Perhaps it is time to put quality of life issues for residents into the list of priorities.

Losing useful, affordable retail, restaurants and amenities has been an issue this past year. Losing public transit has been another.

Is there a category that says we value keeping residents' needs and desires in the discussions, or do they just go ahead with whatever the latest hairbrained idea is current.

To Bystander, if you think rail crossings will not affect your quality of life, think again. If we don't get a plan in place in time to take advantage of outside funding, grade separations will be unaffordable to our community. If they don't get built, we will all face unmitigable east/west crosstown congestion every single day on all roads that currently cross the tracks at grade--Charleston, East Meadow, Churchill, to name a few. Severe congestion will spill over to north/south routes as people divert trips to avoid impacted streets and signalized intersections. Middlefield, Alma, El Camino will be affected. Diverted trips will also hit Embarcadero, Page Mill. Few major streets citywide will be unaffected and many neighborhood streets will experience increased auto trips as drivers seek unimpeded routes across town.

This project will be a huge expense, but it is absolutely necessary. We are competing with many other cities for funding, so let's get on with making a good decision. Bike/pedestrian elements must be included given that the primary east/west routes (named above) that will be impacted are all school commute routes. Grade separation is all about quality of life. All modes of transportation (bikes, pedestrians, buses, autos) other than trains will be impacted, particularly south of Oregon Expressway where there currently are ZERO existing grade separated crossings. This is very different from areas north of Oregon where there currently are FIVE existing grade separated crossings . See page 4.05 of this report Web Link for a map of existing and possible crossings of all types.

This project must be a priority if our transportation system is to remain viable after electrification and related increases in trains running through town.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

Despite criticisms by a handful of disgruntled Palo Alto residents, the city remains a highly desirable residential and shopping locale as indicated by its exorbitant rents and home prices.

This is always a good sign as it reinforces Palo Alto's reputation as an upscale and enjoyable suburban venue.

In addition, it is worth noting that the article missed some other projects in the pipeline: teacher housing project at the courthouse, the LifeMoves project, and a request for proposal for affordable housing above a downtown city parking lot. Further, there are a number of market rate projects, many of which (for sale units) will have inclusionary affordable housing. City Council recently acted to increase affordable housing impact fees on commercial development to generate revenues that will increase the city's affordable housing funding. (The city's affordable housing fund has been depleted by city contributions to other recent housing projects.)

Add to the list of affordable housing projects in the pipeline, 525 East Charleston, a 100% affordable apartment project that is being fast tracked. Four stories with 50 apartment units plus offices to provide services to developmentally disabled adult residents who will occupy half of the apartments. The project amounts to the equivalent of 64 units per acre.

Re: "[grade separation] must be a priority if our transportation system is to remain viable after electrification and related increases in trains running through town."

Actually, there won't be any substantial increases in the number of trains running through town in the foreseeable future. IIRC, in order to get the funding for the track electrification, they had to propose an increase in the number of trains on the corridor, but it was very small, perhaps 5%. So, no big increase in traffic disruption due to crossing gates closing, even if Caltrain gets back up to its former number of trains.

It is true that we need to get moving to have a chance at partial funding for grade-separating crossings. Although grade-separation is not a necessity, it would help with traffic flow on major east/west arterials like Charleston. Perhaps just do that crossing and the one near El Palo Alto.

At the end of Gennady Sheyner's retrospective on the housing situation he shifts into editorializing by telling us how he thinks things should happen. Is it relevant to Palo Alto what the NY Times thinks of our housing decisions? Mr. Sheyner should have also polled Palo Altons to get their views on housing choices in Brooklyn. Mr. Sheyner is waiting for us to prove our critics wrong by advancing planned home projects. In fact, the best way for Palo Alto to prove its critics wrong would be to unite with other cities to promote a California proposition to return housing decisions to local communities.