I frequently need to go to Cal Ave in my lunchtime errand run. No short term parking (30 minutes) means I have to take more time than I would like circling looking for an elusive spot. This happens from about 11.15 until past 1.00 pm. I get the impression that Cal Ave is a very busy lunch spot so people must be finding it vibrant and attractive enough to use their cars to get there.

Of course I could call an Uber to get me there, and then another one to take me on my next errand and another to the next errand and lastly another to return me back to where I started, but that makes my dropping off of documents, dry cleaning and buying a sandwich a very expensive run of errands.

We are a long way from self driving Ubers. We are in need of 30 minute parking now and parking for our tax preparers, dry cleaner workers and sandwich makers for their particular shifts. I doubt if they could afford daily uber rides from the central valley!

See this guest commentary by Kieffer Katz, who works at Greenbelt Alliance, an organization that advocates for smart growth and land conservation in the Bay Area. Web Link

For example, the promise of ride-hail services such as Uber and Lyft was that they would take cars off the road——just like AVs. But that proved to be a pretty, idealistic, unrealistic picture. According to a recent UC Davis study, ride-hailing has actually increased the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the cities where it is available—the opposite of what we were promised. It turns out that in somewhere between 49 and 61 percent of cases, people used a ride-hail service instead of walking, biking, taking public transportation, or not going anywhere at all—not to substitute for driving. The parallels with AVs aren’t hard to see. And we can’t pretend we didn’t see it coming; experts have been warning us for years about the VMT increase ride-hailing would most likely cause.

See also this article about a study from UC Davis. Web Link

The Ride-Hailing Effect: More Cars, More Trips, More Miles

Ride-hailing: enemy or friend of public transportation? Climate change combatant or urban traffic snarler?

Years of emerging research has yielded a murky mix of answers to those questions since Uber hit the road in 2009. At various points, the main ride-hailing companies have alternated between actively promoting their services as weapons that destroy public transit and positioning them as something more like partners that help people access other modes. But a new working paper by U.C. Davis transportation researchers—which reflects perhaps the most comprehensive survey of ride-hailing use in U.S. cities—makes some clear indications: The likes of Uber and Lyft are adding car trips to city and suburban streets, and in many cases, cannibalizing transit.

...

Does ride-hailing get cars off the streets?

This one’s more complicated, but: no. Ride-hailing companies promised that they would help people shed their income-sucking, space-wasting private autos and generally lower each person’s VMT, or vehicle miles traveled. But instead of helping people get rid of cars, Uber and Lyft instead helped them get rid of their memberships to car-sharing services, whether station-based models like Zipcar or more recent variations like Car2Go, where vehicles can be dropped off in different locations. Among users who don’t use transit, the study reports “no differences in vehicle ownership rates between ride-hailing users and traditionally car-centric households.”

What about those transit users?

Ride-hailing had something of a mixed effect on other forms of transportation. The survey concluded that “shared mobility likely attracts Americans in major cities away from bus services and light rail (6 percent and 3 percent net reduction in use, respectively).” But commuter rail is a complementary mode—there was a 3 percent increase in use among ride-hailers. An even stronger complement: plain old walking, which jumped 9 percent.

But arguably the most important finding in the study is that, absent a ride-hailing option, between 49 and 61 percent of trips either wouldn’t have been made at all, or would have been accomplished via transit, bike, or foot. Add that to the “dead heading” miles that passenger-less Uber and Lyfts are racking up, and the researchers conclude that ride-hailing is boosting VMT in cities: “Directionally, this new evidence of mode substitution suggests that ride-hailing is likely adding vehicle miles traveled to transportation systems in major cities.”

What does it all mean?

If ride-hailing services continue to operate as they have in most U.S. cities, the robust evidence of this study points to an unabated rise in congestion and emissions. Although the Uber and Lyfts of the world may complement a small portion of non-driving trips, overall, “these services currently facilitate a shift away from more sustainable modes towards low-occupancy vehicles in major cities,” Regina Clewlow, the lead author of the report, said in a statement.

----

My commentary follows.

Just as ride-sharing did not reduce congestion or car ownership, there is no evidence that autonomous vehicles will not need parking. They will. And electric autonomous vehicles will need to charge. And they will add to traffic congestion as Palo Alto's increasing population of seniors opt to ride in their own autonomous self-driving cars to maintain their mobility as they age.

Based on the latest US Census data, among Palo Alto residents who work, commuting by single occupant vehicles has gone down from 67% to 65% while bicycling (and taxicabs) have gone up from 8% to 10%.

About that US Census data, the comparisons are for the five years ending 2016 with the five years ending 2010.

Oh look, it's PA Online propping up another inane anti-car article.
Ultra-progressives love to shove their "innovative" ideas down our throats even if they fly in the face of reality. They love *collectivist* change.
What about individual change, that is voluntary, and not forced or coerced?

Here's a novel idea: think for yourself. Don't tell others what to think.

Henry Ford was brilliant, and we should appreciate the importance of solo-driving and the independence it gives us, instead of turning our liberties into a sacrificial lamb for the "greater good".

"Nearly 80 percent of millennials own cars and 75 percent of millennials who don't own a car aspire to own one now, the Accel + Qualtrics Millennial Study 2017 found." Web Link

That survey-based statistic appears to conflict with the Op-Ed's subjective and unsubstantiated claim that "Kids do not even want driver's licenses any more, much less cars (or parking spaces)." Once kids have jobs, guess what .. it turns out they do want cars after all. And all the kids driving to Paly show that they want cars even sooner.

While we wait for Katz and his co-workers at Ideo to dream up the jetpack/hyperloop/teleportation replacement for cars, let's show some respect for the merchants on California Avenue. They see plainly that parking has become a vital problem. Their customers and employees often have to park blocks away, or just stop coming. The Cal Ave. parking mess stems from the software companies creeping in over the years and cramming programmers in like sardines to keep the rent affordable. Those companies should fund the new garage since they're the reason we need it.

"The Cal Ave. parking mess stems from the software companies creeping in over the years and cramming programmers in like sardines to keep the rent affordable. Those companies should fund the new garage since they're the reason we need it."

A lot of their employees take Caltrain to get to work. If you don't believe me, go down to Cal Ave in the morning sometime. Any parking shortages can be addressed by adding extra levels to the new parking garage.

"What about individual change, that is voluntary, and not forced or coerced?"

I think that mass transit is a great idea, and that it should be expanded and improved. That being said, trying to force people onto mass transit by deliberately creating parking shortages won't work, and had been a dismal failure so far. Approving development with inadequate parking and failure to build enough capacity into parking garages only resulted in neighborhoods with near zero off-street parking. The misguided parking tax / RPP program made things even worse, making people park farther away from their destinations, inconveniencing them and crowding up even more neighborhoods. The solution is to provide the necessary parking in the right locations and enhancing mass transit options.

Most of my neighbors and I live in PA because we can walk or bicycle to work. People don't like to drive in traffic jams, and will avoid them of their own accord. Give them the necessary options and make people aware they exist.

I agree with @resident - the Cal Ave area needs some 30 minute spots and Downtown needs more of them!

The problem with using companies like Uber and Lyft is that they are very expensive. In a normal day (with traffic), it costs nearly $40 to take Uber (one-way) to SJC. While some youth (supposedly) may put off a driver's license or car, they will understand the importance in society when they graduate from college, get a job or raise a family. A car comes in handy when you're picking up groceries, visiting grandma or driving to the beach for a picnic.

I completely disagree with the notion that Americans (or residents of other developed nations) living outside of cities will collectively give up automobiles in the next few decades. Yes, there are alternatives. However, if the alternatives are more expensive and less convenient, you might as well predict an elevator to the Moon or a subway system from New York to San Francisco funded entirely by unicorn dandruff.

Still, I am interested in learning what the author of this op-ed feels would be a better short-term alternative to the parking problems in Palo Alto.

If Dr. Katz doesn't have a short-term solution, then I would still be interested in learning about any mid-range solutions for the decades prior to automobiles being given up by Americans (or, more likely, being systematically pried from driveways and garages through laws and taxes of politicians of a certain political persuasion).

I like the idea of offering incentives (e.g., tax breaks, bonuses, etc.) to individuals who find alternate forms of transportation (e.g., walking, bicycles, Segways, etc.). California could offer a tax break for homeowners or renters who choose to NOT own a vehicle. That might go a long way if people are on the bubble about whether or not to cut the cord, err, end need for a gas pump.

When somebody says we need "21st century solutions," I check for my wallet, since I know a sales job is coming. "Less is more"; "this time, things are different"; "we need some design-thinking here" - uh oh.

Here's a fact - in 2016, there were 269 million registered vehicles in the US, and 17.4 million new vehicle sales, both all time records. The number of vehicles on the road has gone up by 50 million over the last 20 years. That's the 21st century reality.

I don't reject that there may be new ideas that might benefit us. But "magical thinking" isn't the solution to real world problems. Whatever the century, the laws of supply and demand, physics, etc., apply, and we ignore them at our own risk.

A couple of inexpensive ideas for improving access to California Ave without a $100 MILLION parking garage:

1. Build a modern bicycle/pedestrian bridge from Midtown over Alma and the Caltrain tracks to the train station. The existing tunnel under the tracks is too steep and narrow and not ADA-compliant. It is also difficult to reach from south of Oregon Expressway, especially after the county changed the stop light timing (a couple of years ago) along Oregon to make walking and bicycling much slower.

2. Add a shopper shuttle to the city's shuttle bus system, which currently is good for commuters but not so good for shoppers. This shuttle could run from the Charleston shopping center, up Middlefield to the Midtown shopping center, then along Oregon to California Ave. Then down El Camino and back to Charleston.

Thank you. And yes, our name is Palo Alto. Not Edificio Alto. This was insightful and comprehensive. I like right buy Cal Ave. and bike through often. What I've noticed is most of the lunchtime people are from local start-ups and businesses who walk. Yes loads of people walk to lunch. Lately I've been counting parking spots open along Cal Ave. as I bike or sometimes drive through and there have been at least 10-20 at a time, even during busy times. Honestly I don't really see a big problem with parking. I think the local businesses think it's so. Yes, building another parking garage is like loosening the belt on an obese person. Great analogy. Plus it's just plain ugly, and will be bring more crime to the area. Not to mention another strain on us residents who have lived through so much construction for the past 5 years.

If Mr. Katz has sold all his cars then he can talk. Bet he has not. Cars are going to be with us for the next 50 years and everyone will have one. We need places for them NOW. We have to replace the spaces for the Police Building. It is cheaper to build large once than small twice. This should be a no-brainer. If the California merchants have to depend on bikes and walkers for customers there will be no California merchants. We don't need no pie in the sky and tomorrow land solutions. Just build it and they will come.

Question: if the city does build an expensive new parking garage, who will pay for it? The California Ave merchants? Their customers and employees (through parking fees)? Or city residents through our property taxes? Seems very unfair to me for residents to pay what is essentially a subsidy to businesses. Why doesn't the city at least put up parking meters in the existing parking lots and parking spaces to try to recoup the cost of this entitlement?

"We could be sponsoring alternate forms of urban mobility; investing in multi-modal transit hubs; pioneering ways to transport the very young and the very old in safety and comfort; designing hardware-software interfaces to enable smart streets..."

That would be a great idea if Palo Alto were an isolated town on the prairie to which no outsiders ever ventured. The reality is we have very active interfaces to multiple neighboring towns, and lots of people do cross those interfaces in their SUVs, etc. What do we do with those interlopers to our little utopia?

I think we need to put a price on parking, and put in parking meters. A price on parking in this new garage could be a way it is paid for. A low price on parking for 30 minutes, a higher price for 2 hours, and more for 4 hours to all day. As it is now, there is free parking for 2 hours, if you can find it, even in the neighborhood. If you have a 3 hour trip planned to Cal Ave, and don't have a reason to own a permit, the way to park legally is either get an all-day pass PURCHASED DOWNTOWN for all day parking, park at CalTrain, or park on High Street across Alma.

Posted by Robert Neff, a resident of Midtown

>> I think we need to put a price on parking, and put in parking meters.

I agree in principle, but, a practical and fair implementation is very tricky. Trying to charge auto drivers the full cost of their trip is a very tough sell, especially in a vacuum. If people have to pay to shop in Palo Alto but not in Mountain View or Sunnyvale, etc., it will hurt the small merchants that people want to keep.

@Robert Neff - Per the City's website "Three-hour parking is provided in parking garages except in designated permit areas." That includes Cal Ave area.

"1. Build a modern bicycle/pedestrian bridge from Midtown over Alma and the Caltrain tracks to the train station. The existing tunnel under the tracks is too steep and narrow and not ADA-compliant. It is also difficult to reach from south of Oregon Expressway, especially after the county changed the stop light timing (a couple of years ago) along Oregon to make walking and bicycling much slower."

If you walk your bike, then the tunnel isn't too steep.

Bicycle Blvd / Bryant across Oregon Expy and then left onto N. Cal Ave. Then the tunnel. It's easy and it already exists.

The parking garage isn't intended to address traffic problems, reduce pollution or improve the look of the California Avenue area. It is intended to deal with an existing, obvious parking problem. Make people pay? Why not? It wouldn't bring in a lot of money but certainly would send the message there's no free lunch when it comes to driving in Palo Alto.

Jules Verne resurrected! It's fine to think about the future, how things might be 50 - 100 years from now, but the reality is we live in the 'now' world that needs 'now' world solutions to 'now' world problems.

This is easy. Put meters in. Take away the stupid Rube Goldberg fruity colored zone scheme in downtown.

Problem solved.

As for Uber and Lyft being expensive, that's silly. Going to SJC for $40 (what used to be $60-80) and not paying for parking or other costs associated with driving there is a good deal. I can get to SFO for less than $40 on UberX when not in a surge situation.

As for my situation (WARNING - ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE), Uber and Lyft have indeed reduced my need to drive to San Francisco. With Uberpool and a San Francisco Pass, the cost to get up there is competitive with driving if you take gas and parking costs into consideration.

As for mass transit to be successful, it requires mass. We don't want mass here in Palo Alto or other parts of the peninsula. Therefore, no mass transit for you.

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> As for mass transit to be successful, it requires mass. We don't want mass here in Palo Alto or other parts of the peninsula. Therefore, no mass transit for you.

I disagree with this part, because, the Peninsula is the result a type of urban evolution that started out as separate towns, and has grown into something akin to what is known as a "linear city". Caltrain started out as an inter-urban railroad, and has evolved into an urban transportation corridor. Caltrain has become mass transit, "commuter rail", Palo Alto has two stops, and two concentrations of development naturally evolved at those stops.

I think we are agreed, though, that we don't want Palo Alto to evolve into Manhattan, one of the few places in the country so "mass" that cars are extraneous.

If I have my numbers correct**, New York state has about 9.2 million jobs, of which NYC has about 4.1 million (44% - !), and Manhattan has about 2.4 million of those. At what point do we realize that we don't want or need 2.4 million jobs in Palo Alto?

** Web Link

Hereby lies the problem. Mass transit has a bad vibe. It sounds terrible and reminiscent of trains in the third world where people are sitting on the roof or in foreign major cities where people are employed to push riders in to enable the doors to close.

We have Caltrain, which is mass transit. Last time I rode the train it was very full, Saturday afternoon from San Francisco with people getting off and others getting on at most stations. It works.

Now we need to get a better method of getting people to and from airports. Uber is a good deal particularly if there are many in the party, not so good for a single person. Getting an Uber from the airports is a little more tricky.

I have been on dedicated airport shuttles in many other cities and areas not so major. Heathrow airport, for example, has many dedicated shuttles from many not so major cities in the area. These shuttles are clean, reliable, have wifi, and have few stops, often at places suitable for an easy friend to pick up/drop off.

The Marguerite is a good example, but it could do a lot better if it picked up from highway off ramps carpool lots.

Get away from the disagreeable idea of mass transit and replace it with commuter shuttles, airport shuttles, that provide a good service as an alternative mode of solo driving.

"Caltrain has become mass transit,"

Not really. The number of trips they have on a daily basis (<70,000 - assuming round trip then it's really 35K) is a tiny fraction of the number commuters in the Bay Area, which is why the investment in electrification is a terrible ROI, but that's for another discussion.

Comparing the Bay Area and NYC is apples and oranges. Our jobs are spread out between San Francisco and San Jose. Facebook in Menlo Park. SAP and VMware in the nether regions of Palo Alto. Apple in Cupertino. Salesforce in SF. NYC has a hub in Manhattan and all transit over there is designed to funnel people there.

In fact, Caltrain is designed to funnel commuters to SF, and that's why it's ineffective. It's hardly mass transit.

I agree with Robert - we should put in parking meters, and PAY for parking, like many other cities around here. It's amazing how paying even a little bit will make people think about whether they really need to make a trip or not.

Posted by sequoiadean, a resident of Midtown

>> I agree with Robert - we should put in parking meters, and PAY for parking, like many other cities around here. It's amazing how paying even a little bit will make people think about whether they really need to make a trip or not.

From the standpoint of a small business, someone making a quick trip to the post office, stopping to buy a gallon of milk, and then adding an unplanned side trip to the stationery store and buying some decorative paper and envelopes is exactly what can make or break a vibrant retail shopping district with small businesses that are rarely destinations by themselves.

Anon, that's exactly why we need 30 minute parking spots. :)

Several downtown areas in San Mateo County already use parking meters in their downtown areas and that doesn't stop the parking lots from filling up. The parking spaces are still heavily subsidized by the cities, but the fees do encourage parkers to move along and let others use the spaces. It also discourages workers from using parking spaces that should be used by customers. I don't know why Palo Alto people are so opposed to parking meters.

@ Anon

Not wanting to get into the heated debates/discussions, but please tell me where there is a stationery store near me. I live in SPA, corner of Ross Rd and Louis Rd. Did I waste a trip by driving all the way down to Mt. View, El Camino/El Monte, to get Christmas stationery?

"From the standpoint of a small business, someone making a quick trip to the post office, stopping to buy a gallon of milk, and then adding an unplanned side trip to the stationery store and buying some decorative paper and envelopes is exactly what can make or break a vibrant retail shopping district with small businesses that are rarely destinations by themselves."

Seriously? Even if you price meters at $1.00/hour, you can't afford a quarter or two for the 15-30 minutes to pay for $12.00 paper at a specialty stationery store?

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Seriously? Even if you price meters at $1.00/hour, you can't afford a quarter or two for the 15-30 minutes to pay for $12.00 paper at a specialty stationery store?

You tell me. This is a case of whatever works. I just know older people who will spend 50 cents on gas to avoid a quarter on a parking meter, and, young people who consider the use of change immoral. ;-) I'm really OK with whatever system works as long as it works for small merchants.

I just visited Portland where I paid for on-street auto parking with my credit card. That place is hopping. No problem drawing street traffic to retail there. Why are we not doing this?

Today I biked from near the Mountain View border of Palo Alto to Cal Ave. It took 17 minutes riding into a strong headwind. I rode slowly, didn't get winded or break a sweat. My leisurely ride was faster (by far) than driving and parking.

$40 million of taxpayer dollars to park cars. That's not counting the proposed downtown parking garage. The total cost of both garages?--$68.5 million of our tax dollars.

Politics, sadly, not community needs (or the recently approved Comp Plan, evidently), are driving the process.

Parking meters are just another way to force people out of the area and reduce everything to money.

I don't like the idea of meters to be honest. They do not make new parking places, they do not
open up parking places, they just suck money and give it to privileged people who are at the
anonymous end of the financial pipeline. More pots of money that the public has no say over.
Someone greedy wants that money and as usual they are cooking up a BS excuse that everything
will be fine if we just have parking meters.

In downtown San Jose where my favorite Pho restaurant lives it cases me almost $2 just to have a
quick lunch everyday but Sunday. That seems like a lot to me who does not pay for parking almost
anywhere I go. Lots of parking meters are also impossible to manage well too. The place where I
know to park in SJ would not be so bad, except that there are all kinds of rules, 12 minute parking,
24 minute parking. One parks in one place, then reading the sign, has to move and find another
spot with the right amount of parking. Complexity encourages mistake which encourages complexity
and profit. The whole system is nonsense.

Palo Alto is just dying to get in Parking meters because once they are in they are here for good and
the prices will only go up. Since it is only the very rich people who direct the City those prices will
go way up once they discover how nice it is to push others out and there will no competition for
spaces. All that money will just go to bad use and they will still need more very soon.

Those who run the City do not care about the little businesses that make our city quaint, they are all
on the way out, or will be soon. Look at what is offerered in food places now. Either places with
terrible service, terrible food, or terrible prices, while they people who run the City just collect
their rent checks.

If we want a better city we need a revolution to kick out those who only hear and talk on the corporate
level. Create cities for people, not for farming and ranching people like products or commodities.

NO PARKING METERS

Take your pick, more lanes on roads or more parking spaces- both will eventually fill up and we won’t be any closer to solving the problem.

Once everyone on this comment board comes to the realization that we need to incentive ALL forms of transit, whether that’s walking, biking, buses, trains and Uber/Lyft, we all win- especially the selfish single person drivers.

Get out of your car and become part of the community!