is fed up with this city and area.
The hypocrisy of people who have now come to live and control this city and state are ridiculous.
Meanwhile, we walk and take Cal Train to work in Sunnyvale after having several bikes stolen. We are in our 60's. It is probably safer though, since my husband was nearly stuck by cars several times while on a bike, and also by bikes (while walking).
It is time to leave.


2 people like this
Posted by Mary
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm

A good revenue raiser for the City would be to have the police hang out near cars in the student pickup lines around school dismissal time on hot or cold afternoons especially. Most of the cars there are idling to keep the heat/ac on so the moms (and dads) aren't uncomfortable.

It's never been clear to me why so many parents insist on driving their kids to school and back nowadays....but I suppose that's a different thread.


Like this comment
Posted by Electric
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Electric cars wouldn't get a ticket right? Since this is for environmentalal purpose.
Do I get a ticket if the car in the lot is taking its sweet time to come out?
Do people really leave cars running and go run errands if it wasn't for extraordinary reasons?
You are causing more neighborhood anxieties.
Don't we have more pressing issues to work on? I hope the pilot study is not causing more money for the city.



3 people like this
Posted by pay attention
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Mary, are you even aware there aren't school buses anymore? They've been gone for decades, the only buses running now are for ADA or Tinsley.

So how do you expect kids to get to school? Bear in mind that the two high schools are many miles away from many of their students.


5 people like this
Posted by what a lazy x
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Nayeli,

I fervently hope you get a ticket. Use an ice scraper, and quit polluting everyone's air.


3 people like this
Posted by Richard Placone
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Another Palo Alto tempest in a teapot! Th article clearly states the exceptions, which will be experienced by most drivers, i.e., waiting for traffic light changes; caught in bumper to bumper traffic where it's stop and go every few seconds, emergency situations etc. While this MAY reduce carbon emissions to some degree, the City Council and staff continue to ignore a very obvious way to combat climate warming, which is to mandate solar panels on all flat roofs in town. For existing buildings, the city could develop some kind of program to help small building owners with the financing. For large corporations, like HP Enterprise, give a reasonable time period not to exceed three years to retrofit all their parking lots with overhead trellises to support solar panels (See the nearby Google complex.) All city parking lots open to the sky should also be similarly retro-fitted. For All new commercial buildings, mandate as part of the approval process all flat roofs be equipped with solar panels as the cost of doing business in Palo Alto. In the case of the two new housing structures on El Camino Real and California Ave.,(very ugly INMHO)require the university to retro fit their roofs with solar panels, if none are not already there-(Use compelling persuasion, not legal force). The city should also require Stanford to trellis its vast Mall parking lots equipped with solar panels.


18 people like this
Posted by @ new in town and lazy x
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Your responses to Nayeli only show your ignorance.
Usually goes with self-righteousness and propensity to lecture others.


4 people like this
Posted by DTN
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Top violators for this are the security details for Mark Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and other local gazillionaires who, rather than moving to mansions in Atherton where they can have their own space and privacy, continue to play "Petite Trianon" here in Palo Alto. Buying up all houses adjacent to their own, removing housing stock that would otherwise be used by another family, tearing down whichever houses they please in order to expand their yards, and then having their ex-israeli-army security guards idling in big SUV's 24hrs a day out front. Idling vehicles are standard protocol for an immediate getaway, if that is ever required. In the meantime, their big idling SUV's boring holes in the ozone layer.

Not that they care. Let them eat cake!


6 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Perhaps with the exception of parking, everyone knows that Palo Alto police and code enforcement seldom cite the people and businesses who violate city ordinances, even when the infractions endanger the safety of others.

What is relatively new, however, is the way city hall openly admits they have no intention to enforce city law. At the time of its passing, city manager James Keene announced that Palo Alto would not respond to reported violations of the multi-dwelling smoking ban. Recently, council member Eric Filseth stated that the proposed anti-idling law would be an educational tool that did not require enforcement.

It is beyond foolish to waste city council and staff time making "pretend" laws. It is also a dangerous precedent, perhaps leaving the city open to legal challenge.

If the need to curtail a specific behavior is serious enough to make a law; that law should be enforced. Period.

For other matters, the city can have an educational campaign without making a new law.


6 people like this
Posted by Robert Frumenty
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 14, 2017 at 2:23 pm

At any given time there may be 40 or more cars idling for minutes on Embarcadero at Middlefield due to the idiotic timing system for those trafic lights. I sometimes have to sit through three cycles of the lights in order to get through. There's probably more idle exhaust at that one intersection every day than all the random occurrances in the city.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2017 at 4:25 pm

"This morning, my car had ice on the windshield. I idled for about ten minutes so that the ice melted and the windows defrosted. Would this be illegal under the new ordnance?"

Legal or schmegal, you risk cracking your windshield from the heat.


5 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 14, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Now that the city eliminated the dedicated right-turn-on-red lane @ Middlefield & Embarcadero West, the number of idling cars has increased dramatically and traffic is backed up for blocks while leaving the left turn lane toward 101 and Embarcadero East wide open.

Think anyone from the city will notice or care or change the line striping???



3 people like this
Posted by @ Curmudgeon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2017 at 4:44 pm

"Legal or schmegal, you risk cracking your windshield from the heat."

Still laughing out loud at this latest manifestation of ignorance, even though it is actually sad that, judging by town square posts on multiple topics, so many people in supposedly educated Palo Alto seem to have no clue about basic science or technology.


Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 14, 2017 at 5:46 pm

At the endless residential construction site on my street, this very afternoon while walking by I noticed two of the workers’ cars which were parked in front of neighboring homes - unoccupied! - idling - as the workers congregated in front of the home under construction, perhaps waiting for a paycheck, etc.
If anything, commercial workers should have to follow this law, but I bet they won’t (they smoke iin front of my property and throw theircigarette buts on it), and instead, those of us who warm up our icy vehicles for 5 min. so we can see out in the winter mornings will be the ones targeted.
I also notice tour busses idling at various locales.
Plus big trucks using Embacadero, when I was always told such heavy vehicles were required to use Oregon Expy. - well, in recentbyears they are skirting that rule.
.


Like this comment
Posted by Mesa
a resident of Mayfield
on Dec 14, 2017 at 5:55 pm

If all the complainers would simply shut off their engines while they're cars are parked (not at a traffic light) there would be no need for an ordinance. Combustion engines emit as much carbon whether the vehicle is moving or stationary. In the spirit of removing carbon from the atmosphere this is a simple, easy solution. Why all the resistance. The reason the planet's days are numbered is because people can't be bothered to make personal changes like leaving the engine off when they sit in their cars and text away. Very sad commentary on our selfishness... even in liberal, well educated, progressive Palo Alto!


6 people like this
Posted by pepper03
a resident of Egan Middle School (Los Altos)
on Dec 14, 2017 at 9:06 pm

I am truly saddened that in a supposedly well-educated community as Palo Alto there is so much dissent to an effort to help make our lives and that of our children healthier, to save fuel and money, and to reduce wear on our cars. People are genuinely misinformed. First of all, modern cars do not need to idle...idling simply wastes gas and puts more wear and tear on the engine (crossover time is 10 seconds). For every two minutes of idling, one mile could be traveled. "Ghost miles" accumulate on an idling engine. According to reliable sources, including the study: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Operations Best Practices Guide: Idle Reduction, "Excessive idling can create engine wear and carbon soot buildup in the engine and components". This can lead to shortened life of motor oil, spark plugs and exhaust systems, plus decreased fuel mileage and the need to adhere to a "severe duty" maintenance schedule. For similar reasons, many owners manuals recommend avoiding excessive idling. Idling wastes fuel... At $2.75/gal, an averaged sized car like a Toyota Camry can cost around $100 annually when idling excessively while parked. The average light-duty vehicle burns 0.375 gal/hr.; heavy-duty up to one gal/hr. And the exhaust contain toxins that are extremely unhealthy - causing asthma and cancer. Children breathe more rapidly than adults and are especially susceptible. As you walk around town notice all the people reading their emails, eating, snoozing, etc., with the engine on, when they could save money, save their engines, and improve their health as well as their neighbors if they simply turn the car off. Is that so hard?


3 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2017 at 9:07 pm

"... so many people in supposedly educated Palo Alto seem to have no clue about basic science or technology."

Apparently so, and thanks for your exemplary example of that.

Have you ever noticed wavy cracks in a windshield that radiate from the area of the defroster vents? I have. They are much more prevalent in areas that get really cold, but the laws of physics are the same there and here, uninformed supercilious comments notwithstanding.

The cold ice on the outside of the glass and the hot defroster air on the inside create stresses that can fracture the glass, and occasionally do. It's that simple. Go back, retake your grade school science class, try to pass it this time.


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm

Excellent reference, @Pepper03. Highly recommended for every internal combustion engine vehicle owner. It is available free at Web Link.

From it:

Common myths about idling:
• Idling is more efficient and uses less fuel than turning the engine off and on again
• Turning the engine off and on is hard on the starter
• Idling is the best way to warm up the engine, especially in cold weather
• Idling does not cause damage to a vehicle’s engine


6 people like this
Posted by @ Curmudgeon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2017 at 1:25 am

"They are much more prevalent in areas that get really cold" - indeed, you said it yourself, so now I am laughing even louder.

Or perhaps next you are going to entertain us with some anecdotes how you have seen diesel fuel turn into gel in Antarctica and try to advise Nayeli that the same could happen to her in Palo Alto...

Let me guess - you are really good at passing multiple choice tests...it really shows from your ubiquitous comments in this forum.


14 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2017 at 6:51 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ what a lazy x - I don't own an ice scraper. It was stolen along with the other things in our "vehicle emergency kit" a few months ago. It wasn't replaced because it slipped our minds. However, to call me a "lazy x" for this is more telling of your attitude than mine.


6 people like this
Posted by Illegal in Colorado
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 15, 2017 at 6:55 am

In Colorado it's illegal to let you car idle unattended in your driveway. That's for the entire state.
They call it "Puffing" and they write tickets for it.
Neyeli, don't be so lazy, scrape the ice.


3 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 15, 2017 at 8:30 am

Online Name is a registered user.

What's the budget for anti-idling "education"? Since I live on a constantly backed up street, I'd be glad to rent the city some space on my lawn, on my poor damaged street tree that some driver slammed into when the guy in front of him capriciously stopped dead in front of him....


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2017 at 9:14 am

It is very hard to find an ice scraper here. I tried recently at the car parts place on California in Mountain View. They told me to go to Tahoe to get one!

Seriously though, all you need is a credit card to scrape the ice.

I personally don't like to leave my car with the engine running while the car defrosts, but having lived in snowy climes, it is done all the time and quite often driven off by a thief just waiting for someone to do so.


15 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:39 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@Illegal in Colorado - Did you read my subsequent comment? It was a one-time issue the other day in which we did not have a ice scraper (because our vehicle was BURGLARIZED recently and it was in the emergency roadside kit that was stolen).

"Lazy?" It is amazing how condescending and rude some people can be when it fits within their agenda. The logic behind this sort of "lazy" slur is like calling someone "lazy" because they were late to work because someone slashed their tires that morning.

The point is moot anyway because this law exempts such situations. When I first read the article, I don't remember seeing the exemption part about icy conditions (my mistake). I guess that it was a bigger mistake to even ask the question based upon the angry and bitter responses.


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:33 pm

"Or perhaps next you are going to entertain us with some anecdotes how you have seen diesel fuel turn into gel in Antarctica..."

You've driven diesels in Antarctica? Tell us about it.

I do have an anecdote about a diesel VW in the very cold winter of 1991, when the temperature here sustained below 20F, and I had to triple-glow my bunny to start it. But it wouldn't run above idle (uh-oh), only small saliva-like flecks flowed thru the fuel supply tube, but that doughty little clatterbuggy got me to the grocery store and back.


"Let me guess - you are really good at passing multiple choice tests..."

Life is full of choices, and I agree with your assessment.


Back to frosty windshields--putting a dry bath towel on the glass the night before prevents frost. Use magnets as needed.


5 people like this
Posted by Concern about the environment
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I often see people leaving the car running while they are parked in a parking space. You can see that on weekdays around 3-4pm by Bryant and Kellogg where parents are waiting in the parked cars idling and waiting to pick up their daughters from Castilleja. Is that really necessary to leave the car running to crank up the air conditioner or heater with the windows closed in a parked car? As recent as last couple of weeks, I saw two separate incidents of unoccupied construction vehicles parked on the side of the street idling and spilling toxic exhaust for over 20 min. Finally I had to find the drivers to turn them off.
I agree we shouldn't need to have this type of law if people have common sense and thinking about others and the environments. However, the sad part this is lacking from a number of people. So I think it is necessary for this type of law to prevent these type of people from further ruining our health and the environment.


2 people like this
Posted by pepper03
a resident of Egan Middle School (Los Altos)
on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:24 pm

Think of all that we do to provide benefits for our children. And then parents idle their cars in the school parking lots and essentially poison their kids. Per EPA: Why is it bad to idle vehicles?
Idling vehicles contribute to air pollution and emit air toxins, which are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. Monitoring at schools has shown elevated levels of benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other air toxics during the afternoon hour coinciding with parents picking up their children. Children’s lungs are still developing, and when they are exposed to elevated levels of these pollutants, children have an increased risk of developing asthma, respiratory problems and other adverse health effects. Limiting a vehicle’s idling time can dramatically reduce these pollutants and children’s exposure to them.

What doesn't make sense to me is that parents will do just about anything for their kids...but when asked to be slightly inconvenienced to turn off the engine, they feel it's too much to ask. Something is wrong with this picture.

Yes, and exhaust is also very bad for the health of seniors. And it emits CO2 unnecessarily.

Is it really too much to ask?

Finally, other cities across the country and in Canada have anti-idling laws, many much stricter than the one Palo Alto is considering. Examples are Park City, Utah, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, the whole state of Massachusetts, Whitefish, Monana, Denver, and many more.

Perhaps we should be thanking our City Council for helping protect our health and especially that of our precious children.


39 people like this
Posted by Marrol
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 16, 2017 at 8:49 am

Symbolism over substance, nothing more. At times our city leaders and elected officials spin their wheels on these "feel good" measures and gestures that ultimately have zero impact. It's the Palo Alto way it seems. Cater to the latest vocal minority or niche group in order to placate their cause. Ignore the real issues and focus on fluff. Bottom line, a big waste of time, energy, and all too often tax payer dollars. So typical and predictable.


Like this comment
Posted by Chuck
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 am

If we all breathe the same air, then we are all responsible for reducing the pollution!


4 people like this
Posted by StarSpring
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 17, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Looks like Cory Wolbach is the only one getting my vote in the next election. It is a stupid law, grounded in a flawed HS student study that was then misinterpreted by the Sierra Club friend of a council member that used the erroneous results to propose a law that the City admits is unenforcible, and further encourages disrespect for our PAPD. What’s not to like here?


9 people like this
Posted by Idle Hands
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 18, 2017 at 9:30 am

I like to go out sometimes and get a sandwich or prepared food and
eat in my car listening to the radio instead of the noise or inane music
in most restaurants. When it is cold I like to have the heater going.

So, that is actually illegal now? What a crock.


4 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Dec 19, 2017 at 10:18 am

I had a person on the street who was sitting there idling for more than five
minutes - not a regular. My sense was that he was waiting for a DHL or UPS truck for a delivery package he could steal. I went out and told him that sitting and idling was now a recognized problem and he moved out of the neighborhood. Then later a package was stolen by a person in another car. Watch what is going on if you are expecting a package and be careful who you are monitoring the transit of the package on the internet. A lot of people out there now who are not regulars.


1 person likes this
Posted by Too funny
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 19, 2017 at 11:26 am

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 19, 2017 at 12:55 pm

"Idling vehicles are standard protocol for an immediate getaway, if that is ever required. In the meantime, their big idling SUV's boring holes in the ozone layer."

Why are these overalleged prophets of disruption anchoring themselves in the past, when the Tesla X can blast off from a completely cold start on a second's notice and be at sixty in a few seconds


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Dec 19, 2017 at 1:12 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by I can't sit by and do nothing
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm

Well, actually, I can. I just can't have my car running.
I can't sit idly by anymore I guess


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Why is it becoming increasingly impossible to open a restaurant on the Peninsula?
By Elena Kadvany | 27 comments | 5,097 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 2,829 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,184 views

It just takes time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 562 views

Helping Partners Become Couples (vs. Helping Couples Become Partners)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 461 views

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now