Position paper - Traffic and Development

By Bob Moss

This has been near the top of the list for more than 25 years, and is likely to be a major issue well into the next decade. Traffic congestion is getting worse. There are more and more cars on our streets, rush hour traffic now begins about 6 AM and lasts until after 6 PM, with minor dips in mid-morning and mid-afternoon. Finding parking is difficult downtown and at Stanford Shopping Center, less difficult at California Ave. When Caltrans increases the number of trains/day to better serve commuters, it will make it more difficult to cross the tracks at along Charleston , Meadow, and Churchill. The congestion is caused by many factors, but some of the major causes are the jobs/housing imbalance and the large number of workers who must drive into Palo Alto, increased development in general, and the School District eliminating most school busses. New developments, both commercial and residential, just seem to add to the traffic problems. That is partly because only 20 to 25% of the new residents also work in Palo Alto, so adding new residents just adds vehicle trips. Also living and working in Palo Alto does not necessarily reduce traffic since local transit is very inadequate, and many residents drive to local jobs.

A. Create a local mini-transit system using small busses and vans which serve residential, commercial and employment areas conveniently and for low fares.

Palo Alto was promised a local transit system in the early `70s when the Palo Alto bus system was merged with Santa Clara County Transit. It never happened. The only local bus system is the Marguerite shuttle sponsored by Stanford, and busses from various businesses in the Stanford Research Park and near Bayshore to train stations, plus special event busses which operate for a day or two. The proposed local shuttle bus system is encouraging and should be pursued actively. Two or three of the proposed routes should be activated within the next 12 to 18 months.

A.1 Establish bus routes from all residential neighborhoods along major and collector streets to businesses for AM and PM peak traffic, and to commercial and shopping area for AM, mid-day and PM trips to stores and restaurants. Use both minibuses and vans, depending upon the route and time of day. Test the effectiveness of the busses, routes and schedules over an extended period, and make adjustments as needed every 6 or 12 months. Note: The bus system will have to be handicapped accessible, which may mean providing wheelchair lifts on all or most busses, or having special busses with wheelchair lifts on call for handicapped users, or offering handicapped access without chair lifts, if possible.

A.2 Operate some of the busses during low usage times for home deliveries from participating merchants and facilities. This will utilize busses when they might otherwise be idle or underused, will replace some shopping trips, showcases the shuttle off just regular routes, and creates good will for merchants. It also will improve store access and living conditions for seniors and shut-ins. A.3 Seek cooperation and support from Federal and State transportation agencies and foundations for demonstration grant money to help with program startup and testing, in exchange for sharing the results and lessons learned to other areas. Use of grants from a variety of agencies and organizations would strengthen the service and allow wider, more rapid exchange of ideas and proposals to improve local transit.

A.4 Ask for support and assistance from vehicle manufacturers, allowing them to try new concepts and designs such as hybrid fuel vehicles, different van designs, electrical vehicles, etc. In exchange for providing a variety of vehicles for test and evaluation, the manufacturers would receive real unbiased data on what is successful and where there are problems.

A.5 Offer incentives to businesses to join in and support the program, including providing vehicles and funding. For example, if an employer cuts vehicle trips to and from the facilities by employees by X% they get a reduction in utility rates of Y%. Vehicle manufacturers offer a discount on novel company vehicles of V% in exchange for the users providing data on performance of new concept vehicles. Air pollution credits are granted for reduced vehicle use by employees which can be transferred to increased air pollution credits for new facilities. If employers encourage use of electric vehicles by providing recharging stations in preferred parking areas, then offer a reduction in electric rates which more than covers the added cost of the recharging energy. Tie energy cost reductions to continued patronage of Palo Alto Utilities.

A.6 Instead of requiring new development in commercial areas such as Downtown and California Ave. to pay for or provide parking, allow the funds to be used for transit and alternatives to use of vehicles to access the area - for example A.1 above.

A.7 Encourage telecommuting by providing high capacity data trunks at low or reduced rates in exchange for measurable and significant reductions in vehicle trips. Offer terminals or cheap computers to workers in exchange for moving their work to home, reducing vehicle trips.

A.8 Ask for support and assistance, including provision of experimental or innovative telecommunications equipment from suppliers. In exchange for providing equipment at low or no cost the suppliers obtain valuable data on bugs, problems, and successes.

A.9 Staffing of the local bus system should include lower income and homeless people who demonstrate the skills and capability to be trained and to perform acceptably. Emphasize providing jobs for local residents whenever possible.

A.10 Supplement these efforts with cheap, low tech alternatives such as free yellow bikes. These cheap 1-speed bikes would be available at stands all over downtown, California Avenue, along El Camino, in Midtown, and Charleston Plaza. Anyone who needed one would take it, ride it to a destination, and leave it for the next user. This system is used in Holland and has been tried in various US cities such as Portland, Oregon with some sucess.

A.11 Try as many of these approaches as possible all at once, test the results for 3 or 4 years, with annual sanity checks and modifications as indicated. Keep and try to improve what works, fix and enhance the useful but less successful, and drop what doesn't work after a fair trial. Different approaches need not have the same trial length. Some may prove themselves in a relatively short time, others may require years. Don't be too impatient or too demanding. Changing old commuting habits will take time. Adopt a plan for constant improvement and innovation to the traffic problems. A goal should be to reduce the number of Intersections operating at Level F in 50% by 2003, and eliminate Level F intersections by 2005.

2. Development and Over Development

Another old standby which waxes and wanes with the economy. We are seeing an excess of development with the strong economy and demand for housing and commercial space. This will cool down when the general economy cools, but it is best to have a long term comprehensive approach valid in good times and bad. In the past the economy and development pressures waned just as the community was getting really upset about over development. We should make this an ongoing topic for action and resolution, and not relax when the economy and pressures slow down. We need intelligent planning and management of growth.

B.1 The job-housing imbalance in Palo Alto has existed for more than 30 years. It is more local to Palo Alto than most other nearby cities. Housing failed to pay for needed government services such as police, fire, and schools even before Prop. 13. Passage of Prop. 13 and other restrictions on tax revenues made the funding shortfall even worse. Only about 20 to 25% of residents also work in Palo Alto, so more homes does not mean less traffic or a significantly better job/housing imbalance. Adding housing units, even along transit corridors, does little for the jobs/housing imbalance. Why add housing near Caltrain so that the residents can send their kids to local, overcrowded, underfunded schools while they take the train to jobs in San Francisco or Santa Clara? If new local residents are supposed to fill the surplus of local jobs, they should be able to live anywhere in the area as long as adequate local transit is provided (see 1 above). Make decisions on added housing strictly based upon the ability of local infrastructure to accommodate impacts such as traffic, student addition to schools, utility capacity, etc.

B.2. Zoning and land use rules should be clear, simple, and effective in offering a variety of commercial, residential and industrial areas with defined boundaries, rational gradations in uses and density, and assurances of quality design, construction, and usability. Use the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan as a means to review, modify, and improve zoning and land use rules and regulations. Assure that zoning and land use rules enhance and support the new Comprehensive Plan. Revise or modify any that do not or that may create conflicts. Provide firm, effective, and consistent enforcement of all building and zoning regulations.

B.3 Create a special task force of the Planning Commission and staff to review the rules and regulations on land use and zoning. Seek involvement from commercial, industrial, legal, neighborhood, Planning Commissioners, ARB members, HRB members, and government representatives. Obtain as much agreement as possible on broad principals, and on specific details, then present them to the official bodies such as Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Review Board for additional discussion, review, evaluation, and adoption by the City Council. Post the suggestions and discussions on the City home page, make them widely available in the press, have special programs on channels 6 and 16, and seek as much involvement and feedback as possible, but on an accelerated schedule such as 5 or 6 months, no more. Final recommendations to go to City Council no more than 9 months after the process begins.

B.4 Recognize that people live here because of the present physical and environmental characteristics of the community. Make no significant changes in density or development potential unless there is a very clear agreement from residents that the changes are acceptable. Strive for neighborhood compatibility and consistency.

B.5 Require that Stanford provide an amended long-term development plan for both the central campus and the "academic reserve". Assure that the plan is widely available to the public as well as neighboring jurisdictions. Do not approve any more development above the existing caps unless and until such a long-term plan is presented, has been discussed by Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Portola Valley, Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and is formally approved and adopted. This is consistent with recommendations from the City Council subcommittee on Stanford development. Create a Joint Powers Agency consisting of all affected communities to work closely with Stanford in developing and enforcing the new long-term development plan.

B.6 Review all proposed new developments and increases in density and intensity of use with the impacts on entire area and all needed services in mind. Do not allow piecemeal development or allow one developer to consume all available resources such as traffic capacity or classroom space only because they are first with a proposal. Keep total development potential in mind when reviewing and approving projects. An early proposal may be less desirable for the entire community than one which is farther back in the pipeline.

B.7 Consider all the costs and benefits of proposed developments - costs to service the use, added vehicle trips, provision of needed services or housing, tax revenues, impacts on utilities, increased student population, location of facilities to service the development, higher quality use of sites, improved appearance, added landscaping, removal of heritage trees, upgrading underused property, etc.

B.8 Modify the Below Market Rate program to give preferences to critical local workers such as public safety employees, teachers, librarians, utility repair persons, etc. They should be offered a significant fraction of new and newly available BMR units.