News

Palo Alto to cut funding for planning, transportation as revenues drop

City Council looks to trim nearly 16% from programs

With city finances sputtering and ridership plummeting, Palo Alto's shuttle program is approaching its final stop after 20 years of operations.

The City Council endorsed last week the elimination of the small shuttle program, which was launched in 1999 and which offers free rides to seniors, students and other local riders. The move will save the city about $500,000 at a time when it is facing a projected budget gap of $38.8 million.

The elimination of the shuttle program is one of a series of changes that the council approved to the city's planning and transportation operations, which are collectively seeing their budgets reduced by 16%, or about $3.5 million. The bulk of the cuts will be in the Planning and Development Services Department, which will lose nine positions. The reduction will mean slower turnaround time for building inspections and significant delays in application processing.

The Office of Transportation, by contrast, will see two changes, each of which is rooted in factors that preceded the pandemic. In addition to scrapping the shuttle program, which has seen a steady decline in ridership over the past three years, the office plans to switch to license-plate readers to enforce the Residential Preferential Parking programs in different neighborhoods. The move is expected to help save about $185,000 because the city won't need as many enforcement officers.

The switch to license-plate readers is also expected to increase citation revenue, Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi told the council during the May 13 budget review.

What's local journalism worth to you?

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

Learn more

Kamhi said the new parking system will allow for "virtual permits," eliminating the need to issue stickers and hangtags to permit holders. The permitting system also will allow customers to easily adjust permits and vehicles without going to City Hall or waiting for their permits to arrive by mail, he said.

Kamhi noted at the May 13 budget review that the changes to the parking program were ones that the city was considering even before the economic downturn, which made implementation more urgent. The pandemic, in effect, sped things up.

"The program modifications in this proposal are items that have actually been part of our long-term strategy that would have taken us years of approaching and dealing with," Kamhi said. "And we're really outside the current plan, but they really should be accelerated in order to achieve cost efficiencies immediately."

He was less sanguine about ending the shuttle program. Its two routes, Crosstown and Embarcadero, connect downtown to south Palo Alto and to businesses near the east side of U.S. Highway 101, respectively. The budget acknowledges that the action "will reduce free alternative transportation options to residents and visitors to Palo Alto, including senior citizens and local students."

The proposed elimination follows several years of declining ridership, which has dropped from more than 150,000 trips in 2016 to about 100,000 in 2019, Kamhi said. The city will be "lucky" if it sees 70,000 riders this year, he added.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"We expect ridership will likely be impacted further post-COVID as people attempt to continue to distance," Kamhi said.

Kamhi said that to be successful, the shuttle program would need significant additional investment.

"It would need marketing and other service enhancements to really make it an appealing service and make it a service that drives back to the ridership that we experienced just five years ago," Kamhi said.

The council agreed to eliminate the shuttle, even as several council members lamented the end of the program. Councilwoman Alison Cormack called it a "tough loss" and Councilwoman Lydia Kou said she is "very said" to see the routes eliminated, noting that they help provide "last mile" and "first mile" solutions to commuters.

Councilwoman Liz Kniss suggested partnering with Palo Alto Unified School District to preserve a shuttle route, in recognition that students represented about a third of the ridership in surveys conducted earlier this year. She also suggested a switch from fixed routes to on-demand services, an option that Kamhi said should be considered in the future, if the city chooses to restore funding for the shuttle.

"An on-demand-type service would really give us the ability to cost control and give us parameters on the types of trips we'd be subsidizing and how much we subsidize," Kamhi said.

The council tentatively approved the budgets for both planning and transportation services. The only item that the council opted to restore is $273,988 that staff was planning to cut from long-term planning. The action would have cut funding from housing-related assignments and projects such as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a forthcoming document to lay out a new vision for a 60-acre portion of the Ventura neighborhood, which includes the former location of Fry's Electronics. It would have also limited staff's ability to advance the council's land-use policies, as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, according to the budget.

Mayor Adrian Fine argued that the funding should be maintained, particularly given the shifting state mandates on housing and new developments. Having funding for long-term planning would help the city "implement them in a way that is amenable to Palo Alto." Fine said. Cormack, Kniss and Councilman Greg Tanaka joined him in a 4-3 vote to maintain the funding.

"To remove that program will not serve us well, particularly given the contentiousness and the attention Palo Altans pay to development issues," Fine said.

The council plans to resume its budget discussion on May 26.

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

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.

Palo Alto to cut funding for planning, transportation as revenues drop

City Council looks to trim nearly 16% from programs

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, May 20, 2020, 9:27 am

With city finances sputtering and ridership plummeting, Palo Alto's shuttle program is approaching its final stop after 20 years of operations.

The City Council endorsed last week the elimination of the small shuttle program, which was launched in 1999 and which offers free rides to seniors, students and other local riders. The move will save the city about $500,000 at a time when it is facing a projected budget gap of $38.8 million.

The elimination of the shuttle program is one of a series of changes that the council approved to the city's planning and transportation operations, which are collectively seeing their budgets reduced by 16%, or about $3.5 million. The bulk of the cuts will be in the Planning and Development Services Department, which will lose nine positions. The reduction will mean slower turnaround time for building inspections and significant delays in application processing.

The Office of Transportation, by contrast, will see two changes, each of which is rooted in factors that preceded the pandemic. In addition to scrapping the shuttle program, which has seen a steady decline in ridership over the past three years, the office plans to switch to license-plate readers to enforce the Residential Preferential Parking programs in different neighborhoods. The move is expected to help save about $185,000 because the city won't need as many enforcement officers.

The switch to license-plate readers is also expected to increase citation revenue, Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi told the council during the May 13 budget review.

Kamhi said the new parking system will allow for "virtual permits," eliminating the need to issue stickers and hangtags to permit holders. The permitting system also will allow customers to easily adjust permits and vehicles without going to City Hall or waiting for their permits to arrive by mail, he said.

Kamhi noted at the May 13 budget review that the changes to the parking program were ones that the city was considering even before the economic downturn, which made implementation more urgent. The pandemic, in effect, sped things up.

"The program modifications in this proposal are items that have actually been part of our long-term strategy that would have taken us years of approaching and dealing with," Kamhi said. "And we're really outside the current plan, but they really should be accelerated in order to achieve cost efficiencies immediately."

He was less sanguine about ending the shuttle program. Its two routes, Crosstown and Embarcadero, connect downtown to south Palo Alto and to businesses near the east side of U.S. Highway 101, respectively. The budget acknowledges that the action "will reduce free alternative transportation options to residents and visitors to Palo Alto, including senior citizens and local students."

The proposed elimination follows several years of declining ridership, which has dropped from more than 150,000 trips in 2016 to about 100,000 in 2019, Kamhi said. The city will be "lucky" if it sees 70,000 riders this year, he added.

"We expect ridership will likely be impacted further post-COVID as people attempt to continue to distance," Kamhi said.

Kamhi said that to be successful, the shuttle program would need significant additional investment.

"It would need marketing and other service enhancements to really make it an appealing service and make it a service that drives back to the ridership that we experienced just five years ago," Kamhi said.

The council agreed to eliminate the shuttle, even as several council members lamented the end of the program. Councilwoman Alison Cormack called it a "tough loss" and Councilwoman Lydia Kou said she is "very said" to see the routes eliminated, noting that they help provide "last mile" and "first mile" solutions to commuters.

Councilwoman Liz Kniss suggested partnering with Palo Alto Unified School District to preserve a shuttle route, in recognition that students represented about a third of the ridership in surveys conducted earlier this year. She also suggested a switch from fixed routes to on-demand services, an option that Kamhi said should be considered in the future, if the city chooses to restore funding for the shuttle.

"An on-demand-type service would really give us the ability to cost control and give us parameters on the types of trips we'd be subsidizing and how much we subsidize," Kamhi said.

The council tentatively approved the budgets for both planning and transportation services. The only item that the council opted to restore is $273,988 that staff was planning to cut from long-term planning. The action would have cut funding from housing-related assignments and projects such as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a forthcoming document to lay out a new vision for a 60-acre portion of the Ventura neighborhood, which includes the former location of Fry's Electronics. It would have also limited staff's ability to advance the council's land-use policies, as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, according to the budget.

Mayor Adrian Fine argued that the funding should be maintained, particularly given the shifting state mandates on housing and new developments. Having funding for long-term planning would help the city "implement them in a way that is amenable to Palo Alto." Fine said. Cormack, Kniss and Councilman Greg Tanaka joined him in a 4-3 vote to maintain the funding.

"To remove that program will not serve us well, particularly given the contentiousness and the attention Palo Altans pay to development issues," Fine said.

The council plans to resume its budget discussion on May 26.

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Comments

What Will They Do Next
Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 11:51 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 11:51 am
9 people like this

Residential Parking Program should refund fees retroactive to when SIP became the rule. Streets are mostly empty because those who paid for permits are working from home.


nat
Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 12:55 pm
nat, Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 12:55 pm
2 people like this

Liz Kniss had a good idea, to see if the school district would be willing to share the cost of the city's shuttles.

I hope that the City will do that and restore the funding for the shuttles.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 20, 2020 at 1:27 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 20, 2020 at 1:27 pm
6 people like this

Making any decisions at present about transportation when we have no idea what things will look like in 3 months' time, let alone 12 months' time.

Big tech giants are already saying that they will continue to encourage working from home at least until the end of the calendar year and some are even saying that employees can work from home forever.

Schools may be put on staggered times or even staggered days. What that will mean to traffic is unknown at least until such time as they have made a decision.

VTA has already stated that their routes in Palo Alto that are duplicating the shuttles will be reduced or eliminated. We have lost out already and VTA are unlikely to change their plans.

A free shuttle was never a good idea, in my opinion. A free service of anything is more likely to be abused and not valued than one that has a charge to it. A modest fare was always something that would have made sense. And now it makes even more sense.

Eliminating a shuttle is not good particularly as an either/or option. Keep the shuttle but charge those riding a modest fare.

We have to start looking for half way measures/compromises. We can't just say we have this or we have that. We must look for third options, particularly when there are so many unknowns for the future. For example, you want people to go to downtown or Cal Ave restaurants, then you need to give them options to get there and just as importantly to get back. Either that, or you need to improve parking in those areas for longer than 2 or 3 hours.

People cannot be expected to walk/bike, particularly in the dark or rain in winter, or in 90+ temps in summer. It just won't happen. Shuttles or parking are much better options than a 20 minute bike ride in full sun when temps are in the mid 90s in summer, or when it is dark at 5.00 pm, or when it is raining hard.

Yes our weather is good, but good weather is not always good biking weather in July or October. That is not something that is unknown as we go forward.




David Page
Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 2:04 pm
David Page, Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 2:04 pm
10 people like this

Having the hundreds of city workers who currently work from home - remain doing so indefinitely - wouldn't save tons of money. However, it wouldn't cost any money either, and it would make big cuts to air pollution and traffic!


Gale Johnson
Adobe-Meadow
on May 20, 2020 at 5:25 pm
Gale Johnson , Adobe-Meadow
on May 20, 2020 at 5:25 pm
4 people like this

Damn, and I was looking forward to my first Palo Alto bus ride ever, and I’m 83 years old and have lived here since 1961. Oh well, I’ll just keep driving my car, even after they won’t renew my drivers’ license anymore. Damn virus!


Allen Akin
Professorville
on May 20, 2020 at 5:28 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
on May 20, 2020 at 5:28 pm
16 people like this

Check this out, from Staff's RPP memo to Council on May 13th:

"...it is also recommended that there are no more free annual permits. ... This policy would serve as a disincentive to parking on the street when off-street capacity exists. Though the purpose of this recommendation is to maximize street parking capacity, even a nominal fee would also generate significant additional revenue, supporting the RPP Fund’s solvency." (Web Link)

So, Staff believes the demand for parking in the neighborhoods is going to increase so greatly that allowing even one free street space per household will cause an unacceptable loss of capacity. Yet at the same time so little revenue is going to be generated that it's a good idea to tax residents a bit more to keep the fund solvent.

What does Staff know that it hasn't told us?


Resident in an RPP area
Evergreen Park
on May 20, 2020 at 6:37 pm
Resident in an RPP area, Evergreen Park
on May 20, 2020 at 6:37 pm
24 people like this

Regarding the proposal to eliminate the one free parking permit for residents in RRP areas., I find this astounding. First, some of us need protection from an overflow of employee parking because the City has refused to make developers and businesses bear the cost of the cars they bring to areas like Downtown and California Ave. When the residents can no longer park on their own street, then the City attacks the residents as ‘selfish’ — even though, the City and the Council are the ones that caused the damage. Next, they set the price of parking permits in residential neighborhoods BELOW the cost of permits in City lots and garages. So, now, if you live in certain areas, you will have to pay to be able to park on your own street for longer than 2 hours at a time, while businesses get away with dumping their externalities on residents.

Thanks a lot City! Way to go to serve residents who actually live here.


What
Downtown North
on May 20, 2020 at 6:56 pm
What, Downtown North
on May 20, 2020 at 6:56 pm
9 people like this

How do you make up for a $38.8 million budget gap with just $3.5 million in transportation budget cuts?

Some projects like bike bridges were drawn out and over budget. Delivering projects on budget and on time seem to be important now.


Oldster
Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 7:55 pm
Oldster, Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 7:55 pm
Like this comment

Resident, indeed, "We must look for third options."

How about some private sector and volunteer options? For example, instead of closing libraries or reducing hours, use library volunteers to keep the doors open and shelve books until the economy rebounds? For shuttles and other needed local street mass transit let's fast-track more autonomous vehicles from private companies. Instead of stopping pay to many building inspectors and thus gum up any hope of a quick recovery in construction work, allow builders to use third party private licensed inspectors if such people exist. Let our local residents hire a laid off City building inspector!


Oldster
Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 8:02 pm
Oldster, Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 8:02 pm
Like this comment

Resident, indeed, "We must look for third options."

How about some private sector and volunteer options? For example, instead of closing libraries or reducing hours, use library volunteers to help keep the doors open and shelve books until the economy rebounds. For shuttles and other needed local street mass transit let's fast-track more autonomous micro-buses from private companies. Instead of stopping pay to many building inspectors and thus gum up any hope of a quick recovery in construction work, allow builders to use third party private licensed inspectors if such people exist. Let our local residents hire a laid off City building inspector!

I'd gladly work shifts as a volunteer to keep the doors open at my local library and help with summer programs for local children and teens such as the community theater programs. If we all pull together, there is no reason we can't have a better summer than ever. We just need to get creative.


Librarian
Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 20, 2020 at 8:03 pm
Librarian, Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 20, 2020 at 8:03 pm
5 people like this

There’s more to being a librarian than shelving books.
There are professional librarians with master’s degrees, para-professionals, library clerks, sometimes volunteers and student temporary workers.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 20, 2020 at 8:05 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 20, 2020 at 8:05 pm
12 people like this

"How do you make up for a $38.8 million budget gap with just $3.5 million in transportation budget cuts?

Some projects like bike bridges were drawn out and over budget. Delivering projects on budget and on time seem to be important now."

So it would seem but the CC's had bigger and more immediate priorities than tackling the big-ticket capital expenditure budget -- like banning vaping because of some illegal sales to minors even if it destroys adult-only businesses, the rights of adult customers and kills one of our oldest businesses.


Oldster
Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 8:15 pm
Oldster, Old Palo Alto
on May 20, 2020 at 8:15 pm
2 people like this

Of course I respect professional librarians. But, volunteers can be used for "limited" rolls just as so many rural areas have only volunteer firefighters given funds available.

If not for the Palo Alto "volunteers" who raised private funds to rebuild Rinconada and Mitchell Park libraries instead of paid City staffers doing that sort of normal City Hall employees' "long range planning" duties we'd not have our largest libraries here suited for the Internet Age.

I am sitting on several library books I checked out months ago and am unable to return them since all libraries here are closed. San Diego just re-opened curbside service at its public libraries. Why can't we do that here with help from volunteers and some paid librarians, too, to supervise those volunteers? And also restart the library WiFi service so many depend on?


midtown2
Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 8:24 pm
midtown2, Midtown
on May 20, 2020 at 8:24 pm
4 people like this

To those suggesting that the shuttles not be free -- it costs a lot to set up a system that enables riders to pay..

The free shuttles may have been a bad idea to the extent that they caused VTA to cut service dramatically here, and their ridership may be down, but I would hold off on eliminating them. They don't cost much and nobody has any idea what things will be like when this is "over," if it ever is. There's the fear that people won't go back to using public transit or ride-sharing: one's own car definitely seems a safe option in comparison. However, if the roads get too gridlocked...

Meanwhile, what about people in Stevenson House? I do see a lot of cars there. The Crosstown shuttle is supposed to serve them. Maybe they don't need it, but with the number of seniors increasing at a pretty impressive rate here in Palo Alto, it might be a good idea to try to save the shuttles.


Annette
College Terrace
on May 21, 2020 at 8:57 am
Annette, College Terrace
on May 21, 2020 at 8:57 am
9 people like this

Is the shuttle elimination temporary or permanent? Will the Tech shuttle continue?

People who ride the train and then shuttle to work at businesses located on the Baylands side of Embarcadero will now have even greater "last mile" challenges and this could result in more car trips, many no-doubt in single-occupancy. I understand the need to reduce the budget but wonder if the City has answers or suggestions for the displaced riders. And if this decision been assessed for its impact on greenhouse gasses?

Also, when I rode the shuttle I often saw Casti students on it. I think the shuttle factors into Castilleja's TDM program and is (oddly, I think) part of the school's justification for their growth and development plans. Obviously this decision impacts that. What's the alternate plan for getting the students who rode the train and shuttle to Castilleja? A private Casti shuttle? More cars? More vehicle impact on that neighborhood?


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2020 at 9:05 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2020 at 9:05 am
9 people like this

Posted by Allen Akin, a resident of Professorville

>> What does Staff know that it hasn't told us?

They know that pro-office-space forces have more political clout than residents and will succeed in keeping a majority on PACC voting their way.


Esther Granderson
Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2020 at 9:09 am
Esther Granderson, Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2020 at 9:09 am
8 people like this

In lieu of the community shuttle, can't people simply arrange to carpool their errands with neighbors?

I am 85 and still drive when needed. I also wear my facemask and combine shopping runs for my friends who either cannot drive or are immobilized at home.

It is no big deal. Just make some friends or ask relatives to pitch in. The community shuttle is a fertile nesting ground for spreading the coronavirus.

As for city planning & in life.... if you have no money to spend, there is no need to be making any unnecessary plans.


Tom
Greenmeadow
on May 21, 2020 at 10:08 am
Tom, Greenmeadow
on May 21, 2020 at 10:08 am
11 people like this

The saving of $500k is not even able to cover the salary/benefits of one Palo Alto city manager.


John
Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2020 at 11:17 am
John, Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2020 at 11:17 am
10 people like this

It is unfortunate that folks believe that laying off city employees and cutting department budgets will be the cure as almost 99.9% of those jobs will be replaced by scab contract employees who have no connection or could care less about Palo Alto. As a former city employee I can attest that the best and most knowledgeable city employees have long since moved on. City management will hold tightly to their treasured six figure incomes with no fear of losing their jobs as they sell out employees who are the frontline servers. The city manager and city council have created a workplace that is unfortunately substandard in public relations and only shows their distaste for those folks who currently reside in Palo Alto.


renter
Midtown
on May 21, 2020 at 12:48 pm
renter, Midtown
on May 21, 2020 at 12:48 pm
8 people like this

How about enacting a foreign buyers' fee on residential real estate? This would kill two birds with one stone: increase housing stock for locals and increase revenue for the city. Unfortunately there are too many greedy homeowners and real estate agents that prevent this from ever being enacted.


Jeremy
Midtown
on May 21, 2020 at 5:23 pm
Jeremy, Midtown
on May 21, 2020 at 5:23 pm
Like this comment

I see no sense in cutting a $500,000 free shuttle program which the Chief Transportation Official says could directly serve 70,000 people in the coming year, but then restoring $273,988 to long-term planning. Directly helping people get around in this difficult time would be a much better use of city funds than funding a long-range study that could easily be put off a year, and would likely not directly help a single person in the next fiscal year.


Ahem
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2020 at 11:48 pm
Ahem, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2020 at 11:48 pm
8 people like this

@Jeremy,

How do you come up with the figure of 70,000 people being served by the free shuttle? Come on, Palo Alto's population is only about 65,000.

From the article:

"The proposed elimination follows several years of declining ridership, which has dropped from more than 150,000 trips in 2016 to about 100,000 in 2019, Kamhi said. The city will be "lucky" if it sees 70,000 riders this year, he added."

Transportation "officials" like Kamhi like to exaggerate the popularity of these fringe transportation systems by conflating trips and riders.

Most people who use the free shuttle make two trips per day, so 70,000/250/2 = 140 people served.


Cath
Evergreen Park
on May 22, 2020 at 10:24 am
Cath, Evergreen Park
on May 22, 2020 at 10:24 am
9 people like this

Why do we need to maximize on-street parking in residential neighborhoods?

Is the city planning to flood neighborhoods with office worker parking because fewer of them will be taking public transport?

Is the City planning to flood the neighborhoods with cars because it is planning to close parking lots and garages to allow for on-street dining and shopping and these diners and shoppers have to park somewhere?

Is the City planning to flood the streets with cars from dense housing developments that do not provide sufficient parking for residents?

Is the city -panning this for all RPPs, or only some RPPs?

Is it possible for the City to be transparent for once? What exactly is it you are planning for residential neighborhoods? Why doesn’t the City ex-;ain’t their rationale and allow informed input before deciding these things?

Why is it that residents have to ferret these things out by spending hours reading the details of every proposal and asking questions? Wouldn’t it save time just to write this all out in the first place? Darn those pesky residents who want to know what their government is doing.


Cath
Evergreen Park
on May 22, 2020 at 10:29 am
Cath, Evergreen Park
on May 22, 2020 at 10:29 am
8 people like this

Do you remember not so long ago when our Mayor and others on the City Council stated that soon no one would own a car because they would just summon a self-driving vehicle? When they suggested that garages would be empty albatrosses because no one would be driving?

I guess that isn’t happening exactly that way and now we need to maximize the parking in residential neighborhoods?


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2020 at 1:00 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2020 at 1:00 pm
Like this comment

According to this 2015 article, at that time, roughly 123,000 people were commuting in to Palo Alto on average.

"So how bad is it and why is it so bad? The numbers tell the story. On a typical day, people who live in, work in or come to Palo Alto drive (or ride on buses) 8.2 million miles, according to the city's Existing Conditions report. That's an average of 53.3 vehicle miles per person. The per-capita vehicle miles for the Bay Area as a whole is about 20, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional planning group. About 6.6 million (or 80 percent) of the Palo Alto miles are for trips by people who live outside of Palo Alto and are coming to a destination — work or other — within the city. In other words, Palo Alto's traffic problem is caused largely by those who live elsewhere."

Web Link

I don't know what the numbers were before COVID-19, but, we all were trapped in the endless backups. (Anybody know where the 2019 numbers are?)

So, Cath, in answer to your question, you need to plan on using Uber so that outside commuters can park on your street.


Red
Community Center
on May 22, 2020 at 1:39 pm
Red, Community Center
on May 22, 2020 at 1:39 pm
7 people like this

I wonder, is the transportation dept. still planning on "improving" the Bryant bike Blvd. with more pointless traffic circles and other acts of resume puffing "street furniture" installations? If yes, there's some very expensive low hanging fruit that should have been composted a long time ago.


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.