<< Back to Summary 
(OPTIONAL): Please add any comments you have about Scenario 1:
#Response DateComment
1.Wed, 8/15/07 4:02 PMThe environment does not matter as long as Palo Alto residents are not inconvenienced with "too much traffic"
2.Wed, 8/15/07 8:28 PMIt will create pressure to find a rational policy on growth rather than sticking our head in the sand.
3.Wed, 8/15/07 10:31 PMHousing or not, the auto usage will increase. The scenario will still strain Palo Alto's resources. I did not rate it, since I believe housing is only one piece of the puzzle.
4.Wed, 8/15/07 11:51 PMStupid scenario. It assumes nothing changes, and that's never true. Reeducation people about responsible consumption woud be much better than focusing on cars.
5.Thu, 8/16/07 3:03 AMToo many assumptions about the level of greenhouse gas levels which makes this a loaded question. With increased use of alternative energy sources the level may be a great deal less. Businesses may choose to move to areas with more population, shortening commutes. I can't agree this is the only scenario.
6.Thu, 8/16/07 4:44 AMThis is the old 'make me feel guilty' routine. So these employees must take mass transit like buses. By 2020 I'll be ninety-one. I'll someone else worry about this. However, with all these autos one way or the other, I probably won't be able to breathe. Tell Stanford to start figuring out the problem and come down off of its ivory tower and "throne'.
7.Thu, 8/16/07 4:48 AMThe business' are leaving the state because of taxes and over regulation. I can't see any more business' wanting to reside in Palo Alto.
8.Thu, 8/16/07 5:21 AMYou are NOT comparing apples to apples. The majority of new homes in Manteca, Modesto and Merced will be SINGLE-FAMILY homes. The homes in Palo Alto, etc. will be higher density housing. They don't all appeal to the same segment of the population.
9.Thu, 8/16/07 8:02 AMre-phrase scenario 1 since its obviously carefully constructed so that the only possible "moral" answer is "very bad". More likely scenario for case 1 is that some homes are added in outlying areas where land is still available and houses will remain relatively more affordable there and some homes are added in the built-out cities which have to increase housing density to accomodate more housing. People living in the higher density areas will have a degraded quality of life... population growth will be somewhat limited by the geographic limitations imposed by the Bay Area and this will slightly mitigate increases in greenhouse gases. GHG can be significantly impacted by technology and personal choices ... better fuel efficiency standards for cars, telecommuting ... doesn't matter how far away from work I live, don't have to drive in to work every day, or at least don't have to drive during rush hour,use CFLs instead of incandescent lights, plus a million other small things that can be proposed but probably need financial incentives to see widespread acceptance. Most likely in any scenario everyone continues to drive their poor fuel efficiency cars until gas prices reach > $10 per gallon.
10.Thu, 8/16/07 5:48 PMThis would be bad...if you were right. This assumes that there won't be job growth in Manteca, Modesto and Merced. That seems unlikely. These communities will be working as Palo Alto and other cites do to encourage businesses to build in their communities.
11.Thu, 8/16/07 6:49 PMOf course nobody likes the fact that greenhouse gas level goes up. but there are many ways to improve that. Crumpling more houses is not the only way. Keeping density of the population in control and make sure there are enough green area is also important. We need to pursue alternatives which don't sacrifice our human needs for space and reasonable life style.
12.Thu, 8/16/07 8:59 PMAgain, ABAG is basing this scenario on flawed theories.
13.Fri, 8/17/07 3:54 AMRegional auto use will probably increase no matter how many infill homes are packed along the CalTrain corridor, and, honestly, infill development on the peninsula will have the barest impact on sprawl in places like Manteca. I rate the above scenario as neutral only because of the hypothetical increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but I have no problem with the peninsula communities snubbing ABAG. More to the point, will projected California GHG levels be 32% more than 1990 levels (instead of 33%) if the 3505 homes are built in Palo Alto (along with additional homes in Menlo Park, etc.)? That's a key metric that would make the question far more interesting. If I knew, for example, that building the 3505 homes in Palo Alto and elsewhere *might* shave 1% of projected GHG levels in 2020 I would have no trouble rejecting the homes.
14.Fri, 8/17/07 5:29 AMLimiting housing growth in this scenario would also mean a drift away from cities whoh do not accomodate workers in ways that ease access. Companies will be more and more pressed to provide quality of life benefits in the future. One of those qualities will be proximity to employment.
15.Fri, 8/17/07 12:37 PMThe scenario counterfactually assumes there is no internet. Why is such a scenario worth considering?
16.Sat, 8/18/07 1:31 AMWhy aren't we thinking about LIMITING cars in Palo Alto and on the peninsula, and thinking more about public transportation? The questions presume that cars are the only possible way people could travel.
17.Sat, 8/18/07 2:51 AMIt won't happen. Electric car technology will replace carbon based fuels and/or carbon fuels will become more efficient thx to technological advancements to internal combustion engine.
18.Sat, 8/18/07 4:36 AMI strongly disagree with your analysis above. How about scenario 3 with the new housing built in nearby cities of currently lower housing cost, such as East Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, etc.
19.Sun, 8/19/07 7:50 PMThe way these questions are written again are skewing the answers to what you want them to say.
20.Mon, 8/20/07 1:50 AMI doubt that Palo 3500 Alto homes would put a dent in a 33% GHG increase.
21.Thu, 8/23/07 11:22 PMSmart Gowth is ot smart. Rail transit does not take cars offroads off the road.
22.Fri, 8/24/07 1:22 AMThis is while planning for the bay area as whole is needed rather than each indvidual neighborhood.
23.Fri, 8/24/07 7:13 AMThis is a DISASTER for us and for future generations. We are responsible for living sustainably. Cities must take the lead on smart growth land planning, otherwise most other efforts just won't matter in the fight against global warming.
24.Fri, 8/24/07 8:25 PMThe assumptions are flawed.
25.Fri, 8/24/07 8:31 PMI disagree with the scenario. By 2020, with more & more hybrids and other greener technologies, GHG could actually fall below 1990 levels. More & more solar, fuel cell, nanotech batteries, etc.
26.Fri, 8/24/07 9:16 PMIt is more likely that congested traffic issues will be dealt with by the increased development of mass transit if the new housing occurs in the Central Valley than on the Peninsula.
27.Fri, 8/24/07 10:20 PMWhat was 1990 level?
28.Fri, 8/24/07 10:22 PMThis assumes travel will be by car. There is already railroad tracks from Stockton to the bay area. With a few more miles of tracks and a full daily schedule where there are many choices of leaving/arriving (such as Tokyo, London, etc.) people would see this as the only cost effective way to travel to work. I exclude BART here, because it is only short haul; I'm talking about coming in from the outlying Valley.
29.Fri, 8/24/07 11:59 PMWhat a biased and stupid question. Is this how ABAG does its work? Have some professional pride in yourself, you are not a telemarketer.
30.Sat, 8/25/07 12:43 AMI feel sorry for the people/commuters who will have to spend so much of their time driving from their sprawling homes in the valley. Let's do our part to at least give them the option of higher density housing closer to their jobs.
31.Sat, 8/25/07 6:00 AMMy less than neutral response reflects the quality of the question. The scenario and its consequences are bogus. What will cause there to be 3,505 times 1.5 (job seekers per household) new jobs in Palo Alto? Given the very high average price of the new housing, what is the likelihood that the total number of inter-city trips will be decreased, rather than increased? Where is Scenario 3, where the rising costs of living in the Bay Area are allowed to curb the population growth? Or scenario 4 where the houses are built in Manteca, Modesto, etc, and the new jobs are located there, near the affordable housing? Why not encourage that? Company costs are lower there, and access to workers is better.
32.Sat, 8/25/07 7:40 AMUnfortunately, California long ago chose highways over mass transit. I personally would like to see increased mass transit, but another alternative is to increase job opportunities in or near Manteca, Modestor and Merced to reduce long commutes.
33.Sat, 8/25/07 2:46 PMWatch the End of Suburbia. such plans are insane with the end of oil. homes 60-150 miles from jobs are not viable for more than 10-20 years in the future.
34.Sat, 8/25/07 6:38 PMThis is a ridiculous scenario. It makes no room for alternative options. This is a pure scare tactic designed to get people to cave in to ABAG., A real solution takes all matters into consideration, negative and positive. Who wrote this scenario - the housing developers?
35.Sat, 8/25/07 7:41 PMthis is a biased question
36.Sat, 8/25/07 8:31 PMthis scenario also should consider water supply issues. and, as i understand it, it takes as much water for an acre of houses as for an acre of crops, so food supply (and eating locally provided food) probably should also be considered in these scenarios
37.Sun, 8/26/07 12:53 AMThis scenario assumes that GHG levels increase solely because of the housing in outlying areas, which is by no means certain. Furthermore, it seems to suggest that had the housing been built here that the GHG levels would not have increased to that extent, which is also uncertain. Last, there are far more variables involved here -- quality of life, schools, safety, changing reliance on environmentally-friendly transport, other GHG-reduction measures, etc.
38.Sun, 8/26/07 12:54 AMThis scenario is baloney. Only a tiny number of additional commuters will drive between 4 and 6 hours each day from Modesto, for example. If the housing in the Bay Area is not increased, companies will expand elsewhere, which is what should happen.
39.Sun, 8/26/07 1:27 AMIt will show the politicians that we really need mass transit.
40.Sun, 8/26/07 5:30 AMJobs, schools, public transit, and shopping should be located in Manteca, Modesto, and Merced along with housing.
41.Sun, 8/26/07 6:18 AMWhere does the 2020 GHG number come from? Misleading to state as fact, when it is merely a projection, and an unsubstantiated and unreferenced one, at that. What are your undelying assumptions?
42.Mon, 8/27/07 5:00 AMBy 2020 illegal immigrants have been removed from the country. Palo Alto's demographics are 40% Caucasian , 40% Asian, 10% Black and 10% "other". Palo Alto's population has been reduced to 35,000 and the blighted areas of the City are now open space or parkland. Per capita income has increased 30%
43.Mon, 8/27/07 8:00 PMRegional auto use will not increase. Employers will locate near new residences. Employees will work four day, forty hour weeks and commute once per week, staying in a small efficieny flat during the week, or working remotely from home during the week. All this will be driven by fuel shortages and prices.
44.Tue, 8/28/07 2:23 PMThis would be economic death for the Peninsula. By the way, I believe that CO2 is a result, not a cause, of global warming.
45.Tue, 8/28/07 6:30 PMThis scenario is not quite correct because many of the new residents will work closer to their homes. More companies should locate in Manteca, Modesto and Merced. PeopleSoft located in Pleasanton and never had a lack of good engineers to choose from.
46.Wed, 8/29/07 12:15 AMThat is exactly what HAS BEEN happening the last 20 years. I find this scenario very credible, and very unattractive.
47.Wed, 8/29/07 7:49 PMBuild the housing near the jobs!!!!
48.Wed, 8/29/07 7:55 PMI doubt PA traffic levels would really stay the same; they'll get worse.
49.Wed, 8/29/07 8:36 PMScience will find a way to reduce GHG levels. More efficient cars or perhaps cars that eliminate GHG emissions.
50.Wed, 8/29/07 9:19 PMAs long as I can still call my projects 'environmentaly freindly' I really don't care what P.A. looks like in 2020. I have my sights set on Portola Valley - that's where all the really cool modern peeps live.
51.Wed, 8/29/07 9:31 PMI like that Palo Alto traffic stays the same under this scenario, but the 33% increase in greenhouse gasses is NOT acceptable. Stop the growth. Impose Greenhouse Gas Taxes. Find alternative energy and transportation options.
52.Wed, 8/29/07 10:09 PMThe traffic and job can go to manteca, modesto, etc.
53.Thu, 8/30/07 1:22 PMNot sure that people will really want to commute from Modesto to Palo Alto or that jobs will stay here. Yes increase in greenhouse gas is bad. Lots of jobs have been moving out of Palo Alto- note HP is not here. Google moved.
54.Thu, 8/30/07 2:03 PMPA should build more affordable housing units close to transportation corridors. In the range of 2200-2500 units
55.Thu, 8/30/07 2:18 PMwhat about adding mass transit and forcing the use of hybrid and elctric cars. Building more houses in Palo Alto will not help unless the residents must live and work in aplo alto..hence my suggestion about stanford. Housing location is not the solution. and thoses house will likely be built in the outlying areas any way.
56.Thu, 8/30/07 4:00 PMThe CONCLUSION that not building the 3500 home in Palo Alto will result in 33% more GHG is made with lots of unsubstantiated assumptions.
57.Thu, 8/30/07 4:05 PMI don't agree with the analysis that leads to this scenario
58.Thu, 8/30/07 4:17 PMThis scenario could work better if housing and transportation were designed to be clustered in those outlying areas and then transportation fed into hubs in key parts of the Bay Area.
59.Thu, 8/30/07 4:54 PMThis question poses an unacceptabe but also an illogical scenario. People purchasing houses in the outlying areas mentioned could not afford the outrageous housing prices in P.A. neighboring communities. If the "sustainable " housing we've built were designed to be truly sustainable and were contributing to a lessening of greenhouse gases, it would not come replete with multiple parking spaces as it does now(note the condos downtown, etc.) but
60.Thu, 8/30/07 5:33 PMOnly way to lessen impact would be to raise bridge tolls and increase public transit - e.g., with more buses and trains across Dumbarton, etc.
61.Thu, 8/30/07 5:45 PMSome real effort in reducing greenhousegas levels can be made in ther area of cleaner burning fuel. also this area needs much more public transport, using cleaner burning fuel
62.Thu, 8/30/07 5:58 PMThis question assumes people are still working in the heart of the Bay area and must therefore commute more or in greater numbers.
63.Thu, 8/30/07 6:50 PMI'm sorry but these scenarios seem to ask, "Are you for or against motherhood and apple pie?" The devil is in the many details attendant to these (and other) possible scenarios and it is not clear how the requested Likert scale answers will contribute anything useful. For these reasons I decline to rank these scenarios.
64.Thu, 8/30/07 7:15 PMThere is no reason that regional auto use will not increase if the homes are built locally (absent some enforcement measure). The residents may work outside of Palo Alto, Menlo Park etc.. If the homes and jobs are in Manteca it is more likely that auto use will decline.
65.Thu, 8/30/07 8:30 PMSounds like a very unrealistic plan to me.
66.Thu, 8/30/07 9:17 PMI simply will not answer this question because it is clearly biased and does not take into account hybrid cars, public transportation, etc. as well as other ways we can reduce greenhouse levels that have absolutely nothing to do with building more houses in Palo Alto.
67.Thu, 8/30/07 9:38 PMThere are other options to decrease greenhouse gases from commuters other than increasing housing density.
68.Thu, 8/30/07 9:41 PMthis is a leading question. I do not agree with all parts.
69.Thu, 8/30/07 10:46 PMI imagine they are being built as i write! Too bad my parents generation voted against BART on "this side" of the Bay.
70.Thu, 8/30/07 10:46 PMThis is not acceptable. I repeat my concern stated at the beginning - Peninsual communities are not doing all they can. There are a lot of people who are resistant to density because they do not want their perceived quality of life to change. I guess they like traffic.
71.Thu, 8/30/07 11:48 PMAgain, the key is affordable, convenient, and accessible public transportation systems.
72.Fri, 8/31/07 5:54 AMdon't believe the assumption is valid-- Doubt that GHG will increase 33%
73.Fri, 8/31/07 11:08 AMI do not believe increased building should be the major factor in reducing greenhouse gas levels.
74.Fri, 8/31/07 7:28 PMUnrealistic choices.
75.Fri, 8/31/07 9:20 PMI wonder how many Palo Altans realize what life is like if you commute from Manteca to the Bay Area everyday. What does this do to families?
76.Sat, 9/1/07 8:53 AMI'm not sure how to rate it because I don't accept that this is the only scenario possible. It doesn't take into account that maybe the answer is to attract businesses to where these 3505 new houses are built rather than transporting the people from the houses to other places to work. It also doesn't take into account any changes in commuting attitudes or services. Maybe part of the answer is to build more mass transit but that's not mentioned either. I don't see it as such an either/or situation as the scenario presents...that this increase in greenhouse levels MUST happen if those houses are built in the Central Valley.
77.Sat, 9/1/07 8:19 PMThis scenario seems valid except for the increase in GHG level. A dramatic shift in the technology of transportation and other energy use could keep the California GHG level growth much lower or better.
78.Sun, 9/2/07 12:11 AMFrom what I have read many people prefer the house with a yard and a long commute to small apartment with a short commute. I think that we should be looking for more innovative ways for people to travel, such high speed train service for long haul to Modesto and some sort of personal transit (like horizontal elevators) for travel within the Bay Area.
79.Tue, 9/4/07 8:37 PMThis scenario seems to assume building the homes in Manteca etc. will greatly increase CA GHG, presumably because the owners will be commuting long distances. But there are other possibilities. Maybe jobs will follow the housing to the central valley. Maybe increased reliance on telecommuting will reduce the amount of GHG producing commuting.
80.Tue, 9/4/07 9:11 PMLocate businesses in areas where there is room for more housing!
81.Wed, 9/5/07 4:40 PMThis scenario seems implausible. Greenhouse gas emissions can be controlled in other ways: hybrid cars, electric vehicles, and better public transportation.
82.Wed, 9/5/07 6:59 PMassumption of regional auto usage increasing and greenhouse gases based on going up are based on what?
83.Wed, 9/5/07 9:06 PMWe have to do our part to absorb some the growth of the area. I agree that there are a lot of jobs in PA and it would be good to help with housing nearby. I do not support the idea that now that I'm here no one else can come. We all must share some of the "bad" since this is such a wonderful place to live.
84.Wed, 9/5/07 10:46 PMUntenable scenario. Jobs will move to Manteca, Modesto, etc. Auto usage will remain static as the associated costs increase. Any commuters into Palo Alto will be on the ACE trains.
85.Thu, 9/6/07 11:25 PMAssumptions, please? References? Based on these scenarios you have already decided. Gee, I wonder who the member is who wants this information...could it be the developer? Also, you did not put a choice for "I do not agree with your scenario"
86.Fri, 9/7/07 12:56 AMHopefully, everyone will be driving an Prius or some other "efficient" model.
87.Fri, 9/7/07 2:58 AMBy 2020 oil reserves will be running low and our country better have come up with a good aternitive. Hopefully BART will run intio the valley up to Sacramento and back through Marin county.
88.Fri, 9/7/07 4:15 AMPalo Alto schools finally manage to fix all their leaky roofs and clogged toilets since population growth in the city stabilizes enough that the school district can use its sub-standard funding over these years to fix its factilites. Palo Alto libraries finally are able to update their collections and renovate their buildings because no more additional population pressure means they can slowly improve their facilities using a few spare dollars from their operating budgets.
89.Fri, 9/7/07 5:28 AMIt is not clear to me that this scenario takes into account job growth in the communities in which the homes are built and, more importantly, does not take into account technological improvements auto engines and exhaust systems which serve to offset the sheer increase in numbers.
90.Fri, 9/7/07 6:39 AMThis scenario does not make any sense. Where is the relationship between having or not having 3500 houses in Palo Alto and the fact that California GHG leves will be up 33% compared to 1990. By the way, GHG emissions can be reduced significantly and quickly by imposing a tax on cars equipped with big engines.
91.Fri, 9/7/07 1:55 PMit is obvious that no one should be happy that greenhouse gas levels are up. It is clearly not a good scenario or outcome, but I would strongly question the correlatin between the two and I would further question the method of how the 33% increase was derived.
92.Fri, 9/7/07 3:21 PMToo many assumptions. No trains or transit? Cars stay at current efficiency? No roads are built?
93.Fri, 9/7/07 3:46 PMBut our property values are maintained, and the riff-raff (secretaries, school teachers, and so forth) will be here only during working hours, leaving us free to shop at restoration hardware until 10pm when everyone goes home. And we can feel secure about our lack of contribution to global warming because we drive Priuses.
94.Fri, 9/7/07 4:08 PMThe cost of housing will continue to be lower in communitites farther from the bay area. We should be planning public transportation solution to ease auto usage. For such a densely populated area our public transportation systems are not adequate.
95.Fri, 9/7/07 5:00 PMWe must begin to look at the larger 'community' of interests - not just our own backyard, so to speak.
96.Fri, 9/7/07 5:01 PMThis scenario is a net negative for Palo Alto. Economic opportunities and emergence of more diverse lifestyle choices will stagnate locally. Overall environmental quality in Palo Alto as well as the rest of the state will deteriorate.
97.Fri, 9/7/07 6:28 PMIs this question intended to be inflammatory? The questions you should be raising is how can we build a transpotation system that is so good that it reduces car usage regardless of where you live?
98.Fri, 9/7/07 6:46 PMToday, it is estimated that fully 1/3 of CA's GHG comes from China. By year 2020, China plans to have added as many as 2000 (!) coal-fired power plants. If so, China will be the #1 polluter in CA, by far. What are we going to do about that?
99.Fri, 9/7/07 8:22 PMTerrible. Look at greater Los Angeles with people commuting over 2 hrs from the desert.
100.Fri, 9/7/07 10:43 PMThbe scenario assums no other measures to reduce greenhouse gas. By 2014 a number of local, regional, and national steps could be taken to mitigate this scenario. Note: your "geography" seemes slanted to the North, as is true for much of P.A. One "midtown" vs about five N.
101.Sat, 9/8/07 12:56 AMThe planning for more housing includes a completely re-vamped community of services: can we walk or bicycle to schools and stores? Is the community side walk enabled? Are cars limited in growth with good substitutions of electric and other? These are community issues that require community input not just from the councils.
102.Sat, 9/8/07 4:40 AMThe focus needs to be on getting people out of their cars by subsidizing public transportation, making it readily accessible and penalizing the use of cars. Nonprofit car-sharing programs, like San Francisco's CityCarShare and Philadelphia's PhillyCarShare are good examples of ways to cut down on car use.
103.Sat, 9/8/07 5:17 AMI would doubt the part of the scenario that predicts a consequent increase in greenhouse gas levels.
104.Sat, 9/8/07 10:26 PM"Bad" as the results are envisioned.
105.Sun, 9/9/07 12:44 AMAs an employer, I know that I have very loyal staff who have left my Palo Alto business because they can't find housing on the Palo Alto side of the bay. If the cities on this side of the bay don't do something together to improve housing, then businesses will need to go where they can find employees.
106.Sun, 9/9/07 4:45 AMOur emissions are already far in excess of those of other countries. If we hold steady and other countries "catch up" with us, we will all be living in a soup of smog. We have to hope that Californians will accept denser housing AND that innovative companies and government policies will lead to lower emissions per person.