Please require Stanford to fund periodic [not less than every 3 years] peer review of its TDM assertions and programs. Peer review
consultant should be jointly selected by SC County and Palo Alto City Council, if possible.
For example, See peer review programs provided by firms such as www.altrans.net
PEER REVIEW
Commonly outlined in a site's EIR, a peer review process is required by the permitting authority (city, county, etc.) to verify
whether or not EIR mandated goals have been achieved. The results of a peer review can mean the difference between construction
being completed or completely shutting down. ALTRANS has undertaken peer reviews of site-wide TDM plans, as well as reviews of
specific components and goals of TDM plans. ALTRANS' experience as a TDM organization lends the advantage of knowing what a
successful TDM plan looks like on paper and in practice.
Altrans - Alternative Transportation Solutions: Services [http://www.altrans.net/services.php]
ALTRANS - ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS: SERVICES Altrans, Transportation Management Association specializes in traffic
demand services for businesses, schools an... [http://www.altrans.net/services.php]
Neilson Buchanan155 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301650 329-0484650 537-9611 cellcnsbuchanan@yahoo.com [cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
On Thursday, February 1, 2018, 9:18:52 AM PST, Neilson Buchanan wrote:
Please consider the following issues in your evaluation of Stanford expansion plans
1. The term, or period of approval, is too long. Nobody can accurately or crudely anticipate work, transit, academic and housing
parameters during the years stated in the GUP. The best solution would be mutually reasonably terms to reopen approval every 8-10
years.
2. Stanford is making wild transportation assumptions, especially about improved Caltrain capacity to service to its students,
faculty and employees. Development incentives have created a massive wave of housing/commercial development throughout the rail
corridor. Caltrain service is almost guaranteed to disappoint the employers and employees assuming live/work benefits along the
corridor. There is no data addressing the obvious surge in demand that will chase "boarding" as these projects move toward
completion. Planning scenarios are not rocket science and are being willfully avoided by agency and city official whom we blindly
trust.
3. Stanford is making questionable demographic assumptions, especially impact upon PAUSD. I fully support the comments submitted
by the PAUSD Board
4. Let's keep perspective. Stanford planning process is better than any other private or public process in the entire Bay Area.
Let's acknowledge a 90/10 rule. 90% of Stanford planning has proven to have real merit. 10% of its planning is obscure and out of
public view. This 10% is not in the interest of citizens impacted by plans presented by Stanford.Stanford questionable claims and
short-comings can be addressed by an open audit process involving outside experts to professionally fact-check performance goals
in the GUP.
5. Trust; but verify.
Neilson Buchanan155 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301650 329-0484650 537-9611 cellcnsbuchanan@yahoo.com [cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
