In Barron Park, city fixes sidewalks that go nowhere

That's what happens in a town becoming increasingly hostile to the disabled: nonsensical acts of purely bureaucratic rule-following. We have accessibility and other goals in the comprehensive plan, but we have long given our planning over to developers interested in cashing out by densifying. The new normal is housing that the disabled couldn't even visit much less live in.

Too bad those who want to maintain quality of life don't understand that the principles of universal design that would make our town seamless for the disabled would also bolster their cause (the way the build-baby-build element has co-opted and are using affordable housing ... though, they are barely concealing that they aren't really helping affordable housing but making conditions far worse).

Oh, and all those rules to build right up to sidewalks that are barely wide enough or unobstructed enough for an ambulatory person walking single-file? Effectively shut out the disabled. A "grand boulevard" supposedly intended to encourage walking should have unobstructed sidewalks wide enough for a disabled person in a wheelchair to comfortable wheel side-by-side with an ambulatory person in conversation. Once the street is all closed in and built up to, though, it becomes all but impossible to fix that.

I can barely stand to read things like this, this town is just so hypocritical when it comes to supposedly liberal values.

Let's go, Palo Alto. We can do better.

Sidewalks in Baron Park - again!!!! This issue of installing sidewalks in Baron Park or not installing them comes up every ten or fifteen years. I've lived in PA for fifty years and this issue has caught the headlines at least three or four times. The City always ends up doing the cheapest thing and bowing to the wishes of the majority of homeowners in Baron Park - no more sidewalks!!!

ADA ramps don't happen because the City Council is only interested in endless development of office buildings and condos that the residents do't want, Green Programs to do nonsense like the added garbage cans for our kitchens, the Gas Appliance Removal Program idea,that the PA residents don't want and spends endless time spent supporting a fire trap old broken down trailer park that the PA residents don't want.
Send City Council back to Berkeley so they can be in tune with those fools.

In the meantime, the City says, "Get out of your cars. People must bike and walk more. Kids should bike or walk to school." But the City does nothing to make Barron Park more bike and pedestrian friendly for the students biking and walking to school through there. It's literally an accident waiting to happen. If the City wants to mitigate its litigation exposure, the City either needs to make biking and walking there safer, or it should stop encouraging people to bike and walk. The former, of course, fits better with improving our quality of life.

Get rid of our incompetent City Manager Jim Keene. He has hired multiple assistants at taxpayers expense to assist him and he still doesn't fulfill his job obligations in a competent manner.

Not sure why people are blaming the city, when its the Barron Park residents who want to keep up the fantasy that they live in a "rural" environment.

The city and residents have to choose between continuous sidewalks and free on-street car parking. On many streets, there is not enough room for both. Which is more important?

Dear observer in Old PA, you miss the point; this is about wasteful spending. The photo in the article is on my block. It is the laughing stock of everyone who passes by; laughing through our tears. By the way, if the city is so keen to spend money in BP, why don't they install underground electrical wires as they've done in the rest of the city? These rickety posts with their thick guy wires that bisect peoples' front yards are an eyesore and a safety hazard. Whether you like BP or not, we deserve the same services as the rest of the city, as these ridiculous ramps to nowhere can attest.

Dear Jonathon,

Residents of Barron Park opposed the city's efforts to install sidewalks in your neighborhood. The city tried in a couple of limited locations to create complete sidewalks. Barron Park residents protested. The city relented and tried other means to create safer routes, including traffic calming. Those plans are gradually rolling out.

What, exactly, do you want the city to do? And please, before you answer that, educate yourself about what is already planned and get Barron Park neighbors on board to support your proposal. Some want sidewalks. Some are adamantly opposed to sidewalks. Good plans, I think, are moving forward. Many compromises have been made as the city has tried to respond to many comments and work within the limited street right-of-way that they inherited when Palo Alto annexed Barron Park.

You can get involved, and I encourage you to do so. If you are a PAUSD parent, connect with the PTA Safe Routes to School group at your school site (ask your PTA President how you can help). If you don't have kids in school, you can join Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. As an individual citizen, you can get involved with the Comp Plan Transportation Element process and you can participate in meetings related to implementation of the City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (which also addresses needs of residents who use wheelchairs and walkers).

There are lots of ways Barron Park residents can influence the process. I happen to agree that wheelchair ramps for partial sidewalks are probably not the best way to spend money, but they may be required by state or federal regulations.

If you want something different from what is planned, what do you want instead and what are you willing to do to support that change?

Democracy is a participatory form of government. It requires that citizens understand the decision-making process and engage at appropriate intervals to provide information and comment, not just during election cycles. Writing to PA Online is not participating; it's just gossip shared by random people who may or may not be informed and engaged with the process. Follow the process, provide comment at the appropriate time in the process. Suggest workable alternatives. Help identify and support a solution that works.

@Johnathon Brown: That's absolutely not true. The city has had multiple meetings where it has invited Barron Park residents to come and give feedback and suggestions for bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure in our community.

The speed bumps, removal of the center stripe and fresh top slurry which was done last Monday on Matadero were all part of that effort.

There are other changes coming, such as turning Matadero into a bicycle boulevard, but it takes the city a while to implement changes. I think that pace suits many of us in Barron Park just fine. No one wants to rush into something which takes away from the character of the neighborhood.

The funny thing is, Barron Park is the one neighborhood in Palo Alto where you're most likely to see people out for a simple walk. Somehow the lack of sidewalks feels less cluttered, more relaxed, more inviting. The piecemeal bits of sidewalk and curb, I think, actually create hazards, and should be removed. It's silly to spend money maintaining them.

How You Can Help - I would hope that the city would use some common sense. Just think if you were actually doing a project in your own yard.

I was watching the city fix some sidewalks on Timlott (a dead end street) in Barron Park. I immediately thought why are they fixing the sidewalk versus just removing the sidewalk. I believe these sidewalks are seldom used. If I was on Timlott I would want the sidewalk remove along with putting the electrical wires underground.

It made me wonder if the street residence might prefer having a larger yard without the sidewalk. Most of Barron Park residents walk on the road etc.

I for one would love to see the money spent on putting the "ugly" wires that hang all over the streets underground. This was done in North Palo Alto with city funding.

@Let's be fair - there is a lot of Palo Alto that has not had the electrical utilities moved underground. Check out midtown south of Colorado Avenue and South Palo Alto. Barron Park is not special in this regard.

This link shows the areas of Palo Alto with underground services: Web Link

The majority of areas with underground services are in the Stanford Research Park and other commercial corridors.

This link shows what is planned for the coming 5 years, with the NEW electric underground project shown in purple: Web Link

Since the original underground districts are aging, they are already in need of rebuilding before we can finish undergrounding the rest of the city.

I heard that AT&T and Comcast no longer want to pay their share of the costs to move their wires underground in residential areas, leaving the City of Palo Alto Utilities' ratepayers having to bear the full cost.

At this rate it will take decades to finish moving the services underground.

I am also an advocate for moving utility wires underground.

What I would like to ask and find the answer to are the costs involved with having the lines above ground. What are the costs for utility paid tree trimming per year? What are the costs for having linemen on call any time there is a storm forecasted? What are the costs for repairs for any emergency line repair, transformer repair, pole repair, for a storm? What are the costs of emergency tree work any time a tree falls bringing down a live wire?

With the forecasted El Nino and a wet winter, the costs of having these lines above ground must be projected. What are these projected costs?

In other words, what would the savings be if these lines were underground? Of course there are times when an underground problem can occur, but surely these must be much more rare than what does happen any time we have a wet winter.

The more lines we have underground, the less the maintenance costs from emergency wire work must be.

I would imagine that the potential savings must go a long way to paying for the cost of undergrounding.

The "Rural Feel" misrepresentation is an example of the problem of oversimplification of political discourse.

Having sidewalks in and of themselves was not what most Barron Park residents opposed. It was what the effect of having sidewalks would mean. For example, on my street, it would have resulted in taking 2/3's of the front yards of me an most of my neighbors, resulting in devastation of trees and other landscaping (part of what was meant by "rural feel"). It would have made many driveways too short to park in, greatly increasing on street parking which would have had the consequence of increasing the danger to bicyclists.

I feel like a broken record bring this up every time people try to trivialize a very difficult set of trade-offs as a mere matter of aesthetic preferences. Hey, but why let facts complicate your story.

I am so glad to see this! Palo Alto focuses on cars somewhat, and bike safety (a lot), yet it is VERY rare I hear any mention of what needs to be done for pedestrian safety. For those w/ vision impairments (as in the case for my 16 year old son) that cannot bike or drive, safe pedestrian access is essential! So glad that this is finally happening in our neighborhood!

What Doug M. says about the impact of sidewalks makes real sense. Barron Park was platted under County zoning rules, which were very different than Palo Alto's, with many houses placed very close to the street.

I just drove past Stanford on ECR, and there's a great example of how sidewalks change the feel of a place. For some reason, they're adding sidewalk along much of their frontage, at the same time they're installing an asphalt trail right across the fence. The sidewalk replaces what was clear flat dirt between the street and fence. It feels very different now, and the value of the change is hard to see.

My late wife used an electric scooter and had a terrible time getting between the road and sidewalk. More than once she flipped her scooter and had to call the fire department to get her out of the gutter. Even though the new ramps are on short segments of sidewalk, she would have been able to get in and out of our driveway without risking a tumble.

I agree with Douglas Moran's sentiment, but shutter at the grammatical errors of this Palo Alto Online blogger. Please Doug, put a little more effort into your posts if you want to be taken seriously.

Barron Park was not designed with side walks (the same as many of the roads in the hills of this peninsula). Baron, Vista, Matedero...

Just WHERE do you propose that they put these walks? Right up close to peoples front doors?
What was ABSURD was the idiots that required those 'nowhere' sidewalks in order to (re)build in an area without them.
In case anyone forgot: The North-west side of Los Robles is in a COUNTY Creek jurisdiction, not City regulated property

Re Underground power. Easy to do in an unbuilt area. Near impossible to do in areas where the above ground utilities are in the Rear of residents without alleys. It is expensive for the landowner to convert their properties service 'drop' to underground.(You can still see buildings along ECR with the telltales of that conversion on their meter panels. Those did not have to extensively TRENCH to the lot edge.)

I shudder at the misuse of shutter.

@grammarpolice: You made me look at Doug's post again. I found a missing "d", an extraneous " 's ", a missing hyphen, and some awkward, but technically correct, phrasing. I'm reminded of a sweatshirt I heard about, worn by a Scrabble fanatic, which had the slogan,

"DOES ANAL RETENTIVE HAVE A HYPHEN?"