HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2507-4950CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 01, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
18.Recommendation from Rail Committee for City Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity: Initial Review of Conceptual Design Alternatives and Elimination of
Alternatives from Further Consideration; CEQA Status - Not a Project as Defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025
Report #:2507-4950
TITLE
Recommendation from Rail Committee for City Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity: Initial Review of Conceptual Design Alternatives and Elimination of Alternatives
from Further Consideration; CEQA Status - Not a Project as Defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15378(b)(4)
RECOMMENDATION
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review eight potential Conceptual
Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) for the South Palo
Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project for grade separated bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings.
The Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council select Alternative A as the preferred
alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and
staff also recommend that Alternative A be advanced with two variants: Alternative A1 with a
signalized crossing of Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under
Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Avenue.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to
assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in portions of the
City south of Oregon Expressway. This Project will identify locations and develop 15% conceptual
designs for up to two new grade-separated crossings.
This Staff Report presents eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and an
Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) that compares those alternatives for community review and
feedback. The eight alternatives include the following:
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review and provide feedback on these
alternatives and the analysis of these alternatives. All concepts are flexible and subject to
refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will also be needed
once locations and basic design concepts have been selected. This review could include a Council
action to eliminate one or more alternatives from further consideration. Based on the analysis of
alternatives and initial feedback gathered from the community, the Rail Committee and staff
recommend the Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and remove all other
alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council
advance Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing at El Dorado
Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El
Dorado Avenue. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher
anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities for
direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods.
This Project aligns with the City’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan and 2025 Safe Streets for All Action
Plan. The Project has also been undertaken in consultation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update, San Antonio Road Area Plan, and Cubberley Community
Center Master Plan. This Project will improve active transportation to and from the
neighborhoods that will receive new housing growth and amenities, enhancing safety and
comfort for people in these areas.
If more than two Alternatives are advanced at this stage, staff will return to City Council in early
2026 with a request to select up to two preferred conceptual design alternatives to pursue grants
and advance to engineering design. Following the selection of up to two alternatives, a public
draft report with a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives will be shared
for community feedback in fall 2026, and a final report will be shared in spring 2027 for
community review and Council review and potential adoption. The public draft report may be
provided at an earlier time if a single alternative is advanced at this stage.
BACKGROUND
In July 2012, Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP)1 to
guide investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and programs in the City. The 2012
1 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Adopted July 2012;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportation-
plan_adopted-july-2012.pdf
BPTP identified the 1.3-mile distance between the California Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Tunnel and
Meadow Drive as the longest stretch of track barrier in Palo Alto and recommended a grade-
separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street in the vicinity
of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between Margarita Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue.
3 which identified
a need for additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings, particularly in the
southern portion of the City. This need was reiterated in November 2017, when Council adopted
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan4. The Comprehensive Plan includes Program T1.19.3 to "increase
the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain
corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway."
5. On June 2, 2025,
Council reviewed, provided input, and expressed general support for the plan’s draft framework
and many projects.6 On June 2, 2025, Council also adopted the Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Safety Action Plan7 which includes, “Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings Along the
Caltrain Corridor” as one of many strategies to help eliminate transportation fatalities and serious
injuries by 2035.
8, which provided a
framework for accommodating 6,086 new housing units by 2031 to meet State requirements.
Maintaining quality of life while accommodating growth, reinforces the need for convenient and
high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that address everyday trips and free up roadway
capacity.
3 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, Approved January 22, 2013;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-
projects/parc-130122-final-report.pdf
4 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, Adopted November 13, 2017, Amended December 19, 2022;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensive-
plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf
5 City Council, June 19, 2023; Consent Calendar Item #34;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1170
6 City Council, June 2, 2025; Study Session Item #3;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16122
7 City of Palo Alto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, Adopted June 2, 2025;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/ss4a-safety-action-plan/palo-alto-
safety-action-plan_final_june_2025.pdf
8 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted April 15, 2024, Certified August 20, 2024;
https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf
identified San Antonio Road across the Caltrain corridor as an Unconstructed On-Street Cross
County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC) and Priority CCBC.15
On September 9, 2024, Council approved a professional services contract (C25191297) with
Kittelson & Associates to provide professional services to support concept design for
pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto.16 The project scope, which
is being undertaken collaboratively with City staff, includes:
Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions;
Community Outreach and Engagement;
Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria;
Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives;
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives;
Identification of two Locally Preferred Locations and Concepts;
15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives for new Grade-Separated
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings, plus context-sensitive pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements that link to the existing or planned transportation networks;
Development of an Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy; and
Securing funding for future project phases, including preliminary engineering,
environmental documentation, final design, and construction.
On November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee reviewed the project update including eight
shortlisted alternatives and a staff recommendation to eliminate Alternatives D, E and F from
further consideration. Rail Committee unanimously supported a motion to recommend to
Council that Alternative A be advanced as the single preferred alternative with all other
alternatives eliminated from further consideration. As part of this motion, Rail Committee also
recommended advancing Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized
crossing across Alma Street, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under both Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue. Rail Committee members also requested that
the project team explore different project parameters (such as 8% grade and lower internal
clearances) to reduce ramp length and property impacts.
ANALYSIS
The following tasks have been undertaken so far:
Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions
Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
15 Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan, May 2018; https://www.vta.org/projects/santa-clara-countywide-bike-plan-
update-2018 pp. 32, 27, 61.
16 City Council, September 9, 2024; Consent Calendar Item #7;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14393
Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Community Outreach and Engagement Plan and associated efforts are described in the
section on Stakeholder Engagement below. Efforts related to design priorities and evaluation
criteria, preliminary conceptual alternatives and initial assessment of conceptual alternatives are
described below.
Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design priorities and evaluation criteria provide metrics to guide the development, assessment,
and comparison of preliminary design alternatives. Based on Council approved plans, such as the
Comprehensive Plan, 2012 BPTP, and Rail Corridor Study, the Project team prepared draft design
priorities and evaluation criteria for community feedback during the first phase of engagement.
The Project team has provided a memorandum on Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation
Criteria, which considers and incorporates community feedback and is available on the project
webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings).19
Updated design priorities include:
Improve Mobility: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding
networks, provide access to critical destinations, serve the most users, and
accommodate current and future transportation needs.
Enhance User Experience: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most
vulnerable populations,20 and create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access
and utilize.
Maximize Ease of Construction: Minimize potential for disruption during construction
and complexity of design, while ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs
are feasible to implement given reasonably expected project funding.
Enhance Visual Appeal: Ensure that newly constructed facilities enhance the sense of
community by incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures.
Minimize Community Impacts: Limit potential impacts on existing neighborhoods,
including the amount of space needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are
minimally affected) and impacts on the environment.
19 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum, July 23,
2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-
railroad-crossings/spa-bike-ped-connectivity_updated-design-priorities-and-evaluation-criteria_2025-07-23.pdf
20 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health, social, or
economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic, political,
environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with disabilities, low-
income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1, with updated criteria and descriptions shown in bold
text.
Table 1: Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5-, 10-, and 15-minutes of each crossing
location. Information will be presented as an isochrone map of walk
and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as schools and
parks.2
Demand#Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily
basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will
account for future population growth and land use development.
Improve
Mobility
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate people
walking and biking, including people with mobility devices (e.g.,
wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.
Crossing length#Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the
crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.
Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis
considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade
required for the tunnel/bridge structure.
Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would
provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This
analysis considers the existing network and the types of
improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide
comfortable on-street connections to and through the new crossing.
Enhance User
Experience
Personal security Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing,
number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers
access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as
well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural
observation of people within the crossing, reducing opportunities
for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of
relocations required.
Construction cost#Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including cost
of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to
provide low-stress on-street connections.
Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level of
coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade Separation
Project expected during the construction period.
Maximize Ease
of
Construction
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and maintenance
(e.g., flooding, landscaping).
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green
infrastructure.
Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious areas,
creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and
existing parkland.
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Parcel impacts#Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and
approach facilities.
Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation,
vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.
Notes:
1 Criteria marked with an “#” are quantitative and a specific value will be presented. Criteria without a “#” are qualitative and will be scored
using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance.
2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.
Bold text indicates language that has been added or updated.
Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The Project team identified eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) to
achieve the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved direction:
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel: Alternative A would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad
tracks and provide a connection between El Dorado Avenue and Park Boulevard. The
intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic
signal and dual ramps and stairways extending along the landscaping strip between the
railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. A ramp would be constructed through
an existing surface parking lot, connecting to existing bike facilities on Park Boulevard.
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel: Alternative B would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad
tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Margarita Avenue. The
tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue
to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue.
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative C would construct a tunnel
underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue
and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be
reconfigured with a new traffic signal and a stairway would be constructed to provide
direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between the
railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. The tunnel would connect to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue potentially using a combination of
switchback ramps and stairs.
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel: Alternative D would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks
and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The intersection of
Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be
constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east
side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under
Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a
combination of a curving ramp and stairs.
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative E would construct a tunnel
underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park
Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a
signalized T-intersection. A ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and
extend in the north-south direction on the west side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet
the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and
connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and
stairs.
F. Ely Pl Tunnel: Alternative F would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and
provide a connection between Ely Place and Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive. An
enhanced pedestrian crosswalk, such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, would be installed
at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and ramp would extend in the
north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The
path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and connect to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving ramp and
stairs.
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel: Alternative G would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks
and provide a connection between Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto and Del Medio Avenue in
Mountain View. The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured
with a new traffic signal. A ramp would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on
the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad
tracks and then turn back another 90 degrees to connect into Mountain View. Further
coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain View.
H.San Antonio Bridge Enhancements: Alternative H would install a center-running two-way
separated bike lane along San Antonio Road from Nita Avenue in Palo Alto to Mountain
View. Protected bike lanes would be installed on San Antonio Avenue and the existing
sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street would be widened and
improved to enhance the existing connection for people walking and biking along San
Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue.
Further coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain
View.
Please note that these alternatives are high-level, preliminary concepts. Each of the above
alternatives has right-of-way implications that would also need to be addressed once the list is
narrowed down. Importantly, no decision has been made by the City to acquire any property for
this project.23
23 Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit to the acquisition of any property that
might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives presented in this analysis. Before that decision can be
made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the
acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner
and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just
compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by the City.
Additionally, each of the above alternatives would also be contingent upon the City obtaining
relevant permits or permissions from other involved agencies such as Caltrain, the City of
Mountain View, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water.
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Figure 2: Overview of All Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The identification of the above conceptual alternatives included development of a
comprehensive list of potential alternatives and an initial screening process. Over 25 potential
design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments) and facility
types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. As with all
transportation projects, the identification of alternatives for this Project involved consideration
and balancing of diverse and sometimes competing needs in the allocation of public right-of-way
and resources. The initial screening criteria aligned with Project goals and design priorities and
aimed to systematically identify less feasible or reasonable alternatives. There were three
primary reasons why an alternative was eliminated from further consideration:
1. The alternative did not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities;
2. The alternative was determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical,
environmental and/or economic standpoint; or
3. The alternative substantially duplicated another alternative and offered little advantage
to similar alternative(s).
Transportation projects are inherently complex. Each of the eight alternatives included above
were developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings
Delivery Guide (August 2024), Caltrain Design Criteria (January 2024), Caltrain Standards for
Design and Maintenance of Structures (January 2024), American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and
informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Error! Reference source not found. 2
presents a summary of the results from the alternatives evaluation used to assess the degree to
which the alternative aligns with each of the selected evaluation criteria. Additional information
is presented in the Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B).
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria
A.
E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
B.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
C.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
wi
t
h
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
D.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
E.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
Al
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
F.
E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
G.
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
H.
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community
input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values
and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the
process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable)Low (least desirable)
Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility
and would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternatives D and E would
provide the lowest reduction in travel times for crossings.
Alternatives A, B, C, G, and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and
pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users due to their
close proximity to crossings at Charleston and Meadow, longer distance to schools, and
wayfinding challenges in the Circles and Alma/San Antonio neighborhoods.
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with
the exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10-foot wide two-way
separated bike lane compared to the 20-foot wide tunnel and 12-foot wide ramps currently
assumed for other alternatives.
Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the distance
to cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing length but
would require some out-of-direction travel along the crossing alignment, while Alternative B
would have the longest crossing length but would provide the most direct connections to the
existing bike network.25
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to
crossing elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a
7% slope. Pedestrian access under Alternative H includes enhanced connections to the existing
tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same
depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian
and bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection across
Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable
connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design
practices, Alternative B would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and
opportunities for natural surveillance because of the shorter and more direct tunnels. Alternative
F and G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access
locations in less active areas.
Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead
lighting in the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the greatest
potential impact, requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside of the
proposed tunnel limits.
Construction Cost. Due to their longer tunnels under Alma Street as well as the railroad tracks,
Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while Alternative H is
anticipated to have the lowest construction cost.
Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction
duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are expected to be outside
25 Crossing and ramp dimensions are based on Caltrain‘s Corridor Crossing Delivery Guide, which requires a
minimum 5‘ of cover (from the bottom of railroad ties to top of structure) if a minimally invasive construction
method such as box jacking or tunneling is utilized. The dimensions also assume a 12‘ tunnel height. Minimum
pedestrian and bicycle vertical clearance is 10’.
proposed construction limits for the Rail Grade Separation projects. Alternatives G and H are also
anticipated to have shorter construction durations and start times but require additional
coordination with the City of Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall
durations.
Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D are anticipated to have the highest
operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H is expected to have the lowest operations
and maintenance costs.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for
landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F are expected to
have the least potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.
Environmental Impacts. Alternative H is expected to have a minimal impact on the environment
as it would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas,
would not impact creeks, drainage, sensitive habitats, wetlands or parkland.
Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G, and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the
fewest number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel.
Alternatives B and C are estimated to impact two parcels.
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to
increase vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other
alternatives.
Strong preference for Alternatives A, B, and H (and interest in Alternative G) that
minimize right-of-way impacts (especially to private homes), provide direct connections
to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street to avoid added delay and safety
issues at new signals, and have higher bicycle and pedestrian demand projections.
Alternative A: Favored for location and limited property impacts. Stakeholders
encouraged extending the tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue to achieve a
grade-separated crossing.
Alternative B: Favored for a grade-separated Alma Street crossing. Stakeholders flagged
trade-offs due to property acquisitions (Park Blvd) and circulation impacts near Loma
Verde Avenue to be addressed.
Alternative G: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing near San Antonio
Road. Stakeholders noted additional coordination with Mountain View would be
needed.
Alternative H: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing along San Antonio
Road. Stakeholders suggested refinements to address comfort concerns with
center-running bikeways and improve connections (e.g., Mackay–Nita, Briarwood
tunnel, path to Mayfield).
Alternatives D/E/F: Generally, not favored due to lower projected demands (e.g.,
limited opportunity for mode shift) given close proximity to existing at-grade crossings
(and planned grade separations), lack of direct connections through adjoining
neighborhoods, and technical challenges associated with overlapping construction areas
for rail grade separation.
In addition to above preferences, several stakeholders suggested refinements to
concept designs that would apply to all alternatives:
o Reduce tunnel heights and depths to shorten ramps, minimize property and
circulation impacts, and increase visibility.
o Consider locating ramps/tunnels within the landscaped strip on the east side of
Alma instead of the street centerline where feasible.
o Prioritize user comfort and safety elements for pathways that include gentler
ramp grades (compared to California Avenue undercrossing), wider two-way
facilities with separated space for bicyclists and pedestrians, more direct
alignments, and strong lighting to support day/night visibility.
o Consider trade-offs with different slopes and ramps lengths as well as whether
to cross Alma Street at-grade (via new signalized intersection) or below-grade
(via tunnel).
Deliberation Options
Two pathways below describe possible Council direction related to this Project.
Deliberation Option 1: At this point, Council could review and provide initial feedback on all eight
alternatives. In early 2026, staff would then return to Council with a request to select up to two
preferred conceptual design alternatives to advance to 15% design.
Deliberation Option 2: At this point, Council could review and provide input on all eight
alternatives including a Council action on options to be eliminated from further consideration.
Initially, staff had recommended eliminating Alternatives D, E and F from further consideration
due to the likely lower levels of ridership, close proximity to existing crossings, more challenging
wayfinding on the west side and lower levels of community support. Following Rail Committee
deliberations on November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee and staff recommend that Council
select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from
further consideration. Furthermore, Rail Committee and staff recommend that two variants be
advanced for Alternative A: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing across Alma Street at El
Dorado and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the
vicinity of El Dorado. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher
anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities
for direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods. Prioritization of
Alternative A and elimination of all other alternatives would allow the project team to focus
more attention on refinement of the remaining alternatives and would provide some clarity
and relief to potentially affected property owners.
Securing Caltrain Service Agreement to advance the project
Seeking grants and funding
Undertaking preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (Caltrain)
Completing final design (Caltrain)
Obtaining other inter-agency agreements and permits
Securing right of way, acquisition or easements
Completing construction (Caltrain)
Transitioning completed project facilities to Palo Alto
27 The City expects that Caltrain will lead efforts
for preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and construction.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
27 https://www.caltrain.com/caltrain-corridor-crossings-delivery-guide
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement for this Project includes four phases:
Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed
Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) –
Underway
Phase 3 Community Engagement: Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026)
Phase 4 Community Engagement: Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027)
Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed
The first phase of engagement29 included the following elements.
Project Webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) with updates on meetings, events
and Project materials.
Project Fact Sheet shared with community members during in-person meetings and
events.
Small Group Discussions held virtually from November through December 2024
including representatives of the City Schools Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC),
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Caltrain, Palo Alto Unified School
District, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition (SVBC), and Stanford University. Participants also shared a list of criteria and
priorities for evaluating alternatives and emphasized the need for easy, well-lit,
accessible, safe crossings that are suitable for all ages and reduce the long distances
between crossings today. Participants also encouraged the team to consider a network
perspective addressing how to get to/from crossing points.
Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 2, 2025 and
attended by approximately 50 community members. Community members prioritized
crossings that improved mobility and emphasized their general support for the project
and interest in fast completion. A crossing around Matadero Creek (El Dorado Avenue to
Loma Verde Avenue) was the most popular location amongst attendees, followed by
locations between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Online Survey was made available on the Project webpage from April 1, 2025, to May
22, 2025. The City promoted the survey during in-person events, Weekly City Manager
Updates, PaloAltoConnect Blog, social media posts, UpLift Local eNewsletter, and emails
to Neighborhood Associations in south Palo Alto, public and private schools, Stanford
University, and community stakeholders in Mountain View. The survey gathered more
29 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary Report, July 29, 2025;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad-
crossings/spa_bike-ped-connectivity_phase-1-engagement-report_final_7.29.25.pdf
than 700 responses, offering insight into typical travel patterns and preferences
regarding new bike and pedestrian rail crossings.
Pop-Up Events at California Ave Third Thursday (April 17, 2025), Earth Day Festival (April
27, 2025), and Bike to Work Day (May 15, 2025).
Mailers sent to more than 1,500 business, community organization and residential
property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
Emails to Principals, PTA Team Presidents, and Traffic Safety Representatives (TSRs) of
all public schools in the southern portion of the City, as well as private schools,
Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in south Palo Alto, in addition to several
public and private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in Mountain
View to inform them about the Project, share ways to provide feedback, promote the
online survey, and ask community partners to spread the word to their networks by via
a communications toolkit.
Presentations at meetings with the PABAC,31 Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC),32 Rail Committee,33 City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTCS),34 and
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)35 in May 2025. In addition, Alternative H was
discussed at a joint meeting of PABAC and Mountain View Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory
Committee on August 28, 2024.
Additional Collaboration included interagency discussions as reflected in unscheduled
matching funds for the San Antonio Class IV Bikeway (US-15) in the City of Mountain
View Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28.
Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) – Underway
Phase 2 community engagement is currently in progress. During Phase 2, City staff are presenting
the initial eight alternatives and completed alternatives analysis for review and feedback.
Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will be considered in the selection and
refinement of two preferred alternatives to be carried forward for 15 percent conceptual design.
A summary of Phase 2 outreach and engagement activities is provided below:
Project Webpage (as in Phase 1)
Project Fact Sheet (as in Phase 1)
31 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, May 6, 2025; Discussion Item #7.a.;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings-
2025/2025-05-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf
32 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16526
33 Rail Committee, May 20, 2025; Study Session Item #2;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17205
34 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, May 22, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Office-
of-Transportation/May-2025-CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting
35 Parks and Recreation Commission, May 27, 2025; Business Items Item #5;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16896
Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on September 9, 2025,
and attended by nearly 40 community members. Community members provided
feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Alternative B (Loma
Verde Ave Tunnel), Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel), and Alternative H (San Antonio
Bridge Enhancements) were the most popular conceptual designs amongst attendees.
Participants expressed support for alternatives that limit right-of-way impacts, provide
more direct routes, connect to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street, and
are located further away from existing or planned grade separated rail crossings. Several
participants also suggested changes to assumed tunnel dimensions such as reducing the
height of the tunnel to shorten ramps.
Online Survey available on the Project webpage from August 15, 2025, through October
12, 2025. The City promoted the survey as in Phase 1. The survey gathered nearly 500
responses. Respondents provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design
alternatives. Key findings included:
o Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) was the favorite alternative amongst
respondents, followed by Alternative B (Loma Verde Ave Tunnel), then
Alternative H (San Antonio Bridge Enhancements).
o Alternative E (Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal) was the least favorite
alternative amongst respondents, while Alternative F (Ely Pl Tunnel) ranked
second to last.
o Respondents generally supported alternatives that minimize impacts to
residential properties and that grade-separate Alma Street, due to concerns
about delays to motor vehicle travel and safety concerns for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing Alma Street at new signalized intersections.
o Respondents expressed a desire for high-quality pathways (e.g., wide,
direct/straight, open, well-lit, separate space for cyclists and pedestrians) where
cyclists would not need to dismount.
o Respondents suggested Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) would be even
more desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street.
o Several respondents recommended the City consider enhancing the existing
grade-separated rail crossing at California Avenue rather than building a new
crossing nearby.
Pop-Up Events at Bike Palo Alto (October 5, 2025), California Ave Third Thursday
(October 16, 2025), and other community-wide events through early 2026.
Mailers sent to around 1,200 business, community organizations and residential
property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
Emails (as in Phase 1).
Presentations at meetings with the PTC41, CSTSC42, PABAC43, and Rail Committee44. A
synthesis received during each meeting is presented in the Attachment C. Upcoming
meetings with PABAC, PTC, Rail Committee, and Council are tentatively scheduled in
Quarter 4 in 2025 and Quarter 1 in 2026.
Phase 3 Community Engagement Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026)
The Public Draft Report will include a funding and implementation plan for two preferred
alternatives that will be shared for feedback as part of Phase 3 of engagement in fall 2026.
Phase 4 Community Engagement Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027)
The Final Report will be shared in spring 2027 in Phase 4 for community review and Council
review and potential adoption.
Given the Rail Committee’s recommendation, staff have been in initial conversations with a
representative of Vance Brown Builders, which is the property management company
representing the owners of the office development at 3101 Park Boulevard on the west side of
the Caltrain tracks. Staff briefed them on the project status and informed them of Council’s
discussion of this item on December 1, 2025. Staff also invited them for further discussion prior
to this December 1, 2025 meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action item is not a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because it does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a
potentially significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section
15378(b)(4). CEQA will be conducted according to state law should the city proceed on an
actual project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Conceptual Design Alternatives
Attachment B: Alternatives Analysis
Attachment C: Phase 2 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
41 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 10, 2025; Study Session Item #4;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16582
42 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, October 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-
Directory/Office-of-Transportation/CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting
43 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, November 4, 2025;
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-Walking/Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Advisory-
Committee-PABAC
44 Rail Committee, November 18, 2025; Action Item #1;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17255
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2025 Project# 30555
To: Charlie Coles, City of Palo Alto
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to assess
ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City.
goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and
pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be
constructed.
This Alternatives Analysis presents an assessment of eight conceptual design alternatives for community
review and feedback that builds on the analysis of existing conditions, incorporates feedback from the
community gathered during the first phase of engagement for this Project, and is consistent with the
Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved plans and direction. Eight conceptual
design alternatives presented and discussed further in this analysis include the following:
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight alternatives evaluated in this Alternatives Analysis. The concept
design, description, and assessment of each alternative is presented in the following sections.
Over 25 potential design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments)
and facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. Alternatives
that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of the initial
screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect the performance of an
alternative. Attachment A describes the process used to develop and identify eight conceptual design
alternatives through the initial screening process.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
September 2, 2025 Page 2
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
September 2, 2025 Page 3
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Alternatives A, C, E, F, and G propose new at-grade crossings of Alma Street with a tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks, while Alternatives B and D propose tunnels underneath Alma Street and the railroad tracks.
Alternative H is a bridge/tunnel combination, utilizing the existing overpass structure on San Antonio
Road to provide a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks for bicycles. Alternative H will also
include enhancements to the existing at-grade crossing of Alma Street at San Antonio Avenue to provide
improved connection to the existing bike/ped tunnel underneath the railroad tracks at the San Antonio
Caltrain Station at Mayfield Avenue in Mountain View.
Alternatives A, B, C, and H appear to have the most potential to move forward based on initial input from
the community and prior Council approved plans and direction. However, in an effort to present a range
of potentially feasible options and confirm preferred locations and designs, the City developed eight
conceptual design alternatives for analysis, review and feedback from the community.
All conceptual design alternatives has been developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines
and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain
Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide dated August 2024, Caltrain Design Criteria, 4th Edition dated January
2024, Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures Revised January 2024, American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by
the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Design concepts presented in this analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes
only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement,
technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design
concepts have been decided.
These conceptual design alternatives were developed with the intent of getting input from the community
to inform key design elements, such as the location and alignment of the tunnel and ramps/stairs,
treatment at Alma Street (tunnel or signal), as well as general design characteristics, including
ramp/tunnel widths and grades. These potential design variations are described in more detail for each
alternative in the following sections. Community feedback on the alternatives and design variations is
being gathered during the next phase of engagement. This input will be considered in selection of the
locally preferred alternatives to carry forward to 15 percent concept design.
While identifying and developing 15 percent concept designs for two preferred railroad crossing options
is the primary aim of the Project, an additional purpose is to identify the surface street improvements that
would be paired with each crossing to make walking and biking easier and more comfortable. The specific
bicycle and pedestrian network enhancements will be developed for each of the two alternatives in the
next phase of this Project and constructed in combination with each crossing to provide high comfort
connections to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project
phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement (see Table 1).
Design priorities are organized in order of importance based on community feedback, with the highest
design priority (Improve Mobility) listed first. A High (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values, and a Low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 4
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Improve
Mobility
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5- 10- and 15-minutes of each
crossing location. Information will be presented as an isochrone
map of walk and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as
schools and parks2.
Demand#
Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily
basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will
account for future population growth and land use development.
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate
people walking and biking, including people with mobility devices
(e.g., wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.
Enhance User
Experience
Crossing length# Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the
crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.
Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis
considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade
required for the tunnel/bridge structure.
Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would
provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This
analysis considers the existing network and the types of
improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide
comfortable on-street connections to and through the new
crossing.
Personal security
Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing,
number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis
considers access control to direct people to designated entrances
and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for
natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing
opportunities for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.
Maximize Ease
of Construction
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of
relocations required.
Construction cost#
Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including
cost of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required
to provide low-stress on-street connections.
Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level
of coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade
Separation Project expected during the construction period.
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and
maintenance (e.g., flooding, landscaping).
September 2, 2025 Page 5
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green
infrastructure.
Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious
areas, creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats,
and existing parkland.
Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and
approach facilities.
Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation,
vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.
Notes:
1 nd will be scored using a scale
of high, medium, and low, for its performance.
2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.
The results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally
preferred alternatives. The evaluation criteria and scoring methodology is included as Attachment B. The
accessibility analysis maps are included as Attachment C.
Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can
be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to
consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will
contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount
determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an
appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, Staff has no authority to commit
to the acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives
presented in this analysis.
September 2, 2025 Page 6
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative A would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 200 feet long. The total crossing would be 490 feet
long and would be the shortest of the eight crossings.
The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and
high visibility crosswalks. A stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with
ramps extending along the landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both
directions. Alma Street would be reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the
intersection. Construction of the stairway and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma
Street. The ramp on the west side would connect to Park Boulevard through an existing surface parking
lot. This alternative would require partial acquisition of the surface parking lot on Park Boulevard, resulting
in the removal of about 40 off-street parking spaces.
Alternative A is located approximately 2,450 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 4,475 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with the
Alternatives B and C at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the greatest increase in access for people
walking and biking and would result in the following estimated weekday trips1:
AM Peak Hour 220 peak hour trips (70 walking and 150 biking trips)
Daily 2,600 daily trips (800 walking and 1,800 biking trips)
This alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park Boulevard and would
provide an enhanced bike connection on El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and existing bicycle
routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct for people walking as stairs would
provide a shorter and more direct path from El Dorado Avenue and the ramp connection to Park
Boulevard would be relatively straight. Some out of direction travel would be required for bicyclists
accessing the ramps along Alma Street with 90 degree turns potentially limiting visibility and creating
increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.
Alternative A involves constructing a short tunnel beneath only the Caltrain corridor, with generally
favorable site conditions for staging and access. On the east side, the design would require narrowing
Alma Street to accommodate the tunnel and associated ramps. On the west side, an open parking lot
would provide space for staging and for the proposed meandering pathway connection. This
configuration avoids the need to grade separate Alma Street, substantially reducing the complexity of
traffic handling, utility relocations, and construction phasing. The tunnel box would likely be bore-and-
jacked beneath the tracks to minimize impacts to rail operations, allowing work to proceed with minimal
disruption to train service.
1 For reference, based on counts collected in April 2025 there were about 1,800 daily pedestrian and
bicycle trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed on the California Avenue underpass;
around 600 daily bicycle trips and 170 peak hour bicycle trips were observed crossing the railroad tracks
at Meadow Drive; and around 400 daily bicycle trips and 100 peak hour bicycle trips were observed
crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road. Pedestrian counts were not collected at Meadow Drive or
Charleston Road.
September 2, 2025 Page 7
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
The straightforward nature of the construction, combined with the absence of major constraints or
overlapping work zones, positions this alternative as having the lowest anticipated cost and an
approximate construction duration of 18 months one of the shortest among the tunnel options
considered. While the design includes two ramps along Alma Street, these do not introduce significant
additional complexity compared to other alternatives.
Alternative A will likely have moderate utility impacts as there is an existing sewer line and overhead lines
within the proximity of the proposed crossing alignment. Alternative A proposes to tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. A partial right-of-way
acquisition from the private parking lot near Park Boulevard would remove several stalls and require
reconfiguration to accommodate the meandering pathway to the new tunnel crossing. Alternative A
would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in
substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and
would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide green
infrastructure and new open space as part of the stair/ramp design at El Dorado Avenue and as part of the
ramp design through the surface parking lot connecting to Park Boulevard.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative A,
including:
Traffic control. A traffic signal would be required to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of
Alma Street to access the new tunnel. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a
traffic signal. This design variation would require people walking or biking to activate the device
before crossing, which may reduce potential delay impacts to vehicle traffic.
Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at
El Dorado Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit
connectivity for people biking or rolling. Other variations to ramp configurations could be
considered, including reconfiguring the ramp to make a 90-degree turn below grade to meet the
top of the stairs at-grade, reducing the crossing length for bicyclists.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramps on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16
or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may
require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle
traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp through the surface parking lot could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation would increase the extent of parcel acquisition
and increase the number of parking spaces impacted.
Evaluation. Table 2 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (dark green) indicating strong alignment to low (dark orange) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 8
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 2: Alternative A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative A
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 9
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 10
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative B would construct a 220 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma
Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east
side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would
be 650 feet long. While it would be the longest of the eight crossings it provides a relatively direct path
with minimal out-of-direction travel.
The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs. It is
anticipated that this alternative would require the acquisition of two parcels on Park Boulevard.
Construction of the center-running ramp on Loma Verde Avenue would require the reconfiguration of
Loma Verde Avenue to remove about 10 spaces of existing on-street parking and require right-in/right-
out driveway operations for the four parcels adjacent to the ramp. Construction of the ramp connecting to
Park Boulevard would require the removal of about two existing on-street parking spaces on Park
Boulevard.
Alternative B is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with
Alternative A at El Dorado Avenue and Alternative C also at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the
greatest increase in access and would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips)
Daily 2,470 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park
Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde
Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment
on Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively direct with switchbacks limiting visibility and creating
increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the ramp to the Park
Boulevard/Margarita Avenue intersection. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling pedestrians to
avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park Boulevard.
Alternative B involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with
the alignment positioned generally in the center of Loma Verde Avenue. The portion of the tunnel
beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize
impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be constructed using open-
cut methods to be more cost effective. This configuration introduces significant construction complexity
due to the need to grade separate Alma Street while maintaining traffic along the corridor during
construction. Doing so would likely require staged construction, temporary traffic shifts, and more
intricate traffic handling measures compared to alternatives that avoid grade separating Alma Street. The
longer tunnel length also increases the amount of excavation, structural concrete, and associated
construction activities relative to shorter tunnel options.
Alternative B would have a substantial impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross
Alma Street and be located within the middle of Loma Verde Avenue. Existing utilities within both
September 2, 2025 Page 11
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
Staging areas for Alternative B are more constrained than at other sites, further complicating construction
sequencing and equipment access. The combination of longer structure length, traffic management
requirements, major utility relocations, and limited staging areas is anticipated to result in higher
construction costs and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives that
avoid grade separating Alma Street.
Alternative B would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide
green infrastructure and new open space as part of the ramp/stair design connecting to Park Boulevard.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative B, including:
Ramp alignment, east side. The ramp that is currently proposed to run down the middle of Loma
Verde Avenue could be realigned to the north or south side of the street. This variation would
increase potential driveway impacts, limiting access to the two parcels on the ramp side.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Loma Verde Avenue could be increased from 12 feet
to 15.5 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require the reconfiguration of Loma Verde Avenue to
provide one-way travel for vehicles and increase potential impacts to traffic and driveway access.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, east side. The ramp slope could be reduced, and the
ramp lengthened to connect directly to the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue/Emerson Street.
This design variation would require a larger ramp structure, increasing the cost of construction.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Increase ramp slope and decrease length, west side. The ramp slope could be increased and the
ramp shortened with tighter switchbacks, resulting in decreased visibility around corners and
increasing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking while reducing the extent of
parcel acquisition required from two parcels to one.
Evaluation. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 12
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 3: Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative B
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 13
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 14
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative C would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would be 540 feet
long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A
stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the
landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both directions. Alma Street would be
reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the intersection. Construction of the stairway
and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma Street. Similar to Alternative B, the tunnel
would connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Ave using a combination of switchback
ramps and stairs. Alternative C would require the acquisition of two parcels and removal of two existing
on-street parking spaces on Park Boulevard.
Alternative C is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with
Alternative A and Alternative B would provide the greatest increase in access and would result in the
following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips)
Daily 2,460 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park
Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde
Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment
at Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively indirect for people biking as bicyclists would need to cross at
the signal and travel out-of-direction to access the ramps, which would require one U-turn and one 90
degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential
for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling
pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park
Boulevard and Loma Verde Avenue.
Alternative C is located in the same general area as Alternative B, but avoids the need to grade separate
Alma Street. On the east side, this would require slightly narrowing Alma Street to accommodate the
parallel ramp connections. On the west side, the design includes a meandering structure pathway that will
require parcel acquisitions to accommodate tying into the surrounding network.
The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain corridor would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on
utilities, except for overhead lines near Alma Street. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks
and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. Because the alignment does not
pass beneath Alma Street, the overall structure length and construction complexity are reduced compared
to the full Alma grade separation option. The absence of significant traffic staging along Alma Street also
limits potential disruption to local travel. Overall, Alternative C is expected to have lower construction
September 2, 2025 Page 15
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
costs and shorter durations than options requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate
construction duration of 18 months.
Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative C,
including:
Traffic control. A traffic signal would be required to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of
Alma Street to access the new tunnel. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a
traffic signal. This design variation would require people walking or biking to activate the device
before crossing, which may reduce potential delay impacts to vehicle traffic.
Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at
Loma Verde Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit
connectivity for people biking.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramps on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16
or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may
require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to traffic.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Increase ramp slope and decrease length, west side. The ramp slope could be increased and the
ramp shortened with tighter switchbacks, resulting in decreased visibility around corners and
increasing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking while reducing the extent of
parcel acquisition required from two parcels to one.
Evaluation. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 16
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 4: Alternative C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative C
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 17
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 18
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
Description. Alternative D would construct a 160 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma
Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east
side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would
be 570 feet long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be
constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east side of Alma
Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad
tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving
ramp and stairs. This alternative is anticipated to require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard
and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma
Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on
Park Boulevard.
Alternative D is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and
850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited
increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing
crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that
would use the lower stress crossing compared to crossing at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Alternative D would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike roures on Park
Boulevard and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the ramp entrance to
the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant Street. This alternative would
also enhance connections to and through Robles Park. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct,
though it does include one 90 degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance,
and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a
more direct path to Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of
the crossing.
Alternative D involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with
the alignment positioned to connect to Lindero Drive. On the east side, this configuration would require
grade separating Alma Street, introducing significant construction complexity due to the need to maintain
traffic along the corridor during construction. On the west side, the design includes a meandering
pathway connection that would require a parcel acquisition to tie into the surrounding network.
The portion of the tunnel beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be
constructed using open-cut methods to be more cost effective. Alternative D would have a significant
impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross Alma Street. Existing utilities within both
September 2, 2025 Page 19
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
In June 2024, Council advanced the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and
Underpass Alternative for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with
2 Alternative D overlaps with areas
proposed for construction (subject to change) for rail grade separation, specifically the Hybrid Alternative
(including a mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close
coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction
sequencing. This coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two
projects interface. In addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would
need to be sequenced to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located
in the same physical area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project
would be directly dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would
extend the overall delivery time for this crossing.
The combination of longer structure length, the need for Alma Street grade separation, major utility
relocations, parcel acquisition requirements, constrained staging areas, and potential coordination with
the Rail Grade Separation Project is anticipated to result in higher construction costs, potentially longer
construction start time and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives
that avoid grade separating Alma Street.
Alternative D would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative D,
including:
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or
20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require
the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required,
which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving opportunities for natural surveillance and reducing potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation would likely increase the number of parcels
required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation
September 2, 2025 Page 20
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Evaluation. Table 5 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 5: Alternative D. Lindero Dr Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative D
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 21
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 22
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative E would construct a 100 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would be 510 feet
long and would be the second shortest crossing distance of the eight alternatives.
The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a signalized T-intersection. A ramp
would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the west side of
Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the
railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a
curving ramp and stairs. This alternative would require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard
and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma
Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on
Park Boulevard.
Alternative E is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and
850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited
increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing
crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that
would use the lower stress crossing. Alternative E would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips)
Similar to Alternative D, this conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to the
existing bike route on Park Boulevard and would enhance connections to and through Robles Park. This
alternative would also provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the signalized
intersection at Alma Street to the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant
Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct, though it does include one 90-degree turn, limiting
visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to
Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.
Alternative E involves tunneling beneath the Caltrain corridor, which would likely be constructed using a
bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. This alternative would have a minimal
potential impact on utilities and right-of-way, as no major underground utilities are located within the
proposed crossing alignment. Overhead lines near Alma Street would require relocation based on
available information. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks and would not encroach on
Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
Alternative E overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a
mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to
address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In
September 2, 2025 Page 23
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced
to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical
area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly
dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall
delivery time for this crossing.
Overall, Alternative E is expected to have lower construction costs and shorter durations than options
requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate construction duration of 18 months.
Alternative E would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative E, including:
Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the
intersection to the south. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the
tunnel to connect south of Robles Park and would impact one different parcel along Park
Boulevard.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to
vehicle traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required,
which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Evaluation. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 24
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 6: Alternative E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative E
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 25
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 26
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
Description. Alternative F would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 300 feet long. The total crossing would be 565 feet
long.
A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would be installed at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and
ramp would extend in the north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma
Street, within Caltrain right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad
tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving
ramp and stairs that would pass through one existing property and may impact one parking space.
Alternative F is located approximately 750 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road and
3,600 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This alternative would provide limited
access improvements for walking and biking as it is located adjacent to the existing Charleston Road
crossing. The alternative would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 50 peak hour trips (10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 680 daily trips (50 walking trips and 630 biking trips)
This alternative would enhance the bike connection on Ely Place to existing bike routes on Duncan Place
and Carlson Court/Carlson Circle, on Whitclem Drive to existing routes on Wilkie Way, and on Park
Boulevard to existing routes on Park Boulevard north of Charleston Road. The proposed alignment would
include one 90-degree turn and tight switchbacks on the ramp abutting Adobe Creek, limiting visibility
and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to Whitclem
Drive/Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.
Alternative F proposes a short tunnel beneath the Caltrain corridor, with limited available right-of-way for
the required parallel ramp connection to Alma Street. Due to the constrained site conditions, the ramp
structure would need to be located within Caltrain right-of-way. This would require obtaining a variance
from the Caltrain Board, a process that introduces additional coordination requirements and approval
uncertainty, as there is no guarantee that the variance would be granted. The outcome and timing of this
process could affect both the overall cost and the construction schedule.
The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method
to minimize impacts to rail operations. This conceptual design alternative would have a minimal potential
impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line along Alma Street. The tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks but would require a ramp structure within the Caltrain right-of-way to
connect at Alma Street. In addition, a full acquisition would be required on Park Boulevard to
accommodate the new tunnel approach pathway. While the alignment does not pass beneath Alma
Street, its proximity to the corridor still requires careful coordination to manage potential traffic and utility
impacts during construction.
Alternative F overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a
September 2, 2025 Page 27
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to
address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In
addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced
to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical
area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly
dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall
delivery time for this crossing.
If the Caltrain variance is approved, the approximate construction duration for this alternative would be 18
months.
Alternative F would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or
sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative F, including:
Crossing alignment. The pedestrian crossing could be relocated to the north side of the Alma
Street/Ely Place intersection and relocated to tie in at Whitclem Drive/Park Boulevard. This design
variation may require additional parcel acquisitions on Park Boulevard.
Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the
intersection to the north. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the
tunnel and ramps to connect within 500 feet of the intersection of Alma Street/Charleston Road,
which would likely reduce the benefits to accessibility resulting in lower estimated demand.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to
vehicle traffic. This design variation would continue to impact Caltrain right-of-way.
Shift ramp, east side. The path and ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the
north to avoid encroaching on Caltrain right-of-way. This design variation would require
reconfiguration of Alma Street and would require the removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive could be
increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation may increase the number of
parcels required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts. This design variation would
increase the number of parcels required.
Evaluation. Table 7 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 28
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 7: Alternative F. Ely Pl Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative F
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 29
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 30
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the majority of
the Project would be constructed within Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were
made about specific design elements, including ramp configuration and alignment. These are described in
this section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements
within Mountain View.
Alternative G would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks.
Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long.
The ramp on the west side would be 280 feet long. The total crossing would be 545 feet long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp
would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street, within Caltrain
right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back
another 90 degrees to connect Del Medio Avenue via a ramp and path running alongside Caltrain right-
of-way.
Alternative G is located approximately 2,650 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road
and 1,950 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This conceptual design alternative
would provide increased access for the areas of Palo Alto immediately north of San Antonio Avenue, as
the tunnel at Mayfield Avenue is not easily accessed from south of San Antonio Avenue and is more likely
to serve trips starting and ending in Mountain View. The alternative would result in the following
estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 190 peak hour trips (50 walking trips and 140 biking trips)
Daily 2,510 daily trips (460 walking trips and 2,050 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would enhance connections on Ferne Avenue to existing bike routes on
Mackay Drive and Shasta Drive and on Del Medio Avenue to existing routes at Miller Avenue. The
proposed alignment would include two 90-degree turns, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural
surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.
Alternative G proposes an underpass beneath the Caltrain corridor constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. The alternative would also require a ramp structure within
the Caltrain right-of-way to conform at Alma Street. In addition, partial property acquisition was assumed
to be required in Mountain View, to accommodate the ramp structure and the at-grade pathway
connecting to Del Medio Avenue.
Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line
along Alma Street. Utility conflicts within Caltrain right-of-way or near the tunnel approaches would need
to be addressed during design. Any use of Caltrain property, including the longitudinal ramp segment,
would require additional coordination, including securing variances that must be approved by the Caltrain
Board. This process introduces cost and schedule risk, as approval is not guaranteed and could add
procedural steps and review cycles.
The location falls within the City of Mountain View, requiring additional coordination that may introduce
further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations. Overall, the combination of Caltrain
September 2, 2025 Page 31
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
variance requirements, property acquisition needs, and multi-jurisdictional review is anticipated to add
complexity compared to tunnel alternatives without these constraints. If Caltrain approvals are secured
and coordination proceeds without significant delays, the approximate construction duration for this
alternative would be 18 months.
Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or
sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative G,
including:
Traffic control. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a traffic signal. This
design variation would require people to activate the device before crossing, which may reduce
delays to vehicle traffic but would be less convenient for people walking and biking.
Alignment. The ramp on Alma Street could be configured to extend from the intersection at Ferne
Avenue to the north or to the south before turning 90 degrees to tunnel underneath the railroad
and turn 90 degrees to the north or south to ramp along the backside of existing parcels in
Mountain View. These design variations would change the alignment and location of the tunnel
and ramps, which would impact different properties and would change impacts to parking.
Shift ramp and construct additional crosswalk, east side. The ramp on the east side of Alma Street
could be shifted to the north and a new crosswalk installed on the north side of the intersection
to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements on both sides of the intersection. This design
variation would require additional path construction which would increase construction cost.
Shift ramp, east side. The path and ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the
north to avoid encroaching on Caltrain right-of-way. This design variation would require
reconfiguration of Alma Street and removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp and path width, west side. The ramp and path width on the west side of the
railroad could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize
potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require
additional right-of-way, increasing potential impacts to existing vehicle parking.
Evaluation. Table 8 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
September 2, 2025 Page 32
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 8: Alternative G. Ferne Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative G
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 33
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 34
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the Project
extends into Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were made about specific design
elements, such as the connection at California Street/San Antonio Road. These are described in this
section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements within
Mountain View.
Alternative H would install a 10-foot-wide center-running two-way separated bike lane along San Antonio
Road connecting from Nita Avenue to California Street in Mountain View. Installation would not impact
lane number and would be accomplished by reducing travel lane widths on San Antonio Road to two 10.5
foot wide lanes and one 11 foot wide lane in each direction. This alternative would also enhance the
existing connection for people walking and biking along San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain
Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue by installing a Class II bicycle facility on San Antonio Avenue with
crossbike markings3 at the intersection of Alma Street/San Antonio Avenue and widening and improving
the existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street, between San Antonio Avenue and
Mayfield Avenue.
Alternative H would modify existing crossings at San Antonio Road and at Mayfield Drive and would not
construct a new tunnel crossing as in the other alternatives. The alternative would improve conditions for
people biking by creating a dedicated crossing of the train tracks along San Antonio Road and by creating
bike crossings across San Antonio Road. The alternative would result in an estimated 190 AM peak hour
and 2,640 daily bicycle trips. The estimate only included bike trips that travel along San Antonio Road to
cross train tracks. Pedestrian trips were not included as pedestrians would cross via the existing tunnel.
Alternative H proposes the most straightforward construction methods given all improvements are at the
roadway surface and additional grade separations are not proposed. As a result, there are minimal
potential impacts to utilities as no major above- or under-ground utilities are located within the proposed
crossing alignment. The alternative proposes to enhance the existing sidewalk on/along Alma Street and
may impact Caltrain right-of-way. In general, the overall construction duration is anticipated to be
approximately 12 months. Since this alternative does not involve new subsurface structures or significant
structural modification, it is assumed that no seismic upgrades would be required, consistent with
standard practice.
Alternative H would not require tunneling and therefore would have a minimal potential impact on the
environment. It would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not
impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or
parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative H,
including:
Increase bike lane width. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane
could be increased from 10 feet to 12 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for
3 Crossbike markings are a paint treatment that uses green paint to make a crosswalk-like stripes at
intersections to illustrate where there is potential conflict between people biking and motor vehicle.
September 2, 2025 Page 35
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
conflicts between people biking in opposite directions. This design variation would require further
reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle
travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Install shared use path. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane
could be increased from 10-feet to 12- or 14-feet wide to increase provide sufficient space for a
shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. This design variation would require further
reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle
travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Evaluation. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 9: Alternative H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative H
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 36
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025 Page 37
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Evaluation Summary
The team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options
and the corresponding community connections. Table 10 present the results of this Alternatives Analysis
used to evaluate the degree to which the preliminary conceptual design alternatives align with the design
priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria, using a scale of high (black) indicating strong
alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 10: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria A.
E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
B.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
C.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
Al
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
D.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
E.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
A
l
m
a
St
S
i
g
n
a
l
F.
E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
G.
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
H.
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025 Page 38
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility and
would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternative D and E would provide the lowest
reduction to travel times to crossings.
Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and
pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users.
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with the
exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10 foot wide two-way separated bike lane
compared to the 20 foot wide tunnel and 12 foot wide ramps proposed for other alternatives.
Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the distance to
cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing length but would
require some out of direction travel along the crossing alignment, while Alternative B would have the
longest crossing length but would provide the most direct connections to the existing bike network.
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to crossing
elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a 7% slope.
Alternative H would enhance connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near
Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection across Alma Street
and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable connections to existing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.
Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices, Alternative B
would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance
because of the shorter and more direct tunnels and use of the existing bridge structure. Alternative F and
G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less
active areas.
Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead lighting in
the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the greatest potential impact,
requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside of the proposed tunnel limits.
Construction Cost. Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while
Alternative H would have the lowest estimated construction cost.
Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction
duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are outside proposed construction limits
(subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project. Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have
shorter construction durations and start times but require additional coordination with the City of
Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall durations.
September 2, 2025 Page 39
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D would be anticipated to have the highest
operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H would have the lowest operations and
maintenance costs.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for
landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F would have the least
potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.
Environmental Impacts. Alternative H would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it
would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not
impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or
parkland.
Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the fewest
number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel. Alternatives B and
C are estimated to impact two parcels.
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to increase
vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other alternatives.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
September 2, 2025
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT &
INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City.
To improve bicycle and pedestrian connec
goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and
pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be
constructed.
This memorandum describes the process used to develop and identify the eight crossing design concept
in southern Palo Alto for further development and evaluation as part of this Project.
The alternatives identification and initial screening process consisted of the following three steps:
1. Identify comprehensive list of potential crossing locations and designs
2. Apply initial screening criteria
3. Select eight alternatives for evaluation and feedback
Each step is discussed further in the following sections.
Step 1:Identify Potential Crossing Locations and Designs
The first step in the development of eight alternatives was identifying the full range of crossing
alignments and potential design options. A total of 27 potential design alternatives were identified. These
alternatives consider crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignment) and facility type (e.g., bridge or
tunnel). Designs that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of
the initial screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect their performance.
The list of potential crossing locations and designs that were considered during initial screening are
presented in Table 1.
Step 2:Apply Initial Screening
The purpose of the initial screening is to narrow down the list of potential crossing locations and designs.
The criteria for the initial screening aligns with the Project goals and objectives and community values,
and is intended to systematically and objectively identify reasonable alternatives by screening out
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
unreasonable alternatives. There are three primary reasons why an alternative might be eliminated from
further consideration:
1. The alternative does not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council
approved plans and direction
2. The alternative is determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical, environmental,
and/or economic standpoint
3. The alternative substantially duplicates another alternative and offers little to no advantage and it
has impacts and/or costs that are similar to or greater than that of the similar alternative(s)
Crossing locations and designs that were determined to not satisfy the Project and design priorities are
not carried forward for further refinement and analysis. For example, overpasses (i.e., bridges) were
removed from consideration as these structures require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain
catenary system (i.e., overhead wires) making them costly and not as attractive or comfortable to use as a
pedestrian or cyclist. The results of the initial screening are presented in Table 1 below.
Step 3: Select Alternatives for Evaluation
Table 2 lists the crossing locations and designs identified in the initial screening process (Step 2) above,
describes potential design variations, and identifies the alternatives selected for further evaluation based
on the Project goals, design priorities, and Council approved plans and direction. Eight preliminary
conceptual design alternatives were selected for further development and evaluation as part of the
Alternatives Analysis and are listed below:
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Design concepts presented in the Alternatives Analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion
purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement,
technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design concepts
have been decided.
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Table 1: Potential Crossing Locations and Design Options
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
Colorado Ave Page Mill Rd Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Colorado Ave Page Mill Rd Tunnel No Wider section of Alma Street and sloping exit ramp creates challenges for tunnel
structure and would require deeper and longer ramp and tunnel sections.
El Dorado Ave Park Blvd Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
El Dorado Ave Park Blvd Tunnel Yes
El Dorado Ave Park Blvd (City-Owned
Substation)
Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist. Limited right-of-way available for pathway in/near
City-owned Alma Street substation due to challenges moving/consolidating
electrical equipment and desire to preserve space for utility maintenance, future
growth, and safety.
El Dorado Ave Park Blvd (City-Owned
Substation)
Tunnel No Limited right-of-way available for pathway in/near City-owned Alma Street
substation due to challenges moving/consolidating electrical equipment and desire
to preserve space for utility maintenance, future growth, and safety.
Matadero Creek Park Blvd (City-Owned
Substation)
Tunnel No Insufficient right-of-way along Matadero Creek. Would require tunneling and
impacts to environmentally sensitive area. Limited right-of-way available for
pathway in/near City-owned Alma Street substation due to challenges
moving/consolidating electrical equipment and desire to preserve space for utility
maintenance, future growth, and safety.
El Carmelo Ave Park Blvd/Chestnut Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
El Carmelo Ave Park Blvd/Chestnut Ave Tunnel No Constraints identified near Matadero Creek.
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd/Margarita Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd/Margarita Ave Tunnel Yes
El Verano Ave Park Blvd/Curtner Ave-
Ventura Ave
Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
El Verano Ave Park Blvd/Curtner Ave-
Ventura Ave
Tunnel No Constraints due to narrow roadway width of El Verano and frequent driveway
spacing on Alma Street.
W Meadow Dr No Constructing a bike/ped crossing here would duplicate efforts with the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (Robles Park) Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (Robles Park) Tunnel Yes
W Charleston Rd No Constructing a bike/ped crossing here would duplicate efforts with the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Ely Pl Park Blvd/Edlee Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Ely Pl Whitclem Dr Tunnel Yes
Adobe Creek Park Blvd/Whitclem Dr-
Monroe Dr
Tunnel No Insufficient right-of-way along Adobe Creek. Would require tunneling and impacts
to environmentally sensitive area.
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
Greenmeadow Way Monroe Dr Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Greenmeadow Way Monroe Dr Tunnel No Lack of direct bicycle and pedestrian connections, and limited right-of-way that
would require substantial parcel acquisition.
Hemlock Ct Del Medio Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Hemlock Ct Del Medio Ave Tunnel No Lack of direct bicycle and pedestrian connections, and limited right-of-way that
would require substantial parcel acquisition.
San Antonio Ave Frontage Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad
tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to
use as a pedestrian or cyclist.
San Antonio Ave Tunnel Yes Enhance bike and pedestrian connections to existing tunnel located nearby at San
Antonio Caltrain Station.
San Antonio Road Bridge Yes Consider use of existing overpass structure.
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Table 2: Selected Alternatives for Evaluation
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Description Alternative
Selected for
Evaluation?
(Yes, No)
East Side West Side
El Dorado Park Blvd Tunnel Two ramps along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd
through an existing surface parking lot.
Yes
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Center running straight ramp along Loma Verde connecting to Park Blvd at
Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Loma Verde WB landscaping strip and curb lane connecting to
Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along southeast side of Alma connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave with tight switchbacks.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at
Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Center running straight ramp along Loma Verde connecting to Park Blvd at
Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.
Yes
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Loma Verde WB connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave
with curves and connecting staircase.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave with curves and connecting staircase.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Two ramps along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd at
Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.
Yes
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at
Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.
No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Bridge Triple helix ramp structure at southeast corner of Loma Verde/Alma Street
connecting to triple helix ramp structure at Park Blvd/Margarita Ave.
No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Center running slightly curved ramp along Lindero Dr connecting to Park
Blvd at Robles Park with tight curves.
Yes
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Description Alternative
Selected for
Evaluation?
(Yes, No)
East Side West Side
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Hooked ramp from property on southeast corner of Lindero Dr/Alma St
connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park midblock with tight curves.
No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at
Robles Park midblock with tight curves.
No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street SB landscaping strip from Lindero Dr connecting
to Park Blvd at Robles Park existing trail with tight curves.
No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip from northwest corner of
Lindero St/Alma St connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park existing trail
with tight curves.
Yes
Ely Place Whitclem Drive Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street SB landscaping strip across from Ely Place and
connect through corner property to cul-de-sac at Whitclem Dr
Yes
Ely Place Edlee Ave Tunnel Straight connection between Ely Place and Edlee Avenue No
Ferne Ave Del Medio Ave Tunnel Ramp along Alma St SB landscaping strip across from Ferne Ave and
connect with a tunnel to connect to cul-de-sac on Del Medio Ave in
Mountain View
Yes
San Antonio Rd/Nita
Ave & San Antonio
Ave/Alma St
San Antonio
Rd/California St &
Mayfield Dr/Tunnel
Existing
Bridge &
Tunnel
Center running separated bike lane from Nita Ave to California St with
strengthened pedestrian connection from San Antonio Ave to existing
tunnel at Mayfield Ave at San Antonio Caltrain Station
Yes
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
ATTACHMENT B EVALUATION CRITERIA &ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Alternatives were scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria in Table 1 developed in the
previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement.
Design priorities and evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the degree to which each crossing design
alternative aligns with community values. The Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Memorandum, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), provides
additional background on how the design priorities and evaluation criteria were selected.
Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design Priorities Criteria
Improve Mobility
Enhances bike and pedestrian access between
key destinations.
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Enhance User Experience
Prioritizes spaces that are comfortable for
people of all ages and abilities.
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Personal Security
Maximize East of Construction
Limits costs (time and money) and prioritizes
designs that are feasible to implement.
Utility Impacts
Construction Costs
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Enhance Visual Appeal
Enhances the sense of community with spaces
and structures that are visually appealing.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Minimize Community Impacts
Limits potential impacts on existing
neighborhoods and the natural environment.
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts
The following section describes how each criterion was scored. The results of these evaluations are one of
several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
IMPROVE MOBILITY
Design Priority: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding networks, provide access
to critical destinations, serve the most users, and accommodate current and future transportation needs.
NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESSIBILITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that reduce existing barriers to crossing the train tracks by shortening
the distance to the closest rail crossing for walking and biking.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which they reduce travel time and increase
the area that can be accessed within a 5, 10, or 15 minute walk or bike trip from a rail crossing. For each
alternative, the proposed crossing was added to the transportation network and the accessibility analysis
was re-run to observe how travel times for walking and biking changed compared to existing conditions.1
More details on the accessibility analysis and results under the existing conditions can be found in the
Existing Conditions Report available online on the project webpage. Note that the bike accessibility
analysis varies slightly from the Existing Conditions Report, as the baseline analysis for existing conditions
was updated to allow cyclists to use high-stress intersections. This change was made to reflect the use of
crossing guards at some locations and assumed new crossings would be paired with enhancements at
signalized intersections providing better bike accessibility.
Results for each alternative are shown in Attachment C. Scores were assigned by visually comparing the
alternatives to identify the degree to which each crossing reduces walking and biking travel times to a
crossing. For reference, Figure 1 showed the walking accessibility results for a high and low performing
crossing. Thin lines indicated walk or bike access area under existing conditions, and thick lines indicated
locations where a new crossing reduces travel time to a rail crossing. Table 2 illustrates how the
Neighborhood Accessibility criterion was scored.
1 The analysis assumed one crossing would be built and did not assess how accessibility might change
under a combination of buildout scenarios.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1: Walking Access for Alternative A (Left) and Alternative D (Right)
Table 2: Scoring Neighborhood Accessibility
Change in Neighborhood Accessibility Score
Substantial decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing High (most desirable)
Decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
Limited decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
Isolated reduction in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
No reduction in travel time (high overlap with existing crossing Low (least desirable)
DEMAND
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that are expected to attract more walking and biking trips.
Process: The analysis estimated weekday daily and weekday peak hour (morning commute) walking and
biking trips for each alternative. The future year of 2031 was selected for analysis to be consistent with the
adopted Housing Element and to account for future land use and population growth. Trips were
estimated using a six-step calculation process that factored for planned growth and captured both route
shift (existing walk and bike trips shifting from existing crossings to proposed alternatives) and mode shift
(existing driving trips changing to walk or bike trips) as a result of a more comfortable or shorter route.
Step 1 Create Existing Origin-Destination Trip Matrix
The existing origin-destination (O-D) trip matrix was created using trip data from the travel data company
Replica.2 The trip data represented trips for a typical weekday in Spring 2023. Trips were filtered to include
2 Replica is a transportation data company that models travel patterns based on multiple data sources,
including data collected by vehicles, land use and Census data, and public transportation data sets. More
information about Replica can be found at Appendix C of the Existing Conditions Report at
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/South-Palo-Alto-BikePed-
Connectivity.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
trips that (1) started, ended, or passed through the City of Palo Alto and Stanford (2) had a distance of 5-
miles or shorter, and (3) were completed by walking, biking, driving, rider in personal vehicle, taxi, or ride-
hail. The 5-mile trip limit was used to exclude trips that were unlikely to change from driving due to their
length.
Step 2 Grow Trip Matrix to Represent 2031 Scenario
The existing O-D matrix was then adjusted to account for planned land use and population growth in Palo
Alto as captured in the VTA Model.3 Trip data for all modes combined was extracted for the years of 2015
(existing conditions year for the Housing Element) and 2031, respectively. An annualized growth rate was
calculated for each O-D pair using the following formula and applied to 2023 trips volumes from Step 1.4
Step 3 Identify Walk and Bike Routes
For each O-D pair, a script was used to identify the preferred walking and biking route under existing
conditions and when each alternative was made available. Walking routes were routed based on the
shortest travel path. Biking routes were calculated based on a combination of trip length and the stress
level for using different roads (i.e., if there were two similar length routes, the route would reflect the
more comfortable route). Figure 2 illustrated an example O-D where the availability of Alternative B. Loma
Verde Ave Tunnel for walking resulted in a 0.6 miles shorter walking route compared to the existing
conditions.
For each alternative, the O-D matrix from Step 2 was reduced to include only trip patterns where an
improved route became available for walking or biking and the corresponding change in trip length. The
change in trip length for walking was based on the length of the route. The change in the length of the
biking trip used a weighted trip length that considered the stress of routes (i.e., if a new crossing created a
route that was equal in length but more comfortable, the weighted length would reflect a reduction in
length).
3 The refined version of the VTA model by the City of Palo Alto was used to incorporate land use and
population from the Housing Element.
4 Individual growth rates for each O-D. It was found that a small fraction of O-D pairs were calculated as
having unrealistic rates due to small sample sizes in the model data. These pairs were capped at a 200%
growth in trips.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Step 4 Estimate Rerouted Walking and Biking Trips
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were already being complete by walking or
biking, the trip was assumed to shift to the new alternative. Table 4 and Table 5 provided the final
estimates at the end of the section reported the total shifted walk and bike trips under each alternative for
the year 2031.
Step 5 Estimate Mode Shift from Driving
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were driving trips under existing conditions
(including driver, passenger, or taxi and ride-hail passenger), the trips were evaluated based on their trip
lengths under existing conditions and under each alternative to determine potential for trips to change
mode. The model assumed increasing share of driving trips as distance increased and given the same
distance change, a higher percentage of mode shift would occur for shorter trips (e.g., the share of driving
trips would increase by about 20 percent when distance increased from one to two miles while it would
increase by less than 5 percent when distance increased from four to five miles). To calculate potential
mode shift, an equation was fit to the mode share for driving trips in the replica data, comparing trip
length to percent of trip driving. Figure 3 showed the trip data and fitted curve.
Line Description Distance
Existing Conditions 2.0 miles
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 1.4 miles
Figure 2: Example Walking Route Evaluation
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Figure 3: Percent Mode Share by Distance
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from Replica Fall 2023 Weekday Trips that start, end, or pass through Palo Alto.
For each O-D pair, the possibility to shift from driving to walking and to biking, respectively, was
estimated based on the ratio of walk to bike mode share by distance for existing trips. The evaluation was
done in tandem to avoid double counting the same driving trip as both new walk and bike trips.
Table 3 provides an illustrative example for a single O-D pair. In this example, there were projected to be
50 person-trips between an O-D pair, and the proposed crossing would reduce the trip distance from 1.5
miles to 0.5 miles. Using the mode-choice equation, 70 percent (~35 trips) of the total 50 trips were
driving trips under existing conditions and 40 percent (~20 trips) of the total 50 trips would be driving
trips with the proposed crossing. Therefore, the delta, 30 percent (~15 trips) of the total 50 trips would be
converted to walk or bike trips. At 0.5 miles, it was observed that 75 percent of walking and biking trips
were walking and 25 percent were biking. Therefore, after rounding to the nearest whole number, the 15
shifted trips were estimated to result in 11 walking trips (75% x 15 trips) and 4 biking trips (25% x 15 trips).
Table 3 Example Mode Shift Calculation
Metrics Values
Trip Demand between O-D Pair 50 trips
Existing Distance (Miles)1.5
% Existing Trips Driving (Trip Counts)70% (35)
Alternative Distance (Miles)0.5
% Alternative Trips Driving (Trip Counts)40% (20)
% of Trips Shifted to Walk and Bike Trips (Trip Counts)-30% (-15)
% of Driving Trips Shifted to Walk Trip (Trip Counts)75% (11)
% of Driving Trips Shifted to Bike Trip (Trip Counts)25% (4)
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. numbers are representative of process for single O-D pair for all day travel.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Trip Distance (miles)
Drive Mode Share
Fitted Equation
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Step 6 Final Matrix and Score Assignment
Total estimated demand of each alternative was calculated as the sum of estimated route shift and
estimated mode shift, for walk and bike trips, respectively. The final estimates for each alternative are
provided in Table 4 and Table 5. Note that the estimates for San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
(Alternative H) did not include trips for walking, as the alternative would not create a new crossing;
however, the estimate for the alternative did include bike trips that were shifted by the addition of a new
lower-stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
Table 4: Estimated Weekday Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031
Weekday Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 560 1,620 240 180 800 1,800 2,600
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel 90 450 10 20 100 470 570
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal 90 450 10 20 100 470 570
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 50 560 - 70 50 630 680
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 390 1,700 70 350 460 2,050 2,510
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 2,100 NA 540 NA 2,640 2,640
1. Estimate does not include trips for walking, as alternative does not create a new crossing. Estimate includes bike
trips that are improved by adding a new lower stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
Table 5: Estimated Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031
Weekday AM Peak Hour Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 10 70 150 220
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 20 70 160 230
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 60 140 10 20 70 160 230
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 10 40 - - 10 40 50
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 50 110 - 30 50 140 190
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 150 NA 40 NA 190 190
1. Estimate does not include trips for walking, as alternative does not create a new crossing. Estimate includes bike
trips that are improved by adding a new lower stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
A High score was assigned to crossings with the highest daily estimated use. A Low score was assigned to
crossing with the lowest daily estimated use. Other crossings were scored relative to the highest and
lowest demand proportionally based on estimated use. Table 6 illustrates how the Demand criterion was
scored.
Table 6: Scoring Demand
Estimated Daily Walk/Bike Demand Score
2,600 or more daily trips High (most desirable)
2,000 to 2,599 daily trips
1,500 to 1,999 daily trips
1,000 to 1,499 daily trips
1,000 or less daily trips Low (least desirable)
As shown in the demand estimates presented in Table 4 and Table 5., Alternative A, B, C, G, and H have
higher estimated demand, and are projected to have more than 2,400 weekday daily trips and more than
190 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 1,800 daily pedestrian and bicycle
trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed at the California Avenue underpass in April
2025.5 Alternatives D, E, and F would generate lower demand of fewer than 800 weekday daily trips and
around 50 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 600 daily trips and 170 peak
hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Meadow Drive, and around 400 daily trips and 100 peak
hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road.
FACILITY WIDTH AND CAPACITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that maintain a wider cross-section that allows for more comfortable
and efficient travel for people walking and biking across the crossing.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated based on the minimum cross-section of the ramps shown in the
concept designs. Tunnels would be 20 feet wide per standards documented in Caltrain Design Criteria
3.1.2 Pedestrian Underpass. In addition, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities published by
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2012 recommended
wider pathways (11 to 14 feet) for shared use paths expected to serve a high percentage of pedestrians
(30 percent or more of the total volume) or high user volumes (more than 300 peak hour users). The
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide identifies a
preferred width of 11 feet and minimum width of 8 feet for shared use paths with low volumes (50 peak
hour cyclists) and a preferred width of 15 feet and minimum width of 11 feet for shared use paths with
5 Observed counts at existing crossings were collected over a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm on
Thursday, April 24, 2025. The daily demand would be slightly higher than the 12-hour counts. Pedestrian
counts at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were collected for the same time period on Thursday, May
16, 2024.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
medium volumes (up to 400 peak hour cyclists). For reference, the Embarcadero Bike Path varies from
eight feet to 12 feet wide and the US 101 Bike/Ped Overpass is 12 feet wide.
As shown in Table 4 and Table 5,, no alternatives were projected to serve more than 300 peak hour
walk/bike trips in 2031. Regarding pedestrian percentage, three alternatives (Alternative A, B, and C) met
the 30 percent threshold. All three alternatives had a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet and met the
AASHTO and NACTO recommendation.
A High score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet or more. This ramp
cross-section width would allow bidirectional travel by people walking and biking with minimal potential
for conflict between users. A Low score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of
9.9 feet or less. At less than 10 feet wide there would be potential for conflict between users and would
likely need to require people biking to walk through the crossing. Table 7 illustrates how the Facility Width
and Capacity criterion was scored.
Table 7: Scoring Facility Width and Capacity
Facility Width and Capacity Score
12 or more High (most desirable)
11 1
Less than Low (least desirable)
ENHANCE USER EXPERIENCE
Design Priority: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most vulnerable populations6, and
create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access and utilize.
CROSSING LENGTH
Criterial Goal: Crossing length considered both the length of the new crossing itself and the degree of
which it would allow direct routes (i.e., a short route that would require a lot of out-of-direction travel was
not considered a short crossing). The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that provide more
direct connections between the transportation network on either side of rail and to discourage designs
that included hairpin turns or other features that would increase the amount of out of direction travel a
person may be required to complete.
Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the concept designs. A High score was
assigned to alternatives that provide a direct crossing, similar to the California Avenue Underpass which
6 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health,
social, or economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic,
political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with
disabilities, low-income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
draws a straight line between California Avenue on either side of the train tracks. A Low score was
assigned to alternatives that generate substantial out-of-direction travel, similar to the crossing by the
underpass at the San Antonio Caltrain Station where ramps for the crossing run parallel to the train tracks.
The evaluation was conducted based on the alignment of ramps and length of the crossing and did not
consider the potential for more direct paths using stairs, as stairs are not accessible for all users, including
people biking and people in wheelchairs or using other wheeled mobility devices. Table 8 illustrates how
the Crossing Length criterion was scored.
Table 8: Scoring Crossing Length
Crossing Length and Path of Travel Score
Direct route that connects to crossing locations High (most desirable)
Direct route with limited potential out of direction travel for specific routes
Limited out-of-direction travel for most routes
Substantial out-of-direction travel for some routes
Includes substantial out-of-direction travel for most routes Low (least desirable)
CROSSING ELEVATION AND RAMP GRADE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that provide lower ramp grades that increase user comfort,
encouraging all ages and abilities.
Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that provide ramping at 4.9% or lower. A Low score
was assigned to alternatives with ramp grades in excess of 8.33%. Alternatives A through G propose
ramps at 7% grade and score Medium under this criteria. For reference, ramps at the Homer Avenue
Tunnel are around 5 percent, ramps at the Palo Alto Caltrain Station are between 7 and 8 percent, and
ramps at the California Avenue Tunnel are around 9 percent. Table 9 illustrates how the Crossing Elevation
and Ramp Grade criterion was scored.
Table 9: Scoring Elevation and Ramp Grade
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade Character Score
All ramping is 4.9% or lower High (most desirable)
Ramping is between 5 and 6.9% grade
Ramping is primarily at 7%
Ramping is between 7 and 8.33%
Grade exceeds 8.33% Low (least desirable)
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST COMFORT
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with design characteristics that create a more comfortable walking
and biking experience by (1) reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the
alternative and (2) creating seamless connections to the larger transportation network.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for potential to reduce or eliminate conflicts and
provide low-stress connections to the existing network. The factors evaluated were:
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Grade separated intersections. Alternatives that tunnel underneath Alma Street were assigned a
higher score, because they would provide a more seamless and lower-stress connection across by
removing potential conflicts at the intersection with Alma Street.
Ninety (90)-degree turns. Alternatives that would require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were
assigned a lower score as turns increase potential for conflicts between people traveling in
opposite directions. Turns may also reduce visibility and line of sight, making it difficult to see
people ahead and difficult to judge distances and react.
Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations near existing low-
stress bicycle routes and pedestrian crossings.
A High score was assigned to alternatives identified as having the least potential for conflict and greatest
comfort for people walking and biking, and for alternatives that could be accessed via more direct and
low-stress routes. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with the greatest potential for conflict and/or
features likely to make use and access more uncomfortable. Table 10 illustrates how the Pedestrian and
Bicyclist criterion was scored.
Table 10: Scoring Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort Score
More comfortable High (most desirable)
Less comfortable Low (least desirable)
PERSONAL SECURITY
Criteria Goal: All alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices and meet
the basic standards for personal security. However, some alternatives provided relatively more visibility
and connectivity. The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that would increase pedestrian
and bicyclist security by providing good visibility and access points at high-traffic locations.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for visibility at crossing and connectivity of access
points based on the conceptual design layouts.7 The factors evaluated were:
Ninety (90)-degree turns at tunnels. Unobstructed and well-lit tunnel entrances and exits allow
users to see ahead and offer natural surveillance, which allows nearby observers to monitor
Alternatives that would
require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were assigned a lower score as turns may limit visibility
and natural surveillance, therefore, lowering personal security.
7 Further treatments, such as security cameras, lighting, skylights, emergency phones, can be used to
increase visibility and sightlines. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating factors.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations in areas where
people naturally pass by, which provide more opportunities for natural surveillance. For example,
Alternative A would lead to a parking lot and the crossing itself would also have higher demand
(2,600 total pedestrian and bike trips), as shown in Table 4. Ramp access locations at isolated or
less-traveled paths would have less activity to support natural surveillance. For example, the
tunnel entrance of Alternative F would be between two residential parcels and therefore
pedestrians on Park Boulevard and Whitclem Drive may not be able to directly see activities in the
tunnel. In addition, Alternative F would also have the second to lowest demand among all
alternatives (680 total pedestrian and bike trips), which may limit natural surveillance.
A High score was assigned to unobstructed and well-connected alternatives with more opportunities for
natural surveillance. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with sightline obstructions and less
opportunities for natural surveillance. Table 11 illustrates how the Personal Security criterion was scored.
Table 11: Scoring Personal Security
Personal Security Character Score
Higher visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance High (most desirable)
Lower visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance Low (least desirable)
MAXIMIZE EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
Design Priority: Minimize potential for disruption during construction and complexity of design, while
ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs would be feasible to implement given reasonably
expected project funding.
UTILITY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize potential conflicts with existing utilities to reduce
construction risk, cost, and schedule delays. Alternatives that avoid major utility corridors or require
minimal relocation were preferred, as utility conflicts could introduce significant complexity and require
extensive coordination with utility owners.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated based on site observations and general utility
information available at each location. A High score was assigned to alternatives that largely avoid known
utility corridors and are expected to require minimal utility relocations. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives that intersect with major utility lines (transmission) or are located in dense utility zones where
significant relocations would likely be required. Intermediate scores were assigned to alternatives with
minor or localized conflicts.
For this analysis, conventional utilities such as gas, water, sewer, telephone, fiber optic, electrical
distribution/transmission were the focus based on site investigations and limited available information at
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
this stage. Items such as street lighting were not considered, as they fall outside the conventional utility
definition and represent comparatively minor relocations relative to moving more significant
distribution/transmission lines. Table 12 illustrates how the Utility Impacts criterion was scored.
Table 12: Scoring Utility Impacts
Utility Impacts Score
Lower potential for utility impacts High (most desirable)
Higher potential for utility impacts Low (least desirable)
CONSTRUCTION COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would be cost-effective to construct. Alternatives that minimized
the need for complex structural features, extensive utility relocation, or right-of-way acquisition would be
preferred, provided that they would still meet Project objectives and accessibility requirements.
Process: At this early feasibility stage, detailed construction cost estimates are not yet reliable because
the concepts are schematic and subject to change as the design advances. These concepts have been
developed specifically to help narrow down a preferred alternative location within the broader
evaluation not to define exact scope or quantities. Providing dollar figures or even ranges at this stage
could create a false sense of precision and misrepresent the true variability of costs. Instead, the
evaluation uses a qualitative, side-by-side comparison based on the key cost drivers for each alternative.
This approach ensures that differences in the relative costs are captured in a consistent and defensible
way without overstating accuracy at this stage of the planning process.
The evaluation considered factors such as the overall footprint for each alternative, anticipated site
impacts, and general staging and traffic handling needs during construction. Parcel acquisition
In general, tunnels
passing underneath only the railroad tracks are shorter estimated at 85 to 110 feet in length depending
on the crossing location and ramp configurations. Structure costs for these shorter tunnels are expected
to be similar regardless of the alternative, with construction likely achieved by jacking the tunnel box
beneath the tracks to minimize disruption to train operations.
Longer tunnels passing underneath both Alma Street and the railroad tracks are estimated at 160 to 220
feet in length. Because of the increased length, structure costs will be higher. In addition, potential staged
construction in Alma Street and adjacent local streets would add to the overall construction cost.
Alternatives that require use of Caltrain right-of-way will also carry added cost implications. Any such use
will require additional coordination with Caltrain, including obtaining variances that must be approved by
the Caltrain Board. These requirements introduce additional permitting steps, review cycles, and potential
design modifications, which can increase both the complexity and cost of the alternative.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Several of the evaluated alternatives are also located within areas proposed for construction as part of the
Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road8. In June 2024, Council advanced the
Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative for Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road
Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to change) for rail grade
separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road and would require close coordination to address
potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost and schedule risks, depending on how the two projects interface.
For both shorter and longer tunnel options and those overlapping with rail grade separation at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road the overall cost will also be influenced by factors such as the number and
geometry of ramps, presence of existing underground utilities, subsurface soil conditions, and the
These cost considerations are preliminary planning-level assumptions intended for relative comparison
only and will be refined as design advances and more detailed engineering, utility coordination, and
staging plans are developed.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have lower estimated construction
costs. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have higher estimated
construction costs. Table 13 illustrates how the Construction Costs criterion was scored.
Table 13: Scoring Construction Costs
Construction Costs Score
Lower estimated construction costs High (most desirable)
Higher estimated construction costs Low (least desirable)
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Criteria Goal: Minimize overall construction duration to reduce disruptions to the surrounding
community, minimize adverse effects on nearby transportation corridors/systems, and reduce project
delivery risks. Alternatives that allowed for more streamlined construction coordination, staging, and
fewer complex construction elements were preferred.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively based on the relative complexity of construction
activities, including construction coordination, structural components, staging requirements, and potential
constraints related to site access or active transportation detours. A High score was assigned to
alternatives expected to have shorter construction durations and sooner construction start dates. This
would include alternatives with shorter tunnel lengths, fewer ramps and stairs, fewer utility conflicts, fewer
8 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
right-of-way conflicts, and more streamlined construction coordination with other projects and/or
agencies. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with prolonged construction activities and construction
start dates. This would include alternatives with longer tunnels (grade separating Alma Street and the
Caltrain corridor), known overhead/underground utility impacts, right-of-way impacts, and known factors
that could influence construction start date. Mid-range scores were assigned to alternatives with
moderate construction durations and start times.
Most alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, would require similar construction activities given
they involve grade separating the Caltrain corridor. The approximate construction duration to complete
these activities is assumed to be about 18 months. For alternatives that also grade separate Alma Street,
construction becomes far more involved due to the need to navigate more utilities within Alma Street and
maintain traffic along the corridor during construction. These alternatives scoring lower under this
criterion would likely require approximately 24 months to complete.
Alternatives G and H extend into City of Mountain View right-of-way, requiring additional coordination
that may introduce further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations, potentially
extending the overall duration.
As discussed earlier, Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to
change) for rail grade separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for the Hybrid Alternative
(including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston
and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging
areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could extend construction duration and start time,
depending on how the two projects interface. If the Hybrid Alternative is advanced, any bike/pedestrian
undercrossing construction at these locations would need to wait until Meadow/Charleston construction
is completed, given the overlap in work areas. This dependency could delay the start of construction and
extend overall delivery time for these alternatives. These durations are preliminary planning-level
assumptions intended for relative comparison only and will be refined as design advances and more
detailed staging, permitting, and phasing plans are developed.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have shorter anticipated construction
durations and earlier start dates. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have
longer anticipated construction duration and later start date. Table 14 illustrates how the Construction
Costs criterion was scored.
Table 14: Scoring Construction Duration
Construction Duration Score
Shorter anticipated construction duration and start date High (most desirable)
Longer anticipated construction duration and start date Low (least desirable)
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize long-term operations and maintenance needs
for the City. Designs with a smaller physical footprint and fewer infrastructure elements requiring ongoing
upkeep such as the tunnel, ramp structures, at-grade pathways, traffic signals/pedestrian hybrid
beacons were preferred, as they would naturally reduce long-term maintenance responsibilities and
associated costs.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively by reviewing key design features likely to influence
operations and maintenance responsibilities. A High score was assigned to alternatives with low
anticipated maintenance demands, such as common roadway at-grade features. A Low score was
assigned to alternatives with high anticipated operations and maintenance demands, such as structures,
pump stations, and traffic signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons. Table 15 illustrates how the Operations
and Maintenance Cost criterion was scored.
Table 15: Scoring Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operations and Maintenance Costs Score
Relatively lower anticipated operations and maintenance costs High (most desirable)
Low to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
Moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
High to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
Relatively higher anticipated operations and maintenance costs Low (least desirable)
ENHANCE VISUAL APPEAL
Design Priority: Ensure that newly constructed facilities would enhance the sense of community by
incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures.
PUBLIC SPACE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with greater potential to improve existing public space or provide
new public space and green infrastructure.
Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that created the most opportunities for landscaping,
benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas and enhanced connections to existing public space. A Low
score was assigned to alternatives with constrained site plan that would limit opportunities to create new
public spaces and implement green infrastructure. Table 16 illustrates how the Public Space and Green
Infrastructure criterion was scored.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Table 16: Scoring Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Public Space and Green Infrastructure Impact Score
Directly connects to park or other public space High (most desirable)
Improves visual appeal of local context
Neutral effects on local context
Potential limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure
Limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure Low (least desirable)
MINIMIZE COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Design Priority: Limit potential adverse effects on existing neighborhoods, including the amount of space
needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are minimally affected) and adverse effects on the
environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would avoid or reduce environmental impacts to the built and
natural environment.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which an alternative would avoid or reduce
adverse effects to both the built and natural environments, as well as what level of environmental
compliance may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and potentially
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if federal funding is used for the Project. With the exception
of Alternative H, which would not build a new tunnel, each alternative would result in a similar level of
impacts under CEQA and NEPA for a variety of environmental topics based on the environmental setting
and characteristics of each alternative. Such environmental topics included but were not limited to
geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and
hazardous materials. Regarding biological resources, none of the alternatives would impact creeks, and
any tree removal would be replaced pursuant to City policy). As such, these topics would not help to
differentiate the alternatives and were not evaluated.
Pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, and based on the environmental setting and characteristics of each
alternative, The primary environmental impact considered for the evaluation of each alternative includes
short-term construction impacts to residential uses (i.e., air quality, noise, vibration, and traffic which is
discussed under Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts).
A High score was assigned to alternatives that did not require tunneling adjacent to residences and thus
would require less environmental review pursuant to CEQA, likely in the form of a Categorical Exemption.
A Low score was assigned to alternatives requiring tunneling adjacent to residences, which would not
likely qualify for a CEQA Categorical Exemption and instead may require an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Table 17 illustrates how the Environmental Impacts criterion was scored.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Table 17: Scoring Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impact Score
Lower level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance High (most desirable)
Higher level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance Low (least desirable)
PARCEL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Minimize adverse effects on private property or publicly owned parcels not currently
dedicated to transportation use. Alternatives that would fit within existing public right-of-way or affect
only publicly owned land designated for transportation purposes were preferred, as they would help
avoid displacing existing uses, reduce property acquisition costs, and minimize community disruption.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively using the conceptual design layouts and assessing
whether alternatives directly affect private property and buildings within parcels. A High score was
assigned to alternatives that did not require full or partial parcel acquisition. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives requiring full or partial acquisition of two or more parcels. Table 18 illustrates how the Parcel
Impacts criterion was scored.
Table 18: Scoring Parcel Impacts
Parcel Impact Score
No parcel impact High (most desirable)
Partial parcel impact (no impact on existing buildings)
Full parcel impact on 1 parcel
Full parcel impacts on 2 parcels
Full parcel impact on more than 2 parcels Low (least desirable)
The concept design alternatives are very high-level and schematic, developed solely to help narrow down
preferred rail crossing locations and basic conceptual designs. They are intended for decision-making
purposes only and represent conceptual, planning-level designs that will be refined and are subject to
change during subsequent design phases. Throughout the evaluation, an emphasis was placed on
avoiding and minimizing potential adverse effects to private property wherever feasible. Any potential
parcel impacts identified are preliminary and will be subject to further study and refinement.
Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can
be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to
consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will
contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount
determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an
appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit
the City to the acquisition of any property that might be affected by the bicycle and pedestrian grade
separation alternatives.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND DRIVEWAY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with less potential to increase vehicle delay, modify existing driveway
access, and reduce the amount of on- and off-street parking.
Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the conceptual design layouts.
Potential for vehicle delay considered how alternatives would impact motor vehicle travel on Alma Street.
Under existing conditions, there is no intersection delay for vehicles traveling on Alma Street at the
proposed crossing locations (one-way stop controlled crossing for Alternatives A through G), except
Alternative H which has an existing signal. Specifically, the scoring made the following considerations
(ranked from highest to lowest weight):
Traffic control delays were given higher weight in consideration as new intersection controls would
introduce delays to all drivers traveling on Alma Street, while changes in driveway access and
reductions in on- and off-street parking would affect fewer people. 9
o Alternatives B, D, and H would not install new signals or PHBs and, therefore, would not
introduce traffic control delay.
o Alternative F proposed installing a pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) which would
introduce some vehicle delays, as drivers would need to stop when a pedestrian or
bicyclist activated the crossing signal.
o All other conceptual design alternatives proposed installing new signals and would
introduce higher delays as drivers traveling along Alma Street would need to stop for red
lights.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would not change existing driveway access or reduce
parking and had less potential to result in increases in vehicle delay. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives that would affect existing driveway access and parking and could result in increased vehicle
delays.
Table 19: Scoring Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts Score
No changes to existing traffic control, driveway access, or parking High (most desirable)
Some reconfigurations of driveways and/or loss of parking
Most potential to increase traffic delay, change driveway access and/or reduce
parking
Low (least desirable)
9 Signal treatments, such as signal timing optimization, pre-detection, and adaptive phases, can be used
to reduce vehicle delays at signalized intersections. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating
factors.
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
Reading Maps Maps identify locations where a
crossing improves access by
reducing travel distance.
Thicker and brighter lines show
where access is improved by
reducing travel distance.
Thinner and darker lines show
access from existing crossings.
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
No New Pedestrian Crossing Created
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
November 19, 2025
Page 1
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
SYNTHESIS OF STANDING MEETINGS
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Meeting
(September 10, 2025)
Requested clarification on the relationship between the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project and noted that the analysis
assumes Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would be grade separated for all travel
modes (vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians) in the future.
Expressed opposition to design alternatives that require adding a new signalized
intersection on Alma Street due to increases in motor vehicle travel delay and safety of
bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Alma Street. However, it was noted that additional
traffic signals and reduced lane widths on Alma Street may reduce vehicle speeds.
Clarified that weekday bicycle and pedestrian trip demand for Alternatives B and C would
likely be different due to added travel times waiting at a traffic signal at Alma Street.
Expressed concern with design alternatives that require private homes and recommended
the Alternatives Analysis made the number of homes impacted by each alternative clearer.
Supported crossing locations with the highest bicycle and pedestrian demand projections.
Generally, unsupportive of additional bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings between
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road (Alternatives D and E) due to Rail Grade Separation
Project, low demand projections (Alternatives D, E, and F), and in-direct roadways that
would connect to/from the future tunnel.
Most supported Alternative B, followed by Alternatives A, C, G, and H.
City/School Transportation Safety Committee (10/23/2025)
Requested clarification on the meaning of “right-of-way impacts”, number of bicycle and
pedestrian crossings that would be built because of this effort, and relationship to the Rail
Grade Separation Project.
Provided general feedback on the tunnel designs that would apply to all alternatives.
o Suggested ramp grades are less than the ramps at California Avenue and are
designed to accommodate larger bikes and discourage bike speeding.
o Emphasized that tunnel lighting is very important at night as well as during the day
as visibility can be limited when quickly transitioning from dark to light on a
bright/sunny day.
November 19, 2025
Page 2
o Noted that tunnel width is very important to accommodate two-way travel and
suggested that future tunnels are wider than those at California Avenue.
o Expressed concern with situations where students would cross traffic to access
tunnels due to potential safety risks.
o Encouraged City to consider way to avoid at-grade crossings of Alma Street and
clarified that Alma Street at the Homer tunnel (which includes an at-grade crossing
of Alma Street via a signalized intersection) has a speed limit of 25 mph and is in a
more urban/downtown setting where vehicles travel at slower speeds.
Recommended placement of existing/future crossings be evenly spaced out and aligned
with school routes to increase accessibility for users.
Suggested City also considers enhancements at the existing California Avenue crossing.
Generally supportive of Alternative B due to location and grade-separated crossing of Alma
Street. However, noted there would be significant trade-offs as this design would require 2-
4 private lots.
Generally supportive of Alternative A due to limited property impacts (would not impact
existing buildings) and encouraged City to consider refinements that would extend the
tunnel to El Dorado and provide a grade-separated crossing of Alma Street.
Interested in exploring Alternatives G and H to support east-west bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity due to future, high-density housing along San Antonio Road. However, noted
that Alternative H does not provide family-friendly rail crossings for students.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (11/4/2025)
Requested clarification on the relationship and potential construction sequencing of the
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project, as
well as number of crossings currently being considered in relation to their geographic
distribution.
Expressed opposition to design alternatives that require adding a new signalized
intersection on Alma Street due to increases in pedestrian and bicycle travel times waiting
to cross Alma Street.
Supportive of Alternative B due to location and grade-separated crossing of Alma Street,
however, noted significant trade-offs due to private property acquisitions on Park Boulevard
and circulation disruptions to adjacent properties on Loma Verde Avenue.
Supportive of Alternative A due to limited property impacts and suggested modifying design
to extend tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue.
Supportive of Alternative G due to location and proximity to San Antonio Caltrain Station,
connection with Del Medio and San Antonio Shopping Center in Mountain View.
Generally supportive of Alternative H due to enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access to the
San Antonio Caltrain Station but noted center-running bikeway on San Antonio Road would
be intimidating for many people (especially at signalized intersections on either end).
Suggested refinements to Alternative H included improvements at San Antonio
Road/Mackay Drive intersection for better bicycle and pedestrian access to Nita Avenue,
November 19, 2025
Page 3
and use of the tunnel underneath San Antonio Road near Briarwood Way and a multi-use
path connecting to Mayfield Avenue.
Generally unsupportive of Alternatives D, E, and F due to low demand projections.
Provided feedback that would apply to several alternatives:
o Recommended reduced tunnel heights and depths to reduce ramp lengths and
property impacts.
o Suggested additional exploration of ramps/tunnels that use the landscaped planted
area on the eastside of Alma Street rather than tunneling down the middle of the
street due to adjacent property impacts and circulation disruptions. Noted
Alternative D as favorable design due to grade-separated crossing under Alma
Street and use of landscaped strip on Alma Street.
o Reinforced that this will be a major infrastructure project and will be used for a long
time, so it should be forward-thinking.
o Encouraged enhanced pathway designs to more bicycle-oriented that can
accommodate two-way travel.
Rail Committee (11/18/2025)
Requested clarification on the relationship and interplay between the South Palo Alto
Bike/Ped Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project and the sequencing of
construction of these projects.
Requested clarification on the meaning of “parcel impacts”, including what is the worst
and best case for these alternatives.
Commented that there may be Caltrain right-of-way impacts for alternatives proposing a
ramp between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks.
Provided feedback that Alternatives G and H primarily serve Mountain View and would
require close collaboration and partnership with Mountain View.
Suggested eliminating D, E, and F from further consideration due to trade-offs.
Requested confirmation that it would be possible to mix and match design elements of the
alternatives, for example modifying Alternative A to include a tunnel under Alma Street and
the Caltrain tracks.
Commented that as concepts are advanced, trade-offs with slopes and ramp lengths as
well as whether to cross Alma Street at-grade (via new signalized intersection) or below-
grade (via tunnel) should be explored.
Noted that the committee looked forward to feedback from Stanford University, Stanford
Research Park, and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Discussed challenges with the exploration of steeper ramps with tighter switchbacks to
reduce impacts to parcels and improbability of finding two willing property sellers at
Alternatives B and C.
Supportive of Alternative A due to location near Matadero Creek, connections to El Dorado
Avenue (as a lower volume street and future bicycle boulevard), Bryant Street, El Carmelo
Elementary School, Hoover Park, NVCAP and Stanford Research Park, limited property
impacts, higher bicycle and pedestrian use and opportunities for mode shift.
November 19, 2025
Page 4
Unanimously passed a motion to recommend to Council Alternative A as the preferred
alternative and remove all other alternatives from further consideration, and advance
Alternative A as Alternative A1 and create a new Alternative A2 at El Dorado Avenue that
would include a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks.
City Council December 1, 2025 Meeting www.PaloAlto.gov
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
INITIAL REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES AND ELIMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Charlie Coles,
Senior Transportation Planner
RECOMMENDATION
2
Rail Committee and Staff recommend the City Council review eight potential
Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis
Option 1: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. Staff will return to Council in
early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred alternatives.
Option 2: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives and select one or more
alternatives to eliminate from further consideration. Rail Committee and Staff
recommend Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and advance two
variants:
•Alternative A1 with a signalized crossings across Alma St at El Dorado Ave.
•Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma St and Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Ave.
Project Study Area
3
Project Background
4
1
Project Timeline
WE ARE HERE
Review Existing
Conditions
Early 2025
Evaluate
Alternatives
Summer 2025
Prepare Public
Draft Report
Summer 2026
Apply for Grant
Funding
Spring 2027
Establish Design
Priorities
Spring 2025
Feedback on
Alternatives
Fall 2025 – Early 2026
Review Draft
Public Report
Fall 2026
Council Adopt
Final Report
Spring 2027
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
5
1
Transportation Projects Are Complex
6
•Early stages of high-profile project
•Multiple stakeholders and agencies
•Complex engineering challenges
•Right-of-way implications
•Considerable flexibility in designs (including locations)
•A lot more community engagement and technical design
work to come
Conceptual Design Alternative Locations
7
A
A.El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B.Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C.Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
D.Lindero Dr Tunnel
E.Lindero Dr Tunnel with
Alma St Signal
F.Ely Pl Tunnel
G.Ferne Ave Tunnel
H.San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements
B/C
H
G
F
D/E
1
Preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives
8
Design concepts shown are preliminary and
intended for discussion purposes only. All
concepts are flexible and subject to
refinement. Additional community
engagement and technical design work will
be needed once locations and basic design
concepts have been decided.
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel w Alma Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel w
Alma Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements
1
Conceptual Alternatives
9
•High (black) score
indicates stronger
alignment with
community values
•Results are one of
several considerations in
the process of selecting
alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
A.
E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
B.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
C.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
wi
t
h
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
D.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
E.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
Al
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
F.
E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
G.
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
H.
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Phase 2 Community Engagement (Fall 2025 – Early 2026)
Tools and Activities
•200+ Fact sheets
•1,200+ Mailers
•~40 Community workshop
participants
•~500 Online survey
responses
•2 Pop-up events
•10 Presentations at PABAC,
CSTSC, PTC, RC, CC
10
Community Workshop, Mitchell Park Community Center, Sept. 9, 2025
Next Steps (Tentative Dates)
Review and shortlist of up to two alternatives*
•Jan. 6, 2026: PABAC
•Jan. 14, 2026: Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC)
•Jan. 20, 2026: Rail Committee
•Mar. 2, 2026: City Council
*If more than two alternatives are advanced at this
stage
Project webpage
www.PaloAlto.gov/
BikePedCrossings
11
1
Phase 2 Stakeholder Input Summary (Received To-Date)
12
•Support for Alternatives A, B, and H (and Alternative G) to minimize property
impacts, provide direct routes, grade-separate Alma St, connect to existing bike
network, and maximize bike/ped use.
•Alternative A: Favored for limited property impacts. Encouraged extending tunnel for
full grade-separated Alma St crossing (El Dorado)
•Alternative B: Favored for a grade-separated Alma St crossing. Tradeoffs: property
(Park Blvd) and circulation impacts (Loma Verde Ave)
•Alternative G: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing near San Antonio
Rd. Tradeoffs: Requires Mountain View concurrence.
•Alternative H: Interest tied to station access and future housing along San Antonio Rd.
Tradeoffs: Requires MV concurrence, concerns about grade and comfort of
center-running bikeways. Encouraged other improvements (e.g., Mackay–Nita,
Briarwood tunnel, path to Mayfield).
1
Phase 2 Stakeholder Input Summary (Received To-Date)
13
•Alternatives D/E/F: Unsupported due to lower projected demands
(proximity to existing crossings), lack of direct connections, and technical
construction challenges.
•Suggested refinements to all undercrossing alternatives:
•Minimize tunnel internal height and structural clearance to increase
visibility, shorten ramps, minimize property impacts.
•Locate ramps within landscaped strip on east side of Alma St.
•Prioritize user comfort and safety for pathways (e.g., gentler ramp
grade, wider two-way facilities, direct alignments, strong lighting).
•Explore grade-separated and at-grade crossings across Alma St.
RECOMMENDATION
14
Rail Committee and Staff recommend the City Council review eight potential
Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis
Option 1: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. Staff will return to Council in
early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred alternatives.
Option 2: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives and select one or more
alternatives to eliminate from further consideration. Rail Committee and Staff
recommend Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and advance two
variants:
•Alternative A1 with a signalized crossings across Alma St at El Dorado Ave.
•Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma St and Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Ave.
Additional Resources
www.paloalto.gov
1
Alternative A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel (Draft)
16
1
Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel (Draft)
17
1
Alternative C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal (Draft)
18
1
Alternative D. Lindero Dr Tunnel (Draft)
19
1
Alternative E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal (Draft)
20
1
Alternative F. Ely Pl Tunnel (Draft)
21
1
Alternative G. Ferne Ave Tunnel (Draft)
22
1
Alternative H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements (Draft)
23
Phase 1 Community Engagement (Spring 2025)
Tools and Activities
•200+ Fact Sheets
•1,500+ Mailers
•8 Small Group Discussions
•~50 Community Workshop
Participants
•700+ Online Survey Responses
•3 Pop-Up Events
•6 Presentations at Standing
Meetings Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park
Community Center on April 2, 2025
24
What We Heard (Phase 1)
25
Online Survey
•Strong support for implementing
new bike and pedestrian rail
crossings in south Palo Alto
•Nearly half of respondents agreed
that Improve Mobility should be the
top design priority for new crossings,
followed by Enhance the User
Experience.
•Between Meadow Dr and
Charleston Rd, Near San Antonio
Rd, Near Colorado Ave and Page
Mill Rd, and Around Matadero
Creek were the top priority locations
for a new bike/ped crossing
Workshop
•Accessing entertainment,
recreation, shopping, and dining
were primary reasons for crossing
the tracks.
•Improve Mobility as the top design
priority for a new crossing followed
by Enhance the User Experience and
Maximizing Ease of Construction.
•Near Matadero Creek (El Dorado
Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue), was
the most popular new rail crossing
location followed by Between
Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road.
What We Heard (Phase 1)
26
Standing Meetings
Prioritization of Specific Rail Crossing Locations
•Support for crossings at Matadero Creek/Loma Verde Ave and
San Antonio Rd due to potential to serve new development
and existing gap closure.
•Crossing locations should relieve existing crossings and
planned construction for rail grade separation.
Focus on Future Demand and Network Connectivity
•Plan for future population growth, new housing, and job
access.
•Need connections to new housing developments, schools,
parks, and employment centers.
•Need better connections via e-bike routes and to areas like
Barron Park and Arastradero Rd.
Design and Accessibility Considerations
•Requested clarity on crossing types.
•Focus on universal accessibility, safety (including mental
health) and user experience.
•Concerns with flood risk, parkland disruption, constructability,
traffic impacts, parking, and property acquisitions.
Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics
•Transparency in how criteria will be applied.
•Suggested metrics: trip time savings, user experience,
distance to existing crossings, visibility, connectivity
improvements, future demand projections, and school
enrollment areas.
Transparency and Community Engagement
•Concerns about data accuracy.
•Clearer explanation of decision-making process, and
integration with broader City policies like Vision Zero.
•Desire to understand potential bike/pedestrian destinations
and activities.
Policy Alignment and Community Impact
•Accelerating decision-making to access funding opportunities,
particularly from Measure B.
•Priority outcomes: feasibility, timeliness, cost-effectiveness,
and convenience for users.
What We Heard (Phase 1)
27
Parks and Recreation Commission
•Expressed constructability, feasibility, and cost-
effectiveness as priorities.
•Expressed general support of draft design priorities
and evaluation criteria.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
•Requested to consider construction duration and user
experience within and on approaches to the crossing.
•Noted advantages of Location B around Matadero
Creek related to existing connections and distance
between crossings.
City/School Transportation Commission
•Expressed concerns about potential increases in
bicycle volumes on narrow streets with on-street
parking.
•Expressed support for Location B around Matadero
Creek given distance between existing crossings.
Planning and Transportation Commission
•Recommended evaluation criteria consider benefits to
interpersonal relationships, personal security, and
mental wellbeing.
•Suggested focusing on shifting trips that are more
likely to be made by walking or biking.
Rail Committee
•Suggested evaluation criteria consider how a new rail
crossing would increase access to new
areas/geographies.
•Expressed urgency and would like to see this project
move forward as soon as possible.
Phase 2 Community Engagement (Fall 2025 – Early 2026)
Tools and Activities
•200+ Fact Sheet
•1,200+ Mailers
•~40 Community Workshop
Participants
•~500 Online Survey Responses
•2 Pop-Up Events (more planned)
•10 Presentations at PABAC, CSTSC,
PTC, RC, CC
28
Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park
Community Center on September 9, 2025
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
29
Online Survey
•Most support: Alternative A, Alternative
B, then Alternative H.
•Least support: Alternative E and
Alternative F.
•Strong preference for alternatives that
minimize property impacts and grade-
separate Alma Street.
•Desire for high-quality pathways that
include better lighting, separated space
for bikes and pedestrians, and more
direct alignments.
•Alternative A would be even more
desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street
to improve safety/comfort.
•Alternative H shows meaningful support
and a relatively high share of last-place
rankings, signaling a need for design
refinement.
•Some requested enhancing existing
California Avenue undercrossing.
Workshop
•Favorite alternatives: Alternative B,
Alternative A, and Alternative H.
•Support for alternatives that limit right-
of-way impacts, provide more direct
routes, connect to existing bike facilities,
grade-separate Alma Street, and located
further away from existing or planned
grade separated rail crossings.
•Suggested refinements to concept
designs included minimizing tunnel
height to increase visibility, shorten
access ramps and minimize property
impacts.
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
30
Provides Me with Access to My Destinations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
31
Safe and Comfortable to Use as a Pedestrian, Wheelchair User, or Cyclist
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
32
Worth the Anticipated Community Investment in Time and Money
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
33
Visually Appealing at this Location
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
34
Makes It Easier to Bike or Walk at this Location, which Outweighs the Impacts on
Existing Neighborhoods
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
35
Level of Support for Each Alternative
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
36
Planning and Transportation Commission
•Generally favored Alternative B, followed by
Alternative A, Alternative C, Alternative G, and
Alternative H.
•Concerned with alternatives that grade-separate Alma
Street due to added motor vehicle travel delay and
safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing
Alma Street at new signalized intersections.
•Concerned with alternatives with right-of-way
impacts, particularly those impacting private homes.
•Supported locations with the highest bicycle and
pedestrian demand projections.
•Generally, unsupportive of locations between Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road.
City/School Transportation Safety Committee
•Emphasized importance of ramp grades, lighting, and
facility widths in designs and noted potential for
safety issues due to crossing vehicle traffic to access
tunnels.
•Generally supportive of Alternative B due to location
and grade-separated crossing of Alma Street, however,
noted significant trade-offs due to private property
acquisitions.
•Generally supportive of Alternative A due to limited
property impacts and suggested modifying design to
extend tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue.
•Suggested exploring Alternative G and Alternative H
further to support future housing along San Antonio
Road and need for family/student-friendly crossing.
•Recommended City enhance existing California
Avenue crossing.
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
37
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
•Concerned with alternatives introducing new
signalized intersections on Alma Street due to added
bicycle/pedestrian delay.
•Supportive of Alternative A due to limited property
impacts; recommend extending the tunnel under Alma
Street to El Dorado Avenue.
•Supportive of Alternative B based on grade-separated
crossing of Alma Street; noted trade-offs from private
property acquisitions on Park Boulevard and
circulation impacts to adjacent properties on Loma
Verde Avenue.
•Supportive of Alternative G for strong station-area
access and regional connections near San Antonio
Caltrain Station, Del Medio, and the San Antonio
Shopping Center.
•Supportive of Alternative H with refinements; center-
running bikeway on San Antonio Road may be
intimidating—suggest improvements at San Antonio
Rd/Mackay Dr for access to Nita Ave, leveraging the
tunnel near Briarwood Way, and adding a multi-use
path connection to Mayfield Ave.
•Generally unsupportive of Alternatives D, E, and F
based on low projected demand.
•Recommended minimizing right-of-way and circulation
impacts by reducing tunnel depths/heights to shorten
ramps and by locating ramps/tunnels within the
landscaped strip on the east side of Alma Street.
From:Peggy Yao
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Suggestions on SB_18
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 12:53:04 AM
Attachments:Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.11.27 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.04.03 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.05.42 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.32.35 AM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor, vice Mayor, and City Council members,
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break!
I am a 20-year resident in Palo Alto. I am writing to share my thoughts and suggestions on
SB_18. This proposal plans to convert the painted bike lane into a separated bikeway along
West/East Meadow from El Camino Way all the way to Fabian Way. My suggestion is
specific about the E Meadow Drive portion from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir (the red
line on the map below).
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
First of all, I love biking, and I do care about bikers' safety. My kids bike to schools, and
biking to the Bayland reserve across 101 is our family's classic weekend activity.
However, developing the separated bikeway along East Meadow Drive from Middlefield to E
Meadow Cir is NOT necessary, however, it will cause a lot of problems to the residents there
and Ramos Park visitors.
1. Why unnecessary?
Because this stretch of E Meadow Dr is wide with wide bike lanes, especially the portion
from Grove Ave to Louis Rd -- there is a dedicated bike lane outside of the parking lane.
Please see the map below. So the space for bikes is very generous. Moreover, this stretch of E
Meadow Dr also has much lower traffic than the other side of Middlefield. Whenever my
family bikes to this stretch, I am not nervous at all because it feels really safe.
2. If building a separated bikeway, what problems will be caused to the residents and Ramos
park visitors?
- This stretch of E Meadow is a pure resident area. Many residents have garages and front
doors on the E Meadow Dr. Not sure how those residents can get in/out, or how their
gardeners and service people can park their service vehicles close enough to the house to
conduct the service, if the lane in front of their houses is blocked.
- Ramos Park (located along E Meadow Dr, between Ross Rd and Louis Rd) is a park purely
relying on street parking. It's getting a lot busier than before after the restrooms are built. It's
also a park for soccer classes during weekdays and soccer games during weekends. With the
separated bikeway installed, the park visitors will lose many parking spots near the park. Not
sure flooding the visitor parking into surrounding residential areas will be a welcome change.
3. The project will be costly. Saving some money by reducing the scope for some portions will
make better use of taxpayers' money.
Because it's unnecessary and it will cause many problems, I'd like to propose NOT to build
the separated bikeway along E Meadow Dr from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir, at least
not from Grove Ave to Louis Rd.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Peggy
From:Shujie Jiao
To:Council, City
Cc:Xiaofan Lin
Subject:Concerns About the Proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 10:35:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council and Transportation Staff,
I am a homeowner living on the corner of El Dorado Avenue and Waverley Street, very
close to the proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A). I strongly support safe
biking and walking throughout Palo Alto, and I appreciate the City’s efforts to improve cross-
town connectivity. However, after reviewing the preliminary concepts, I have significant
concerns about the suitability of the El Dorado alignment for a major bike/pedestrian tunnel.
I respectfully ask the City to remove Alternative A (El Dorado) from the preferred options
or, at minimum, to conduct deeper analysis of its impacts on our narrow residential street.
⸻
1. El Dorado is a Narrow, Quiet Residential Street Not
Designed for High-Volume Through Traffic
The City anticipates up to 2,500 daily bike/ped trips using a new crossing. Channeling that
volume down El Dorado would fundamentally change the character of the block. Today, it is a
calm street primarily used by local residents. Turning it into a busy connector corridor raises
quality-of-life concerns for all of us living here.
⸻
2. The New Alma/El Dorado Traffic Signal May Cause
Queuing in Front of Our Homes
The proposal includes a new traffic signal at Alma & El Dorado. Given the narrow width of
El Dorado and the proximity to Waverley, I am deeply concerned that:
• Car queues will back up past Waverley, directly in front of my house.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
• We will experience increased idling, noise, and exhaust from stopped cars.
• The street geometry is simply not designed to store long queues.
I respectfully request that the City release its traffic modeling, queue-length projections, and
assumptions for this signalized intersection so residents can fully understand the operational
impacts.
⸻
3. Safety Concerns When Backing Out of Driveways on a
Narrow Street
As someone who uses my driveway daily, I am worried about the increased risks of:
• Backing into fast-moving groups of cyclists,
• Limited sight distances on a narrow street, and
• The lack of space to safely pause and check for bikes and pedestrians.
This problem would be much less severe on a wider street or one already functioning as a
designated Bike Boulevard.
⸻
4. Privacy, Noise, and Neighborhood Character Impacts
The tunnel will attract constant foot and bike traffic throughout the day, including early
mornings, evenings, and weekends. While I fully support active transportation for our
community, having hundreds or thousands of people pass directly in front of our windows
every day creates genuine concerns about:
• Privacy
• Lighting and nighttime activity
• Noise from groups of riders
• General changes to how our block feels and functions
This is very different from adding a painted bike lane—it transforms the street into a major
cross-town portal.
⸻
5. Construction Disruptions Will Be Significant
The City estimates ~18 months of construction for tunnel options. Living so close to the
project area, my household would be heavily affected by:
• Construction noise and vibration
• Dust and air quality issues
• Truck traffic and staging
• Potential nighttime or weekend work
• Temporary street closures or detours
As someone with health sensitivities, prolonged dust and construction emissions are a major
concern.
⸻
6. Better-Suited Alternatives Exist
I strongly support improved bicycle and pedestrian connections across the railroad. However,
other alignments—including Loma Verde or San Antonio Road—provide more direct
connections, occur on wider streets, and reduce neighborhood impacts.
These alternatives appear to achieve the same transportation and safety goals without placing
disproportionate burdens on a small, narrow, fully residential block.
⸻
Request
I respectfully ask the City to:
1. Remove the El Dorado tunnel (Alternative A) from the preferred list,
OR provide a clear, transparent analysis demonstrating that:
• queues will not spill into Waverley,
• driveway safety will be protected,
• property and privacy impacts are minimized, and
• construction impacts are properly mitigated.
2. Consider placing a major cross-town bicycle/pedestrian facility on a wider, better-
suited corridor that can safely and comfortably handle higher volumes.
Thank you very much for your time and for considering the viewpoint of the residents who
live directly along the proposed alignment. I appreciate the City’s commitment to
sustainable transportation, and I hope we can find a solution that improves connectivity
while preserving the safety, livability, and character of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Shujie Jiao and Xiaofan Lin
El Dorado Ave & Waverley St Resident
Palo Alto, CA
From:Ryan Ma
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Oppose Alternative A as Sole Preferred Option
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:18:33 PM
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council,
I am a South Palo Alto resident and a strong supporter of safer bicycle and pedestrian
connections. We live near El Dorado Avenue, our children walk and bike to El Carmelo along
this street every day, and I drive to work from El Dorado to Alma Street daily. Based on these
firsthand experiences and observations, I am convinced that Alternative A is not a good option
for this community, and I am writing to oppose designating Alternative A as the sole preferred
alternative and eliminating all others at this time.
First, El Dorado Avenue is already a key school route. Many El Carmelo Elementary students
currently walk and bike along El Dorado to school. The City’s own safety materials identify a
fatal pedestrian collision at El Dorado and South Court and place this segment on the
pedestrian High Injury Network. Using El Dorado as the primary access to a new tunnel will
funnel even more riders and cut-through traffic onto a narrow street heavily used by children
during school hours, increasing conflict and risk rather than reducing it.
Second, El Dorado is a narrow local street, and the Alma / El Dorado area already experiences
congestion and documented collisions. On-street parking and turning movements create
regular bottlenecks today. Police collision reports show crashes at Alma / El Dorado,
including unsafe-speed and bike-involved incidents. Adding a high-volume tunnel entrance
here will push more traffic and turning movements into an intersection and corridor that are
already struggling.
Third, moving to a single option now would deviate from the City’s published Phase 2 process
for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project, which calls for advancing two
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
alternatives to 15% conceptual design for evaluation and community input before selecting a
single preferred alternative. Narrowing to one option before comparable 15% designs and
impact analyses are available prematurely constrains both Council’s and the community’s
choices.
I respectfully request that Council:
1. decline to adopt Alternative A as the sole preferred alternative; and
2. direct staff to advance at least one additional alternative to 15% conceptual design so
that the final choice can be based on a fair comparison of safety, traffic, cost, and
neighborhood impacts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ryan
2801 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:paloaltorg@aol.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Glanckopf, Annette
Subject:El Dorado Bike/Tunnel
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:03:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council:
Prior to, or during, your December 1st meeting agenda to choose a bike/rail crossing
on Alma Street, please look much more deeply and thoroughly, before selecting El
Dorado Avenue
to locate an Alma bike underpass, as has been suggested by council members Burt,
Lauing, and Lythcott-Haims
We went out ourselves to measure the width of El Dorado at 27 feet curb-to-curb,
noting that the
street currently has no marked lanes for bikes, and has parking on both sides of the
street, including cars and trucks.
Many cars, particularly near rental properties without adequate parking, use El
Dorado to park on both sides of the street,
choking passage by allowing only one car to pass at a time. The proposal would
congest flow further, especially by adding
the (presumably necessary) bike lanes to protect the children going to El Carmelo
School.
Further choking would follow by adding safety bike lanes, El Dorado would have to
change to a one-way
street to accommodate both bike lanes and street parking on that 27 foot width.
Parking might also have to be further restricted.
We were also curious about the other options the council has under consideration,
and went out to see Loma Verde Avenue,
which passes directly by El Carmelo School to Alma Street, and measured that
street's width.
In contrast to El Dorado's width of 27 feet, Loma Verde's measured street width- curb
to curb- is 40 feet, and bike
lanes and parking spaces already safely exist there on Loma Verde.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
The difference in curb-to-curb street width, in comparing El Dorado and Loma Verde,
is 13 feet, and Loma Verde
has already in place generous bike lanes and parking for safe travel by children and
adults. Locating the Alma bike tunnel to connect to
Loma Verde (and directly to El Carmelo School) rather than El Dorado would
presumably would be safer, and cheaper.
Council members should pause and look more deeply into the choice of location,
perhaps even getting out
and seeing for things physically for themselves, in order to do due diligence and
make a more nuanced decision
on the location of this important project. This decision needs to be based on sound
facts and reasoning, not rushed through.
Once made, it will permanently lock in permanently a traffic-and-bike-safety pattern
(or unsafe pattern)
for decades to come.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Glendening
Kerry A. Glendening
El Dorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City
Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity - NO on Alternative A
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:37:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: Annette Glanckopf
Topic: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity
I recently wrote expressing letters I have gotten from Midtown with concerns about
selecting Alternative A, El Dorado, for the Bike/Ped Crossing.
Now I write as a nearby resident to El Dorado. This is a bad choice, and I strongly
suggest one of the Loma Verde alternatives. Although selfishly, a traffic light at El
Dorado and Alma would allow many of us, including me, to avoid the treacherous turn
south on Alma from El Dorado; I still do not support Alternative A.
I do not support Alternative A for the following reasons.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Proximity to the Cal Ave Crossing
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. El Dorado is a very narrow street with resident parking.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Speeding and cut through traffic on this narrow
El Dorado is commonplace. Putting the crossing here will increase danger to
bicyclists.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Residents, apartment dwellers, who live on
Alma park on El Dorado. The low income property at the corner also uses El Dorado
for parking multiple cars.
5. <!--[endif]-->But my main concern is that there are a number of cul de sacs that
back onto El Dorado with El Dorado as their only access. They include Emerson,
Ramona, Bryant, South Court. This street design is unique in Palo Alto. Traffic in
rush hour or school hours can be significant. Frustration with access to El Dorado is
bound to cause accidents. It is not just the cul de sacs who use El Dorado. The north
side of the cul de sacs also use it. The other access to Alma is Colorado, and a left
turn south onto to Alma is mission impossible (a death wish).
6. Consider the city environmental concern about additional car trips. Alternative A
will force drivers to take a circuitous route
In conclusion, I strongly support Alternative B or C for the crossing.
Respectively submitted,
Annette Glanckopf
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Rail Committee"s Recommendation for South PA Connectivity Item 18
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 12:32:57 AM
Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council,
Re: Dec. 1: Item 18: Recommendation from Rail Committee for City
Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity:
I strongly support the course of action recommended by the Rail
Committee on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity program. I think
staff and consultants have pulled together a large menu of project
possibilities, and the Rail Committee has done an excellent job
discerning what will be beneficial, and what may be possible. I think
the recommended crossing at El Dorado will be beneficial to those
wanting a better, more direct way to cross the tracks here in Midtown.
Choosing to focus on just 2 possibilities at one location should save us
money, and speed up the process to making such a crossing a reality.
So I encourage you to support he Rail Committee recommendation, and move
the overall project along more quickly.
Thank you for your service to our city.
-- Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 6:53:50 PM
Attachments:South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here (attached pdf) are comments I submitted to city staff re: South Palo Connectivity Concept
Options.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments
11/4/2025
What Questions or Feedback does PABAC have on the eight Conceptual Design
Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis?
Question: Will PABAC meeting and written comments on this go to City Council?
Alternative A: El Dorado Tunnel- Though I like the Park BB landing side of this Xing (and that it
takes no homes), I don’t like that it requires people on foot and on bikes to cross Alma at-grade. It
looks to me like El Dorado may be too narrow to tunnel here. Am I right about that? If we can
tunnel under Alma at this location and not take homes, Alt. A might rise to the top of my list.
One of my top two choices is Alternative B- Loma Verde Tunnel which provides needed
connectivity for growing Ventura and Charleston Meadow and growing neighborhoods in the
southwest quadrant west of ECR to get to midtown and southeast quadrant services and bike
routes. That said, please see my comments on Alternative A which might be my preferred
location if the city can also grade-separate Alma at El Dorado. (Such an option wasn’t shown.)
Alt. B will provide a safe, completely grade-separated Xing of both Alma and the Caltrain tracks for
southeast quadrant PAUSD students who attend Paly HS to get to/from school and other bicyclists
in the southeast quadrant to get to Park BB both directions. This will eliminate the need to cross
Oregon Expressway at-grade to get to Paly from southeast quadrant. It also will provide a new, safe,
bike/ped Xing for work commuters coming in from Bay trails and from in-town to SRP and Stanford.
I hope we will do all we can to minimize impacts on homes.
Alternative C--Loma Verde with Alma Signal- I don’t like the at-grade Alma Xing component of this
concept. Auto traffic impacts on Alma will only increase as the city grows in south PA. Alma
operates like an expressway for motorists. Let’s please acknowledge the safety implications of
that, and grade separate the Alma Xing.
Alternative D & E: Lindero Place—Though I still like this option, and I like how few homes it
impacts, it is a lower priority now that we know SARAP kids will not be attending PAUSD schools.
We need to spend this grade sep money on addressing SARAP needs as early as possible.
Alternative F- Ely Place –Remove from options. Poorly connected to well-used existing bike
routes on the east side of the tracks. Kids in these areas are assigned to Fairmeadow, Palo Verde,
JLS and Gunn. This route would only connect well to Gunn for them, and it doesn’t mitigate high-
density SARAP bike/ped demand as well as Ferne might.
Alternative G: Ferne Avenue might be an option that could help with SARAP needs. It might rise
to my second choice, depending on answers to some questions.— It adds an at-grade crossing
of Alma that is pretty close to the signalized intersections at San Antonio Avenue/Alma and Mayfield
Ave/Alma. The signals would have to be very carefully timed to discourage speeding between
signals and light running (like what used to happen between Middlefield and Nelson Drive). I’d
prefer a grade-separated crossing of Alma in this concept, especially with increased auto traffic
that will be coming to Alma with high-density growth that is underway in MV and Palo Alto in this
area.
This concept connects neatly to Del Medio and Miller to Wilkie and Park BB. Also, it connects to
Fayette/San Antonio Road and into San Antonio Shopping Center and a signalized intersection to
access ECR regional bike lanes.
Question: Would choosing Alternative G preclude making improvements to San Antonio
Caltrain Station connections?
Questions: Alternative G also connects to existing Los Altos school routes from Palo Alto.
Does the city know what school sites SARAP kids will be assigned to? Can we find out? It
seems like future school routes for new Palo Alto residents should be considered as we
consider where bike/ped grade seps should be.
We need to improve connections to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and to help future
residents of the SARAP Area get to/from shopping, work, schools. I don’t yet see a great option
in the set for all of these purposes. Ferne is ok—though it requires some out-of-direction
travel from SARAP (Its advantages are that it connects to quieter, level streets. I haven’t
checked the travel time on a bike yet.)
Future Palo Alto residents of the SARAP area will have to cross city boundaries a lot to get to
everything, including public schools (Some of the new housing may be assigned to MV/LA school
districts, but they will be residents of Palo Alto.) We need to work with MV and/or LA now to make
sure excellent bike/ped options are prepared for people of all ages and abilities before they move in.
Existing pathways in the train station at Mayfield and San Antonio Avenue are too narrow for
bikes/peds to pass each other safely and easily today. Handlebar-grabbing fencing in the Caltrain
station area exacerbates this problem, requiring bicyclists to dismount, even today. The existing
underpass facilities at the train station have sharp turns and stairs and difficult narrow spaces (big
problems when schlepping kids and/or groceries).
Question: Where can we find studies of cumulative traffic impacts of planned growth in MV and PA
in this area? How do we plan functional street systems without such studies? Will the SARAP
process provide cumulative/aggregate impacts analysis of traffic impacts of growth in this area of
MV and Palo Alto? Both cities need this analysis. If it’s true that this work hasn’t been done
(surprising, given that the Housing Element was so significantly changed and what’s happening in
MV and 101 interchanges), staff and Council will be flying blind in transportation planning for huge
increases in density—more than the 955 units and other development on Charleston -Arastradero
that got a Nexus Study that enabled a Transportation Impact Fee that helped fund mitigations.
Alternative H: Proposed protected bike lane concept over the overpass looks good on a map,
and probably will be cheap to implement, but likely will be an awful bike facility—a long climb
surrounded by four lanes of fast auto/truck traffic. This is a facility for strong and fearless riders
who are fit enough to ride uphill for a stretch without swerving, are confident taking a lane at multi -
lane intersections to get on/off the facility. This facility is not for kids, or less experienced, less fit
adults on bikes. This overpass was designed for cars and trucks, not bikes.
I disagree with the Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives ranking of demand for this
option. I recognize that high density growth naturally will lead to greater demand at this location,
but I think the design will discourage most riders who might want to bike. I know the intersections at
both ends of the overpass facility very well. This is a poor design concept for the full range of
people who bike, especially given the increased auto traffic volumes that are coming to San Antonio
Road.
Questions:
1. What is the grade of this ramp?
2. What is the length of the ramp climb for bicyclists?
3. Is City of Mountain View, which controls the west side of this crossing, willing to collaborate
on this concept? What other jurisdictions might have a role in decision-making? (Caltrain?
VTA?)
4. What’s the plan to help less skilled, confident bicyclists safe and comfortable making turns
on and off this facility?
We need this information to evaluate this concept.
Charlie, I appreciate your thorough, thoughtful work and how carefully you answer questions. It’s
evident that you are doing your best to explore and offer a solid set of options to consider. Thank
you.
From:David Vespe
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on Rail Committee Recommendations (2025-12-01 meeting, agenda item 18)
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:28:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I'm a Midtown resident, and I don't like the proposal to build a Caltrain underpass at El
Dorado.
My family and I live near El Dorado and currently use the underpass at California Ave, which
is already close by and works well for us. Adding another underpass would not help us
get anywhere, could negatively impact traffic flow or increase traffic in our neighborhood, and
would be a significant waste of money.
So I'd prefer not to see this project move forward.
Thank you.
David Vespe
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Tim Oey
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes El Dorado underpass under Caltrain & Alma with a straight passage!
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:56:08 PM
Attachments:image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Honorable City Council,
I bike a lot all over Palo Alto.
My wife is disabled and I ride with her on a special tandem that accommodates her disability. I
also ride by myself pulling bicycle trailers. Neither our tandem nor my bike with bicycle
trailers can pass through the California Ave tunnel due to the sharp chicane turns in the
middle. It is very difficult or impossible to ride our tandem through bicycle passages with
sharp turns and I also often get stuck trying to navigate these with my bicycle trailers.
My wife and I highly prefer a straight and wide path under the train tracks and under Alma so
we can get from Park Ave to the Ellen Fletcher Bike Boulevard without having to zigzag.
Some other Palo Alto bike facilities that are essentially impossible for us to use are the Homer
Ave under crossing and the narrow Embarcadero Crossing over 101 near Oregon Expressway
due to narrowness and sharp turns.
We greatly appreciate the new Adobe Creek Bridge -- it is wide with gentle curves that we can
easily navigate.
Here is a picture of my wife on our tandem:
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Here is one of a disabled local friend of mine with her father:
Here is one of my bicycle with trailer:
Front loading Bakfiets cargo bikes are also very popular:
All these bikes and bikes with trailers have a wide turning radius of around 10' sometimes
more -- narrower than a car but much wider than a standard bike.
A straight passage is strongly preferred but if there is a turn and it can handle a 10' turning
radius, that would be ok too.
Would it be possible to redo the California tunnel so it is much wider? It is straight at least.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Tim Oey
From:Reid Kleckner
To:Council, City
Cc:Palo Alto SVBC local
Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Plan Feedback
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:24:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable councilmembers,
I'm very excited by the prospect of a bike/ped undercrossing at El Dorado! I answered the
survey, and this was one of my preferred alternatives.
I wanted to inquire about the possibility of extending the tunnel under Alma, placing the
pedestrian staircases in the grass median along Alma, and extending the 7% ramp along El
Dorado, either in the parking strip or in the center, and eliminating left turns at that
intersection. I attached an inexpertly created visual for reference. Drawing it out suggests that
driveway modifications make this difficult, but perhaps there's some opportunity for creativity.
All bike/ped traffic is coming from or going to the Northeast side of Alma, so extending the
tunnel would make it much more useful. The two long 180' hairpin ramp switchbacks plus
the need to cross at street level make this route much less attractive when compared to the Cal
Ave crossing which avoids the need to cross Alama at street level.
Additionally, given the rate of collisions around Alma / Oregon / Colorado (citation needed,
but the substation gate has been repaired multiple times now), it seems clear to me that one
day those intersections will need traffic lights. If there's a light at Colorado, that would provide
safe, low-stress access to turn left onto Alma for drivers in north Midtown. If the bike/ped
tunnel crosses Alma, there's not much remaining need for a traffic light at El Dorado.
Thanks for your consideration,
Reid
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Liz Cowie
To:Council, City
Subject:El Dorado Ave proposed bike tunnel under Alma - thank you
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:46:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi City Council members,
I am happy to hear that you are considering the proposal for a bike/pedestrian tunnel under
Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. I live at 189 El Dorado, about a block and a half from
Alma, and think this is an excellent idea. We’d use it a lot.
The tunnel is also welcome as a way to divert bike traffic away from the Cal Ave tunnel,
which is not ideally set up for cyclists. Fewer bikes would mean greater safety for Cal Ave
tunnel pedestrians.
NOTE: I’d love to see the tunnel go under Alma Street - for the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists. Having a traffic light at Alma and El Dorado might sound OK but we all know that
cars go really fast on Alma, and it would not be surprising if they failed to stop for the light.
Extending the tunnel under Alma Street is the sensible and safer move.
Thanks for listening, and for considering this proposal.
Liz Cowie
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Sue Allen
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike/Train grade separation plans
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 12:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I just saw the recommendation for the undercrossing at El Dorado.
Once again those of us in South Palo Alto get short-changed. There is
already an underpass at California Ave! Why put one just a few blocks
south? How about something down south near Charleston or Meadow for
all the students riding bikes to/from Gunn High School each day? They
are not going to ride all the way north to El Dorado to get under the
tracks. Students going to Green Middle School already have a
straight-shot at California Ave, and those going to Paly also have a
fairly close underpass to go that direction.
By far the largest contingent of bicyclists in Palo Alto is students.
Let's look at making it convenient for them, please!
Thank you,
Sue Allen
Grove Ave, Palo Alto
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City
Subject:El Dorado crossing.
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:01:10 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
The Midtown Residents Association is starting to get concerned comments and pleas
re the installation of a pedestrian/bike crossing at El Dorado. All of the emails I have
received claim
1) it is the wrong location since it is less than .5 mile from the Cal Ave Undercrossing
2) the street is very narrow with many cars parking on both sides, Esp the low income
housing project at corner. Construction of a mega house is planned for that first block
near Alma. One comment
"When we think of the traffic congestion we already have on El Dorado, I can’t
imagine how an increase in bikes and pedestrians is going to work. Already there’s
congestion just with parking because the street is so narrow. Will bike lanes be
installed?"..
3) tenants from Alma Street are parking on Emerson and El Dorado.
4) this route will encourage more traffic and speeding.
I think this location is the worst location, even though I would welcome a traffic light.
It also will encourage bikes along Alma, so dangerous. Speeding is already horrible
on Bryant now esp in rush hour,
Please reconsider the location.
Annette Glanckopf
2747 Bryant
650-321-8933