I'll bet almost no one in Mountain View even knows there is a quite pleasant bicycle route to the heart of the preserve via St. Joseph Avenue.

There are no signs marking this route (unless you take a hint from all the RESIDENT PARKING ONLY signs along the way). Both the preserve's website and map indicate Cristo Rey Drive is the one and only way into the park. The St. Joseph Avenue access isn't even shown on the map.

So step one would be making people aware that a low-stress alternative exists to driving a car to the preserve.

There is actually a pretty easy way to bike there already -- through St. Joseph Ave. in Los Altos. The street takes you under 280 and right to the park. For Mountain View residents, Grant Rd. feeds into St. Joseph.

I too take St. Joseph Ave. to ride into the park, beginning with a run up the Steven's Creek trail to get to Grant avenue, then cut through Los Altos on a pleasant and level-ground ride into the park. Last time I did there was a kind family with kids near the entrance selling lemonade. It was delicious.

The parking lot doesn't NEED a fix. it' works perfect as it is serving as a regulator to keep the park and trails from becoming over-crowded. I already ride slow through the park weaving and dodging countless people on foot or riding. The park cannot accommodate everyone all at once, and should not try to. If you want to go there in your car, go early. If you live too far to ride, tote your bikes to someplace closer, park and ride in from there The exercise is good for you, and the ride is awesome.

If you do bike to the park, remember that bicycles are not allowed on most park trails. If you want to go on a day hike, bring a heavy duty lock with you because the bike racks in the park give you only iffy security.

I like to ride into the park as well but I generally leave through the St Joe's exit, I enter a little higher up. That road under 280 used to be the main road into the seminary btw.
It's a nice ride from MV and it's an even better ride home because it's all down hill.

I am all for biking to Rancho and thanks to the people who pointed out the St. Joseph’s Ave entrance whicb I did not know existed. But it is a 36 min 6 mile ride from my home to the Rancho entrance. Not something which my kids can do easily and then hike inside.
This to me just points out the elitist attitude that only people living close enough to bike or hike there should be able to use a public facility.

"Rancho San Antonio only has 315 parking spaces which are packed during peak hours..."

Yes, during peak hours. Because so many people insist on going there at exactly the same time, which doesn't work.

There was a time when a car could arrive at 8AM Saturday or Sunday and have no trouble parking. But by the middle 1990s an 8AM Saturday arrival would find the parking lots full (and BMWs -- it always seemed to be BMWs -- prowling vulture-like for any space that might open up).

"The yearslong reluctance to add parking has been frustrating to Mountain View resident Anne Cheilek..."

Hate to break this to you, Anne, but if you doubled the current numer of parking spaces they still would all be filled at those same "peak hours" (and you'd also have more crowding on the trails).

A solution is not to go there during those "peak hours."

Biking to Rancho San Antonio is easy and helps preserve the beautiful ecosystem. The St. Joseph Avenue and Rhus Ridge entrances provide easy access. People come from all over the county to use the park, it's fortunate Mountain View residents can use the park without parking hassles.

Kevin, thanks for writing this article. Could you look into who is financially responsible for the costs of running Deer Hollow Farm? I believe it may be MV.

In which case MV taxpayers are subsidizing a program that LA/LAH residents are using but (in typical fashion) not wanting to share. If MV residents are not able to park and enjoy the space then we should not be the ones paying for it.

if only there was some open space to build some additional parking!

Easy solution. Charge an entrance fee of $2/car for single occupancy and $1/car with 2 or more passengers. 700,000 visitors each year would pay for a kiosk and the salary of people to staff it.

Easy. Just apply the same parking enforcement rules as the RVs enjoy. Problem solved.

@Commonsense said: "A solution is not to go there during those "peak hours."

For those of us with weekday commitments, weekend hikes are really the only option. I have found the parking lots packed all day, both Saturday and Sunday. If I didn't work, or my kids didn't go to school, then we could happily take your advice.

I just looked at the satellite view near the entrance. There's still a lot of room for paving on what seems to appear as "wasteland", not an area where you would hike.

That being said, while you might think adding parking is the easy solution, you have to consider what would happen if you add 10 more parking spaces. These parking spaces would be taken. Add 100 more. These parking spaces would be taken as well. And so on... And now some of the people who were biking / walking there just because they couldn't park are going to drive there as well.
So just adding parking is not going to solve the problem. What needs to be done is, like she says, to implement various solutions: improving signage for pedestrian and bicycle access, add pleasant and short paths for pedestrians to get to the park, add motorcycle parking, free bus or at least add a damn bus stop near that popular location (that one seems so obvious...)

What I would start with:

1. Survey if people would actually use the bike/pedestrian paths, busses, etc. and where they come from.
2. Charge a PARKING FEE during peak hours / on weekends.
Because the problem when you consider bus vs free parking, people are going to choose to drive there... Add a fee to the equation, and now it costs the same / less to take Lyft or the bus.

Another thing: Muir Woods might be of inspiration. It has the same issue. They ended up requiring reservations.
That also, should be considered.

BDBD: My point wasn't about whether anyone had the flexibility to visit Rancho on weekdays. It was that we DON'T have the option to park conveniently on weekends, which won't change soon. It's the reality we live under.

Given the huge demand on certain days, parking will be full. Even if you build more of it (bibi, above, has that figured out too). And if you did eventually add more parking, not only would many people still find it filled on weekends, but you'd create new problems, as SteveD pointed out.

So even if it's difficult or impossible to adapt your usage to Rancho's limitations, still that is something you have more control over than over Rancho's reality. (I dealt with that reality by making parking at Rancho a special-occasion thing, during vacation times and so on.) And yes, lack of bus service is another good point (VTA way too busy running empty busses along ECR, I guess.)

The comments suggesting that additional parking would get filled (as a reason to not provide more parking) are ridiculous.

It's like saying that if we add more airplane options between SF and LA they'll get filled...and stating that's a good reason not to add them.

We want people to visit open space. That's a good thing. 100 more people during peak time will not overcrowd the miles and miles of trails. And guess what, those 100 more people are coming anyway...they're just hovering awaiting spaces.

PS - Just judging visually, for 90%+ of the folks I see at Rancho, biking is not a viable option.

With the exception of ADA parking, there is no need for any parking at Rancho. It boggles the mind that folks would get in a multi ton fume spewing automobile in order to arrive and then hike for miles. Just hike the entire way, or bike part of the way.

Easy Biking wrote: “Biking to Rancho San Antonio is easy and helps preserve the beautiful ecosystem. The St. Joseph Avenue and Rhus Ridge entrances provide easy access.”

In my opinion, Rhus Ridge does not provide easy access.
1. The RR parking lot only holds 10 cars. It is even fuller than RSA.
2. RR cannot be biked. It’s a hike-in entrance. Very steep — 900 feet elevation gain over 0.9 miles. And it enters RSA at the farthest corner of the park.

@Easy Biking, I thought no bikes are allowed west of the farm. Rhus Ridge would definitely fall under that rule.The actual trails in Rancho are hiking only.
In a way Deer Hollow Farm (owned by the City of MV) is comparable to Foothills Park in Palo Alto (located also in the Foothills above the city). Palo Alto made that park accessible only to citizens of Palo Alto and their guests. I am glad MV did not limit their community asset to MV residents, but it seems with our growing population in Silicon Valley this recreational asset has reached its limits. Families with youngsters will more likely walk in pulling a wagon than riding bikes. Seniors likely want to take a car there. Whatever we suggest, different groups of people have different needs. A weekend shuttle seems to make a lot of sense. De Anza College has a huge parking lot, might be a good starting point.

"Additional Parking" wrote "The comments suggesting that additional parking would get filled (as a reason to not provide more parking) are ridiculous."

What is it about the basic realities here that you don't grasp? Maybe if 2000 spaces were added, there would even be parking for everyone who'd like to go there Saturday noon. But 2000 spaces won't happen. There might be a place for 100 more spaces. That's an incremental increase over today's 315. There are certainly far more than 100 cars ready to park at the popular times. You yourself acknowledged it later, contradicting your own assertion above ("100 more people [are] just hovering awaiting spaces"). The unfilled demand is enormous. Bibi (one commenter who is thinking clearly here) pointed out the obvious: the number of potential parked cars isn't even fixed. More people would certainly drive than do now, if they knew more spaces were available.

Thus the basic fallacy in notions like Anne Cheilek's quoted "frustration" that more parking hasn't been added. That reaction assumes, without thinking about it, that 50 or 100 or 150 more parking spaces would magically mean there's now a place for you to park. WRONG. It just means another filled-up parking lot, with cars still prowling for openings and people still fighting over spaces, at the same peak times.

I'm pleased as punch that everyone goes to Rancho. It leaves the other more enjoyable parks uncrowded.
Ranch is like Tahoe or Yosemite: If you must go, expect and enjoy the crowds.

It almost sounds like some here expect that they should be able to drive up to the most crowded park in the area at any time of the day and expect to park their car without any hassle at all.
Good luck with that.

Rancho San Antonio is flatter than a lot of the regional parks, and so inevitably is a favorite of those who do not have the physical ability to enjoy some of the other POST trails. Its hard to beat that for small children and elderly.

I wonder about the wisdom of adding parking at the end of Mora. Those streets leading to the trail head are very narrow and winding, not really made for much traffic. Once you are at the trail head, the road down to the valley is so steep that only a few could enjoy returning to the parking lot. I conclude that this suggestion seems to be intended only to punish "multi-millionaires".

Many of these postings have sensible remarks, especially in setting expectations for the capacity of the park, not just the parking lot. There are many alternatives for able-bodied hikers that I prefer.

How? Just park your RV there forever and never leave.

I also support the current parking arrangements as they regulate the flow of people into the park.

People REALLY need to think outside their little boxes when it comes to their walks. There are alternatives to Rancho which provide trails with an easier gradient. We like the trails around Hidden Villa if we want to avoid peak crowds at Rancho. Rancho is great very early in the morning on most days though. That's when you see the most wildlife as well.

Another beautiful Friday morning, same as last week. At least 50 empty parking stalls about 8:30 am, same as last week.

@Old Steve, it's like when people say traffic is always a nightmare. It's not always. Many times it's not bad in the least.

I can picture the type of person who shows up at Rancho at 10:30 on a Saturday and complains about something needing to change because they can't park.
Same sort who would complain something needs to change because at 10am Sunday they had to wait an hour for breakfast Hobee's.
Note to Rancho users, restaurant diners, movie goers, and anyone else who does things outside the house: If it's popular and you go at peak times expect the crowds and the wait.

Y'all can have my parking space.
#thankacyclist

It is nice to have choices, as some posters do, to visit Rancho San Antonio at off-peak hours, but knowing that space is available is not of any benefit for people whose jobs or families keep them occupied at those times.

A day at the park is a welcome one for many who want to experience the outdoors, but are occupied on weekdays. You can say that it is a problem that defies an easy solution — too much pressure on insufficient resources — and understand that the limits keep some people from using the park.

But, no one will see you at superior because you can go to the park when most people are at work.

Going to a park in the middle of a nice Saturday is like going shopping on Black Friday. We don't design retail parking lots for holiday shopping, so why should we pave over parklands to provide parking for people to use parks?
I agree, we have too many people, and not enough parks. Castle Rock SP has a new parking lot, built with donated funds. If we are trying to be greener, we should make better use of existing paved parking lots. Also, a lot of folks who work have some flexibility as to hours, they just need encouragement. Instead of circling at Rancho, once in awhile try driving a little further to Stevens Creek, Sanborn Skyline, or Castle Rock.

They don't need to "study" this for over a year, just add a dirt parking lot and be done with it, minimal expense and it allows more parking immediate, even 20-30 more spots improves parking by 10%. I remember when the other parking lot was dirt, it was much better than when they paved it; they dramatically reduced the parking capacity with their layout. Nothing in their alternate methods addresses family access for ones that need strollers for deer hollow farm, adding parking directly is the only safe/viable alternative for families with jogging strollers.

We rarely go there now because of the parking, if I can't get the family up and out the door to get there by 7:30am I won't find parking. Its a waste if I arrive 8am or later (far from a peak time); I'll sit there waiting for parking for more than 15 minutes, by then my children are bored/acting up, and if I do find parking they are already in a bad mood from waiting in an idle car. Same would happen with any type of alt transportation method or remote parking lot, it just seems absurd.

I don't need another parking fee, its already cost punitive enough in the bay area having children.

That's when many start their weekdn hikes and runs. That's also when it's time to go to other parks instead of hitting your head with a hammer and wanting someone else to stop it.
What happens when you STILL can't find parking after 10% more spots are added?

There is another parking area, but it adds 10–20 minutes of walking time. Near the alternate entrance on St. Joseph Ave. that other posters have mentioned is Montclaire Elementary School. It had several empty spots this past weekend.

Web Link

@Dave,

That's gutsy if you take your stroller kids (plural) to Deer Hollow as the driver and only adult. I agree you need to be able to park. A technique I have used forever, with stroller kids as well as Scouts: An adult passenger to shepard children/youth, and all the gear they may need for the day. The driver either waits for parking, or hopefully someday soon, parks at De Anza and returns on a dedicated shuttle. I always appreciate a quiet beginning and /or end to a day otherwise full of noisy young voices.

Except (hopefully) logical and rational thought won out and they didn't do actually it. This is a tiny "squeaky wheel" issue. Don't let the small group of squeakers, who will never be satisfied, rule the decision making.