No disabled people at the table discussing revamping the street. No surprise.

"Amie Ashton, who in addition to her Palo Alto Forward role serves as board chair at the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, said she hopes the streetscape project will meet the needs of all visitors to University Avenue, not just drivers. She said she was encouraged by the consultant's finding that 42% of the visitors to University Avenue get there by means other than car."

Let's flip that around. 58% of visitors to University Avenue are car dependent and many of them are unable to travel long distances on foot. But, you know, they did it on Cal Ave, and they'll do it on University.

A "car-free zone" will violate so many ADA laws pertaining to new construction, you can expect to see many lawyers wandering down the street adding Unruh complaints so high, the City won't be able to see over the stack.

Whenever I go downtown I don't expect to park on University. Whichever business I'm going to visit I check for the nearest parking lot beforehand and head to that. As for parallel parking, if you can't walk far, can you parallel park?

What are you thinking? Overexpansion only causes us all to spend lots more time trying to do the things we want to do. We have a big problem because our current Palo Alto infrastructure was laid out for a smaller population, and we can't just use a bulldozer to widen the streets to satisfy all these new desires. We can't even provide easy parking for those 58% car users today.

Once upon a time, San Francisco tried to solve their problem by building new overhead freeways, and that didn't work. With all the intelligent residents in Palo Alto, why can't we figure this out? Maybe without external consultants costing hundreds of thousands of dollars who don't live here and don't share our frustration with current transportation and access to businesses.

In my opinion, the most critical congestions are the railroad underpasses at Embarcadreo and Page Mill (and there are others). Shall we ignore those priorities, and instead try to reallocate street widths on University that have already been compromised by outdoor business allocations during the pandemic.

Now, let's look the other way while we create a new wind tunnel and ever more traffic by building huge new residential and business structures along El Camino and San Antonia. We can create another Fox Plaza disaster like SF did.

What did Oakland and San Franciso do after the big earthquake. What did LA do after the subsequent earthquake. They beat the hell out of the Bay Area with an aggressive plan with incentives to rebuild quickly. We can't even find more than a few intelligent residents who can champion a solution to the rail issues.

Perhaps I'm too old school, and my time here is almost done. I don't want to leave a carelessly developed local area for my sons, and I don't want them to have to leave Palo Alto to sustain a reasonable quality of life.

Well if they built the extra parking on the Hamilton and Waverley lot they could take the parking off University and put in a bike lane. Not only that but by not building that garage it means daily office workers will continue to need tonpark far into residetial neighborhoods via the Residential Parking Program.

Also, 42% of people do not take a car to downtown counts Caltrain, which makes us the majority. There bicyclists are very much the minority.

"What are you thinking? Overexpansion only causes us all to spend lots more time trying to do the things we..." need to do.

Indeed. What a waste of money. Has the city learned nothing from its destruction of Cal Ave that started with its "beautification" project that was so over budget, so delayed and so unnecessary?

Has anyone ever heard of a consultant who told a client to just leave things alone and not waste money to make things worse? Never happen.

Obviously, University Ave can't accommodate wider sidewalks AND parking AND a dedicated bike lane, so choices need to be made. But could we explore dedicated bike lanes on one of the streets that runs parallel to University Avenue?

As an able-bodied senior who bikes and walks a lot, I'm one of the 42% who bike to downtown. I don't care very much about having bike lanes on University. I bike down Bryant Bike Boulevard (A lovely, 20 minute, flat ride) from south Palo Alto to get there. I usually ride to within a block of my destination on University and walk the rest of the way. I don't break a sweat. It's a pleasant, safe, and beautiful ride. We do need more secure BICYCLE PARKING downtown. Take a walk and see where people are locking bikes to trees and other standing objects and create secure bike parking in those areas. I personally think downtown pedestrian areas need maintenance and freshening (not replacement that will cost many, many millions). Downtown pedestrian crossings and other facilities would be studied to understand where SAFETY improvements are needed. Look at collision data to understand what is needed, this should be part of the BPTP process. Walking around downtown MUST be safe for people who drive and bike--because we all become pedestrians once we are there. Downtown facilities must be ADA accessible. That's the law. Look at injury collision data to see where improvements are needed. That work will be done with the BPTP process. WHY is this being done in front of the BPTP process?

My sense is to leave well enough alone here. University Ave, while not perfect, works. An interesting comp is Bethesda, MD which isn’t dissimilar to Palo Alto in a lot of respects. In its downtown they took one of the major commercial thoroughfares, Woodmont Ave, and put in protected bike lanes and took away all parking. It has been an unmitigated disaster and is crushing businesses on that once - vibrant couple blocks.

For what it's worth, I don't really understand all this concern over parking. I visit University Ave at least several times per week, and, in general, I find it quite easy to park. The parking garage right in the middle of the downtown on Bryant St has recently had more than half of its spaces vacant!

Let's pick options that make University Ave more welcoming. More communal. More restaurants, services, and cafes.

The options presented have tough tradeoffs. Of course we need to reserve some disabled spots and ensure that parking is distributed through the area-- including sufficient parking for new development in the area.

But let's put the resident experience first. For what it's worth, I'd find the experience dining and walking on University Ave itself more pleasant with more bike use and fewer cars.

Where possible, let's lean toward including better bike lanes and sidewalk space on University Ave itself, and put the majority of the parking on side streets, lots, and garages.

Are the over abundance of broken down, rusty, empty (except for stacks of real estate brochures) “newspaper” racks going away? What about the new traffic signals. Will the yellow reflector tape wraps be part of the plan? Closing off University is not an option. Why? Because of …. Stanford! Like their tax freeloading ways once again take priority to city street scape design objectives. Is the Alma , transit center, overpass going to be re-engineered to address the High Street / U Ave bottlenecked snarl up, NYC style. Just where can much needed larger public open space be added without removing an empty ghost building all together? Beautifying is one thing, human friendly is another. Let’s watch AI & auto-cad “engineers” screw this one up too.

From the City of Palo Alto: "The expanded sidewalks would provide designated spaces for outdoor dining and merchandise racks along storefronts, while parklets would be eliminated along University Avenue to enhance circulation. The envisioned streetscape would preserve existing street trees and introduce new landscaping, street lighting, amenities, and sidewalk plazas."

This article does not address the fact that the outdoor eating spaces created during the pandemic would be eliminated, and the new Commerce Zone would not compensate for the majority of the outdoor dining space.

In addition, it doesn't address the needs of the bicycle community.

All in all residents lose, restaurants lose --but not the property owners who want more cars and less outdoor dining space created by the City (which apparently competes with their self interests).

The City needs to stop hiring consultants to make decisions that should be benefit everyone, not just aggrandizing property owners.

I would like to see the option of making University, and Lytton or Hamilton, into one way streets for a few blocks be considered for a few blocks.

Part of the reason University Ave is a popular shopping/food destination is its role as a direct route from El Camino to Hwy 101. Reducing that traffic flow by creating a pedestrian only area or adding bike lanes will force traffic elsewhere (Oregon/Embarcedero, or Menlo Park). I favor shutting down Cal Ave to cars b/c its already a dead end. Restricting the flow of cars on University Ave will just make it that much more inconvenient. Closing the cross streets (like Ramona is) is good alternative as North/South traffic is already using El Camino, Alma, Middlefield. If you need bike lanes, run them up Lynton and Hamilton.

Huge waste of money as usual. Wider sidewalks didn't do anything for Cal Ave. Driving and by extension parking is SO 20th century. We should be looking at alternative means of transportation - public especially. Bring back the bus routes!

More useless, ridiculous ideas. Already ruined Cal Ave now lets do the same to Univ Ave. PA used to be amazing place to grow up...its been ruined by dumb ideas like these.

widen the sidewalks, leave parallel parking, install bike lanes on Hamilton and/or Lytton and build a couple parking garages. eliminating existing parking lots for affordable housing, while generous and politically a no brainer, is extremely short sighted. as is university ave is such a hodge podge of different parking types/shapes, sidewalk material and widths all with a dominating street. we can do better and should pay for it, the whole community, not just the landlords who will obviously object to this by far more than 1:2

Now is the time to rethink this process. For over 20 years I have watched city staff and Council to plunge into downtown projects with no real insight about the spillover impacts such as commercial parking and traffic impacts. Only one occasion has city council set firm expectations for downtown businesses, citystaff, landlords and adjacent neighborhoods to collaborate and problems solve. Now I read that Business Ambassadors have inside track to collaborate with staff to the absolute exclusion of four prime residential neighborhood adjacent to the Univeristy Ave Commmercial Core.

It is simply impractical and inhumane to plan reduced commercial parking, closed streets and new traffic patterns in insolation from leaders in four neighborhoods continguous to University Avenue.

It would be nice if University Ave, east of Middlefield, could be repaved. Its kind of dumb that the gateway to Palo Alto is a nightmare to drive.

Ah the consultants PA uses. From the list in the article it looks like the consultants talked to developers and property owners, not retail business owners, restaurants. Maybe this is an oversight of the author but......

More bike lanes ? Build Railroad under passes instead. Every city along the peninsula has —decades ago.

FYI, there are still over 40 at grade rail crossings on the penisula.

Worst idea ever. University is the connection to Hwy 101 and the SU campus. This is a University city - people come here to see SU games and events at SU and the high school sports events. That is the business of PA. And they come in CARS. We are trying to make downtown more available and interesting for the people to come and spend time and money at our businesses. People coming to games are not riding bikes - they are coming down the freeway in cars. I usually get a parking place on the street or park under city hall.

CAL avenue is ruined now - looks like a third world bazaar.

Looking at the PACC council meeting last Monday Amie spoke on a different topic -it was my way or the highway. Enough of the bike coalition - we need a car coalition.

@Staying Home. Spot on. The mess the City made of the Charleston/Louis/San Antonio interchange has pushed massive traffic into residential areas and overburdened the Meadow corridor. Don’t expect the City Manager to apologize for these massive errors.

I find it interesting that we pass on a statement like 'of course we can't close University to car traffic' Really? Why not? I know that most times of day I ACTIVELY AVOID University for through travel because it is slow (a good thing for all other reasons). Lytton, Hamilton, Homer and Channing are actually better for most routes (each depending).

So, let's consider closing it to cars instead. "42% of people get to University Avenue without using a car." is a heck of a lot of non car usage.

There is quite a bit of parking available within a block or two of every spot on University. No further than from the parking lot to the stores at Stanford mall for example and that is quite healthy. Perhaps we should go through with some of the garage projects to fill in though.

Car traffic can be optimized along Lytton and Hamilton if they were converted to one way routes with synchronized lights. No synched lights don't make for fast driving. Set them for 20-25mph through traffic and anybody trying faster doesn't get through but the rest of us FLOW.

Make University a human paseo and we'd have more vibrancy. Pedestrians, cyclists, shoppers, diners in a lovely, tree shaded environment. What a vision.

@TR: University carries about 12K vehicles/day. Lytton carries about 11K, and Hamilton carries about 10K. It's not clear that Lytton and Hamilton can carry roughly 50% more traffic each, but even if re-engineered to do so, the traffic still has to diverge and converge at either side of downtown, presumably at Middlefield and at the Alma underpass, because University is the through path between 101 and Stanford. I don't think this is impossible, but I do think it would be difficult to do effectively and also appallingly expensive.

"42% of people get to University Avenue without using a car" is about how people reach downtown as a destination; it doesn't include through traffic, which is the vast majority (if I understand the traffic studies correctly).

(Speaking only for myself, not the Planning and Transportation Commission.)

@TR
As the article says, University Avenue is a main artery to Stanford and East Palo Alto. Re-routing 12,000 vehicles a day from University to side streets would be a nightmare for residents on those streets.
I am unclear where the 58%/42% figures came from. The article says 70% of people typically visit University by car.

I have offered Pearl Street in Boulder, CO several times before as an example of what could be done with University Ave. I do so again. I also encourage efforts to get thru traffic off of University (i.e. the Stanford-101 traffic). Someone mentioned perhaps making Hamilton and Lytton one-way streets. I like that idea, but I think it is a non-starter. So I again suggest that we at least make it faster for traffic to use Hamilton and Lytton. Have University traffic from Stanford turn right on High and left onto Hamilton. Have University traffic from 101 turn right on Webster and left onto Lytton. Program the lights on Hamilton and Lytton to let traffic flow in those directions at 23-25 mph along their length between High Street and Webster (or Middlefield). Why not try it? We tried traffic circles, didn't we?

@Carl Jones: My understanding is that the situation for Pearl St. is very different from University's.

Pearl wasn't the main east-west thoroughfare in that part of town; that's Boulder Canyon Dr. two blocks away, which remains fully open to cars.

The main north-south route in that part of town is Broadway, which also remains fully open to cars, even though it crosses Pearl in the pedestrian area.

(Speaking only for myself, not the Planning and Transportation Commission.)

Here is a bold idea: Design, engineer, construct, implement two large roundabouts at Emabarcadero / ECR and another at Oregon
/ ECR. This would ease automobile and commercial truck impacts within the arteries of the city. Slow the roll and redirect flow. Since Stanford and SRP create most of the high auto and delivery and truck traffic they should pay for the upgrades. Why is PA capitulating once again under the FreeLoader brand of Stanford? Nothing should be done on beautifying Dwtn University Ave until after the overpass/underpass at ECR Alma, University / Palm infrastructure is re-engineered: Until then, flooding, ancient creek culvert breakages, outdated sewers are crumbling . The D-town University window dressing plan is to appease the natives while Stanford gets away with historically accepted highway robbery. Astonishingly, Stanford a once Barron of transportation infrastructure is now the largest absent player in paying it share for roads in and out of Palo Alto! And we are mystified at ECR's current condition of neglect and disrepair ...

I would turn some of this narrative on its head: I’d be inclined to trust the consultants MORE than the others. The others cited are mostly special interests with a political axe to grind, who want Palo Alto to look more like San Francisco: the Developers, for financial reasons, and the Urbanism Advocates, for ideological-purity reasons. The consultants at least try to deliver what staff and council asked for; the special interests try to skew that. But there’s a reason people are leaving San Francisco.

Who are the consultants? Do they get a payback for recommending businesses that revamp and paint the streets? There is something about this that is all wrong. University is THE STREET that goes to the University - that is why it is called that.
The city was laid out for that purpose. Why are people now trying to reconstruct the original intent of the city planners? Someone is making money here and it is not the people who own businesses on University. The experiment in SF on Valencia Street is now getting reviewed in the SF Chronicle and people are not happy with the results.
What is the City Manager thinking?

Before parking issues are discussed shouldn't we have some numbers on the usage of downtown parking structures?

I see NO ONE mentioned "Newell Rd." that is in the works also.
It's already been approved, to widen all the Bridges, going over the San Fransiquito Creek, from Palo Alto, pass East Palo Alto, and into Menlo Park.
Currently, cars are using Newell Rd, like they are using Lytton, Hamilton, and all the other streets. It's called "Cut-through Traffic" which East Palo Altoans know too much about. They get Palo Alto's Traffic. San Jose, San Francisco, Newark, Fremont, Hayward etc.

It appears that someone is in the pockets of Big Corporations. Why? Because it's been on the table for decades that they build an Exit off of the Dumbarton Bridge onto l01, down Oregon and South 101.
What does this have to do with the Stupid idea of Bikes down University Ave? You take the traffic off of University Ave. Then you can have your "Shangri-La" Bike stroll. because right now, all I can envision is a Bicyclist being run down by cars wiggling down that 2-way University Highway (tongue in cheek).
Currently, Bicyclist are making their way over the 101, towards the Dumbarton easily off the Cat Walks, already given to them.

Who are the City's Consultants? Are they the same company that "picked? East Palo Alto's pockets for 2 1 /2 yrs and came away with the Brilliant idea saying " You have Traffic"? With NO resolutions, except charge permit fees for parking.
If you haven't noticed that, Cal-tran is widening the University Bridge at 101.
They are also putting in several new exits. It has also been approved to widen Donohoe at E. Bayshore so that Sobrato can build behind the Chevron Station. Causing an egress and ingress Traffic horrid in the future.

So you thought that talking about a little Bike Lane was horrible. Just wait until they try to get over Donohoe to the Dumbarton Bridge.
This is where I ask "Why don't you go underground like they do in other cities, with cross-contaminated traffic?