HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2503-4341CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 02, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
3.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Project Prioritization
Framework and Prioritized Project Lists Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: June 2, 2025
Report #:2503-4341
TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Project Prioritization
Framework and Prioritized Project Lists
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide feedback on the Draft Project Prioritization Framework (Attachment
A), the use of the framework’s Initial Evaluation and Supplemental Evaluation to prioritize
projects for the BPTP Update, and the Prioritized Project Lists (Attachment B and C).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is currently updating its 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(BPTP). The BPTP Update will introduce a revised citywide bicycle network, leverage existing
planning foundations, address changes in context and needs since 2012, and integrate new
ideas and innovations. A part of the development of the BPTP Update is to determine
appropriate criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes. This report
presents the Prioritization Framework (Attachment A) that will be used to prioritize the 125
proposed projects for the BPTP Update, and presents two prioritized projects lists: the Initial
Evaluation Project list (Attachment B) and the Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list
(Attachment C). Attachment D is a ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list.
Additionally, the report briefly describes the foundations for the development of the BPTP
Update’s recommended bicycle network and bicycle facilities and provides an overview of the
recommended Policies & Programs and Pedestrian District Guidelines. Staff is presenting this
information to Council to confirm staff is moving in the right direction with the approach to
prioritizing projects for the BPTP Update.
Staff recommends a framework to help the City set priorities, recognizing that resources are
limited and the City needs a manageable set of projects to include in the BPTP Update. This
framework is the result of City staff and project team work and was revised based on
community, Committee, and Commission input received during this phase of engagement. The
recommended framework prioritizes projects in two steps: first, an Initial Evaluation, followed
by a Supplemental Evaluation for only the top scoring projects; 42 out of 125. The Initial
Evaluation includes two factors: Safety & Connectivity. The Safety factor criteria includes
whether the project is on a High-Injury Corridor and if it is on the Safe Routes to School
Program’s Suggested Walk & Roll maps. The Connectivity factor criteria includes Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress and whether a project provides access to transit. The Supplemental Evaluation
includes three factors: 1) Project Cost & Funding; 2) Project Readiness; and, 3) Project Support.
Each are evaluated using a High, Medium, and Low scale for its performance.
BACKGROUND
Project Kick-off, Existing Conditions Analysis, and Needs & Concerns
1, and on September 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
approved of the allocation of Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3)2 funds to the
1 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, May 17, 2021. Item 6, Action Minutes:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3426&compileOutputType=1
2 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/regional-funding/tda-sta/bicycle-pedestrian-funds-tda-3
City of Palo Alto in the amount of $334,852 for the purposes of updating the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
3
4
5 The existing conditions
technical analysis included information on the local Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), safety
and collisions, major barriers, e-bike and shared micromobility, and a bike parking inventory.6
7
3 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, June 19, 2023. Consent Calendar: Approval of Professional Services Contract with Kittelson & Associates for a
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $333,945 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update. CEQA Status: Exempt under Public Resources
Code Section 21080.20. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1172&compileOutputType=1
4 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, January 22, 2024. Informational Report: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: an active
transportation plan--Introduction & Overview, Community Engagement, Context & Baseline Conditions, and Next Steps.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13335&compileOutputType=1
5 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, April 29, 2024. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss
the vision statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15058&compileOutputType=1
6 City of Palo Alto, BPTP Update Existing Conditions Technical Analysis: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-
Walking/bikepedplan/BPTP-Update-Existing-Conditions-Analysis
7 Palo Alto City Council Special Meeting April 29, 2024. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and
discuss the vision statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=fcfab491-1dae-4afd-a309-
be952790121e
Vision Statement & Objectives
The project team revised the project Vision and Objectives based on public, committee,
working group, and City Council feedback, including a City Council meeting on April 29, 2024.
While there was positive sentiment around the content of the initial draft vision statement,
many people expressed an interest in shortening the statement, incorporating an educational
element, and reducing redundancy while emphasizing the intent of the plan to create an “all
ages and abilities” network.
The updated vision statement reads: We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient,
equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and
connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all
ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active
transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.
The project Objectives outlined include:
•Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of
age and ability and ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
across the community while reducing fatal and severe injury crashes.
•Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and interconnected network of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide efficient travel options and easy access to
transit and important destinations, encouraging a shift away from driving and improving
environmental health through lower vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas
emissions.
•Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in
promoting active transportation, supported by education, programming, and
infrastructure investments, in a way that cultivates learning for all network users of all
ages.
•Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and
cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes.
•Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless,
integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
The following section presents a brief discussion on the bicycle network development approach
and bicycle facility selection.
Bicycle Network Development & Recommended Network
The citywide Bicycle Network was revised using feedback from the community and working
groups and by aligning with existing and planned facilities outlined in other plans. The Draft
Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach Memo8 details the foundations for the
development of the updated bicycle network, including:
•2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
•2024 Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
•Palo Alto Bicycle Map (2021)
•High Injury Network for Bicyclists
•Bicycle Boulevard Planning (2016)
•Bicycle Network Development Workshops (2024)
•MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan (2023)
•VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018)
•VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan (2021)
•Safe Routes to School Plans
•Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan (2025)
•Palo Alto Housing Element (2024)
•Community and Agency Feedback
•2024 BPTP Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
•2024 BPTP Origins and Destinations Bicycle Activity Analysis
•2024 BPTP Major Barriers Analysis
•Dutch Network Planning Principles
•Bike/Ped Video Counts
Primary Network Development Criteria
Network Development Criteria are primary inputs into the network development process. The
network is built on the 2012 BPTP and refined with recent planning efforts conducted since
then in Palo Alto and the region.
8 Draft Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/6_draft-network-
corridor-criteria-dev-approach-memo.pdf
Table 1: Proposed Primary Network Development Criteria
Attribute Source Criteria Rationale
2012 Plan
Network
Palo Alto Bicycle +
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Map 6-1
Route included in the
2012 plan network
Foundation of the plan update
Existing Bicycle
Facility
2024 Existing
Bicycle Facilities
map
Route exists today as
a formal bicycle
facility
Existing routes have value by
virtue of their presence and
current use
Palo Alto Bicycle
Map
Palo Alto Bicycle
Network Routes
Map
Route included in the
City published user
map
User map published by the City
of Palo Alto, identifying bike
friendly routes today
High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
2024 High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
Route identified as a
high injury network
street in the 2024
BPTP Collision and
Safety Analysis
Route is a potential safety
hazard today, may be enhanced
to become an important or
improved network link
2016 Bike
Boulevard
Improvements
Project
City of Palo Alto
Bike Boulevards
Improvements
Project
Route included in
Bike Boulevard
Improvement Project
Detailed planning of future
bicycle boulevard
implementation offers a more
recent vetting of viable routes
Network
Development
Workshop
2024 Network
Development
Workshop
Outcomes
Route identified on
the 2024 Network
Development
Workshops
Network development
workshops identified key
destinations and potential direct
routes between them
Regional Active
Transportation
Plans
MTC Regional
Active
Transportation
Plan; VTA Bicycle
Superhighway
Implementation
Plan
Route identified as a
part of the regional
Active Transportation
network or Bicycle
Superhighway Plan
Regionally significant connection
between communities
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
SRTS system route
maps
Route identified on
the SRTS route
system
Important connection to schools
as a priority destination
This first round of network development identified: (1) a core network where these plans align
and agree; and (2) street segments and routes with less planning consensus.
Secondary Criteria for Network Refinement
Where multiple routes options exist (less planning consensus), secondary criteria were used for
route selection and refinement. The following advantages were used to make those selections:
•Direct routing to community destinations.
•Favorable existing conditions based on the traffic stress conditions identified in the 2024
LTS Analysis.
•Direct alignment with routes in high demand with higher volumes of people moving.
•Routes that overcome barriers identified in the 2024 BPTP Major Barriers Analysis.
The result is an updated Proposed Bicycle Network Update map9 that shows a low-stress vision
for the Palo Alto network, inclusive of bikeways and bicycle-friendly zones to frame policy and
influence trade-off decision-making.
Updated Bicycle Facilities
The BPTP Update proposes a simplified array of facility types designed to improve safety and
embrace innovation. The facilities were selected to meet the goals and objectives of the BPTP
Update. The proposed bicycle facilities fall into three categories: mixed traffic, visually
separated, and physically separated. These three categories reflect the types of facilities and
how they are designed.
Image 1: Bicycle facilities for the updated bikeway network
The BPTP Update proposes six types of bicycle facilities:
•Class I—Shared Use Path
•Class IIa—Bike Lane
•Class IIb—Buffered Bike Lane
•Class IIIa—Advisory Bike Lane
•Class IIIb—Bicycle Boulevard
•Class IV—Protected Bike Lane
The Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo10 provides a detailed overview of each facility
type and the criteria for using it. The facility selection memo also details changes from the 2012
BPTP bicycle facilities—changes that are needed to reflect significant advancements in bicycle
planning and design. These include the removal of and changes to bicycle facilities, including
Class III Bike Routes, Sharrows, and Enhanced Bikeway option of floating bicycle lanes, also
known as part-time bicycle lanes or restricted hours bicycle lanes designed to be a parking lane
9 Proposed Bicycle Network map, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bnu-map_02-
2025.pdf
10 Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/7r_bic-fac-
sele_f.pdf
Visually Separated
for part of the day and a vehicle travel lane for part of the day. Additionally, the bicycle facility
selection approach is a significant departure from 2012 because it embraces arterials with
separated facilities to create connected and direct routes for people walking and biking and
make these streets safer for all road users.
11, shows the changes to the network lines
from the 2012 BPTP.
Bicycle Facility Selection
A simplified approach to select the different types of bicycle facilities was chosen for the
updated bikeway network. The approach is informed by the Dutch CROW Design Manual for
Bicycle Traffic,12 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide,13 and
the NACTO All Ages & Abilities Bikeways guidance.14 The bicycle facility selection first looked at
road classification (local, collector, and arterial). Then traffic volumes and posted speeds were
examined. The consultant team had limited access to traffic data and therefore relied on
network criteria that were used to create the bikeway network, community input, and on-the-
ground knowledge from staff and the in-person working session in April 2024. This approach
was applied to each segment of the bikeway network, and the facilities were selected based on
the approach but also considered in the greater network and whether they met the BPTP
Update goals and objectives. The detailed facility selection approach is presented in the Draft
Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo.15
11 Bicycle Network Change Since 2012 Map; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/ntwrk-chge-s-
2012-map_02-2025.pdf
12 CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW, 2023. https://www.crow.nl/publicaties/design-manual-for-bicycle-traffic.
13 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: FHWA-SA-18-077. U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2018. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf.
14 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). "Choosing the Age and Ability of Bicycle Facility." NACTO, n.d.,
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities-new/choosing-ages-abilities-bicycle-facility/.
15 Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/7r_bic-fac-
sele_f.pdf
Updated Bicycle Network with Facilities Identified
The Proposed Bicycle Facility Map16 is the map of the recommended bicycle facilities for the
BPTP Update applied to the proposed bikeway network17, following the Bicycle Facility
Selection process described above. The map displays existing facility types and proposes future
facilities required to create more comfortable bicycling conditions. This map helps illustrate the
level of change proposed in the plan.
Pedestrian District Guidelines
The Pedestrian District Guidelines18 provide a toolbox of treatments to enhance pedestrian
safety and the overall walking experience in the city. These guidelines build on previous plans,
incorporating new ideas and addressing changes since 2012. The toolbox includes infrastructure
improvements like raised crossings and curb extensions, alongside aesthetic enhancements
such as benches and street art, promoting safety, accessibility, and comfort. Priority pedestrian
districts and neighborhood commercial centers were identified citywide as informed by the
City’s 2023 Economic Development Strategic Plan, with area maps detailing the recommended
application of these treatments to create inviting and enjoyable walking environments. These
include University Avenue District, California Avenue District, Midtown District, and the
Embarcadero and El Camino Real neighborhood commercial centers.
Programs, Policies, and Best Practices19
16 Proposed Bicycle Facility Map; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bicycle-facility-
map_03-2025.pdf
17 Proposed Bicycle Network map, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bnu-map_02-
2025.pdf
18 Pedestrian District Guidelines; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-
recs/3r_20250205_pabptp_final-pdg.pdf
19 Program and Policy Recommendations, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/policy-and-
programs_02-2025.pdf
Performance Measures20
Recommended performance measures were developed, shaped around the BPTP Update’s five
Objectives and informed by a review of the 2012 BPTP and Bicycle Friendly Communities
benchmarking. For each measure, guidance for tracking performance included a detailed
description, reporting period, data needs and sources, methodology, and additional
information to assist with applying the measure in the coming years. Eight performance
measures were recommended by the project team, with another eight identified as potential
performance measures pending City resources.
Non-Prioritized Bicycle Project List21
A comprehensive list and maps22 of the non-prioritized projects proposed for the BPTP Update
were developed through input from the City, in-person working sessions held in April 2024, and
meetings with the consultant team. The non-prioritized list includes 125 projects and includes
details such as the project number, project name, location (including the extent start and end),
project length, existing facilities, proposed bicycle facilities, bikeway class, and a short project
description. The project description provides a brief overview of the project as well as indicates
different elements that should be given attention, such as intersections or projects that should
be implemented alongside. Some larger projects have been proposed as individual segments to
give the City the ability to install projects in a phased approach. Finally, notes about
implementation are also provided including parking reconfiguration, lane reconfiguration,
traffic calming, traffic filtering, wayfinding, civil construction, and whether the project is a
quick-build candidate. In addition to corridor projects, the project list includes key crossing
projects, special projects, and proposals for future studies.
ANALYSIS
Project Prioritization
20 Recommended Performance Measures; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/5_recommended-
performance-measures.pdf
21 Non-prioritized Project List; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/draft-projects-
lists_02-2025.pdf
22 Projects by Facility Types maps; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/p-projects-by-fac-
type-maps_02-2025.pdf
The initial prioritization utilizes quantitative methods to assess the level of project alignment
with proposed factors and criteria intended to align with the BPTP Update objectives and
informed by NCHRP Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool23. Two factors (safety and
connectivity) were identified for this initial project prioritization, each with evaluation criteria
and weights to be used in the process. The safety factor is weighed 70% and its criteria consider
collision history and school routes; the connectivity factor is weighed 30%, and its criteria
consider the current level of stress for bicyclists.
ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list. The working lists
are subject to change based on City Council feedback. Table 2 below provides a summary of the
proposed Prioritization Framework’s Initial and Supplemental evaluations.
23 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans
Priority Tool Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22163 .
Table 2. Summary of Prioritization Framework
High-Injury CorridorsSafety
Safe Route to School
Bicycle Level of Traffic StressConnectivity
Access to Transit
Project Cost & Funding
Project Readiness
Project Support
High, Medium, Low
*Only the projects that scored 70-100 in the Initial Evaluation will advance to the Supplemental Evaluation
Prioritized Project Lists
The initial prioritization and supplemental evaluation resulted in two priority project lists.
Attachment B is the list of 125 priority projects from the initial evaluation, and Attachment C is
the list of 42 priority projects from the initial and supplemental evaluation. Attachment D is a
ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list. The projects from Attachment D are
proposed to be incorporated into the BPTP Update’s near-term Action Plan that identifies the
top priority projects for implementation, while the rest are proposed for a long-term projects
list. However, while rankings are important, City staff will move forward on any project from
the Supplemental Evaluation list as funding opportunities and resources become available once
the Final Plan is adopted.
The BPTP Update project cost is $333,945, including a 10% contingency. The City is eligible to
cover project expenditures under MTC’s TDA Article 3 program and has requested and received
$334,852 in funding for the study. City staff anticipates that all eligible costs incurred will be
reimbursed through the TDA Article 3 payment reimbursement process and have been billing
MTC and receiving reimbursements on a quarterly basis. This funding is budgeted in the FY
2025 Adopted Capital Budget in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation
Project (PL-04010). Future year funding to implement projects in the updated BPTP will be
subject to Council appropriation as part of the annual budget process.
Phase 3 Community Engagement Activities
Phase 3 (Present recommended Network, Facilities, Programs & Policies) engagement activities
included a third series of committee and working group meetings, focus groups, online &
street-level engagement, and a community workshop. Activities were promoted on the City’s
website, social media channels, transportation mailing list, Uplift Local newsletter, tabling
events, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings. Themes heard during these
outreach efforts included the importance of speed and volume management on bicycle
boulevards, desire for improved wayfinding and more bike parking, interest in integrating green
stormwater infrastructure and public art into transportation projects. There was excitement
and skepticism about the potential of protected bike lanes to make “big streets” low stress
connections for people walking and biking. Additional information about what we heard at the
Community Workshop is summarized below. Attachment E provides a summary of the phase 3
engagement activities and feedback received.
•Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at:
https://www.paloalto.gov/bikepedplan. The website will continue to be updated with
relevant material and information. An interactive map was hosted on the website where
the community provided over 400 comments on the proposed bicycle network and
projects from February 3, 2025 through April 30, 2025.
•Online comment box. An online comment box was available for community members to
provide comments on the recommendations through a general comment form. There
were over 100 different submissions through the online form.
•Committee and Working Group Meetings. The project team has engaged with the
following committees and working groups during Phase 3:
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) (February 4, 2025)
o Parks and Recreation Commission (March 25, 2025)
o Planning and Transportation Commission (February 26, 2025)
o City/School TSRs focus group: February 2025
o PABAC focus groups: February 2025
o Internal Staff Working Group (March 2025)
o City Council (June 2, 2025)
•Community Workshop. The project team hosted a Transportation Workshop with the
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project on April 2, 2025. The workshop was held
at Palo Alto’s Mitchell Park Community Center (El Palo Alto Room) from 6-7:30 p.m.
Nearly 50 community members were in attendance. Comments emphasized general
support for the plan and interest in implementation of projects that would improve
safety and connectivity for people walking and biking. Support was voiced for several
specific projects, including protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road and Homer
Avenue, shared use paths along Matadero Creek and Barron Creek, and upgrades to the
shared use path on Embarcadero from El Camino Real to the Palo Alto High School
midblock crossing. Other suggestions included signal timing enhancements for
pedestrians, a general desire for additional traffic calming along bike boulevards and
repaving streets on the bike network, and requests for more bike parking, bike corrals,
street art, and murals.
•Street Level Engagement: The project team participated in street level engagement
activities during Phase 3, including tabling at local Farmer’s Markets, Third Thursday
Music Event on Cal Ave, and at the City’s Around the World and Earth Day community
events.
Next Steps
The project team will refine the Prioritization Framework and project recommendations,
including the priority project lists, based on the City Council’s feedback and develop the Draft
BPTP Update Plan. The Draft Plan is anticipated for public review in fall 2025 when it will be
presented to PABAC and the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
REVISED DRAFT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK
The City of Palo Alto (City) is updating the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(BPTP Update). This BPTP Update will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to
provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. This
memorandum describes the prioritization framework proposed to be used as part of the BPTP
Update. The prioritization criteria are intended to align with the BPTP Update objectives, which
include the following:
◼ Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of
age and ability, ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and
reducing fatal and severe injury crashes.
◼ Connected and Accessible: Providing a convenient and interconnected network of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that offer efficient travel options and easy access to
transit and important destinations; encouraging a shift away from driving that reduces
air pollution.
◼ Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and
cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes.
◼ Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation
in promoting active transportation through education, programming, and
infrastructure investments to cultivate learning for all network users of all ages.
◼ Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a
seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
May 13, 2025 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
RE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
May 13, 2025 Page 2
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
This memo includes the following topics:
◼ Initial Prioritization is the initial quantitative prioritization applied to assess the level
of alignment with BPTP Update objectives of safety and connectivity.
◼ Supplemental Evaluations describes the additional qualitative assessments that will be
applied to further differentiate projects that score high under the proposed
prioritization methodology to develop an implementation order using the following
three feasibility-oriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding
opportunities, and project support.
◼ Next Steps presents subsequent actions for the City and consultant team.
Table 1: Proposed Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria
Prioritization Factor Criteria
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost & Funding
High, Medium, Low Project Readiness
Project Support
*Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
Initial Prioritization
Proposed Factors and Evaluation Criteria
The proposed evaluation process is informed by the framework from NCHRP Report 803:
ActiveTrans Priority Tool1 (APT), the result of a national research effort. The APT methodology
was based on an extensive review of existing prioritization processes being used by agencies
across the country at the state, regional, and local level. It uses a standard set of terms and
definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within
the APT:
1 Lagerwey, Peter A., et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool
Guidebook. NCHRP Report 803. Project No. 07-17. 2015. Available online at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf
May 13, 2025 Page 3
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Factors are the categories used to express community or agency values considered in the
prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. The APT
has selected nine primary factors commonly used by agencies across the country that are
particularly suited for prioritization of active transportation needs.
• Variables (or evaluation criteria) are characteristics of roadways, households,
neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each
factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably.
• Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors
based on community or agency values. In order to increase transparency and legibility in
the weighting step, weights are applied to factors, not to variables (which are often much
more technical in nature).
The proposed prioritization factors and criteria is informed by NCHRP Report 803 and by the
BPTP Update’s goals as referenced above.
Table 2: Proposed Initial Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria
Factor Criteria Notes Ped Bicycle
Safety
High-Injury
Corridors
This criterion will prioritize locations based on
analysis and network screening of bicycle- and
pedestrian-related collisions. This criterion aligns
with the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.
X X
Safe Routes
to School
This criterion will prioritize projects on the Walk and
Roll Suggested Route Maps available on the City of
Palo Alto Safe Routes to School website. This
criterion aligns with the Safe and Inclusive, and
Connected and Accessible objectives.
X X
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress
This criterion will prioritize locations based on the
presence of high-stress bicycle facilities. The level of
traffic stress for this criterion analysis was already
conducted for this project. This criterion aligns with
the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.
X
Access to
Transit
This criterion will prioritize locations near major
transit stops. This criterion aligns with the
Connected and Accessible, and Integrated and
Collaborative objectives.
X
May 13, 2025 Page 4
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Framework for Applying the Criteria
For the application of the factors and criteria discussed above, Kittelson will use the process
from NCHRP Report 803. This report is accompanied by a pre -programmed APT spreadsheet
tool2 that can be tailored to project, segment, or geographic area inputs. The spreadsheet tool
may be used for the entire process, or it can be supplemented with calculations from GIS or
performed manually. Given the spatial nature of pedestrian and bicycle planning, it is common
to perform GIS calculations to create input variables—as is proposed for the factors identified in
this section. The tool’s 10-step process is outlined and briefly annotated in italics below.
1. Define purpose. An agency first determines the purpose of the prioritization process. This
prioritization process will prioritize locations at the segment level. The scored segments will
then be linked to projects. This aligns with the scale at which data is available and allows for
aggregation of segment-specific factors.
2. Select factors. An agency next selects the factors to be used in prioritization that align with
their goals for the prioritization process. The proposed factors for the BPTP Update are
identified in the preceding section.
3. Establish factor weights. Each factor is weighted on a scale of 1 to 10 to indicate its relative
importance to other factors. The proposed weights are identified in the following section.
4. Select variables (criteria) for each factor. For each selected factor, agencies may select one
or more variables to measure the factor. Kittelson has proposed two variables or indicators
for each factor. See more details in the subsequent section.
5. Assess data availability. For all proposed factors and criteria, the project team has access to
the necessary data.
6. Assess technical resources. Agencies assess their existing technical resources and capabilities
to determine if existing resources are sufficient. The project team will use a combination of
GIS software and the APT spreadsheet tool to perform calculations.
7. Set up prioritization tool. Having established the purpose, factors, variables, and required
data, the next step is to set up a tool to implement the prioritization method. The project
team will use the APT spreadsheet tool.
8. Input data.
9. Scale variables. Scaling involves selecting a common numeric scale and adjusting raw values
to fit the common scale. Scaling should not be confused with weighting. Scaling is a more
objective, technical function, while weighting is based on community/agency values. Scalin g
is necessary so that variables have a comparable impact on the prioritization score in the
absence of weighting. Scaling methods should be chosen carefully depending on the
distribution and range of the data points. For example, this would be applied when applying
2 Available at: https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/tools_apt.cfm
May 13, 2025 Page 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
a low-medium-high scale to a numeric variable such as household income, in order to
categorize census tracts in a city as having low, medium, or high household income. This step
is not necessary for BPTP Update project prioritization as the variables are on a binary scale.
10. Calculate priority scores. Finally, agencies sum the weighted values for each factor to derive
a total score for each location. The segments can then be ranked based on the prioritization
score. In some cases, agencies may wish to revisit factors, variables, and/or weighting, and
make adjustments to their prioritization based on additional input or evolving prioritization
purposes. The spreadsheet used for this project allows for adjustment of factor weights and
comparison of results.
Initial Prioritization Analysis Methodology
This section discusses the proposed methodology for each of the proposed initial prioritization
criterion.
Table 3: Safety Criterion
High Injury Network
Description
This measure uses the results of the pedestrian and bicycle collision and high
injury network screening analysis. The screening process used a severity-
weighted collision score on the roadway network to identify locations associated
with risk for people walking or biking.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the high-injury network analysis.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the high injury network. Locations on
the high injury network will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the high
injury network will be assigned a value of 0.
Scoring
Recommended method: Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network
0 = Not on the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network
Limitations
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data used for this analysis will only include
collisions that were reported to the California Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System database. Collisions that do not result in injury, death, or over a
sufficient amount of property or vehicle damage are not required to be reported
in California and would not necessarily be recorded in the data. As a result, not
all pedestrian and bicycle collisions are represented in this data and the quality of
collision data is limited by the amount of detail provided by the person
completing the collision report form.
May 13, 2025 Page 6
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Pedestrian and bicycle count data are not consistently and completely available;
therefore, pedestrian or bicycle exposure could not be accounted for in
developing this criterion.
Finally, because numbers of pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐involved collisions are
typically low relative to all collisions and may represent random and/or
behavioral/human factor causes where the specific location is not inherently a
factor in the collision, this criterion alone represents only a partial assessment of
bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Safe Routes to School
Description This measure uses the Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the recommended walk and roll routes to school.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the network of Walk and Roll
Suggested Route Maps. Locations on the suggested walk and roll routes to school
will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the suggested walk and roll routes
to school will be assigned a value of 0.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School
0 = Not on the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School
Limitations
The suggested walk and roll routes to school used for this analysis include streets
identified and mapped over five years ago. As a result, this does not reflect
changes that have occurred (e.g., streetscape modifications that have been
implemented, development that has occurred) since the map was created.
Additionally, this map represents a subset of streets in the City and not all streets
that students use to walk and roll to school on are represented.
Table 4: Connectivity Criterion
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Description
This measure incorporates the results of previously-conducted bicycle level of
traffic stress (LTS) analysis conducted for this project to assess low-stress bike
network connectivity. Bicycle level of traffic stress was developed at the Mineta
Transportation Institute in 2012 to estimate the level of stress a bicyclist may
feel while riding along a particular roadway. In the method adopts a “worst case
scenario” approach whereby the roadway characteristic with the highest stress
level determines the score for the segment. Scores range from 1 (a comfortable
facility for users of all ages and abilities) to 4 (a facility that only strong and
fearless cyclists would feel comfortable using).
May 13, 2025 Page 7
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the output of the bicycle level of traffic stress
analysis conducted for this project.
Proposed
Methodology
Kittelson will assign the computed LTS score to each roadway segment. If a
prioritization segment is connected to multiple LTS analysis segments, it will be
assigned the higher (i.e., more stressful) LTS score.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = High-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 3 or 4)
0 = low-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 1 or 2)
Limitations
The LTS analysis was conducted using roadway data provided by the City and
supplemented with Open Street Map (OSM) data. In general, OSM data varies in
quality and completeness by area. This variation exists because the data are
open source and supplied by volunteers. OSM data also typically lacks extensive
metadata, making it challenging to assess when the data was last updated.
Access to Transit
Description This measure prioritizes locations within walking distance (0.25-mile network
distance, or 10-minute walk) of transit stops.
Data Needs The spatial location of transit stops.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the network distance (rather than straight-line distance)
from the centroid of each roadway segment to the nearest among transit stops.
The road segments will be evaluated for whether they are within 0.25-mile or a
ten-minute walking distance to the nearest stop.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = Within a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop
0 = Greater than a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop
Limitations
This methodology prioritizes proximity to transit stops within Palo Alto. It is
possible that ridership demand for walking connections exist at other locations.
Weightings
This section revisits the framework with a few considered weightings, including the factor
weighting ultimately selected by the City. The City has provided its feedback and chosen the
weightings presented in the far-right column in
May 13, 2025 Page 8
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 5.
Table 5: Possible Factor Weighting for Prioritization1
Factor Criteria
Equal
Weights
Method
Safety
Focus
Connectivi
ty Focus
Suggested
Weights
(Safety
Focus)
Final
Weights
Safety
High-Injury
Network
50% 66% 34% 70% 70%
Safe Routes
to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress 50% 34% 66% 30% 30%
Access to
Transit
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 The overall score is the sum of weighted scores, which range from 0 to 1
Supplemental Evaluation
The initial prioritization is used to develop scores for each segment location in Palo Alto.
Projects are then assigned numerical scores based on their respective locations on the scored
segments. Through this quantitative approach, the City can consistently compare the level to
which different projects align with the BPTP Update goals of Safety and Connectivity and do so
in a repeatable way.
After the initial prioritization, the Project team will further assess the top ranked bikeways,
crossings, intersections, studies, and special projects (those scoring higher than 70 points)
through a supplemental evaluation that is more qualitative in nature and intended to further
differentiate projects with similar scores to create an implementation order. Each of the higher
scoring projects will be evaluated against the same subset of criteria and scored qualitatively
May 13, 2025 Page 9
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. This supplemental evaluation
provides a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the factors of Project Readiness,
Project Cost and Funding Opportunities, and Project Support to allow for more informed
decisions about implementation. The draft supplemental evaluation metrics and scoring rubric
are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6: Draft Supplemental Evaluation Metrics and Scoring Rubric
Factor Evaluation
Metrics
Scoring Scale
Low Medium High
Project
Readiness
What stage of
development is
the project in?
The project is not on
the 5-year repaving
plan, Green Storm
Infrastructure (GSI)
priority street, or
Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP) list.
The project requires
reconstruction or
right-of-way
acquisition.
The project may be
on the 5-year
repaving plan, GSI
priority street, or
the CIP list.
The project may
require
reconstruction or
lane reconfiguration
or right-of-way
acquisition.
The project is on the
5-year repaving
plan, GSI priority
street, or the CIP
list. Concept or
construction plans
have been
developed. The
project does not
require right-of-way
acquisition but may
require lane
reconfiguration or
reconstruction.
Project Cost
and Funding
Opportunities
What is the
likelihood of
receiving funds
for the
project?
The project is not on
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.
The project is far
from housing
opportunity sites.
The project may not
be competitive for
various funding
sources.
The project may be
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.
The project may be
close to housing
opportunity sites.
The project may be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.
The project is on the
repaving plan or the
CIP list.
The project is close
to housing
opportunity sites.
The project is
expected to be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.
Project
Support
What level of
support does
the project
have?
Support for the
project has not been
expressed.
Some support for
the project has been
expressed.
Strong support for
the project has been
expressed.
Next Steps
Kittelson will apply the initial prioritization methodology to develop a preliminary ranking of the
project list. After the projects are ranked, Kittelson will collaborate with City staff to review the
May 13, 2025 Page 10
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
initial evaluation list and identify additional projects that may warrant further review as part of
the supplemental evaluation. After the project list for supplemental evaluation has been
finalized, Kittelson will conduct the supplemental evaluation and develop a near-term action
plan that identifies the top priority projects for implementation.
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST
INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To In
i
t
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y
BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y
PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y
PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y
PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y
PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y
BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y
BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y
BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y
INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y
INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y
SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y
BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y
BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y
BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y
BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y
Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y
SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y
Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y
Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y
SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y
BL_1 North California Avenue Bike Lane North California Avenue Newell Road Greer Road 65
BL_2 Channing Avenue Bike Lane Channing Avenue Guinda Street Addison Avenue 65
BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y
BL_8 Loma Verde Bike Lane Loma Verde Louis Road West Bayshore Road 65
BL_9 Colorado Ave Bike Lane Colorado Ave Middlefield Road Alma Street 65
BBL_1 Homer/Channing/Guinda Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Homer Avenue Bryant Street Guinda Street 65
BBL_2 Newell Road Buffered Bike Lane Newell Road Embarcadero Road Channing Avenue 65
BBL_3 Hanover Street to Porter Drive Buffered Bike Lane Hanover Street California Avenue Page Mill Road 65
BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y
BBL_6 Loma Verde Avenue Buffered Bike Lane: Alma Street to Middlefield Road Loma Verde Avenue Alma Street Middlefield Road 65
PBL_3 Quarry Road Protected Bike Lane Quarry Road El Camino Real Welch Road 65
PBL_11a Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek Embarcadero Road 65
PBL_11b Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road Oregon Expressway 65
PBL_11c Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Oregon Expressway Loma Verde Avenue 65
PBL_11d Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Loma Verde Avenue San Antonio Road 65
PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y
PBL_13 Arastradero Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road El Camino Real Foothill Expressway 65
PBL_14 Embarcadero Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Newell Road Embarcadero Road Middlefield Road Newell Road 65
PBL_21a East Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane: Industrial Avenue to Middlefield Road Charleston Road Industrial Avenue Middlefield Road 65
PBL_21b East Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Charleston Road Middlefield Road Alma Street 65
BLVD_7 Chaucer - Hamilton - Hale - Boyce Bike Boulevard Hale Street San Francisquito Creek Guinda Street 65
BLVD_19 Laguna - Los Robles Avenues Bike Boulevard Laguna Avenue Matadero Avenue Los Robles Avenue 65
BLVD_25 Guinda Street Bike Boulevard Guinda St Everett Avenue Channing Avenue 65
BLVD_CROSSING_01 Chaucer Street crossing of University Avenue University Avenue & Chaucer Street 65
BLVD_CROSSING_02 Carlson Streer Crossing of E Charleston Rd E Charleston Rd & Carlson Street 65
BLVD_CROSSING_06 Faber Place Crossing at Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & Faber Place 65
BLVD_CROSSING_07 Greer Road Crossing of Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & Greer Road 65
BLVD_CROSSING_08 St Francis Drive crossing of Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & St Francis Drive 65
CROSSING_02 Everett Avenue Tunnel Everett Avenue 65
CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y
CROSSING_04 New parallel tunnel for bicycles at California Avenue. Caltrain Station to Alma Street California Avenue 65
CROSSING_05 Palo Alto Transit Center/University Avenue Undercrossing Palo Alto Transit Center/University Ave 65
INTERSECTION_01 Page Mill Road and Hanover Street Intersection Improvement Page Mill Road & Hanover Street 65
Page 1
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST
INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To In
i
t
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y
INTERSECTION_04 Greer Road and Oregon Expressway Intersection Oregon Expressway & Greer Road 65
INTERSECTION_07 E Charleston Road and San Antonio Road Intersection E Charleston Rd & San Antonio Road 65
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y
INTERSECTION_10 Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real 65
INTERSECTION_11 Quarry Road and Arboretum Road Protected Intersection Quarry Road & Arboretum Road 65
Study_01 Southern Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Study and Implementation Project South Palo Alto 65
Study_03 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path Feasibility Study Matadero Canal 65
SpecProj_2 Downtown Green Wave Downtown 65
BLVD_3 Everett Avenue Bike Bike Boulevard Everett Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 35
BLVD_5 Hamilton-Greer Avenue Bike Boulevard Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road 35
BLVD_8 Greer Road Bike Boulevard Greer Road Embarcadero Road Louis Road 35
BLVD_9 La Donna - Barron - Josina - Bike Boulevard Barron Avenue 35
BLVD_11 Faber Place Bike Boulevard Faber Place Embarcadero Road Renzel Trail 35
BLVD_12 Amarillo Avenue Bike Boulevard Amarillo Avenue Louis Road West Bayshore Road 35
BLVD_13 Garland Drive Bike Boulevard Garland Drive Middlefield Road Louis Road 35
BLVD_15 Cowper Street Bike Boulevard Cowper Street Coleridge Avenue E Meadow Drive 35
BLVD_16 Colorado Avenue Bike Boulevard Colorado Avenue Bryant Street Middlefield Road 35
BLVD_17 Stanford Avenue Bike Boulevard Stanford Avenue Park Boulevard El Camino Real 35
BLVD_18 Bryant - Nelson - Carlson - Mackay Bike Boulevard Multiple 35
BLVD_20 Maybell - Donald - Georgia Bike Boulevard Donald Drive El Camino Road Arastradero Road 35
BLVD_21 Hanover Street Bike Boulevard Hanover Street Stanford Avenue California Avenue 35
BLVD_22 Maclane - Wilkie -Miller Bike Boulevard Maclane Park Boulevard Del Medio Avenue 35
BLVD_23 Margarita Avenue Bike Boulevard Margarita Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard 35
CROSSING_06 Sutter Avenue crossing of Middlefield Road Middlefield Road & Sutter Avenue 35
CROSSING_08 Hanover Street entrance to Bol Park Bike Path enhancement Bol Park Path & Hanover Street 35
SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y
PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y
PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y
PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y
PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y
PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y
SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y
SUP_2 Embarcadero Town & Country Shared Use Path Embarcadero Road El Camino Real Palo Alto High School 30
SUP_4 Page Mill Road Shared Use Path Page Mill Road El Camino Real Arastradero Road 30
SUP_5 Oregon Expressway Shared Use Path Oregon Expressway El Camino Real Louis Road 30
SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y
BL_10 East Bayshore Road Bike Lane-from San Francisquito Creek to Embarcadero Road East Bayshore Road San Francisquito Creek Embarcadero Road 30
BL_11 West Bayshore Road Bike Lane West Bayshore Road Amarillo Street Lake Avenue 30
BBL_5 Embarcadero Road Buffered Bike Lane: East Bayshore to Baylands Embarcadero Road East Bayshore Road Baylands 30
PBL_1 Deer Creek Road Protected Bike Lane Deer Creek Road Page Mill Road Arastradero Road 30
PBL_2 Arboretum Road Protected Bike Lane Arboretum Road 30
PBL_5 Hillview Avenue Protected Bike Lane Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Arastradero Road 30
PBL_6 Alma Street Protected Bike Lane - North Alma Street Palo Alto Avenue University Avenue 30
PBL_15 Embarcadero Road Protected Bike Lane: Greer Road to E. Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road Greer Road East Bayshore Road 30
PBL_16 Embarcadero Road Protected Bike Lane: Full Corridor Embarcadero Road 30
PBL_17 East Bayshore Road Protected Bike Lane: Embarcadero Road to Renzel Trail East Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road Renzel Trail 30
PBL_19 Alma Street Protected Bike Lane - South Alma Street E Charleston Road San Antonio Road 30
BLVD_4 University Avenue Bike Boulevard University Avenue 30
BLVD_10 Saint Francis - Oregon Avenue Bike Boulevard Oregon Avenue Embarcadero Road Louis Road 30
CROSSING_07 Embarcadero Crossing to Renzel Trail over East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road 30
INTERSECTION_06 Park to Serra Protected Intersection Park Blvd-Serra St & El Camino Real 30
SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y
SUP_6 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path Matadero Canal Middlefield Road Adobe Loop Trail 0
SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y
Page 2
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST
INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To In
i
t
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
SUP_7 Barron Creek Shared Use Path Barron Creek Barron Creek Canal US 101 Bike/Ped Bridge at Adobe Creek 0
SUP_9 Cubberley Community Center Shared Use Path Cubberly Community Center Montrose Avenue Nelson Drive 0
SUP_10 Palo Alto Avenue Shared Use Path Palo Alto Avenue Alma Street El Camino Real 0
SUP_11 Hansen Way Shared Use Path Hansen Way Hansen Way Bol Park Bike Path 0
BL_3 Addison Avenue Bike Lane Addison Avenue Bryant Street Waverley Street 0
BL_4 Portage Avenue Bike Lane Portage Avenue El Camino Real Park Avenue 0
BL_7 Page Mill Road Bike Lane Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway Park Boulevard 0
ABL_1 Embarcadero Road Advisory Bike Lane at Harriet Mundy Marsh Embarcadero Road Palo Alto Boat Launch San Francisquito Creek Trail 0
ABL_2 Geng Road Advisory Bike Lane Geng Road 0
BLVD_1 Clark Way Bike Boulevard Clark Way SHR/Vinyard Lane San Mateo Bridge Drive/Trail Entrance 0
BLVD_6 Kingsley Avenue Bike Boulevard Kingsley Avenue Emerson Street Middlefield Road 0
Notes:
BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.
BLVD_22 description has been expanded to specify that it includes SpecProj_5 Cesano Court to Mountain View Connection
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Dr Spur has been added May 2025 per staff comments.
Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.
Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.
SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.
Page 3
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
In
i
t
i
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
o
r
e
Ca
r
r
y
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
DR
A
F
T
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
a
n
d
F
u
n
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y 10 High Medium High
BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y 24 Medium Medium Medium
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y 25 Medium Medium Medium
PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y 35 Low Medium Medium
PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y 36 Low Medium Medium
PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y 11 Medium High High
PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y 40 Low Low Low
BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y 42 Low Low Low
BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y 26 Medium Medium Medium
BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y 27 Medium Medium Medium
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y 15 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y 28 Medium Medium Medium
INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y 29 Medium Medium Medium
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y 1 High High High
SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y 12 Medium High High
BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y 3 High High High
BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y 23 Medium Medium Medium
BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y 5 High High High
BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y 4 High High High
Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y 16 High Medium Medium
SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y 17 Medium Medium High
Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y 7 High High High
Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y 6 High High High
SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y 2 High High High
BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y 18 Medium Medium High
BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y 30 Medium Medium Medium
PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y 32 Low Medium High
Page 1
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
In
i
t
i
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
o
r
e
Ca
r
r
y
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
DR
A
F
T
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
a
n
d
F
u
n
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y 19 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y 20 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y 21 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y 22 Medium Medium High
SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y 33 Low Medium High
PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y 38 Low Medium Low
PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y 34 Low Medium High
PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y 13 Low High High
PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y 14 Low High Medium
PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y 8 High High High
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y 40 Low Low Medium
SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y 37 Medium Low Medium
SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y 39 Low Low Medium
SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y 9 High High High
SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y 31 Medium Medium Medium
Notes:
BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.
BLVD_22 description has been expanded to specify that it includes SpecProj_5 Cesano Court to Mountain View Connection
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Dr Spur has been added May 2025 per staff comments.
Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.
Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.
SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.
Page 2
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - RANKED PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To In
i
t
i
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
Ca
r
r
y
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
DR
A
F
T
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y 1 High High High
SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y 2 High High High
BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y 3 High High High
BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y 4 High High High
BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y 5 High High High
Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y 6 High High High
Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y 7 High High High
PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y 8 High High High
SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y 9 High High High
BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y 10 High Medium High
PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y 11 Medium High High
SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y 12 Medium High High
PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y 13 Low High High
PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y 14 Low High Medium
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y 15 Medium Medium High
Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y 16 High Medium Medium
SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y 17 Medium Medium High
BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y 18 Medium Medium High
CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y 19 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y 20 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y 21 Medium Medium High
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y 22 Medium Medium High
BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y 23 Medium Medium Medium
BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y 24 Medium Medium Medium
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y 25 Medium Medium Medium
BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y 26 Medium Medium Medium
Page 1
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - RANKED PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To In
i
t
i
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
Ca
r
r
y
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
DR
A
F
T
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y 27 Medium Medium Medium
INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y 28 Medium Medium Medium
INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y 29 Medium Medium Medium
BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y 30 Medium Medium Medium
SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y 31 Medium Medium Medium
PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y 32 Low Medium High
SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y 33 Low Medium High
PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y 34 Low Medium High
PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y 35 Low Medium Medium
PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y 36 Low Medium Medium
SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y 37 Medium Low Medium
PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y 38 Low Medium Low
SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y 39 Low Low Medium
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y 40 Low Low Medium
PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y 41 Low Low Low
BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y 42 Low Low Low
Notes:
BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.
BLVD_22 description has been expanded to specify that it includes SpecProj_5 Cesano Court to Mountain View Connection
SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Dr Spur has been added May 2025 per staff comments.
Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.
Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.
SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.
Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
PHASE 3 – RECOMMENDED PROJECT AND PROGRAMS
The City of Palo Alto (City) is updating the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Th is
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update will serve as a comprehensive action
plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents,
employees, and visitors. As part of the BPTP update, the project team is undertaking an
extensive community engagement initiative, divided into four phases: 1) Visioning; 2) Needs &
Concerns; 3) Recommended Projects and Programs; and 4) Plan Adoption. The community
engagement effort includes a combination of digital outreach and in-person events.
Engagement activities associated with Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs occurred
between February and April 2025 and included focus group meetings, committee meetings,
commission meetings, a public workshop, tabling and public events, online interactive map
feedback and electronic feedback submissions. Activities were promoted on the City’s website,
social media channels, transportation mailing list, tabling and community events, Uplift Local
newsletter, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings. Themes heard during these
outreach efforts included discussion about plan implementation strategy, interest in strict
guidelines for bicycle boulevard streets, and questions about the effectiveness of protected
bike lanes. This memorandum provides a summary of the key insights gathered from these
Phase 3 engagement activities.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
May 20, 2025 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Mobycon & Kittelson
CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager,
Amanda Leahy, Associate Planner, Kittelson
RE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update – Community Engagement Summary
– Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs (Draft Final)
May 20, 2025 Page 2
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
On Tuesday, February 4th 2025, the project team presented in person to the Palo Alto Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. This was the first public display of the plans,
Recommended Projects and Programs, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update was given significant time for presentation, question and discussion.
Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
o Network Development Approach
o Facility Selection Approach
o Project Lists
o Prioritization Approach
• Pedestrian Districts and Toolbox
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The discussion was broad, touching on all aspects of the plan recommendations. Notable
themes emerged with multiple committee members reiterating or affirming certain topics for
further consideration:
• Concerns about embracing the big streets: Questions about the cost, return on
investment and risk of upsetting the status quo.
• "Big Streets" provide direct routes to key destinations: Comments also noted that
since these Big Streets directly connect people to where they need to go, it's essential
they are equipped with adequate facilities, even if alternative routes are also
considered.
• Overall mixed reaction about Bikeways on "Big Streets"/Arterials: Several members
expressed concern about placing bikeways on busy or "big streets" like Embarcadero
May 20, 2025 Page 3
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Road, citing potential controversy, safety issues, and geometric concerns with protected
bikeways. However, other members also highlighted the need to provide access for
residents living on these streets, framing it as an equity issue.
• Prioritization framework: Concerns that the proposed framework was too simple and a
desire for finer grained measures. Members pointed out the long project list and the
need for a clearer prioritization framework that includes constraints. Other members
appreciated initial prioritization ideas.
• Pedestrian Planning: Desire to see more pedestrian-oriented recommendations. Desire
to see the San Antonio corridor included for pedestrian-specific recommendations given
it’s potential for future growth.
• Bicycle boulevard implementation: Some member questioned what constitutes a Bike
Boulevard, others expressed a desire to see stricter thresholds for bicycle boulevard
implementation.
• Micromobility: Want to see how micromobility can be supported through clearer
regulations and rules.
• Prioritization: Would like to see schools elevated in the prioritization framework.
• Network: Consider how to include recreational routes, such as to Foothill Expressway,
more in the network. Other members emphasized the priority of connectivity and
getting across barriers.
• Quick-Build: desire for projects to be implemented as Quick-Build projects first for the
City to learn from the initial implementation and for the community to see it.
• Wayfinding: Would like to see a wayfinding system as a future project or program.
• California Ave: If this is going car-free, consider Cambridge Ave as an alternative.
• Safety and Enforcement: Members highlighted the importance of lighting and law
enforcement.
• Expanding SRTS: A member questioned the possibility of expanding the SRTS program
to private schools, though other members noted potential difficulties.
FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS
Overview
On February 24-26th, 2025, project staff met with stakeholder focus groups to have more
detailed specific conversations about plan recommendations and provide an opportunity for
stakeholders to engage with the project team and materials on a closer level .
May 20, 2025 Page 4
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Discussion Notes Summary
The following is the summary of comments and feedback from all the groups.
• Bike Friendly Zone Considerations: Interest in expanding bike friendly zones to include
Middlefield business district, Mitchell Park areas.
• Bike Lane Enforcement: Concerns about existing bike lanes being encroached by
garbage cans and parked cars
• Shared use Path Conflicts: concerns about bicycle and pedestrian conflicts on shared
use paths.
• Programs: Desire for a better pathway for making small traffic change requests in
communities
• Strategy: How to implement the network in way that builds support and reduces
controversy.
• Bike Boulevard Support: Support for bike boulevards, with Bryant St elevated as a good
example of a bike boulevard due to natural and added modal filters.
• Ross Rd: This segment is shown as “Existing” but even with enhancements doesn’t limit
volumes enough for a low stress condition.
School Traffic Safety Representative (TSR) Subgroup
Project team members hosted a focus group for school TSRs, to provide some school and
parent specific feedback on network plan, facilities and policies.
Workshop Agenda
The subgroup agenda was brief, emphasizing subgroup discussion:
• Bikeway Network and Facility Recommendations
• Subgroup Discussion
• Engagement Next Steps
Discussion Notes Summary
This report outlines comments and suggestions gathered from the TSR focus group regarding
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Feedback on Bicycle Facility Types (Existing and Proposed):
May 20, 2025 Page 5
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Bicycle Boulevards: Participants expressed a desire for more effective ways to limit
motor vehicle traffic on these routes.
• Standard Bike Lanes: Concerns were raised about their effectiveness due to
encroachment by parked cars and garbage cans.
• Protected Bike Lanes: The group questioned how to best implement these in areas with
frequent driveways, which would require interruptions in the protective barrier.
• Shared Use Paths: Potential conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians on these paths
were noted as a concern.
Discussion on Implementation Strategy:
• Public Support: The group discussed the importance of building and maintaining public
support, both initially and throughout the project development process.
• Project Prioritization: There was interest in establishing a process for implementing
small, quick fixes to address gaps in existing routes, in addition to planning larger,
network-wide projects.
Emphasis on Serving Destinations and User Needs:
• New Developments: Participants recognized the importance of planning for bicycle
facilities in areas with new housing developments to serve future residents.
• Bicycle Friendly Zones: There was support for clarifying the concept of Bicycle Friendly
Zones and interest in potentially establishing such a zone in South Palo Alto.
• Cyclist Classifications: Some group members expressed concern that classifying cyclists
(e.g., "Interested but Concerned," "Confident and Fearless") could be divisive. They
noted that an individual's comfort level and cycling behavior can change based on the
specific street conditions and their familiarity with the route.
System for Resident-Initiated Improvements:
• Need for a Dedicated Process: Participants showed strong interest in developing a
system or process that allows residents to directly recommend specific, localized
improvements to the City (e.g., requesting a new crosswalk or speed table).
• Current System Limitations: The group acknowledged that the existing 311 system and
the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update process are not well-suited for
handling these types of very specific, spot improvement requests.
May 20, 2025 Page 6
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
PABAC Subgroup Series
Project team members hosted a series of PABAC subgroups to provide a more flexible platform
for deeper discussion and exploration of the plan recommendations
Workshop Agenda
The subgroup agenda was brief, emphasizing subgroup discussion:
• Materials Overview
• Subgroup Discussion
• Engagement Next Steps
Discussion Notes Summary
A sample of key themes emerging from this discussion includes:
• Bike Street: Mixed opinions on how to best embrace big streets. There was overall
support for expanded use of protected bike lanes, but reservations about their cost,
overall safety and risk of community opposition.
• Defining Bike Boulevards: Interest in more clarity about bike boulevard design
thresholds, criteria and overall quality. Also an interest in further defining what
constitutes a bike boulevard. Key characteristics mentioned include:
o “Turning” the stop signs to prioritize bicycle traffic flow
o Low car traffic.
o Traffic calming measures (e.g., speed humps, 20 MPH speed limits).
o Potential for filtering out cars while allowing bike through-traffic.
o Connecting roads to improve bike flow.
• Bike Parking: Questions around if the plan update can support more bike parking at
private sites.
• Oregon Avenue: Support for including more of Oregon Avenue in the network, as a
viable alternative to Oregon Expressway. Enhancements at intersections would be
necessary.
Middlefield Road: Some support for Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lanes proposal,
but concerns about frequent driveways.
• Embarcadero Road: Concerns about constraints west of Middlefield and at the
underpass.
• Advisory Bike Lane Pilots: Questions about whether Geng Rd is a good pilot location
May 20, 2025 Page 7
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Performance Measures: Interest in more detailed performance measures around
collision reduction, mode share.
• Implementation Strategy: Concerns about the high cost of projects, and risk of
controversial politics around implementation.
• Outreach: Interest in thinking differently about outreach in order to build consensus
rather than polarity.
• Quick-Build Trials: The idea of using quick-build projects as trials to demonstrate
planned infrastructure and gather feedback was discussed. This could help build political
will for permanent installations.
• Big Streets vs. Alternatives:
o Preference for using alternative, smaller streets (e.g., frontage roads) over main
arterials when possible (e.g., San Antonio Ave, Oregon Expressway).
o Concerns raised about safety (sight lines), air quality (particulates), and traffic
signals on big streets.
o Discussion about the impact of removing travel lanes on big streets and where
that traffic would go.
• Prioritization: Interest in how the plan would prioritize projects, and noting that a
prioritization framework should consider: Cost and funding; and Feasibility.
• Draft Plan Considerations: The Draft Plan should include:
o Timelines for construction.
o Cost estimates (high-level).
o Strategies for limiting bike speeds on shared-use paths.
o Considering the San Antonio Corridor area as a Bicycle Friendly District
(potentially including the JCC).
o Exploring a Bicycle Friendly District in the south part of the City.
• Policy & Programs:
o Comment to avoid breaking out the price of bicycle infrastructure in a way that
could be misconstrued.
o Support for reviewing and addressing Comprehensive Plan Policies to ensure
they are bike-friendly.
o Consider merging Bicycle Friendly Zones with Pedestrian Districts into "Active
Transportation Friendly Commercial Zones."
• Other Points:
o Discussion on the sequencing of the BPTP Update and the Connectivity project .
o Need a map showing existing bike networks to neighboring jurisdictions.
o Consideration for grid effectiveness and issues where the grid disappears (south
of Meadow).
May 20, 2025 Page 8
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Potential bike/ped facility between San Antonio Caltrain and E. Meadow
(extending beyond Charleston).
o Controlled intersection at Bryant and E. Meadow.
o Bike box at Nelson Drive.
o Question about what's happening on University Ave; and concerns the street will
never be suitable as a bicycle boulevard.
Internal Staff Working Group
In early March 2025, Project team members presented to an internal staff working group made
up of City of Palo Alto staff from a variety of work groups, teams, and specializations to gain a
city-wide perspective on the plan.
Workshop Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
• Pedestrian Districts and Toolbox
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The following themes and topics emerged in the discussion following the presentation
• Maintenance: Desire for clear maintenance involvement with implementation of
separated facilities. Consideration needed, but challenges exist regarding street cleaning
and the requirement for special equipment. Funding implications for additional
equipment and Public Services staff need to be addressed.
• Green Infrastructure: Interest in more integration of green infrastructure into the plan,
particularly Protected Bike Lanes. Also noting the importance of protecting waterways
and managing debris during construction.
• Public Art: Interest in integration of public art into the plan, in particular, the pedestrian
district toolbox. For example, opportunities for public art in crosswalks and traffic
calming programs should be explored.E-Bike enforcement Strategy: Desire for more
May 20, 2025 Page 9
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
clarity on the E-Bike enforcement policy included in the recommendations. A suggestion
to focus on speed, similar to vehicles, rather than the type of bicycle , and to prioritize
encouragement and education over enforcement.
• Consistency Across Plans: a suggestion to cross-reference the adopted Safe Systems
Action Plan with the BPTP Update project recommendations for Vision Zero consistency.
CITY COMMISSIONS
The project staff presented to Palo Alto’s Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and
Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) on February 26, 2025 and March 25, 2025, respectively.
These bodies advise City Council and have been involved in the plan update throughout the
process.
Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
Project team presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission on February 26th, 2025.
Workshop Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
• Pedestrian Districts and Toolbox
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The PTC appreciated the comprehensive presentation and noted significant effort involved in
such a comprehensive planning process. The meeting highlighted a strong desire to improve
active transportation in Palo Alto, with Commissioners offering specific ideas for bikeway
extensions, emphasizing a network-based planning approach, raising safety concerns
(particularly around e-bikes and vehicle enforcement), and suggesting the exploration of
innovative transportation management strategies. Clearer definitions, visual aids, and
neighborhood-specific considerations were also identified as important next steps.
May 20, 2025 Page 10
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Key themes from discussion included:
• Overall Themes:
o Strong support for improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
o Emphasis on a network approach rather than isolated projects.
o Concerns about safety, particularly regarding speeding e-bikes and vehicle
enforcement.
o Interest in exploring innovative solutions like modal filtering and Safe Systems
principles.
o Need for clear definitions and visual aids (maps) to understand the proposed
plans.
• Emphasis on network-level analysis: When projects are developed, assess traffic
impacts on the broader area, not just the immediate corridor.
• Consider developing entire corridors together instead of piecemeal projects to ensure
better connectivity and potentially more efficient implementation.
• Support for the Pedestrian Toolbox.
• Wayfinding signage: Needs improvement, especially on Bryant Boulevard.
• Definition of a bike boulevard: Needs clarity on the specific criteria and features that
define a bike boulevard.
• Preference for neighborhood streets: Concerned about focusing on big streets like a
future ECR, suggesting locals prefer Park Blvd.
• Concerns about RV parking on bike routes: Creates hazards and debris, as street
cleaning is difficult.
• Supports a "Bike Toolbox" similar to the Pedestrian Toolbox, specifically for bike
boulevards.
• Impact of navigation apps (Waze): Directing traffic onto neighborhood streets.
• Modal filtering: Commissioners inquired about the possibility of implementing
additional modal filtering measures.
• Neighborhood-specific discussions: Suggests dedicated discussions for specific
neighborhoods during the project-level phase.
• Increase in speeding micromobility: Concerns about speeding e-bikes and e-scooters.
• Lack of south city crossing: Points out the absence of a dedicated bike/pedestrian
crossing in the southern part of the city.
May 20, 2025 Page 11
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC)
Project team presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission on February 26th, 2025.
Workshop Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The PRC appreciated the comprehensive presentation and noted significant effort involved in
such a comprehensive planning process. The commissioners generally expressed positive
feedback on the work being done and were receptive to the presented recommendations.
Key themes from discussion included:
• Focus on Bicycling: A significant portion of the discussion centered on improving bicycle
infrastructure, safety, and accessibility.
• Accessibility: Commissioners raised concerns about ensuring infrastructure and policies
work for a diverse range of users, including those with mobility challenges (ADA),
families with cargo bikes, and different types of cyclists.
• Clarity and Measurement: There was a clear call for well-defined plans with measurable
outcomes and easily understandable information (maps, Performance Measures, and
objectives).
• Integration with Existing Infrastructure: The discussion touched on how new projects
should connect with new or existing elements like green infrastructure, public
transportation, and even closed streets.
• Policy Considerations: Commissioners highlighted the need for policies addressing
newer forms of transportation like e-bikes and specific traffic laws like the Idaho Stop.
• Green Infrastructure: Advocated for the inclusion of more trees and green
infrastructure.
May 20, 2025 Page 12
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Joint Workshop
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Performance Measures (PM): Questioned what performance measures other cities are
using and how those compare to the city's proposed PMs.
• Clarity: Emphasized the importance of clear maps, clear performance measures, and
clear objectives in the plan.
• Bike Lane Access: Strongly emphasized the need for protected and improved bike lane
access, particularly on major streets.
• Idaho Stop: Raised the question of how the "Idaho stop" (allowing cyclists to treat stop
signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs when safe) is being considered.
• E-bike Policy: Suggested developing a policy for e-bikes with a non-pedal mode,
especially in open spaces.
• Safe Routes: Appreciated the focus on Safe Routes to Parks and suggested also
considering Safe Routes to Libraries.
• Bike Lane Width: Urged consideration of bike lane width to ensure three-wheeled or
cargo bikes can fit comfortably.
JOINT WORKSHOP
Overview
On April 2nd, 2025, the City of Palo Alto’s
Office of Transportation hosted a Joint
Workshop at Mitchell Park Community Center
for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan Update and South Palo Alto Crossings
(See Figure 1).
Workshop Agenda
The workshop opened with a brief
presentation for each project and invited
participants to spend the rest of the time visiting organized project stations, designed to collect
feedback on important parts of each project. There were a total of six stations — three for each
project. Figure 2 shows some photos taken at the BPTP Update stations.
Figure 1: Attendees to the joint workshop
hearing opening presentation
May 20, 2025 Page 13
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Joint Workshop
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 2: Project Stations
Station 1: Attendees Discussing Recommended Bicycle and Crossing Projects
Station 2: Attendees Discussing
Recommended Bicycle Facilities
Station 3: Attendees Providing Feedback on
Pedestrian Toolbox
Discussion Notes Summary
The following key themes emerged related to the pedestrian districts and toolbox:
• Recommendations for new tools to add to the toolbox: Rapid Flashing Beacons;
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons; Pedestrian only zones; Street parking removal;
• Support for toolbox tools: Raised crossings; Wider sidewalks; Bike Parking; Permanent
pedestrian wayfinding;
• Pedestrian district specific recommendations.
May 20, 2025 Page 14
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
The following types of comments were offered on the bikeway network and facilities:
• Facility type comments: Mixture of concerns and support for protected bike lanes;
Desire for better bike boulevard design with signs and pavement quality.
• Comments on proposed projects both in opposition and support: Such as support and
concern about Midtown protected bike lanes, with some specific suggestions for
extents. Support for Matadero Canal pathway.
• Some suggestions for new projects: Such as bike pull outs on Arasrtadero. Stand alone
PBL project from Greene to Midtown Shopping Center,
ONLINE FEEDBACK
Overview
In addition to in-person activities, workshops and meetings, the public was invited to submit
comments, thoughts and feedback online through the project website.
Interactive Online Map
Between February and May 2025, a total of 403 public comments were received through an
interactive map tool which could be accessed from the project webpage. The map allowed
participants to specify locations on a citywide map showing the recommended bicycle facility
types and crossing improvements. Other participants could view these comments, provide a
response to the comment, and express support by liking them. Participants had the option to
specify the comment by infrastructure type, with “crossings” indicated most frequently,
appearing in 76 comments—twice as often as the next most common category, protected bike
lanes, which appeared in 38 comments. Other categories included advisory bike lanes, standard
bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared use paths, and bike boulevards. Over 100 participants
did not specify the infrastructure type.
Many commenters voiced support for recommended improvements (40%) specifically on
Homer Way, Channing Avenue, Quarry Road, and most parts of Charleston Road and Oregon
Expressway.
Some residents raised concerns over the type of proposed improvements (13%) while a few
comments opposed (24%) the proposal of adding improvements altogether as it might
adversely affect vehicle traffic, for instance on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road and
Embarcadero Road. Some participants suggested utilizing existing creeks to support the non -
May 20, 2025 Page 15
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
motorized transportation. While most comments were on the type of projects a few residents
raised concerns about dangerous or unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly
at key crossings and intersections. Others highlighted barriers to connectivity, noting gaps in
the bike network and the need for better integration with neighboring cities. A few participants
noted that the proposed recommendations are redundant as existing bike facilities are
available on the parallel road, for instance Louis Road (existing bike lane) and Greer Road
(proposed bike boulevard).
The proposed Class IV Protected Bike Lane on Middlefield Road drew the most attention, with
33 comments. Of those, approximately 73% expressed opposition to adding a protected bike
lane on Middlefield Road, citing concerns about increased traffic, reduced access for vehicles,
and particularly the loss of on-street parking. A comment that received one of the highest
number of likes (29 likes) encapsulated a common sentiment among opponents of protected
bike lanes: “Protected bike lanes make it even tougher for residents to enter and exit their
driveways… We have enough obstacles already. Just say no.” Concerns over the loss of street
parking and impacts to driveway access were echoed in other comments, reflecting ongoing
tension between a strong overarching desire to expand or improve existing bike infrastructure
and preserve convenience for car-dependent residents. On the other hand, some residents
welcomed the idea of protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road by highlighting its importance
as regional connector: “Middlefield has bike lanes in Atherton, Menlo Park, and Redwood City.
Making a connected network of bike lanes is important for increasing modeshare…”Other major
roadways, which received opposition on the proposed recommendations include Embarcadero
Road, San Antonio Road, Alma Street, and Meadow Drive.
Recommendations that were widely supported include Class IV on Charleston Road, Bike
Boulevard on Park Boulevard and Downtown Connections. Additionally, there are 41 comments
(10%) suggesting new projects and sharing further considerations.
Figure 3 shows the location of map comments on the recommended bicycle facility type map
classified as support (40%), oppose (24%), neutral (26%) and other (10%) comments suggesting
new projects and further considerations. The major projects highlighted in other co mments
include:
• Connections to nearby jurisdictions – East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View
• Bike routes through Old Page Mill and the I-280 interchange to Arastradero Preserve.
• Using lightly used fire roads in Arastradero Preserve for recreational/off-road biking.
• Improving wayfinding and signage
• Adding/fixing bike signal activation sensors (multiple locations)
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Midd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Loui
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilki
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mille
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barr
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
New Project
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Interactive Map Comments
05/13/2025
May 20, 2025 Page 17
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 4 illustrates the key themes used to classify the community comments. Since some
comments addressed multiple themes, the total number exceeds 403. The most common
themes were suggestions for improvements, safety concerns, and support for proposed
facilities.
Figure 4: Number of Comments by Key Themes
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Maintenance concern
Identification of network gap
Politics/economics concern
General opposition to bike/ped improvements
Traffic concern
Parking concern
Comment on bike network
Need for wayfinding and signage
General support for bike/ped improvements
Safety concern
Suggested improvement
May 20, 2025 Page 18
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Online Comment Box
The project website included an online
comment box during this phase to allow for
easy communication to the City about this
project. The project team received over 100
individual comments.
Feedback Received
In summary, the comments express strong
support for a more bike- and pedestrian-friendly Palo Alto but highlighted significant concerns
about the safety and practicality of certain proposed measures, particularly those involving
busy arterial roads and parking removal. There's a clear call for prioritizing separated
infrastructure, addressing dangerous intersections, improving traffic enforcement, and ensuring
a comprehensive, well-funded, and community-driven approach to planning and
implementation. While comments express general support for protected bike lanes in various
locations across the city (like East Meadow and for accessing businesses), the overwhelming
sentiment regarding Middlefield Road is one of strong opposition rooted in concern for the loss
of parking, resident impact and suitability of Middlefield Road as a bike route. The following key
themes emerged from the comments received through the online comment form:
• 1. Negative Impacts on Parking and Accessibility:
o Loss of Parking: Residents emphasize the necessity of on-street parking for
homeowners (especially those with multiple vehicles and small driveways),
renters, ADU residents, and visitors. They highlight that removing parking will
severely inconvenience their daily lives and social interactions.
o Overflow into Neighborhoods: Commenters predict that the elimination of
parking on Middlefield will displace vehicles to adjacent residential streets,
leading to increased congestion, parking issues, and decreased quality of life in
those areas.
o Reduced Accessibility and Equity: Concerns raised about the impact on
individuals with mobility challenges, families with young children, and those with
time constraints who rely on convenient parking near their homes, schools, and
community centers.
Figure: Online Comment Box
May 20, 2025 Page 19
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Impact on Services and Deliveries: Residents worry about how service providers
(repair workers, gardeners, delivery trucks), elderly visitors, and ride-sharing
services will access their homes without available street parking.
• 2. Safety Concerns Regarding Bike Lanes on Middlefield Road:
o Increased Danger for Cyclists: Many argue that Middlefield Road, as a busy and
fast-moving arterial road, is inherently unsafe for bike lanes, regardless of
protection, citing the speed of traffic, driveway conflicts, and narrow lanes as
significant hazards.
o Misleading Safety for Children: Some believe that adding bike lanes on
Middlefield Road will create a false sense of security for children biking to
school, potentially putting them in more dangerous situations.
o Preference for Alternative Bike Routes: Commenters repeatedly suggest that
less-trafficked, parallel streets (like Bryant St. and Park Blvd.) are more suitable
and safer alternatives for bike routes.
o Preference for Alternative Solutions: Several residents suggest alternative
solutions, such as enforcing existing speed limits, reducing speed limits, installing
speed cameras, improving existing bike boulevards, and exploring
bike/pedestrian pathways through areas like Cubberley Community Ce nter.
• 3. Negative Impacts on Emergency Access and Civic Engagement:
o Hindered Emergency Vehicle Access: Concerns are raised that removing parking
could impede access for emergency vehicles, especially during peak school hours
or events.
o Discouraged Civic Participation: Residents worry that making parking more
difficult will deter participation in school and community events held at locations
like Greene Middle School and the Community Center.
• 4. The Planning Process:
o Lack of Community Consideration: Some feel that the planning process has not
adequately considered the needs and concerns of residents living along
Middlefield Road.
o Call for Impact Assessments: Residents urge the city to conduct thorough
parking assessments and impact reports to understand the full consequences of
removing parking.
o Ignoring Past Opposition: Some commenters point out that similar proposals
have been rejected in the past due to resident opposition and that conditions
have worsened since then.
• 5. Other Concerns:
May 20, 2025 Page 20
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Negative Aesthetic Impacts and Property Values: Residents express concern
that protected bike lanes and associated infrastructure will be visually
unappealing and could negatively affect property values.
o Traffic Congestion: Some believe that lane reductions for bike lanes will
exacerbate existing traffic bottlenecks on Middlefield Road, especially since
many residents note Middlefield Road serves as a cut-thru when Highway 101 is
exceptionally congested.
IN PERSON OUTREACH
Overview
The project team sought to meet community members where they were at with attendance at
existing community events.
Tabling at Community Events
Between February and April 2025, Project team members tabled several local community
events including at the California Avenue Sunday farmer’s market, Third Thursday Music Event
on Cal Ave., the City’s Around the World Event at Lucie Stern Community Center, and the City’s
Earth Day Event at Rinconada Library.
Figure 5: Photos from the Tabling at Community Events
California Avenue Farmers Market
– March 02, 2025
Third Thursday – February 20, 2025 California Avenue Farmers Market
– February 23, 2025
May 20, 2025 Page 21
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Materials
Staff displayed maps and informative boards about the project, sharing the recommended bike
facility network and welcoming comments from people who stopped by to chat.
Discussion Notes Summary
The following key themes emerged
• Traffic Danger: People talked about feeling unsafe sharing the road with cars, especially
with speeding or distracted drivers. They mentioned close calls or specific dangerous
intersections.
• Lack of Protected Infrastructure: Residents often lament the absence of dedicated bike
lanes, protected bike lanes and intersections, and wide sidewalks.
• Pedestrian Safety: Concerns about crosswalk visibility, signal timing that doesn't allow
enough time to cross, and drivers not yielding to pedestrians were common.
• Nighttime Safety: Comments about pedestrians and cyclists often feeling vulnerable at
night due to poor lighting on sidewalks and bike paths, and the difficulty drivers have
seeing them were common.
• Theft and Vandalism: Bike theft is a significant deterrent for many. People worry about
leaving their bikes locked up, especially in high-traffic areas or overnight.
• Infrastructure and Maintenance Issues:
o Conditions: Debris-filled bike lanes make walking and biking uncomfortable and
even dangerous.
o Lack of Connectivity: Residents pointed out gaps in the sidewalk or bike network
that make it difficult to reach destinations safely and conveniently. People from
out of town expressed frustration by a lack of clear wayfinding for people biking
around and through the city.
o Insufficient Bike Parking: A lack of secure and convenient bike parking at key
destinations (shops, parks, transit hubs) discourages cycling.
o Accessibility Concerns: People with mobility challenges raised concerns about
the usability of shared-use paths.
• Convenience and Practicality:
o Distance and Time: Some residents feel that destinations are simply too far to
comfortably walk or bike, especially for errands or commuting.
o Carrying Goods: People wondered how they would transport groceries, children,
or other items without a car.
• Education and Awareness:
May 20, 2025 Page 22
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Pedestrian and Cyclist Behavior: Some residents expressed frustration with
cyclists not following traffic laws, particularly along shared used paths and the
Cal Ave. Bike/ped tunnel.
o Need for Education and Encouragement Programs: People suggested the need
for more public education campaigns to promote safe walking and biking habits
for all road users.
June 2, 2025 www.paloalto.gov
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Update:
Project Prioritization Framework
City Council Meeting
Ozzy Arce (he/él)
Senior Transportation Planner
Ozzy.Arce@paloalto.gov
Amanda Leahy
Project Manager
aleahy@kittelson.com
Sylvia Star-Lack
Transportation Planning Manager
Transportation@paloalto.gov
Agenda
•Meeting Purpose
•Project Overview
•Bicycle Network Recommendations
•Project Prioritization
•Key Community Feedback from Phase 3 engagement
33
Meeting Purpose & Council Questions
Purpose: Share and get feedback on the Draft
Project Prioritization Framework and Project Lists.
Council Questions:
•Do you support using both initial and supplemental criteria?
•Do you agree with the selected criteria?
•Do you agree with the project list?
•Are there projects that should be removed?
•Are there projects that should be added?
•Are there projects that should be re-considered?
4
Project Overview
www.paloalto.gov
6
The City adopted the current BPTP in July 2012
Project Overview & Timeline
Introduction & Visioning: introduced project effort & early visioning
July ‘23 – Jan ’24
January 22, 2024: Information Report to the City Council
Needs & Concerns: Existing conditions analysis, draft vision, objectives, and performance measures
Nov ‘23 – Jul ’24
April 29, 2024: City Council Study Session
Recommendations:Develop network & corridor recommendations
Jun ‘24 – May ’25
June 2, 2025: City Council Study Session
Plan Development & Adoption: Develop draft & final Plan Update; Present to the City
Council for adoption in late 2025
May ’25 – Dec ‘25
7
Vision
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient,
equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives.
Together, we will create a comfortable and connected
street and trail network that supports walking, biking,
and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We
continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and
invest more in active transportation infrastructure,
education, and encouragement programs.
8
Objectives
The objectives of the project are:
•Safe and Inclusive
•Connected and Accessible
•Community-Led and Cooperative
•Comfortable and Enjoyable
•Integrated and Collaborative
9
10
11
Safety Action Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Update
Specific/Area Plans
(e.g. San Antonio Road Area
Plan; Cubberley Plan,
Connectivity Project)
Policy foundation
for transportation
planning
Identification of
network and facility
types, supporting
policies and programs
for active
transportation
Land use and
mobility concepts
and implementation
planning
What is the Relationship of the BPTP Update to Other Plans?
Bicycle Network Recommendations
Networks, Facilities, and Projects
www.paloalto.gov
BICYCLE NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS www.paloalto.gov
Bicycle Network Development Approach
•The Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update started with the
2012 Network Plan as a foundation.
•The team cross referenced recent plans and related active
transportation networks to identify new or alternate routing.
•The selection of final network links was refined by observation
counts and community input.
1
Network Development: Primary Inputs
2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
2016 Bicycle
Boulevard Planning
2024 Existing Bicycle
Facilities Map
Palo Alto Bicycle
Map
Bicycle Network
Development
Workshops
Regional Plans: MTC
Regional Active
Transportation Plan
High Injury Network
for Bicyclists
Walk and Roll
Suggested Route Maps
Selected planning documents for illustration purposes.
14
Draft Updated Bicycle Network
The updated network proposes two bike plan classifications to
frame policy and influence street design decisions.
Bikeways are streets and corridors enhanced to support bicycling. Bikeways
connect to form the city's bikeway network and are intended to serve high
volumes of bicycle traffic and provide direct, seamless, efficient travel across
the City and between neighborhoods. These routes will maximize bicyclist
comfort and minimize delay.
Bike Friendly Zones are cohesive areas with concentrations of destinations,
commercial activity, and pedestrian activity. These areas should see area-
wide investment in bicycle friendly amenities, signal timing, and traffic
calming.
15
1
Draft Updated
Bike Network
Bikeway
Bicycle Friendly Zones
16
1
Bike Network
Changes since 2012
Added
Removed
17
www.paloalto.gov
Facility Selection Approach
BICYCLE NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
The plan recommends a simplified set of high comfort facilities,
with strict guidelines for application
•Bike Boulevard and Advisory Bike Lanes
•Bike Lanes and Buffered Bike Lanes
•Protected Bike Lane
•Shared Use Path
1
Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle Boulevards, a Palo
Alto invention, are streets
designed to prioritize
bicyclists and pedestrians,
with features to promote
bicycle travel (e.g., remove
unwarranted stop signs) and
to reduce vehicle speed and
volumes (e.g., install speed
humps and modal filters)
19
1
Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes delineate a space
in the road, separate from
motor vehicle travel lanes.
Where speeds or volumes
are high, bike lanes should
be configured with a buffer
for increased comfort.
20
1
Protected Bike Lanes
Protected Bike Lanes are a
separated space with a
vertical element designed to
create a safer and
comfortable space on streets
with high motor vehicle
volumes and speeds.
21
1
Shared Use Paths
Shared Use Paths are paved,
off-road facilities that allows
pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other non-motorized users
to travel together. They can
be configured next to
roadways as sidepaths.
22
1
Selection Guidance
Recommendations follow best
practice guidance from Federal
Highways Administration (FHWA)
and the National Association of Of
City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
for serving users of All Ages and
Abilities
This guidance points to high-comfort
facilities that are attractive to the
largest amount of the population.
23
1
Bicycle Facilities
24
Changes from 2012
The bicycle facility selection approach is a significant
departure from 2012 with the intent of increasing comfort for
all users. Key changes include:
•Embracing the Big Streets with separated facilities such as
protected bike lanes.
•Increasing comfort across the board, with strict application
of facility thresholds and use of high-comfort designs.
•Fills gaps and missing links to offer door-to-door
connections.
25
1
Project Lists
Recommends 125 individual projects across
the city, categorized by facility type.
•26 Bicycle Boulevard
•11 Bike Lane
•9 Buffered Bike Lane
•26 Protected Bike Lane
•14 Shared Use Path
•2 Advisory Bike Lanes
•28 Crossing Projects
•9 Studies & Special Projects
26
Project Prioritization
Planning for Implementation
www.paloalto.gov
Project Prioritization www.paloalto.gov
Prioritization Framework
Two-stage process for prioritization to develop an actionable list of projects for
near-term implementation.
1.Initial Evaluation applies quantitative criteria aligned with the BPTP Update
goals of safety and connectivity.
2.Supplemental Evaluation uses qualitative criteria focused on feasibility and
implementation.
Prioritization Framework
Prioritization Factor Criteria
Initial
Evaluation
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental
Evaluation*
Project Cost & Funding
High, Medium, LowProject Readiness
Project Support
*Only the projects that scored 70-100 in the Initial Evaluation will advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
29
Initial Evaluation
•Implements NCHRP Report 803
ActiveTrans Priority Tool process
supplemented with GIS
Mapping
•Provides initial priority score for
all 125 projects based on Safety
(70%) and Connectivity (30%)
•Does not consider feasibility or
funding
•Does not provide much
variation in project score
ActiveTrans Priority Tool Output
30
Supplemental Evaluation
Supplemental Evaluation Matrix•Considers 42 projects scoring 70
or more in the Initial Evaluation
+ select additional projects
•Assesses projects in terms of
Project Cost & Funding, Project
Readiness, and Project Support
•Achieves an actionable project
list for near-term
implementation
31
Ranked Priority Project List
Ranked Priority Project List – Top 10•Projects are ranked based on
the results of the Supplemental
Evaluation (see Attachment D)
•Intended to guide order of
implementation and identify an
actionable project list
•May be revisited and adjusted
based on changing factors, such
as availability of funding
32
Key Community Feedback
Connecting with the community during phase 3
www.paloalto.gov
Phase 3 Engagement Summary
Community Workshop
Pop-Ups
Interactive Map
Committee & Working
Group Meetings
City Council
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee
Planning and
Transportation
Parks and Recreation
Internal Staff Working
Group
Focus Groups with TSRs
and PABAC members
34
Key Themes From Committee and Working Group Meetings
•Support and concern expressed for bikeways on “big streets”
•Suggestions to expand prioritization framework
•Desire for additional pedestrian-oriented recommendations
•Questions about bike boulevard definition and design elements
•Emphasis on priority of connectivity and across barrier connections
•Interest in quick-build projects and pilots
•Discussion on enforcement including enforcement of bike lane blockages from
parked cars and garbage cans and enforcement strategy for e-bikes
•Concerns about conflicts between people walking and biking on shared use paths
•Importance of maintenance of bike network
35
Key Themes From Community Workshop
36
•April 2, 2025, 6-7:30pm
•Support for treatments in the
pedestrian toolbox and
recommendations for additional
treatments
•Mixture of support and concern for
protected bike lanes
•Desire for better bike boulevard design
•Support for projects and suggestion for
additional projects
Key Themes From Interactive Map
37
•Feb-Apr 2025, 400+ comments
•Support for Homer Way, Channing Ave, Quarry
Rd, Charleston Rd, Park Blvd, Downtown
Connections, and Oregon Expwy
•Concern for projects on Middlefield Rd, San
Antonio Rd, and Embarcadero Rd
•Interest in connections to nearby jurisdictions
and bike routes through Arastradero Preserve
•Desire for improved wayfinding, signage, and
actuated bike signals
Key Themes From Online Comment Box
38
•Over 100 comments
•General support for recommended projects,
including prioritizing separated infrastructure
•Concern about loss of parking and impacts to
access for drivers with implementation of
protected bike lanes on arterials such as
Middlefield Rd
•Suggestions to emphasize alternative
solutions including enforcing and reducing
speed limits, and improving existing bike
boulevards
Key Themes From Tabling Pop-Ups
39
•Feb-Apr 2025
•Need for education and encouragement programs
•Feeling unsafe sharing road with cars, concerns of
speeding and distracted drivers
•Desire for more lighting and increased visibility at
crosswalks and at night
•Concern about bike theft and vandalism
•Desire for increased maintenance and sweeping of
bike facilities
•Desire for more secure and convenient bike
parking
Next Steps
www.paloalto.gov
Next steps: Draft Plan + public review
Introduction & Visioning: introduced project effort & early visioning
July ‘23 – Jan ’24
January 22, 2024: Information Report to the City Council
Needs & Concerns: Existing conditions analysis, draft vision, objectives, and performance measures
Nov ‘23 – Jul ’24
April 29, 2024: City Council Study Session
Recommendations:Develop network & corridor recommendations
Jun ‘24 – May ’25
June 2, 2025: City Council Study Session
Plan Development & Adoption: Develop draft & final Plan Update; Present to the City
Council for adoption in late 2025
May ’25 – Dec ‘25
41
Council Questions
•Do you support using both initial and supplemental criteria?
•Do you agree with the selected criteria?
•Do you agree with the project list?
•Are there projects that should be removed?
•Are there projects that should be added?
•Are there projects that should be re-considered?
42
Ozzy Arce (he/él)
Senior Transportation Planner
Ozzy.Arce@cityofpaloalto.gov
Amanda Leahy
Project Manager
aleahy@kittelson.com
Sylvia Star-Lack
Transportation Planning Manager
Transportation@cityofpaloalto.gov
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Item 3 June2, 2025 -- BPTP
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 1:13:34 PM
Attachments:BTPT Comments June 2 2025.pdf
See attached.
--
-- Robertrobert@neffs.net
June 2, 2025
Re: Item 3, BTPT Update
Honorable Council Members,
I am glad to see the prioritized list of projects created for your discussion this evening. I think
that creating and endorsing this list will give Palo Alto direction and flexibility to upgrade our bike
and pedestrian networks, making more of our facilities direct and comfortable for riders of All
Ages and Abilities. I am glad that this plan sets higher goals for all our streets.
I endorse the priority ranking process, and the ranking shown in attachment D, with two notes:
1) The protected bike lane project for Middlefield Road did not make it onto this prioritized
list. The bike network needs a route either along MIddlefield or an adjacent parallel
street, especially north of Oregon Expy, and I would like to see an alternative to
Middlefield identified that could be prioritized onto this list.
2) I believe BLVD_CROSSING_04 and BLVD_CROSSING_05 have the wrong
descriptions on the list in Attachment D.
A goal I see for this project is to improve everyone’s comfort with bicycling and walking for
everyday trips in our community, improving our quality of life, and helping meet our sustainability
goals. But our current streets are crowded with lanes and parked cars. As members of PABAC
observed, when discussing improvements around Downtown, it seems impossible to meet our
goals for bicycling safety, comfort, and efficiency, by just modifying the travel lanes. The first
step towards a transformation of our streets may be by removing half or all of the parked cars
on a few streets, and make those still work for folks in moving vehicles, and exceptionally well
for all folks on bikes.
I look forward to this transformation of our streets.
Thank you for your service to the City of Palo Alto.
Robert Neff
Emerson near Alma.
Current PABAC member, representing just myself.
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Why the proposed plan for cyclists on arterials?
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 12:53:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and council members,
I am nonplussed as to why the 2012 plan is now being discarded to place bike lanes on arterials. The 2012 plan
where much consideration and careful analysis shows logical routes where safety is paramount.The plan's
specifically selected routes were not replete with traffic and congestion. Now either because of some consultant’s
vision and or the pushing by lobbyists from the Bike Coalition the city wants to put bike lanes on improper roads.
Palo Alto has been the recipient of several bad plans due to consultants who do not know Palo Alto. For example the
city has engaged past consultants from Virginia and Washington DC.
You the council must stop this nonsense.
We do not need bike lanes on Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. Drivers most often do not adhere to the
speed limit. On Middlefield and Embarcadero there is constant friction right now where residents must be hyper
vigilant leaving driveways. Add the scooters, EV bikes and cyclists and you will see more accidents and stress.
Please adhere to your goal of prioritizing safety and do not allow pressure from consultants and lobbyists to do
otherwise.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From:Randy Mont-Reynaud
To:Council, City
Subject:Cal Ave Bike Path - Solution Oriented suggestion, Palo Alto 2025 is not F. Scott Fitzgerald"s Paris!
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 6:46:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
…and a gripe:I hope to be able to speak at City Council Meeting tomorrow night if appropriate, to
the Cal Ave bike paths issue. Does that work? If so when? If not, here are my
solution oriented suggestions:
1. Please Consider green lanes on Cambridge, or the alleys behind shops, on
Sherman/alleys. If you remove parking on Sherman (after all, we have an extensive
garage!) there's plenty of safe space for bike paths. The alley behind Zareens
through to Izzie's Bagels is also a good option, no?
Currently,Bikes and scooters zoom along Cal Ave through the opening onto
Birch, the green lane in the middle of Cal Ave ends, and bikes continue to
fly through the MIDDLE of the intersection of Birch and Cal Ave! Scary!
Going kitty-corner to Gamelandia...
2. Space: As Mark Twain said,"Buy land. They're not making it any more."
The current wide open middle space is great for strolling..why can't we just
have some empty space? Empty safe space.
3. The elders and elderly: And did I mention the elderly? Bikes have come
up behind me, thinking I have eyes in back of my head! On Cal Ave, bikes
and scooters ignore bike lanes, and take to the sidewalks as well!
4. Commuting times compromise: Please consider bike path usage to be
allowed during commute and school hours, similar to Parking signage, say,
between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 pm to 6 p.m.?
5. Bottom line: No bike paths on Cal Ave; if we restrict cars, how do bikes
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
get a pass? I know Council approved the idea, but please consider: Bike
parking racks in the alleys and in the Sherman garage? And, safety for all
pedestrians, old and young (they do wander)
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Subject:June 2, Item #3
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 12:52:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Councilmembers,
I recently spoke with a friend who lives on Middlefield Road and learned that the Council may
be considering whether to add Middlefield Road bike lanes back onto the project list as part of
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). I am very concerned that this action
would disregard the substantial public opposition expressed during the comment period.
Ross Road and Bryant Street, which run parallel to Middlefield, have already been designated
as bike routes, with significant public investment—particularly on Ross. Introducing bike
lanes on Middlefield would seem to undermine those prior efforts and investments intended to
encourage cyclists to use Ross and Bryant.
In addition, removing parking along Middlefield would pose significant challenges for North
Palo Alto residents, where many homes directly front the street. The combination of bike lanes
and the loss of parking would directly affect residents' ability to safely access and navigate
their neighborhood.
This is also a sensitive issue for those of us in Ventura. We were promised that Park
Boulevard would become a designated Bike Boulevard with corresponding improvements, yet
those upgrades have yet to materialize. Now, with El Camino Real improvements underway,
we fear we may never see those long-promised enhancements.
I respectfully urge you not to reintroduce the Middlefield Road bike lanes at this time. Doing
so would send the wrong message—that the voices of residents are not being heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; Council, City; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie; georgeglu@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed
Subject:Thanks for tabling the Middlefield Rd bike plan, now permanently remove it. Item 3
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 11:43:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of City Council,
I am writing to ask you to permanently remove from consideration any plan to add
bike lanes to Middlefield Road, or to otherwise encourage cyclists to use this road.
This is the third -- 3d -- time that residents got NO OFFICIAL OUTREACH /
warnings about this drastic plan that would have directly affected us, our neighbors
on cross-streets, our visitors, us and all service our people; cleaners, gardeners,
painters, pool people etc as well as emergency vehicles along with all the school
parents doing pick-up/drop-off at all the Middlefield Road schools, visitors to Lucie
Stern, visitors to the Junior Museum and Zoo which is promoted as a regional
tourist attraction..
(Note this plan to slow traffic all over Palo ALSO slows emergency vehicles all
over Palo Alto!!)
One frustrated neighbor called this latest recycling of this failed plan deja vu all
over again. Others decry the fact that Palo Alto has become a place i where bad
ideas are tabled but never die. I wonder why Palo Alto continues to waste money
on plans KNOWN to be so dangerous that were rejected twice before when our
streets were safer.
Fortunately, alert residents and individual city staffers warned us about these plans
each of those 3 times they city tried to push this through while ignoring that the
street is even more dangerous than the last 2 times they tried this -- and EACH time
residents rallied in droves to kill, er table,
Not that this time, the Middlefield plan got the MOST pushback comments of all
the 100 projects the city and their outside consultants pitched in their incredibly
dense and confusing plan which totally ignores the recent deaths of bicycles on
busy roads like Middlefield and Embarcadero (at Newell) while pushing biking
on these busy roads! WHY??
And why do we have to waste time and energy fighting this increasingly dangerous
recycled nonsense??
As many others have written to you, it is dangerous for cyclists on Middlefield
Road. Moreover, cyclists pose a danger to cars trying to avoid them on this narrow,
busy street, and to residents trying to back out of their driveways and to parked cars
and to through traffic boxed in by the bollards sometimes backed up INTO major
intersections like Oregon and Embarcadero
So please kill this bad plan for once and all.
And please stop trying to make life miserable for the vast majority of Palo Alto's
66,000 residents and the roughly 264,000 commuters who drive -- low figures
because they don't reflect all the new jobs and new housing units -- to appease the
biking zealots and staffers more motivated by getting grant money than by real
safety factors, more reliant on outside consultants with no local knowledge.
(If you want local knowledge, I'll be glad to describe the 3+ collisions directly in
front of my home at Lowell and Middlefield and the perils of the dangerous zero-
visibility bollards already at every Middlefield intersection!)
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
See the news citations below on how drivers are pushing back on the dangers of
similar plans that benefit few while inconveniences tens of thousands.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/traffic-bridge-bicycle-lane-marin-
20326160.php
Drivers blame this Bay Area bridge’s
gridlock on a bike lane.
... Critics, however, accuse officials of catering to a small group of hardcore riders
at the expense of people who struggle to get to work each day. According to the
MTC, 140 cyclists cross the Richmond-San Rafael span on an average weekday,
a number that rises to 360 on Saturdays and Sundays. By contrast, the bridge’s
westbound upper deck carries about 35,000 drivers...
San Francisco Leader Faces Recall
After Drivers Lost Their Great
Highway
Joel Engardio, an elected city supervisor, angered thousands of voters by helping to
convert a major thoroughfare into a coastal park.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/san-francisco-recall-great-highway-
park.html
From:Patricia L Devaney
To:Council, City; planning.commision@paloalto.gov
Subject:request for public meeting to discuss plans to add bike lanes and remove some parking from Middlefield Road
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 1:54:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Transportation leaders and City Council members,
I was surprised and disappointed to learn that Palo Alto Transportation planners were taking a major transportation
proposal to the City Council for approval without first informing and meeting with those Palo Alto residents most
likely to be affected by the proposed actions. That is, I understand that a proposal to add bike lanes and remove
some parking spaces from Middlefield Road is going to the City Council for approval without first informing and
discussing the proposed actions with the Palo Alto residents, especially those who will be most affected. That
process lacks the transparency that we have come to expect from our City leaders. A single article in the Palo Alto
Weekly is not a sufficient way of informing the public.
Therefore, I ask that a public meeting be widely announced and held before City Council is asked to vote on the
proposal.
My concerns are primarily those related to safety. The number of cars and trucks driving on Middlefield has
increased a lot in recent years, as has the speed with which drivers drive. There have been an increasing number of
auto accidents with cars crossing Middlefield at such intersections as Lincoln. How can adding more bikes to
Middlefield not make the street even more dangerous? Why are we not looking for more bike lanes on less traveled
roads such as Webster or Waverly?
Safety is also an issue for cars trying to get in and out of their driveways on Middlefield. It’s already hard enough to
get through auto traffic to get out of/into my driveway safely. Adding more bikes to the road just increases that
danger. Also, where will we put our recycling bins for weekly pickup? Furthermore, the proposed actions will put
pedestrians in more danger. This includes people 65 or older (true for 20% of Palo Alto residents) going to
TheaterWorks and children going with their parents or nannies to the park, Children’s Museum, pool, theater, and
tennis courts, etc. How about their safety among people flying by in their bikes??
I really think that residents need to be better informed of these plans and have a chance to provide input before the
proposed actions are approved. Thanks for considering this request.
Sincerely, Patricia Devaney
From:Jeanne Fleming
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Middlefield Road bike lanes
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 7:14:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of City Council,
I am writing to ask you to permanently remove from consideration any plan to add bike lanes to Middlefield Road,
or to otherwise encourage cyclists to use this road.
As many others have written to you, it is dangerous for cyclists on Middlefield Road. Moreover, cyclists pose a
danger to cars trying to avoid them on this narrow, busy street, and to residents trying to back out of their driveways.
Please scotch this bad plan.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Sent from my iPhone