HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2507-4967CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 01, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
2.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Plan and Near-Term
Projects. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20. Staff
Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025
Report #:2507-4967
TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Plan and Near-Term Projects.
CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.
RECOMMENDATION
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Receive Report and Provide
feedback on the Draft Plan and Near-Term Projects for which the Planning and Transportation
Commission unanimously recommended approval by the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is currently updating its 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(BPTP) to establish an updated 10-year strategy for bicycle and pedestrian network
investments, policies, and programs, building on the 2012’s projects and programs that set the
foundation from which to build this updated Plan. This report presents the Draft 2026 Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (Attachment A), Near-Term Projects Map and List
(Attachment B and Attachment C), and Appendices (Attachment D). The Draft 2026 BPTP
Update introduces a revised citywide bicycle network (Complete Vision and Low-Stress),
introduces Pedestrian Districts, leverages existing planning foundations, and addresses changes
in context and needs since 2012.
The Draft 2026 BPTP Update is the culmination of multiple rounds of community engagement
starting in late 2023, including in-person events, online surveys, and meetings with
Committees, Commissions and the City Council. Staff released the Draft Plan on October 3,
2025, and the public comment period extended through November 14, 2025. Staff received
feedback from the public, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and at their
November 12, 2025 meeting, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted
unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the 2026 BPTP Update. Staff recommends the
City Council provide feedback on the Draft Plan and Near-Term Projects; based on stakeholder
feedback, staff has included some recommended changes to the draft BPTP update in the
Stakeholder Engagement section of this staff report. A Final Plan for City Council adoption is
expected in early 2026.
BACKGROUND
1 and
City Council approved a professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates for this
purpose on June 19, 2023.2
3 and provided feedback on the vision statement, objectives, and existing
conditions on April 29, 2024.4 The existing conditions analysis included information on Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), collisions, major barriers, e-bikes and shared micromobility, and
bicycle parking.5 To understand community concerns, the project team hosted a series of
engagement activities in spring 2024 as outlined under Stakeholder Engagement. The updated
vision statement is:
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation
thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that
supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a
leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure,
education, and encouragement programs.
Focus on low-stress residential streets and low-cost, high-impact improvements by
prioritizing bike boulevards in the recommended bicycle network;
1 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, May 17, 2021. Item 6, Action Minutes:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3426&compileOutputType=1
2 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, June 19, 2023. Consent Calendar: Approval of Professional Services Contract with Kittelson & Associates for a Not-to-
Exceed Amount of $333,945 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update. CEQA Status: Exempt under Public Resources Code Section
21080.20. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1172&compileOutputType=1
3 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, January 22, 2024. Informational Report: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: an active
transportation plan--Introduction & Overview, Community Engagement, Context & Baseline Conditions, and Next Steps.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13335&compileOutputType=1
4 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, April 29, 2024. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision
statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15058&compileOutputType=1
5 City of Palo Alto, BPTP Update Existing Conditions Technical Analysis: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-
Walking/bikepedplan/BPTP-Update-Existing-Conditions-Analysis
Avoid major corridor wide-investments along arterials except safety enhancement
where there is no parallel alternative such as San Antonio Road; and
Consider options for both the car-free portion of California Avenue and adjacent
Cambridge Avenue.11
Relationship to Other Plans
Other efforts that relate to the City’s 2026 BPTP Update, include the 2025 Safety Action Plan,12
the Southern Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project,13 and the San Antonio Road Area Plan.14
The Safety Action Plan is a policy document for all modes of travel, using a safety lens to pivot
existing plans and proposed projects, in order to institutionalize a new safety framework and
enhance safety at hot spots along the High Injury Network. By contrast, the City’s 2026 BPTP
focuses on bicycle and pedestrian needs, builds off the Safety Action Plan policy framework,
and identifies new projects to address connectivity and the attractiveness of the active
transportation network. As shown in Figure 1, the Safety Action Plan sets the policy foundation
for transportation planning while the BPTP Update designates network and facilities for
implementation. Area Plans such as San Antonio Road Area Plan provide an integrated
transportation and land use framework that ties to the BPTP within a geographic area. Specific
projects and feasibility studies, like the Churchill Avenue Bikeway project and South Palo Alto
Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity project advance specific implementation items.
Figure 1: Relationship between BPTP Update and Other Efforts
ANALYSIS
After incorporating public, committee, and Council input on the draft recommendations, City
staff released the Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update on October 3,
11 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, June 2, 2025. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Project Prioritization
Framework and Prioritized Project Lists.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16124&compileOutputType=1
12 City of Palo Alto Safety Action Plan, 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
13 City of Palo Alto, South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Webpage. https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-
Projects/South-Palo-Alto-BikePed-Connectivity
14 City of Palo Alto, San Antonio Road Area Plan Project Webpage. https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-
Policies-Projects/San-Antonio-Road-Area-Plan
Specific Projects (e.g.
South Palo Alto
Bike/Ped Connectivity)
2025. The public review period was open through November 14, 2025. The document includes
the following sections:
Existing Facilities
Class I—Shared Use Path
Class IIa—Bike Lane
Class IIb—Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa—Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb—Bicycle Boulevard
Class IV—Separated Bikeway
Figure 2: Bicycle Facilities in the Updated Bikeway Network
Table 1: Existing Bicycle Network, 2012 and 2025 (miles)
Visually Separated
In terms of existing pedestrian facilities and assets, sidewalks are generally provided along
arterial and residential streets throughout Palo Alto, providing walking connectivity to
destinations such as schools, parks, retail, and transit. However, there are some gaps in the
sidewalk network, including around key walking destinations such as rail and bus stops. For
example, the presence of sidewalk gaps along Alma Street (near the Palo Alto Transit Station)
and San Antonio Road (near San Antonio Transit Station) affect the directness and convenience
of walking to and from high quality transit service. In addition, some neighborhoods such as
Barron Park and near San Antonio Transit Station, lack complete sidewalks along their
residential streets.
2026 BPTP Recommendations
The 2026 BPTP recommendations aim to create a safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian
network that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities.19
Bicycle Network
In relation to bicycle transportation, the recommended network is structured around two tiers,
the Complete Vision Bicycle Network and the Low-Stress Bicycle Network:
The Complete Bicycle Network represents the long-term vision for a fully connected, all-
ages-and-abilities bikeway system reflecting the full network once it is fully realized. The
network encompasses existing bicycle facilities, near term projects and some lower-
priority projects that may be reevaluated as opportunities arise.
The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the foundation for citywide bicycle connectivity,
focused on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the relatively near term.
It builds upon the City’s existing network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of
shared-use paths and neighborhood-based Bicycle Boulevards, to expand access with
minimal disruption and broad community support. In the near term, the focus will be on
developing the low-stress bicycle network, along calm, residential routes that are
19 All Ages and Abilities facilities are designed to serve everyone—not just confident adult riders who have historically been the primary focus of street
design. An All Ages and Abilities network provides safe and comfortable travel for children, seniors, women, people with disabilities, people of color, low-
income users, bike share riders, and individuals carrying goods.
preferred by many community members, rather than relying on separated bikeways on
busy arterial streets. Bicycle Boulevards were identified as the most comfortable and
familiar type of bikeway in Palo Alto, offering a practical path forward with fewer trade-
offs in terms of cost, complexity, and impacts to vehicle traffic or parking.
To achieve the near-term vision, the 2026 BPTP focuses staff resources to make incremental
progress on the highest priority locations shown on the Near-Term Improvement Projects map
(Attachment B) and tables (Attachment C). The Near-Term Projects list is not a ranked list and
represents a total of 12 miles of enhancements on the network. Cost estimates outlined in the
Draft Plan rely on a small number of inputs and use various construction costs to estimate
dollar ($) amounts for items like mobilization, traffic control, engineering & construction
management, yet omit other potentially significant cost drivers, such as Right-of-Way
acquisition, grading/retaining wall construction, utility relocation, landscaping, and striping
removal. More detailed and realistic cost estimates for individual projects will be developed as
individual projects are more clearly defined. Some funding is available in the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program; however, additional funding would be necessary to implement the Plan
in full as drafted.
Pedestrian Districts
In relation to pedestrian districts, Pedestrian District Guidelines provide a toolbox of treatments
to enhance pedestrian safety and the overall walking experience in the City. These guidelines
build on previous plans, incorporating new ideas and addressing changes since 2012. The
toolbox includes infrastructure improvements like raised crossings and curb extensions,
alongside aesthetic enhancements such as benches and street art, promoting safety,
accessibility, and comfort. Priority pedestrian districts and neighborhood commercial centers
were identified citywide as informed by the City’s 2023 Economic Development Strategic Plan,
with area maps detailing the recommended application of these treatments to create inviting
and enjoyable walking environments. These include University Avenue District, California
Avenue District, Midtown District, and the Embarcadero and El Camino Real neighborhood
commercial centers. Additionally, as a response to public feedback, the San Antonio Road Area
is also designated as a Pedestrian District, recognizing the improved transit access and
anticipating the changes in active transportation needs of the area in the future.
In addition to these Pedestrian District Guidelines, 23 intersection and crossing projects are
included in the near-term enhancements. These projects would incorporate both pedestrian
and bicycle safety features.
The above recommendations in the Draft Plan reflect the following feedback from the
community and City Council (on June 2, 2025):
Focus on high-comfort, low-stress facilities, rather than big streets. Based on this input,
bike boulevards are the core component of the Low-Stress Bicycle Network including
actions highlighted in a new near-term projects list and map.
Prioritize improvements on tree-lined, high-comfort Cowper Street Bike Boulevard,
rather than corridor-wide bike facilities along Middlefield Road.
As an exception to the above, advance bicycle safety enhancements on arterials lacking
parallel routes, such as San Antonio Road, which should also serve as a Pedestrian
District.
Designate the car-free portion of California Avenue as a community street, and provide
adequate bicycle access on both Cambridge Avenue and California Avenue.
Advance University Avenue as a slow-speed street (Class IIIc), rather than a bike
boulevard (Class IIIb).
Highlight the relationship between the BPTP Update and the South Palo Alto
Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity Project.
Include stop sign orientation in the Bike Boulevard description (stop signs should be
oriented to favor bicycle travel).
Prioritize Homer Avenue separated bikeway; and advance a Feasibility Study for a
crossing of E. Meadow Drive on the Bryant Street bike boulevard.
Programs, Policies, and Best Practices
Programs and policies from the 2012 BPTP were revised to align with the updated Vision and
Objectives and incorporate best practices from the Bicycle Friendly Communities benchmarks.
Overall, 60 programs, polices, and best practices have been drafted under the BPTP Update’s
five objectives: Safe and Inclusive; Connected and Accessible; Comfortable and Enjoyable;
Community-led and Cooperative; Integrated and Collaborative.
Next Steps, Implementation and Funding
Following City Council review of the Draft Plan and Near-Term Projects on December 1, 2025,
City staff will prepare a Final Plan for presentation to City Council in early 2026.
Pending adoption of Final Plan by the City Council, staff will then advance specific projects
through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and budget process as well as potential
development proposals, if applicable. Projects will require feasibility and concept planning,
community engagement, and engineering design before they can be constructed. Staff will also
work to identify and apply for grant funding to support and supplement project implementation
through these project phases. Staff will also consider opportunities for quick build and/or
interim improvements for long-term projects.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding to develop the 2026 BPTP Update was included in the Capital Budget as part of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Consistent with
City Council Direction, Plan development was funded under a reimbursable Transportation
Development Act Article 3 funding grant in the amount of $334,852.
Additional funding of $500,000 per year for Fiscal Years 2027 through 2030 is included in the
Capital Budget (PL-04010) to implement the initial projects identified in the 2026 BPTP Update.
Funding for additional projects is subject to availability of funding and Council appropriation as
part of the annual budget process.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Phase 1, Engagement on Visioning
Safety as the top priority, particularly for students traveling to and from school;
Strong demand for separated or wider bike lanes and safer street crossings;
Need for a seamless network that crosses major barriers like highways and railroads;
Direct connections to schools, transit hubs, and key community destinations;
Integration of e-bikes and other micromobility options;
Emphasis on high-quality design, comfort, aesthetics, wayfinding and shade; and,
Education, outreach, and ongoing community input as essential.
Phase 2, Existing Conditions, Needs & Concerns: Overview & Key Themes
Strengthen the existing network by addressing critical gaps;
Prioritize improvements along key corridors, including San Antonio Road, Alma Street,
Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, and El Camino Real;
Enhance sidewalk continuity, wayfinding, and placemaking in pedestrian-oriented areas
such as University Avenue and California Avenue; and,
Improve transitions between different types of bicycle facilities to create a smoother,
more consistent experience.
Phase 3, Recommended Project and Programs: Overview & Key Themes
Mixed reactions to “Big Streets” projects that provide direct connections, but may not
have the highest overall return on investment;
Call for a prioritization framework that includes quantitative and qualitative factors;
Desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations;
Emphasis on improving overall network connectivity and cohesion; and,
Support for non-infrastructure strategies such as education, policy tools, funding
mechanisms, and planning for emerging mobility modes.
Phase 4, Draft Plan: Overview & Key Themes
The fourth phase of engagement involved public release and feedback on the Draft 2026 BPTP
Update, and presentation to PABAC, PTC. The project team publicized the Draft Plan through
the City’s communication channels, such as the Uplift Local and “Transportation Connect” e-
newsletters, and tabled at community events, including Bike Palo Alto (October 5, 2025) and
Cal. Ave. Third Thursday (October 16, 2025), and the public comment period was open from
October 3, 2025 through November 14, 2025.
On October 7, 2025 and November 4, 2025, PABAC reviewed the Draft Plan and provided
feedback.21 22 The public also sent comments on the Draft Plan via an open comment box on
the project webpage and through email directly to the City’s Office of Transportation. Key
themes from PABAC and the public include:
San Antonio Road: Strong support for prioritizing San Antonio Road bikeway
improvements, including advancing implementation in advance of anticipated high-
density housing development.
Park Boulevard Extension: Support for adding the Castilleja, Wilkie and Miller to the Park
Boulevard Bike Boulevard project (BLVD_24).
Maintenance & Pavement: High priority on improved maintenance and pavement
quality for all existing and future bike boulevards. Matadero Avenue was specifically
cited as having unacceptable pavement conditions.
Bryant Street Focus: Support for immediate upgrades to the flagship Bryant Street Bike
Boulevard, particularly in Professorville/Downtown and at East Meadow Drive crossing.
Speed Reduction: Support for establishing a maximum speed of 20 MPH (or less) on all
bike boulevards to enhance safety.
E-Device Concerns: Concerns regarding the increasing use of electric bikes and scooters
and their operational impact on network safety and design.
Age-Specific Education: Support for incorporating bike education programs tailored for
an older population to help residents remain active and mobile.
Justification & Policy: Requests for clear justification for each near-term project as well
as legislative efforts to allow the use of speed cameras in Palo Alto.
PABAC’s Role: The Committee requested establishing a formal, direct communication
channel between PABAC, PTC, and the City Council.
Bike Boulevards and traffic calming: some support for traffic circles and other
improvements to slow cars and increase safety on bike boulevards, and others argued
devices like modal filters cause worse gridlock and backups.
Embarcadero/Kingsley/Emerson/Waverly Safety: support for traffic calming measures to
also be installed on adjacent streets when improvements are made to Bryant Street.
21 Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting, October 7, 2025. Agenda Packet, Discussion Item 7b::
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings-2025/2025-10-07_pabac-
agenda_packet_final_v2.pdf
22 Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting, November 4, 2025. Agenda Packet, Discussion Item 7b:
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings-2025/2025-11-04_pabac-agenda-
packet_final.pdf
Traffic Diversion: some expressed concern to the recommended turn restriction onto
northbound Bryant Street from Embarcadero (as a part of BLVD_2 project), arguing it
will divert vehicle traffic to adjacent streets, thereby exacerbating existing safety
problems.
Finally, on November 12, 2025, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted
unanimously (7-0) to recommend adoption of the 2026 BPTP Update by the City Council.25 The
Commission expressed enthusiastic and unanimous support for the overall quality,
presentation, and collaborative process behind the Draft Plan. Consensus was strong in
supporting the Plan’s focus on low-stress residential streets (Bike Boulevards), adopting a 20
Miles Per Hour speed limit on those corridors, and prioritizing El Camino Way Safe Routes to
School project (BBL_4) with special consideration for parking impacts to adjacent businesses
and the potential to use James Road to offset impacts. Some members expressed concern with
prioritizing projects on Cowper Street and Middlefield Road considering these are redundant
residential routes and major arterial segments that may conflict with Council’s direction to
focus resources on the core low-stress network.
Recommended Changes to Near-Term Projects in response to Community Feedback
In response to feedback received from community members on the Draft Plan Near-Term
projects, staff recommends the following changes to the Near-Term Projects (Attachment C) for
inclusion in the Final Near-Term Project List of the Final Plan:
1. Modify project BLVD_24 (Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard) to include the Park-Maclane-
Wilkie-Miller to Mountain View section, including wayfinding;
2. Modify project SB_11a (Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway Connection to Menlo Park)
to a Class II Bike Lane, and extend the project boundaries from Channing Avenue to
Menlo Park instead of Everett Avenue to Menlo Park.
3. Add a new project: Class IV (separated bikeway) on Churchill Avenue from Alma Street
to Bryant Street, with a traffic circle at Churchill Avenue & Bryant Street.
4. Programmatic: A new program to fill pedestrian facility gaps along key pedestrian routes
without specifying specific locations as a response to the desire for more pedestrian-
focused recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
California Senate Bill 922 (2022), codified as Public Resources Code section 21080.20, exempts
active transportation plans, such as bicycle transportation plans like the BPTP Update, from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Attachment B: Map of Near-Term Projects
Attachment C: Table of Near-Term Projects
25 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting, November 12, 2025. Action Item: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP)
Update: Provide Feedback and Recommend the Draft Plan to the City Council for Adoption. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21080.20. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16612&compileOutputType=1
Attachment D: Links to the Appendices for the Draft 2026 BPTP Update
APPROVED BY:
October 2025
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Draft
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
2. EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 43
2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 45
2.3 Walking and Biking Activity 49
2.4 Barriers to Walking and Biking 52
2.5 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 56
2.6 Collision Analysis 59
2.7 Shared Micromobility and E-bikes 65
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1 Purpose and Vision 11
0.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 12
0.3 Community Engagement 15
0.4 Recommendations 16
0.5 Project Prioritization 22
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 26
1.2 Plan Organization 26
1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking 27
1.4 Vision, Objectives, and Performance
Measures 28
1.5 Setting 31
1.6 Relationship to Other Documents 35
1.7 Public Outreach Summary 37
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria 70
3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network
and Facilities 71
3.3 Recommended Bicycle Support Facilities 81
3.4 Pedestrian District Guidelines and Toolbox 87
3.5 Policies and Programs 94
4. IMPLEMENTATION ANDFUNDING
4.1 Project Delivery Process 103
4.2 Project Prioritization 104
4.3 Cost Estimates 112
4.4 Funding Sources 113
5. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
3
LIST OF MAPS
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators 33
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops 34
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map 47
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location 48
Figure 5: Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements 51
Figure 6: Linear Barriers 53
Figure 7: Transit Barrier Study Areas 55
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results 57
Figure 9: Intersection LTS Results 58
Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity 61
Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity 61
Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022) 62
Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022) 63
Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network 64
Figure 15: Recommended Bicycle Network 72
Figure 16: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Complete Vision Bicycle Network 79
Figure 17: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Low-Stress Bicycle Network 80
Figure 18: Recommended Pedestrian District Location 89
Figure 19: Near-Term Improvement Projects 110
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Performance Measures 29
Table 2: Potential Performance Measures 30
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 32
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025 46
Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022) 61
Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria 70
Table 7: Summary of Proposed Bicycle Projects (Complete Vision: Bicycle Network) 78
Table 8: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria 104
Table 9: Near-Term Bicycle Projects 105
Table 10: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects 107
Table 11: Other Priority Projects 109
Table 12: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Projects 112
The BPTP Update is grant funded
by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's (MTC) Transportation
Development Act 3 program.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Literature Review
Appendix B: Phase 1 – Visioning Community Engagement Summary
Appendix C: Phase 2 – Needs & Concerns Community Engagement Summary
Appendix D: Phase 3 – Recommended Project & Programs Community Engagement Summary
Appendix E: Bicycle Parking Data Collection Summary
Appendix F: Future Activity Levels and Benefits Analysis Memorandum
Appendix G: Major Barriers Analysis Memorandum
Appendix H: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Memorandum
Appendix I: Collision and Safety Analysis Memorandum
Appendix J: E-Bikes and Shared Micromobility Memorandum
Appendix K: Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach
Appendix L: List of Projects
Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines
Appendix N: Policy and Program Recommendations
Appendix O: Project Prioritization Framework
Appendix P: List of Funding Sources
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 31
Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement 37
Image 3: Virtual Visioning Workshop held on January 31, 2024 38
Image 4: Bike Palo Alto Event held on October 1, 2023 38
Image 5: Bicycle Network Development Workshop 39
Image 6: Community Walking Tour 39
Image 7: Types of Bicycle Facilities 45
Image 8: Relationship between LTS and Comfort 56
Image 9: Existing Bike Route on Oregon Avenue 73
Image 10: Existing Sharrow Pavement Marking 73
Image 11: Existing Restricted Hours Bicycle Lane 73
Image 12: Updated Bicycle Facility Types 74
Image 13: Bicycle Facility Types 74
Image 14: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach 77
Image 15: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term 81
Image 16: Placement and Spacing Requirements 82
Image 17: Types of Wayfinding Signs 83
Image 18: Existing Signs in Palo Alto 84
Image 19: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements 88
Image 20: University Avenue Pedestrian District 90
Image 21: California Avenue Pedestrian District 91
Image 22: Midtown Pedestrian District 92
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Palo Alto would like to express our gratitude to the residents, community leaders, community-
based organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders who have helped shape the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. We appreciate your continued support and commitment to promoting Palo Alto as a healthy,
safe, and vibrant community.
2025-2026 City Council
Ed Lauing, Mayor
Vicki Veenker, Vice Mayor
George Lu
Greer Stone
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Keith Reckdahl
Patrick Burt
2025-2026 Planning & Transportation Commission
Allen Akin, Chair
Bryna Chang, Vice Chair
Bart Hechtman
Carolyn Templeton
Forest Peterson
Kevin Ji
Todd James
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bruce Arthur, Chair
Nicole Rodia, Vice Chair
Alan Wachtel
Art Liberman
Bill Zaumen
Cedric de la Beaujardiere
Eric Nordman
Jane Rosten
Kathy Durham
Ken Joye
Paul Goldstein
Penny Ellson
Robert Neff
Steve Rock
City/School Transportation Safety Committee
Lt. Ben Becchetti, PAPD
Lt. Kara Apple, PAPD
Lara Anthony, PTAC SRTS Liaison
Rachel Vazquex-Reina, PTAC SRTS Liaison
Leslie Crane, PAUSD
Mike Jacobs, PAUSD
Eric Holm, PAUSD
2025-2026 Parks and Recreation Commission
Nellis Freeman, Chair
Jeff Greenfield, Vice Chair
Amanda Brown
Anne Warner Cribbs
Bing Wei
Shani Kleinhaus
Yudy Deng
City of Palo Alto Team
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, Former
Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner & Project Manager
Charlie Coles
Katie Heuser
Rose Mesterhazy
Ana Lopez
Consultant
Kittelson & Associates
Mobycon
Page left blank intentionally
7
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAA All Ages and Abilities
AB Assembly Bill
BPTP Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
CIP Capital Improvement Program
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CSAP Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
CSTSC City/School Transportation Safety Committee
DIB Design Information Bulletin
DP Director’s Policy
E-Bike Electric Bike
EPC Equity Priority Community
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HIN High-Injury Network
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Seriously Injured
LTS Level of Traffic Stress
MPH Miles per Hour
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials
NRSS National Roadway Safety Strategy
PABAC Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
PAPD Palo Alto Polic Department
PAUSD Palo Alto Unified School District
PCF Primary Collision Factor
PDO Property Damage Only
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
PTAC Palo Alto Council of PTAs
PTC Planning and Transportation Commission
SB Senate Bill
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
US DOT United States Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
9
0. Executive Summary 10
0.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
11
The City of Palo Alto (City) last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) in 2012. An update to BPTP is necessary to maintain funding
eligibility, respond to evolving community needs, account for recent trends in
cycling and technology, and align with current planning and design standards.
The City undertook a comprehensive effort to update the BPTP by analyzing
the existing walking and bicycling conditions, engaging the community, and
incorporating the best practices in multimodal transportation planning.
0.1 Purpose and Vision
The 2026 BPTP serves as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian
facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. The purpose of the 2026 BPTP is to gather meaningful
input from the community, evaluate progress since the 2012 plan, and update the City’s approach to policies,
programs, and infrastructure that support walking and biking.
To guide the 2026 BPTP Update, a vision statement and set of objectives were created based on strong
community input gathered during the visioning workshop and early engagement activities. The resulting vision
statement is
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable
transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street
and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages
and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in
active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.
All Ages and Abilities facilities are designed to serve everyone—not just confident adult riders who have
historically been the primary focus of street design. An All Ages and Abilities network provides safe and
comfortable travel for children, seniors, women, people with disabilities, people of color, low-income users, bike
share riders, and individuals carrying goods.
0. Executive Summary 12
0.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I, II, III, and
IV, as illustrated in Image EX 1. In addition to these statewide classifications, the City of Palo Alto uses further
sub-classifications: Class IIa – standard bike lanes, Class IIb – buffered bike lanes, Class IIIa – bike routes, and
Class IIIb – bike boulevards.
Image EX 1: Types of Bicycle Facilities
Source: Caltrans, Toward an Active California, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2017.
13
Figure EX 1 illustrates the existing bikeway network in Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions. In 2012, the City
had 59.3 miles of bikeways. Since then, approximately 14 miles have been added, bringing the total to 73.5
miles as of 2025. Notably, there were no Class II buffered or Class IV separated (or protected) bikeway in 2012;
today, the City boasts 3.3 miles of buffered bike lanes and 4.3 miles of separated bikeway. Table EX 1 includes
comparison between 2012 bicycle network mileage with existing network in 2025.
Table EX 1: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025
FACILITY TYPE 2012 2025
Class I Multi-Use Path 13.9 11.7
Class II Bike Lane 33.2 34.6
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.3
Class III Shared Lane 8.0 12.6
Class III Bicycle Boulevard 4.2 7.1
Class IV Separated Bikeway*4.3
TOTAL 59.3 73.5
Source: 2012 BPTP
Note: Includes the recently constructed El Camino Real separated bikeway.
2012 lane mile data is sourced from the 2012 BPTP; 2025 lane mileage is calculated using the 2025 roadway centerline file. The Class I length has not decreased between 2012 and 2025—differences are due only to the calculation method.
14
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Library
Community Center
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
15
0.3 Community Engagement
The 2026 BPTP was shaped by a four-phase community engagement process combining online tools, in-
person events, and meetings with the City Council, committees, commissions, and focus groups. Outreach was
promoted through City channels, community partners, and local events.
PHASE 1:
VISIONING
Gathered nearly 1,000 public comments through
surveys, workshops, and events. Key themes included
prioritizing student safety, closing network gaps,
expanding separated bikeway, improving crossings
of major barriers (Caltrain, US-101), and integrating
micromobility.
PHASE 2:
NEEDS & CONCERNS
Involved walking and biking tours and workshops
that identified priority corridors (El Camino Real,
Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, San Antonio
Road, Alma Street), the need for smoother transitions
between facility types, and improved pedestrian
environments on streets like University Avenue and
California Avenue.
Across all phases, safety (especially for students), network connectivity, high-quality separated facilities, and
strong pedestrian-focused design emerged as top community priorities, alongside support for education, policy,
and funding strategies.
PHASE 3:
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
& PROGRAMS
Solicited feedback on draft projects through
workshops, focus groups, and an interactive map
(around 400 comments). Support was strong for
safety improvements, pedestrian features, bike
boulevards, quick-builds, and wayfinding, though
projects on major arterials drew mixed reactions due
to traffic and parking concerns.
PHASE 4:
PLAN ADOPTION
Presented the Draft Plan to committees, commissions,
and City Council for review and approval.
0. Executive Summary 16
0.4 Recommendations
Network Development Approach
The 2026 BPTP bikeway network builds on the 2012 Plan and incorporates recent regional and local planning
efforts, including the MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, VTA Bicycle Superhighway Plan, and Safe Routes
to School maps.
Primary Criteria: The first round of network development synthesized these plans to identify areas of agreement
and highlight routes with less consensus.
Secondary Criteria: Where multiple options existed, routes were refined by prioritizing directness to key
community destinations, lower traffic stress, alignment with high-demand travel flows, and the ability to
overcome major barriers.
0.4.1 RECOMMENDED
NETWORK
Figure EX 2 shows the updated bikeway network and
bicycle friendly zones developed using the network
corridor criteria explained in the previous section. It
presents the complete vision of the bicycle network,
including both the existing facilities and the low-stress
network.
Bicycle-Friendly Zones are cohesive areas with
concentrations of destinations, commercial activity,
and pedestrian activity. These areas should see
area-wide investment in bicycle-friendly amenities
such as signal timing and traffic calming. A bicycle
friendly zone is an area where cycling is convenient,
comfortable, and direct on all of the streets within
a designated area and is the preferred method of
transportation.
0.4.2 LOW-STRESS BICYCLE
NETWORK
Figure EX 3 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network
map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the
foundation for citywide bicycle connectivity, focused
on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes
in the near term. It builds upon the City’s existing
network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of
shared-use paths and neighborhood-based Bicycle
Boulevards, to rapidly expand access with minimal
disruption and promote broad community support.
0.4.3 COMPLETE VISION
NETWORK
Figure EX 4 shows the Complete Vision Bicycle
Network map. The Complete Vision Network
represents the long-term vision for a fully connected,
all-ages-and-abilities bikeway system. This map also
includes existing bicycle facilities that are not being
upgraded to illustrate the full network once fully
implemented. The Complete Vision Network includes
some lower-priority projects that may be reevaluated
as the City grows.
A total of 138 projects have been identified in 2026
BPTP to achieve the Complete Vision Network.
These consist of 94 bicycle projects, 33 crossing
and intersection projects, 5 special projects, and 5
recommended studies.
17
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
F
Bicycle Network
Bicycle-Friendly Zones
City of Palo Alto
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, Mobycon
0 1 2
Miles
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
As of 9/1/2025
To Stanford
Figure EX 2: Recommended Bicycle Network
18
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection
Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or
Underpass
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
City of Palo Alto
Figure EX 3: Low-Stress Bicycle Network
19
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Class IIIc - Slow Street
Class Ib - Community Street
Caltrain Station
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing Improvements
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Figure EX 4: Complete Vision Bicycle Network
0. Executive Summary 20
0.4.4 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND TOOLBOX
The pedestrian district toolbox includes a range of selected treatments aimed at improving pedestrian safety
and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The elements range from infrastructure improvements, such as
raised crossings or curb extensions that improve yielding rates, to aesthetic changes, such as benches or public
art, that can elevate the walking experience. Together, these elements will meet universal needs for safety and
accessibility and create conditions making walking comfortable and an enjoyable experience for all.
Priority pedestrian areas are key to creating a walkable, accessible, and enjoyable City. They offer areas where
walking is prioritized to allow people of all ages and abilities to get around without competing with vehicles.
Within these areas, slower vehicle movement is encouraged, and opportunities are provided for people to
pause and enjoy their surroundings. Three pedestrian districts and three priority areas which are focus areas for
pedestrian recommendations are included in the 2026 BPTP, these include:
Pedestrian Districts
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area
21
0. Executive Summary 22
0.5 Project Prioritization
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term implementation strategy. This
2026 BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over
the next ten years. An initial prioritization was conducted to develop scores for each roadway segment in Palo
Alto based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity.
Projects that scored higher than 70 points were advanced to supplemental evaluation along with a subset of
additional projects selected for further review. The supplemental evaluation considered project readiness,
project cost, and project support to determine the top priority projects for near-term implementation. Table EX
2 presents the prioritization factors and evaluation criteria used in the prioritization process.
Table EX 2: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria
Note: *Only the projects that scored 70 or more points with a few exceptions in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
PRIORITIZATION FACTOR CRITERIA
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Recommended Walk & Roll SRTS suggested
route maps
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost and Funding
High, Medium, and LowProject Readiness
Project Support
Near-Term Implementation:
A total of 16 bicycle projects
(covering approximately 12 miles
of the proposed network) and 22
intersection and crossing projects
have been identified for near-term
implementation. These projects
are illustrated in Figure EX 5. The
estimated cost of implementing
all 16 bicycle projects is $12.8
million.
Cost Estimation:
The total cost to implement
all 94 bicycle projects included
in the 2026 BPTP is estimated
at approximately $78 million.
This does not include cost
for intersection and crossing
improvements as they vary
widely by project and cannot be
accurately estimated at this stage.
Funding Strategy:
Bicycle and pedestrian projects
can be funded through a range
of local, regional, state, and
federal sources. To enhance its
competitiveness for these funds,
the City of Palo Alto should
ensure its projects align with
the core goals of the funding
programs—typically centered on
equity, safety, sustainability, and
connectivity.
23
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Near-Term Improvements
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class Ib - Community Street
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Protected Bike Lane
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Railroad
Caltrain Stop
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 5: Proposed Near-Term Projects
1. Introduction 24
1.
INTRODUCTION
25
Famous as the birthplace of Silicon Valley, the
City of Palo Alto (City) is also a pioneer in active
transportation, home to the nation’s first bicycle
boulevard on Bryant Street. With its relatively flat
geography, mild climate, abundant green spaces, and
vibrant, historic downtown, the City offers an ideal
setting for walking and bicycling. Strong connections
to Stanford University and regional transit further
enhance its appeal, helping Palo Alto achieve some of
the highest walking and biking rates in the Bay Area
and nation.
The City last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (BPTP) in 2012. That plan
established key planning, policy, and implementation
strategies to enhance the safety and appeal of
walking, biking, and rolling for both transportation and
recreation. Since then, the share of residents driving
alone to work has decreased significantly from 64.4%
in 2012 to 51.65% in 2023. The Covid-19 pandemic
also brought major shifts in travel behavior, including
a sharp rise in telecommuting. By 2023, 27.9% of Palo
Alto residents worked from home, nearly 2.5 times
the rate in 2019 (9.7%).1 These changes, along with
the growing use of emerging mobility options such
as e-bikes and ridesharing, have prompted the City
to initiate an update to the BPTP to better respond to
current trends and future needs for walking and biking.
The 2026 BPTP reflects community needs and
desires, considers recent trends in cycling and
bicycle technology, and addresses changes in bicycle
and pedestrian planning and design. It builds upon
extensive planning and design efforts already
underway by the City, including the implementation
of the 2012 BPTP, Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety
Action Plan, and land use planning such as the 2023-
2031 Housing Element Update, Downtown Housing
Plan, and the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The 2026
BPTP was drafted in collaboration with the City and the
community through multiple phases of engagement
occurring over the course of BPTP development.
1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 and 2023 American Community Survey, Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics by Sex. Accessed June 28,
2025.
A pedestrian is someone
traveling on foot along sidewalks,
crosswalks, or pathways. This also includes
individuals using assistive devices such as
canes, walkers, or wheelchairs.
A bicyclist is a person riding a
bicycle, which may include pedal-
powered bicycles, electric bicycles
(e-bikes) with pedal-assist or
throttle features, and adaptive bicycles
such as hand-cycles or tricycles.
Shared micromobility refers to
the use of small, low-speed
vehicles like bicycles and
scooters that are available
for public rental on a short-
term basis.
1. Introduction 26
1.1 Purpose
The 2026 BPTP serves as a comprehensive action plan
for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian
facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. The
purpose of the 2026 BPTP is to gather meaningful
input from the community, evaluate progress since the
2012 plan, and update the City’s approach to policies,
programs, and infrastructure that support walking and
biking.
To achieve this purpose, the 2026 BPTP investigates
safety data to propose impactful recommendations,
explores the role of emerging transportation
technologies such as electric-bicycles and micro-
mobility devices, and establishes a long-term vision
to make walking and biking easier, safer, and more
accessible for everyone. This plan is also intended to
support the City’s broader goals, including those in
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan, and the City’s Safety Action Plan.
1.2 Plan Organization
Who Can Use the Bike Lane?
All bicycles are allowed on the bikeway
network, including modified types such as
unicycles, cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, and
longtail bikes. E-bikes with pedal-assist speeds
up to 28 mph are permitted on most bikeways
but are not allowed on unpaved trails (See
Palo Alto Open Space and Park Rules and
Regulations for more information).
Who Can Use the Sidewalk?
Pedestrians can use sidewalk. In Palo Alto,
riding on sidewalks in the California Avenue
and Downtown Business Districts is prohibited
(See Palo Alto MC 10.64.130 (c)).
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter summarizes the vision statement and
objectives that guided the development of 2026 BPTP.
It includes performance measures that will help track
the City’s progress toward these goals, describes the
relationship between other planning efforts and 2026
BPTP, and summarizes the public engagement efforts.
Chapter 2: Existing Facilities
This chapter documents the existing walking and
bicycling infrastructure in Palo Alto. It analyzes the
walking and bicycle activity, barriers and safety
conditions. It includes information on the use of
micromobility and e-bikes, and bicycle parking.
Chapter 3: Recommendations
This chapter includes the bicycle and pedestrian
recommendations. It includes the process for
developing bikeway network corridor criteria. For
pedestrians, it includes recommendations related to
the pedestrian district guidelines and toolbox. Lastly,
it includes recommended policies and programs.
Chapter 4: Implementation and Funding
This chapter includes a prioritization framework
classifying the recommended projects into near- and
long-term categories. Additionally, it includes planning
level cost estimates and identifies potential funding
sources.
27
1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking
Walking and biking offer significant public health,
environmental, and economic benefits that align with
the goals for sustainable transportation. The Caltrans’
Toward an Active California plan highlights how active
transportation improves physical and mental health,
reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports
equitable access to mobility.2 Additionally, walking
and biking reduce auto ownership costs, estimated
at $8,500 annually per car and save $830 million
in congestion, collision, and vehicle maintenance
costs for the state of California. Furthermore, active
transportation enhances community character,
supports local businesses, and results in increased
land values.
However, key barriers remain. State and national
reports emphasize challenges such as high-speed
traffic, incomplete or disconnected pedestrian
and bicycle networks, missing first- and last-mile
connections, and a lack of secure bicycle parking. In
Palo Alto, these issues are echoed by local feedback
that calls for safer crossings, better lighting, and more
low-stress, separated bicycle facilities. Equity also
remains a concern, with a need to ensure access to
high-quality infrastructure for all ages and abilities.
2 Caltrans. Toward and Active California. 2017. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-
transportation-planning/complete-streets/toward-an-active-california-state-bicycle-pedestrian-plan
What does “All Ages and Abilities (AAA)”
mean?
To truly encourage walking and biking,
facilities must be designed for everyone—
not just confident adult men who have
historically been the focus of street design.
An All Ages and Abilities network ensures
that children, seniors, women, people with
disabilities, people of color, low-income
users, bike share riders, and those carrying
goods can travel safely and comfortably.
These groups often face unique barriers,
including safety concerns, visibility challenges,
accessibility needs, inequitable investment,
or inadequate infrastructure. By prioritizing
comfort, traffic separation, and equity, All
Ages and Abilities design expands the reach
of walking and bicycling, enhances mobility
and independence, and makes active
transportation a safe and appealing choice for
all.
1. Introduction 28
1.4 Vision, Objectives, and Performance Measures
To guide the 2026 BPTP Update, a vision statement and set of objectives were created based on community
input gathered during the visioning workshop and early engagement activities. The 2026 BPTP also includes
performance measures that will help track the City’s progress toward these goals.
1.4.1 VISION STATEMENT
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable
transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected
street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people
of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School
and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and
encouragement programs.
29
1.4.2 OBJECTIVES
To achieve the vision for the 2026 BPTP, the following objectives were developed that guide the
recommendations.
Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability
and ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the community while
reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.
Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes,
and trails that provide efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations,
encouraging a shift away from driving and improving environmental health through lower vehicle miles
traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting
active transportation, supported by education, programming, and infrastructure investments, in a way
that cultivates learning for network users of all ages.
Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through
amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes.
Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated,
and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
1.4.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 1 lists performance measures that have been established to track progress toward achieving the Plan vision
and objectives and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling in Palo Alto.
Table 1: Performance Measures
OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORTING PERIOD
Safe and Inclusive
Annual pedestrian and bicycle collisions per 100,000
residents Annual
Annual pedestrian and bicycle killed and severe injury (KSI)
collisions per 100,000 residents Annual
Connected and
Accessible
Walk/bike/roll to school and commute mode shares Annual (school mode share);
Annual (commute mode share)
Walking and biking volumes at key locations Annual
Community-Led
and Cooperative
Number of walking and biking promotion events held per
year at schools in the City Annual
Number (and percent) of schools with at least one
Transportation Safety Representative Annual
Number of open street events held Annual
Number of active pedestrian and/or bicycle advocacy groups Annual
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
1. Introduction 30
Table 2 outlines potential performance measures that could be introduced as the 2026 BPTP is implemented
and as walking, biking, and rolling network grows, prompting the need to expand how the 2026 BPTP is tracked.
Biannually (every 2 years), the City of Palo Alto can consult with the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC) to determine if the annual performance measures exhibit trends (compared to baseline
conditions and year-over-year) that illustrate a clear path forward for allocating resources. If it is determined that
additional direction is needed to invest in the network to achieve 2026 BPTP vision and goals, then performance
measures such as the following could potentially be established. Developing these measures will require
further research and a formalized methodology including identifying reliable data sources that could be tracked
periodically.
Table 2: Potential Performance Measures
OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORTING PERIOD
Safe and Inclusive
Number of top pedestrian and bicycle KSI collision or
high injury network locations improved or studied Annual
Percentage of existing affordable housing projects
within 1,000 feet of completed and connected
all ages and abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure
(bikeways, trails)
Annual
Connected and
Accessible
Miles of bikeway facilities (per each bikeway type and
total network)Annual
Share of transportation budget spent on walk/bike/
roll improvements Annual
Comfortable and
Enjoyable
Percentage of cycling infrastructure mileage that are
AAA routes or Level of Traffic Stress1 (LTS) 1/2 Annual
Canopy coverage percentage of designated walking
and bicycling routes.Annual
Integrated and
Collaborative
Number of completed walking/bicycling projects that
improve cross-jurisdictional gateways Every 3 years
Percentage of transit stops and stations accessible on
AAA cycling routes.Every 3 years
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
Notes: 1Level of traffic stress (LTS) is an approach that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel when they bicycle close to traffic. It is further described in section 2.5.
31
1.5 Setting
Located between the open space preserves of the foothills and the tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, Palo Alto
encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, nearly half of which is designated as parks, open space,
and Baylands. With an established grid network of streets, vibrant business districts, a well-known park and trail
system, and direct proximity to Stanford University, Palo Alto is an ideal place for walking and biking. Flat terrain,
tree-lined streets, and a temperate climate also make Palo Alto a relatively easy place to bicycle. Palo Alto’s main
transportation corridors are Interstate 280, Highway 101, Highway 84 (the Dumbarton Bridge), State Route 82
(El Camino Real), and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road. Within the City, commuter rail stations include the
Palo Alto University Avenue stop (one of the most frequently used in the Caltrain system) and the California
Avenue station. Bus service is primarily provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
limited service is provided by SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit District), Dumbarton Express, and Standford’s
Marguerite Shuttle. Since 2012, the City of Palo Alto’s population has remained relatively consistent with around
66,000 residents, whereas the median household income has increased by 55 percent. Image 1 and Table 3
shows the key demographic indicators as obtained from 2023 U.S. Census ACS 1-Year estimates.
Image 1: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023 1-Year Estimates.
1. Introduction 32
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators
DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATOR ESTIMATE
Total Population 65,881
Population Density 2,846 Population per square mile
Sex ratio (males per 100 females)98.6
Average Household Size 2.35
High School Graduate or Higher 97.6%
Median Household Income $184,068
Per Capita Income $97,307
Unemployment Rate 3.5%
Mean Travel Time to Work 20.4 minutes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023 1-Year Estimates.
1.5.1 KEY DESTINATIONS
There are several key destinations, community amenities, and resources, including medical and education
centers, schools, grocery stores, childcare centers, pharmacies, parks, libraries, and transit stops, within a
walkable distance of half a mile and a bikeable distance of two miles of many Palo Alto residents.
Figure 1 identifies key destinations, or existing activity generators, that will benefit from improved bicycle and
pedestrian connections.
Figure 2 illustrates the 10-minute walk and bike sheds (area that is accessible within 10-minutes of walking or
biking based on the existing street network without consideration of available existing facility) for major transit
stops, which include Caltrain stations and bus stops served by rapid bus service. These walk and bike shed areas
represent the majority of populated areas within the City. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements
on streets and sidewalks connecting to these stops are critical in providing safe and comfortable connections to
transit.
33
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
M edi cal
Center
Luci l e Packard
Chi l dren's
H ospi tal
VA Pal o Al to
M edi cal Care
System
Stanford
Shoppi ng Center
Downtown
Shoppi ng Area
Town &
Country
Vi l l age
Cal i forni a Avenue
Shoppi ng Area
M i dtown
Shoppi ng Center
Downtown
Li brary
Chi l dren's
Li brary
Ri nconada
Li brary
Luci e Stern
Communi ty
Center
M i tchel l Park
Communi ty
Center
Cubberl ey
Communi ty
Center
Jewi sh
Communi ty
Center
Col l ege
Terrace
Li brary
Pal o Al to
M edi cal
Foundati on
Santa Cl ara
County
Superi or
Court
Pal o Al to
Transi t Center
Stanford
Research
Park
East
Bayshore
San Antoni o Road/
Bayshore Corri dor
Al ma
Vi l l age
Edgewood
Pl aza
Pal o Al to
Art Center
Charl eston
Shoppi ng
Center
Publ i c Safety
Bui l di ng
!!TC
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
City of Palo Alto
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Employment District or Other High-Intensity Uses
School
Parks and Open Space
Community Center
Library
Medical Center
Shopping Center/Area
Employment Center
!!TC Transit Center
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators
34
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
10-Minute Walk Area
10-Minute Bike Area
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops
35
1.6 Relationship to Other Documents
The 2012 BPTP, along with a variety of local, regional, state and federal plans, legislation, and policy directives,
provides guidance for the development and safe operation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Appendix A:
Literature Review provides a more detailed review of existing plans and policies.
Across various plans, there is strong alignment
on promoting sustainability, climate action, and
increasing the rate of people walking and biking.
Common vision and goals include:
• Increasing biking and walking trips for all purposes
• Constructing and maintaining safe and accessible
streets for walking and biking and people of all
ages and abilities
• Developing a network of bikeways, pathways,
and traffic-calmed streets that connect various
business districts, residentials areas, open spaces
and parks
• Improving the aesthetics of walkways and bike
paths to attract more walking and biking trips
• Reducing the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Seeking to improve the quality of life, as well
as environmental quality, economic health, and
social equity
The 2030 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
introduces programs and policies such as collecting
bicycle counts and conducting surveys to understand
bicycle use (Program T1.16.1); encouraging
participation in local walking and biking events
(Program T1.16.4); providing facilities that encourage
walking and biking (Policy T-1.19); and prioritizing
investments for enhanced pedestrian access and
bicycle use within Palo Alto (Program T1.19.2).3
Furthermore, the policies align with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Active
Transportation Plan4 and City’s Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Program.
The common themes from the review of documents
surrounding the needs and challenges include:
• Limited access to commercial areas
• Insufficient bike parking
• Safety concerns at crossings and high-traffic areas
• Environmental risks
• Funding uncertainty
• Bicycle theft, and
• Poor infrastructure maintenance
3 City of Palo Alto. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. (2014) Accessed
from https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-
Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/2030-
Comprehensive-Plan
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Regional Active
Transportation Plan. (2023) Accessed from https://mtc.ca.gov/
planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestrian-micromobility/
regional-active-transportation-plan
1. Introduction 36
1.6.1 RELATIONSHIP TO
CITY’S ONGOING EFFORTS
At the time of the 2026 BPTP development, the City
of Palo Alto was advancing several related planning
efforts, including:
• Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan
• 2023-2031 Housing Element
• San Antonio Road Area Plan
• Downtown Housing Plan
• South Palo Alto Connectivity Project
• Quarry Road Transit Connection at El Camino Park
• Car-Free Streets: California Avenue and Ramona
Street
• El Camino Real Pavement, Rehabilitation, and
Bikeways
• Cubberley Community Center Project
The BPTP team engaged with staff and consultants
leading these initiatives to ensure coordination
and consistency across planning efforts.
Recommendations from projects that were further
along in their development, such as the SS4A Safety
Action Plan and the 2023–2031 Housing Element,
were incorporated into the BPTP as appropriate. The
Safety Action Plan prioritizes addressing risks for
pedestrians on major downtown streets, pedestrians
on arterials at night, youth bicyclists, broadside
collisions between bicyclists and vehicles, and bicycle
crossings on high-stress streets. The Housing Element
highlights that improvements to walking and biking
infrastructure can reduce household transportation
costs and enhance residents’ quality of life. It also
promotes strategies such as Pedestrian-Transit
Oriented Development (PTOD) and mixed-use land
development to foster more walkable and bikeable
communities. Other efforts, including the San Antonio
Road Area Plan and the South Palo Alto Connectivity
Project, were still in progress at the time of 2026 BPTP
development. The 2026 BPTP recognizes that the
outcomes of these ongoing projects will continue to
inform and influence the recommendations presented
in this plan.
The following active transportation projects were
recommended as a part of the plans reviewed:
• Across barrier connections across the City (Adobe
Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing (completed),
Caltrain/Alma Barrier Crossing at Matadero
Creek (ongoing via the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity Project), etc.)
• Trails and Shared Use Pathway projects
(Embarcadero Road / Rinconada Park Sidepath,
Adobe Creek Reach Trail (completed) etc.)
• Bicycle boulevard projects (Castilleja-Park-Wilkie
Bicycle Boulevard, Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Update, etc.)
• Intersection spot improvements (El Camino Real
Intersection Through-Markings (completed),
Charleston Road at Middlefield Road Bicycle
Through-Lanes (completed), etc.)
• Infrastructure Programs (Bicycle Parking Corral /
Rack Installation Program (on-going), Pedestrian
Countdown Signals & Crossings Program (on-
going), etc.)
• System rehabilitation and Maintenance
(Castilleja Street-Park Boulevard, Lytton Avenue
(completed), etc.)
• Design, Feasibility, and Planning (Middlefield Road
“Complete Street” Plan Line Study, Embarcadero
Road Plan Line Study (completed), etc.)
• Non-Infrastructure - Education Encouragement
(Citywide Traffic Counts and Data Collection, Bike
Palo Alto! / Palo Alto Sunday Streets (on-going)
etc.)
• Freeway interchange improvements (I-280/Page
Mill Interim Improvements (completed))
• Planned Bicycle Bridge/Undercrossing (Stanford
Avenue /Seale Avenue, San Francisquito Creek
Trail (Bay Trail Crossing Complete), Adobe Creek
Bridge (complete))
37
1.7 Public Outreach Summary
The development of the 2026 BPTP was guided by an extensive, four-phase community engagement process: 1)
Visioning; 2) Needs & Concerns; 3) Recommended Projects and Programs; and 4) Plan Adoption. The community
engagement effort included a combination of digital outreach and in-person events. Events were promoted on
the City’s website, social media channels, “Transportation Connect” mailing list, tabling and community events,
Uplift local newsletter, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings.
Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement
1. Introduction 38
Key Themes from Phase 1:
• Safety is the top priority, particularly for students traveling to and from school.
• Strong demand for separated or wider bike lanes and safer street crossings.
• Need for a seamless network that crosses major barriers (e.g., highways, rail).
• Direct connections to schools, transit hubs, and key community destinations.
• Integration of e-bikes and other micromobility options.
• Emphasis on high-quality design, including comfort, aesthetics, wayfinding, and shade.
• Education, outreach, and ongoing community input are essential.
PHASE 1:
VISIONING
The initial phase focused on establishing a shared
vision through a variety of public engagement
activities. A variety of methods were used to engage
the public, including an interactive map, public survey
(developed and distributed in partnership with the
Safe Streets for All Action Plan team), a series of
seven committee and working group meetings, an
in-person pop-up event at Bike Palo Alto, and a virtual
community visioning workshop. Appendix B: Phase
1 – Visioning Community Engagement Summary
summarizes Phase 1 community engagement efforts.
The interactive map received nearly 1,000 unique
comments, with 54 percent citing safety concerns
and 29 percent requesting new infrastructure. Many
comments emphasized the need to close connectivity
gaps in the bicycle network, improve safety,
expand bike lanes for greater comfort, and provide
infrastructure near schools.
Engagement with committees and a staff working
group surfaced several key themes: (1) safety,
especially for students; (2) demand for high-quality
walking and biking infrastructure; (3) the need for
across-barrier connections over obstacles like U.S.
101 and Caltrain; (4) interest in transformative
technologies (e.g., e-bikes, sensors); and (5) alignment
of transportation planning with future growth areas
such as San Antonio Road.
At the Bike Palo Alto event, residents echoed the
importance of separated bikeway and identified
El Camino Real as a major barrier. The visioning
workshop led to the development of a vision
statement and the objectives presented in Chapter 2.
Image 3: Virtual Visioning Workshop held on January
31, 2024
Image 4: Bike Palo Alto Event held on October 1, 2023
39
PHASE 2:
NEEDS & CONCERNS
The second phase of engagement included a series of
committee and working group meetings and a week-
long series of events and workshops that included a
bicycle network development workshop, a community
walking tour, and a community cycle tour. Appendix C:
Phase 2 – Needs & Concerns Community Engagement
Summary summarizes Phase 2 community
engagement efforts.
The Bikeway Network Development workshop guided
participants to identify key destinations, connect
destinations through a schematic “Star” network, and
apply the schematic network to the street grid. The
resulting networks highlighted the need for crossing
across railway tracks and opportunities to improve
facilities on major roads such as Middlefield Road, El
Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road.
The community walking tour, hosted in partnership
with Avenidas (a senior activity center), explored
University Avenue and the Palo Alto Caltrain Station
area. Feedback from the tour contributed to the
development of the Pedestrian Design Guidelines.
The community bike tour, organized with the Silicon
Valley Bicycle Coalition, involved 24 community
members and covered a range of existing bicycle
facility types over a seven-mile bike ride. Participants
emphasized the need for smoother transitions
between street types, stronger connectivity, and
infrastructure that supports riders of all ages and
abilities.
Image 5: Bicycle Network Development Workshop
Image 6: Community Walking Tour
Key Themes from Phase 2:
• Strengthen the existing network by addressing critical gaps.
• Prioritize improvements along key corridors, including San Antonio Road, Alma Street, Embarcadero Road,
Middlefield Road, and El Camino Real.
• Enhance sidewalk continuity, wayfinding, and placemaking in pedestrian-oriented areas such as University
Avenue and California Avenue.
• Improve transitions between different types of bicycle facilities to create a smoother, more consistent
experience.
1. Introduction 40
PHASE 3:
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
This phase sought feedback on draft project and program concepts through focus group meetings (3), committee
meetings (3), commission meetings (2), a public workshop, tabling and public events, online interactive map
feedback and electronic feedback submissions. Appendix D: Phase 3 – Recommended Project & Programs
Community Engagement Summary summarizes Phase 3 community engagement efforts.
Discussions with focus groups, commission and committee members highlighted concerns about the cost
and return on investment on bikeways on “Big Streets.” There appeared to be consensus on the need for
micromobility supporting infrastructure, pedestrian-oriented streets, implementation of bike boulevards, Quick-
Build projects, wayfinding, and, most importantly, safety enhancements.
A joint workshop for the 2026 BPTP and South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity5 project was held at the Mitchell
Park Community Center. Key takeaways included strong support for expanding the pedestrian toolbox with
features such as pedestrian beacons, pedestrian-only zones, raised crossings, wider sidewalks, permanent
wayfinding, and improved bike parking. Feedback on separated bikeway was mixed.
In addition to in-person events, an online interactive map and feedback form were made available on the
project website. The map tool collected over 400 public comments, with 40 percent expressing support for
improvements along corridors like Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue, Quarry Road, Charleston Road, and Oregon
Expressway. Some (13%) raised concerns about specific treatments, while 24 percent opposed certain proposals,
particularly where they could impact vehicle traffic—such as on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road, and
Embarcadero Road. Several commenters suggested leveraging creek corridors for non-motorized transportation.
The feedback form received over 100 responses, which largely supported making Palo Alto more bike- and
pedestrian-friendly but also raised concerns about the safety and practicality of certain proposed projects,
particularly those involving busy arterial roads and parking removal.
5 City of Palo Alto. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Accessed from www.paloalto.gov/bikepedcrossings
Key Themes from Phase 3:
• Mixed reactions to “Big Streets” projects while they provide direct connections, many questioned their
overall return on investment.
• Strong call for a clearer prioritization framework that accounts for real-world constraints.
• Desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations.
• Emphasis on improving overall network connectivity and cohesion.
• Support for non-infrastructure strategies such as education, policy tools, funding mechanisms, and
planning for emerging mobility modes.
41
PHASE 4:
PLAN ADOPTION
The final phase involved presenting the draft 2026 BPTP Update to committees, commissions and Council for
review and adoption.
2. Existing Facilities 42
2.
EXISTING FACILITIES
43
This chapter provides an overview of walking and biking in Palo Alto and presents relevant demographic data,
existing walking and biking infrastructure, the High Injury Bicycle and Pedestrian Network, and the results of the
bicycle level of traffic stress analysis. This inventory and analysis of existing conditions sets the stage for identifying
pedestrian and bicycle needs and informs the prioritization process and network recommendations.
A pedestrian is someone traveling on foot along sidewalks, crosswalks, or pathways. This also includes individuals
using assistive devices such as canes, walkers, or wheelchairs. A bicyclist is a person riding a bicycle, which may
include pedal-powered bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes) with pedal-assist or throttle features, and adaptive
bicycles such as hand-cycles or tricycles. Shared micromobility refers to the use of small, low-speed vehicles like
bicycles and scooters that are available for public rental on a short-term basis.
2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Facilities that support people walking include sidewalks, shared-use paths, and trails, as well as crossing facilities
such as curb ramps and marked crosswalks. Amenities such as street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting,
pedestrian-oriented wayfinding, shade, benches, water fountains, and landscaping also serve to support and
create an environment that is convenient and inviting for people walking.
Sidewalk on Hamilton Avenue.
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Marked crosswalks and curb ramps at University
Avenue and Ramona Street.
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2. Existing Facilities 44
Sidewalk shade on University Avenue.
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Pedestrian-oriented wayfinding signage on Hamilton
Avenue.
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Sidewalks are generally provided throughout Palo Alto on its arterial and residential streets, providing walking
connectivity to destinations such as schools, parks, retail, and transit. However, there are some gaps in the
sidewalk network, including around key walking destinations such as rail and bus rapid transit stops. For
example, the presence of sidewalk gaps along Palo Alto Avenue (near Palo Alto Transit Station) and along San
Antonio Road (near San Antonio Transit Station) affect the directness and convenience of walking to and from
high quality transit service. In addition, some neighborhoods may lack complete sidewalk networks on their
residential streets, such as those within proximity of San Antonio Transit Station.
Marked crosswalks are provided at signalized and unsignalized intersections in the City. However, there are
locations where consistent marked crosswalks are lacking. For example, at-grade arterials and expressways which
bisect the City can have marked crosswalks that are limited and distant from one another. In addition, some
signalized intersections do not provide marked crosswalks at all four legs, requiring pedestrians to undertake a
three-stage crossing; for example, this condition occurs in proximity of Palo Alto Transit Station. Some signalized
intersections also lack pedestrian crossing signals especially in key commercial areas like Downtown Palo Alto.
The unsignalized intersections of side streets at arterial streets often lack marked crosswalks in any direction; for
example, this condition is present near California Avenue Transit Station along streets such as Page Mill Road,
California Avenue, and El Camino Real.
45
2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Facilities that support people bicycling include bike lanes, bike boulevards, separated bikeway, shared-use paths,
and trails, as well as crossing facilities such as protected intersections and conflict zone markings. Amenities
such as bicycle parking, bicycle-oriented wayfinding, and bicycle signals also serve to support and create an
environment that is convenient and inviting for people bicycling.
The City of Palo Alto has been a pioneer in developing bicycle facilities, having
implemented the first Bicycle Boulevard in the United States on Bryant Street in the
1970s. The corridor is named in honor of Ellen Fletcher, a longtime councilwoman
and former Palo Alto Vice-Mayor who helped transform the City into a nationally
recognized bike-friendly community through her persistent advocacy.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I, II, III, and
IV, as illustrated in Image 7. In addition to these statewide classifications, the City of Palo Alto uses further sub-
classifications: Class IIa – standard bike lanes, Class IIb – buffered bike lanes, Class IIIa – bike routes, and Class IIIb
– bike boulevards.
Image 7: Types of Bicycle Facilities
Source: Caltrans, Toward an Active California, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2017.
Note: A pedestrian or bicycle facility is any infrastructure designed to support, enhance, and encourage bicycle use by improving the safety and convenience for pedestrians or bicyclists.
2. Existing Facilities 46
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025
FACILITY TYPE 2012 2025
Class I Multi-Use Path 13.9 11.7
Class II Bike Lane 33.2 34.6
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.3
Class III Shared Lane 8.0 12.6
Class III Bicycle Boulevard 4.2 7.1
Class IV Separated Bikeway*4.3
TOTAL 59.3 73.5
Source: 2012 BPTP
Note: Includes the recently constructed El Camino Real separated bikeway.
2012 lane mile data is sourced from the 2012 BPTP; 2025 lane mileage is calculated using the 2025 roadway centerline file. The Class I length has not decreased between 2012 and 2025—differences are due only to the calculation method.
Figure 3 illustrates the existing bikeway network in Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions. In 2012, the City had
59.3 miles of bikeways. Since then, approximately 14 miles have been added, bringing the total to 73.5 miles as
of 2025. Notably, there were no Class II buffered or Class IV separated bikeway in 2012; today, the City boasts
3.3 miles of buffered bike lanes and 4.3 miles of separated bikeways. Table 4 includes comparison between 2012
bicycle network mileage with existing network in 2025.
2.2.1 EXISTING DOWNTOWN BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES
In December 2024, a team conducted a comprehensive inventory of bicycle parking facilities along University
Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, and Lytton Avenue between Middlefield Road and the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain
Station. Figure 4 shows the distribution of bicycle parking locations within this area. The team identified a
total of 142 locations, providing capacity for up to 679 bicycles in a variety of rack types, including inverted U –
circular, inverted U - rectangle, series inverted U, elevated racks, wave racks, and lockers.
High utilization was observed at many locations, particularly near University Avenue and the Caltrain Station.
Most bike parking is conveniently located on or near sidewalks. However, some individuals were observed
securing bicycles to sign poles or trees, likely for convenience or due to limited availability. The detailed
observation and analysis from the bicycle parking survey is presented in Appendix E: Bicycle Parking Data
Collection Summary.
47
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Library
Community Center
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
48
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
For
e
s
t
A
v
e
Eve
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Wave
r
l
e
y
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Eme
r
s
o
n
S
t
Al ma
S
t
Webs
t
e
r
S
t
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Elevated
Inverted U
Wave
Locker
Other
Study Area
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
Commercial Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 500 1,000
Feet
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location
49
2.3 Walking and Biking Activity
Existing walking and biking activity data was analyzed, including travel characteristics such as the purpose of the
trip, trip duration, time of day, origin and destination, and traveler demographics. This information is used to
identify improvements that would lead to the highest return on investment.
The 2026 BPTP utilizes surveys, counts, and location-based data from Replica to understand the existing walking
and biking activity. The Spring 2023 data from Replica was included as part of this analysis for bicycle and
pedestrian trips originating within two miles of city limits.
Additional details are provided in Appendix F: Future Activity Levels and Benefits Analysis Memorandum.
Replica (Big-Data provider) uses a comprehensive modeling technique that simulates the movements of
residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles based on a synthetic population. This synthetic population
is statistically representative of our community and constructed from a blend of mobile location data,
consumer/resident data, built environment data, economic activity data, and, when available, bike and
pedestrian counts. 1
Replica uses cell phone telemetry data to determine the relative popularity of points of interest.
However, it’s important to note that this data isn’t utilized to determine the mode of transportation for
a trip. This is because the GPS-derived speed of a device lacks the precision necessary to differentiate
between modes such as bus trips and biking trips. Instead, the determination of a trip’s mode is based
on factors such as the proximity between the origin and destination, the availability of roadways
suitable for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as household and commute characteristics. These variables
collectively influence the mode choice.
Replica’s methodology allows us to explore mobility patterns with a granularity previously unattainable,
offering detailed insights into how, when, and why different population segments navigate our City. Such
detailed modeling can uncover latent needs and opportunities for infrastructure improvements that
might not be evident from traditional data sources alone.
1 For more information on Replica methodology, visit: https://documentation.replicahq.com/docs/seasonal-mobility-model-
methodology-summary-places
2. Existing Facilities 50
Walking Activity
Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of walking trips were associated with shopping (31%),
work (9%), and restaurant (9%) related trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanic and Latino travelers
represent 20% of the total walking trips. With about 15% of the population, people aged 18-34 made
almost 37% of the total walk trips. The peak time for pedestrian trips occurs between 3 and 5 p.m. Most
walking trips are under 5 minutes with a mean of 11 minutes and median of 7 minutes. Most walking trips
(56%) are under 0.5-mile, and 96% of trips are under two miles. Major destinations include Stanford University
with other walking hubs in downtown, Barron Park, and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park.
Biking Activity
Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of biking trips was associated with schools and colleges
(17%), followed by shopping (11%) and work (8%) trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanics and
Latinos represent 20% of the total bike trips. With about 15% of the population, people aged 18-34
made almost 45% of the total bike trips. The highest percentage of trips in the morning occurs at 7 a.m.,
constituting around 11% of the overall bike trips. Over 59% of trips take place between 12 noon and 9 p.m.,
with the peak time observed at 3 p.m., representing 13% of the total bike trips. The average bike trip is 14.2
minutes, and the median travel time is 10 minutes. The average bike trip length is 2.5 miles, and 56% of trips are
less than two miles in length, 23% are between 2 and 4 miles, and 20% are over two miles.
Walking and Biking in Numbers
To assess existing walking and biking activity at key locations, 12-hour bicycle and pedestrian counts
were conducted from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at 32 locations citywide on both a weekday and a weekend in May
2024. The highest pedestrian activity was recorded along University Avenue on both days, followed by
Embarcadero Road and California Avenue. Pedestrian volumes were relatively consistent across the
morning, midday, and evening peak periods, with slightly higher activity observed during the morning
peak. Bicycle activity was highest along Bryant Street, particularly near Churchill Avenue. On weekdays, bicycle
volumes peaked in the morning, while weekend activity was more evenly distributed throughout the day.
2.3.2 POTENTIAL AND FUTURE ACTIVITY
Approximately 49% of all vehicle trips are less than two miles (10-minute biking distance), presenting an
opportunity for a potential transition to walking and biking. With a diverse land use mix and improved bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure, there is a possibility to encourage a mode shift towards active transportation.
Furthermore, the City is exploring the option of shared micromobility options, and the rising popularity of
e-bikes could further assist the City in achieving its climate action goals of reducing transportation-related
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 65% below 1990 levels.
Figure 5 shows the latent demand score for walking and biking. The latent demand score is a measure of the
relative amount of walking or biking activity that would be expected on each roadway segment based on
proximity to key destinations and the quality of the existing pedestrian or bicycle facility.
The highest demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities is around the Downtown Caltrain Station and California
Avenue Caltrain Station. This map was developed based on the key destinations and their relative usage. The
other locations with the highest demand include areas near Mitchell Park and JLS Middle School stretching west
of El Camino Real along Arastradero Road. Investing in bicycle infrastructure improvements along these roadways
would be most beneficial in serving the major activity generators.
51
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Low Demand
High Demand
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 5: Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements
2. Existing Facilities 52
2.4 Barriers to Walking and Biking
Barriers to safely and comfortably walking and biking in Palo Alto can take many forms, such as:
• Linear barriers, including freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines that lack comfortable crossings.
• Gaps in pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalk markings, and signals, or the street
network itself (e.g., disconnected cul-de-sacs).
Major barriers in Palo Alto were analyzed to determine where people may need to take detours and increase the
length of their walking and biking trips. This assessment is summarized below, with additional details provided in
Appendix G: Major Barriers Analysis Memorandum.
Linear barriers in Palo Alto consist of the following, as illustrated in Figure 6:
• Freeways and highways – Major roadway barriers such as the Bayshore Freeway (US 101), which provides
limited crossing opportunities at bicycle and pedestrian bridge at Adobe Creek and Embarcadero, spaced-out
ramp locations, as well as expressways such as the Oregon Expressway which do not provide marked crossing
opportunities at several side-street intersections.
• Water bodies – Channels such as Adobe Creek or Matadero Canal cannot be crossed by an easily accessible
street or pedestrian bridge.
• Rail lines – Freight and passenger rail lines often provide few and distant crossing opportunities for all
modes, significantly increasing the distance of walking trips.
Freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines were analyzed to answer the following questions:
How far does someone need to walk to cross a barrier at an available crossing location? Is there a lack of
available crossings at a barrier that requires someone to travel a significant distance around that barrier?
53
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Rail Barrier
Freeway/Highway
Barrier
Waterway Barrier
High Traffic
Roadway Barrier
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike
Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial
Center
Community Center
Library
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 6: Linear Barriers
2. Existing Facilities 54
Note that the linear barriers assessment specifically focuses on freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines,
and does not assess major streets which can be stressful for walking and bicycling and serve as barriers. This
assessment found that a number of linear barriers affect the convenience of walking and bicycling in Palo Alto:
• A lack of consistently available crossing opportunities across Highway 101 results in noticeable detours
for walking trips. The most significant gap in crossing opportunities occurs between the two walking and
bicycling bridges over the highway, limiting access to the Adobe Creek Loop Trail.
• People walking and bicycling may need to divert and increase their trip lengths to pass around Adobe Creek,
especially to the south. This highest level of diversions occur in the area between the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike
Path and the Foothill Expressway, where the creek runs between the Alta Mesa Memorial Park to the west
and residences to the east.
• Crossing Matadero Canal may require detours that approximately double the walking or bicycling trip
distance, which can be increased due to the presence of the rail line.
• There are multiple areas along the rail line where substantial walking and bicycling diversions are required
for crossing. These include the approximately 0.65-mile gap between the Churchill Avenue and California
Avenue crossings and the approximately 1.3-mile gap between the California Avenue and Meadow Drive
crossings in south Palo Alto.
Barriers to transit access consisting of gaps in pedestrian facilities and street network connectivity were assessed
in the areas surrounding the City’s rail stations and high-frequency bus stops, as shown in Figure 7. Gaps in safe
and convenient walking access to high-quality transit vary throughout the City:
• Near the Palo Alto Station, Palo Alto Transit Center, and El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road bus stops,
barriers to transit access consist of channelized turn lanes, crossing locations with missing marked
crosswalks, and sidewalk gaps, including longer segments where a sidewalk is only provided on one side of
the street.
• Near the California Avenue Station and El Camino Real/California Avenue bus stops, barriers to transit access
include missing crosswalks, sidewalks (south side of the California Avenue Caltrain Station parking lot), and a
channelized turn-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
• Near the San Antonio Station and El Camino Real/Charleston Road bus stops, barriers to transit access
primarily consists of a lack of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods and along a portion of San Antonio
Road.
55
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U __`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Caltrain Station
®¯U Rapid Bus Stop
Rail Station Half-Mile Buffer
Rapid Bus Stop Quarter-Mile Buffer
Railroad
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, VTA, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 7: Transit Barrier Study Areas
2. Existing Facilities 56
2.5 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it
imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 with LTS 1 indicating low stress facility and LTS 4
indicating a high stress facility, as shown in Image 6.
Image 8: Relationship between LTS and Comfort
The segment analysis considers roadway functional classification, vehicle volume, posted or prevailing vehicle
speeds, number of vehicle lanes, the presence of on-street parking, and vehicle parking and bicycle lane widths.
Figure 8 shows the LTS results from segment analysis. Streets with the highest stress levels or least comfortable
conditions for bicyclists are typically those with narrow bike lanes (less than 5.5 feet), higher speeds (over 35
mph), multiple travel lanes, and adjacent on-street parking. Based on these criteria, the most stressful segments
were identified along Alma Street between Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road, Oregon Expressway
between the US 101 ramps and El Camino Real, San Antonio Road between Casey Avenue (Mountain View) and
Alma Street, and Foothill Expressway between Page Mill Road and the eastern city limit.
The crossing analysis considers the right-turn lane configuration and length, bike lane approach, vehicle turning
speeds, and the presence of a median refuge. Among the 1,233 intersections, 139 are signalized and are
assigned LTS 1 as traffic signals do not create a barrier and provide a protected way across. The remaining low
stress intersections are typically located on residential streets characterized by low speeds and minimal vehicular
activity. Notably, the corridors with the highest stress levels, including El Camino Real, Alma Street, San Antonio
Road, and Oregon Expressway, are associated with the majority of high stress intersections. Figure 9 shows
the LTS results from the crossing analysis. Detailed LTS methodology and evaluation summary is presented in
Appendix H: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Memorandum.
LTS 1
California Avenue in front
Greene Middle School
LTS 2
Hanover Street
near Page Mill Road
LTS 3
Meadow Drive
near Wilkie Way
LTS 4
San Antonio Road
near Leghorn Streets
57
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
Note: Split lines are only used for roadways
with different conditions per direction (for
example: bike lane in only one direction or
parking only on one side), otherwise all roads
are shown with only a centerline.
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results
58
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 9: Intersection LTS Results
59
2.6 Collision Analysis
Analyzing pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions helps understand the location, severity, circumstances, and
timing of collisions affecting people walking and biking. Recent collision data from 2018 to 2022 was analyzed
to help determine the streets and types of improvements that should be prioritized to make it safer for people
walking and biking. This assessment is summarized below, with additional details provided in Appendix I:
Collision and Safety Analysis Memorandum.
Table 3 presents an overview of the five-year collision data. For the five years under review, a total of 104
pedestrian and 257 bicycle collisions were reported in the City of Palo Alto, with three collisions involving both
pedestrians and bicyclists. Around 12%, or 12, of the pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality (3 collisions)
or severe injury (9 collisions). Around 5%, or 13, of the bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality (one collision) or
severe injury (12 collisions). These collisions are organized by year and by severity in Figure 10 and Figure 11;
they are mapped by severity in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
2. Existing Facilities 60
Key pedestrian and bicycle collision trends are summarized below:
• Severity: Collisions involving people walking or biking were more likely to result in an injury or a fatality
compared to motor vehicle collisions. Approximately 12% of pedestrian collisions and 5% of bicycle collisions
resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• Temporal Trends: The number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions has been decreasing over the most recent
five-year period (2018-2022) likeley reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on traffic patterns.
• Bicycle Collision Types: The most commonly-cited collision types for bicyclist-involved collisions were
broadside collisions (61%) followed by sideswipe collisions (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions
specifically, the most common collision types were broadside collisions (54%), followed by head-on and hit
object collisions (15% each).
• Pedestrian Collision Factors: The most commonly-cited primary collision factors (PCFs) for pedestrian-
involved collisions were pedestrian right of way (51%) followed by pedestrian violation and improper turning
(13% each).2 For fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions specifically, the most common PCFs were
pedestrian violation at (42%), improper turning (25%), and pedestrian right of way at (17%).
• Bicycle Collision Factors: The most commonly-cited PCFs for bicycle-involved collisions were improper
turning (21%), automobile right of way (19%), and riding on the wrong side of the road (13%). For fatal and
severe injury bicycle collisions specifically, the most common PCFs were improper turning and traffic signals
and signs (23% each).3
An analysis of the collision data and Palo Alto’s roadway network was conducted to identify a set of bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury streets, together called a High-Injury Network (HIN). For the 2026 BPTP, the Bicycle
HIN is defined as the top 10 roadway segments with the highest concentration of bicycle collisions, weighted
by severity. Similarly, the Pedestrian HIN is defined as the roadway segments with the highest concentration of
pedestrian collisions. Note, the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan also identifies an HIN which accounts for collisions
involving all travel modes, including collisions involving motor vehicles only. The bicycle and pedestrian HIN
constitutes the worst-performing street segments based on both the frequency and the severity of collisions
involving people walking and biking. The bicycle HIN and pedestrian HIN are shown in Figure 14.
Bicycle HIN Includes Pedestrian HIN Includes
• Wilton Ave between Park Blvd and El Camino Real • High St between Lytton Ave and Channing Ave
• W Meadow Dr between Alma St and El Camino Way • Quarry Rd between El Camino Real & Vineyard Ln
• Alma St between Meadow Dr and El Verano Ave • El Dorado Ave between Alma St & Cowper St
• Gailen Ave between Bibbits Dr and Grove Ave • South Ct between Oregon Expy & Matadero Creek
• Quarry Rd between El Camino Real and Welch Rd • Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St
• Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St • California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St
• Melville Ave between Channing Ave & Embarcadero Rd • Waverly St between Lytton Ave and Churchill Ave
• California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St • Charleston Rd between Alma St & San Antonio Rd
• Charleston Rd between Alma St and Embarcadero Rd • University Ave between Alma St & Woodland Ave
• E Meadow Dr between Fabian Way and Alma St • Loma Verde Ave between Alma St & Bayshore Rd
2 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violation – Occurs when a driver fails to yield to a pedestrian who has the legal right-of-way, such as at a
marked or unmarked crosswalk (CVC §21950).
Pedestrian Violation – Refers to instances where a pedestrian fails to follow traffic laws, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk (CVC
§§21954, 21955).
Improper Turning – Describes a collision caused by a motorist making a left or right turn that violates traffic regulations, such as turning
from the wrong lane or failing to yield appropriately (CVC §§22100–22101).
3 Traffic Signals and Signs - describes a party disobeying a traffic control device, such as a traffic signal or roadside sign (CVC §§38280-
38302).
61
Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022)
PARTIES INVOLVED FATAL SEVERE INJURY MODERATE INJURY MINOR INJURY REPORTED TOTAL
Pedestrian 3 (2.9%)9 (8.7%)49 (47.1%)43 (41.3%)104
Bicyclist 1 (0.4%)12 (4.7%)175 (68.1%)69 (26.8%)257
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022
Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity
Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022
Source: TIMS data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022
62
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022)
63
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022)
64
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Bicycle High Injury Network
Pedestrian High Injury Network
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network
65
2.7 Shared Micromobility and E-bikes
Electrification of the transportation system has expanded in various ways with the development of electric
bicycles (e-bikes) (which now out-sell electric cars in the USA) and e-scooters. The widespread use of internet-
connected mobile phones has also allowed shared mobility to take off with bike, e-bike, and e-scooter
sharing systems being implemented in cities around the world. A summary of shared micromobility and
e-bikes is presented in this section and additional information is presented in Appendix J: E-Bikes and Shared
Micromobility Memorandum.
Electric Bicycles: The State of California Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) defines e-bikes as “a bicycle
equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric
motor of less than 750 watts.” California Vehicle Code
§ 312.5 preempts cities from regulating e-bike traffic
provisions unless the legislature specifically authorizes
it.4 Within this definition, the DMV has established
three classes of e-bikes.
• Class 1: A low-speed, pedal-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a motor which provides
assistance only when the rider is pedaling and
ceases to provide assistance when a speed of 20
mph is reached.
• Class 2: A low-speed, throttle-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a motor used exclusively to
propel the bicycle and not capable of providing
assistance when a speed of 20 mph is reached.
• Class 3: A low-speed, pedal-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a speedometer, and a
motor which provides assistance only when the
rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance
when a speed of 28 mph is reached.
4 California Vehicle Code. Defining electric bicycle classes and
standards. Accessed from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-
code/veh-sect-312-5/
E-bikes enable people to travel further by bicycle
and can contribute to increased mode shifts and
decongestion if they are replacing trips that would
otherwise be made by personal automobile. Studies
show that e-bike riders travel further and cycle more
often with one study from 2020 finding that after
purchasing an e-bike, riders increased their total
bicycle usage from 1.3 miles to 5.7 miles per day and
that their share of all trips made by bike increased
from 17% to 49%.
Although the advantages of e-bikes far outweigh the
disadvantages, there are some challenges that must
be addressed. E-bikes can allow users to travel at
relatively high speeds, which may present a safety risk
to e-bike users and other active transportation users
(pedestrians, traditional cyclists) around them when
there is a great speed differential. Additionally, while
e-bikes are not drastically different than traditional
bicycles, safely and effectively accommodating them
in the transportation system requires wider facilities
and additional separation to enable faster riders to
overtake slower ones. Facility recommendations and
design guidance developed for this BPTP Update
consider potential increases in bike volumes and
greater speed differential related to increases in
e-bike usage.
2. Existing Facilities 66
Shared Micromobility: The United States Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) defines micromobility as “any small, low-
speed, human- or electric-powered transportation
device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist
bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other
small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances.” Generally,
micromobility vehicles (or devices) are expected to
operate in the same road space as bicycles, using bike
lanes and paths if available, otherwise sharing the
roadway with motorists. While there is no California
statewide law specifically permitting or prohibiting
riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, the State DMV does
not allow motorized scooters to be used on sidewalks
and does not allow them to exceed 15 mph. In Palo
Alto, riding on sidewalks in the Cal Ave and Downtown
Business Districts is prohibited.5 E-scooter users under
the age of 18 must wear a helmet and users must
have a valid driver’s license.
Over the past decade, a variety of shared
micromobility systems have emerged with the most
common being shared e-scooters and e-bike share
systems. While e-bikes and e-scooters are the most
common form of micromobility, some niche forms
are emerging including e-cargo bikes, mopeds, and
neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), although these
forms of mobility are yet to become widespread.
Advancements in technology have allowed many
systems to now use a hybrid docked and dockless
system based on geofencing. Municipalities and
operators can now designate specific zones for
parking shared micromobility vehicles, reducing the
need for docking infrastructure while still allowing the
municipality control over where vehicles can park.
5 City of Palo Alto. Bicyclist FAQs: Sharing the Road. Accessed from
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/
safe-routes-to-schools/sharing-
the-road_-bicyclist-faqs-1.pdf
California’s New Daylighting Law (AB 413) makes it
illegal to park a vehicle within 20 feet of a crosswalk
(marked or unmarked) regardless of whether the
curb is painted red. This applies only to the direction
of travel when you are approaching a crosswalk. This
provides an opportunity for the City to allow parking
of bicycles and shared micromobility.6
The City of Palo Alto adopted a one-year bicycle and
electric scooter sharing pilot program in March 2018
(City Manager Report #8546) and developed permit
guidelines for vendors to operate within the City of
Palo Alto. The City Council extended pilot program
in 2019 (Resolution #9822), in 2020 (Resolution
#9882), and in 2021 (Resolution #9914). The pilot
program implementation was initially delayed due to
staff resources and delayed further as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot program expired on
September 30, 2022, and other shared micromobility
partnerships have not been secured since the 37-bike
system run by Motivate was discontinued.
The City of Palo Alto began the Shared Micromobility
Feasibility Study in December 2024 to determine a
program structure that would best serve the City’s
goals for mobility, environmental sustainability,
and fiscal solvency. The recommendations from the
Feasibility Study will inform the design of a new pilot
program. As a part of the study, the City is exploring
opportunities to collaborate with neighboring
jurisdictions for a regional shared micromobility
system, including joining the Bay Wheels partnership
with MTC and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). In early
2026, City staff will present recommendations to City
Council for a pilot program to be initiated in summer
of 2026.
6 California Bicycle Coalition. Nine Uses for Daylighting Space.
Accessed from https://www.calbike.org/nine-uses-for-daylighting-
space/
67
3. Recommendations 68
3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
69
The vision for the BPTB Update includes creating a safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian network that can
be enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities. To build on the strengths of the existing bikeway network, the
recommended bikeway network is structured around two tiers: The Low-Stress Bicycle Network and the Complete
Vision Bicycle Network.
Low-Stress Bicycle Network
The Low-Stress Bicycle Network forms the foundation
for citywide bicycle connectivity, expanding on existing
low-stress routes between neighborhoods. Built
primarily around Bicycle Boulevards, this network uses
traffic-calmed local streets to provide safe, comfortable
routes through residential areas. It also includes key
connections to adjacent cities and destinations. Major
streets with separated bikeways are included on the
Low-Stress Bicycle Network only where the street
network is disconnected and major roadways are
the only way to/through a neighborhood. The City’s
near-term investments will focus on the Low-Stress
Network, closing gaps in the existing network and
providing greater access to transit and schools within
the next ten years.
Complete Vision Bicycle Network
The Complete Vision Bicycle Network represents
the long-term vision for a fully connected, all-ages-
and-abilities bikeway system. It expands the Low-
Stress Network by adding separated bikeways on
major streets, filling critical gaps and enabling direct
connections to destinations. Implementation of this
network involves more significant changes to street
design, delivering transformative improvements in
safety, access, and mobility. This network includes new
railroad crossings and connections to those longer-
term crossings.
This chapter describes the network corridor criteria, project identification and prioritization process, and
pedestrian districts and recommendations.
3. Recommendations 70
3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria
To guide bicycle network development, the following development approach and network corridor criteria were
applied. The approach includes primary network development criteria which was further supplemented with
secondary criteria for network refinement. The detailed network corridor criteria and development approach is
provided in Appendix K: Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach.
3.1.1 PRIMARY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
The network is built on the 2012 BPTP and refined with recent planning efforts in Palo Alto and the region
including MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan; VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and
SRTS suggested route maps. The first round of network development synthesized these plans into a bikeway
network where these plans align and agree, as well as identifying street segments and routes with less planning
consensus. The primary network development criteria are presented in Table 4.
Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria
ATTRIBUTE SOURCE CRITERIA RATIONALE
2012 Plan
Network
Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Route included in the 2012
plan network Foundation of the plan update.
Existing Bicycle
Facility
2024 Existing Bicycle
Facilities map
Route exists today as a formal
bicycle facility
Existing routes have value by
virtue of their presence and
current use.
Palo Alto
Bicycle Map Palo Alto Bicycle Map Route included in the City
published user map.
User map published by the City of
Palo Alto, identifying bike friendly
routes today.
High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
2024 High Injury
Network for Bicyclists
Route identified as a high
injury network street in the
2024 BPTP Collision and
Safety Analysis
Route is a potential safety hazard
today, may be enhanced to
become an important or improved
network link.
2016 Bike
Boulevard
Improvements
Project
City of Palo Alto
Bike Boulevards
Improvements Project
Route included in Bike
Boulevard Improvement
Project
Detailed planning of future bicycle
boulevard implementation offers
a more recent vetting of viable
routes.
Network
Development
Workshop
2024 Network
Development Workshop
Outcomes
Route identified on the
2024 Network Development
Workshops
Network development workshops
identified key destinations and
potential direct routes between
them.
Regional Active
Transportation
Plans
MTC Regional Active
Transportation Plan; VTA
Bicycle Superhighway
Implementation Plan
Route identified as a part of
the regional AT network or
Bicycle Superhighway Plan
Regionally significant connection
between communities.
Safe Routes to
School SRTS route maps Route identified on a SRTS
suggested route map
Important connection to schools
as a priority destination
Source: Mobycon, 2025
71
3.1.2 SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR NETWORK REFINEMENT
Where multiple route options exist, secondary criteria were used to support route selection and refinement.
When selecting between alternative routes the following was considered:
• More direct route to community destinations, as identified in the Community Destinations map.
• Traffic stress conditions as identified in the LTS Analysis to identify routes with more favorable existing
conditions.
• Direct alignment with high demand flows as identified in the Activity Analysis map of bicycle Origins and
Destinations.
• Routes that overcome barriers identified in the Major Barriers Analysis.
3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network and Facilities
3.2.1 BICYCLE NETWORK
Figure 15 shows the updated bikeway network and bicycle friendly zones developed using the network corridor
criteria explained in the previous section. The map extends outside the City limits to illustrate the potential
regional connections. It presents the complete vision of the bicycle network, including both the existing facilities
and the low-stress network.
Bicycle-Friendly Zones are cohesive areas with concentrations of destinations, commercial activity, and
pedestrian activity. These areas should see area-wide investment in bicycle-friendly amenities such as signal
timing and traffic calming. A bicycle friendly zone is an area where cycling is convenient, comfortable, and direct
on all of the streets within a designated area and is the preferred method of transportation. The commercial
areas around University Avenue and California Avenue are the two proposed zones in the BPTP Update. All
streets within these districts should have elements of traffic calming so that bicyclists and other micromobility
users can conveniently and comfortably share the space. Additionally, signage should be included to indicate to
people that they are in a bicycle-friendly zone.
72
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
F
Bicycle Network
Bicycle-Friendly Zones
City of Palo Alto
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, Mobycon
0 1 2
Miles
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
As of 9/1/2025
To Stanford
Figure 15: Recommended Bicycle Network
73
3.2.2 BICYCLE FACILITIES
The 2026 BPTP introduces an updated set of bicycle facility types aimed at enhancing safety and supporting
design innovations and advancements since completion of the 2012 BPTP.
Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes prioritize motor vehicles over
people riding bicycles and feature minimal signage
and striping. In the 2026 BPTP, the Class III Bike Route
is not proposed. Instead, bike boulevards or advisory
bike lanes are proposed to prioritize bicycling and
include traffic calming features to promote the use of
facility by users of all ages and abilities. Existing bike
routes such as Cowper Street or Oregon Avenue (see
Image 9) that are already part of the bike network
will be upgraded to either bike boulevards or advisory
bike lanes. For routes located on higher-traffic or
higher-speed streets, context-appropriate facilities are
proposed based on traffic and geometric conditions.
Sharrows
In the 1990s, sharrows were introduced as an
innovative, quick solution for creating safer cycling
infrastructure. Sharrows are pavement markings
that indicate bicycles and motor vehicles can
share the same travel lane, encouraging drivers to
accommodate bicyclists and guiding cyclists to the
safest lane position. While sharrows became widely
popular across the U.S., experience has shown that
they are not the ideal solution for safety. For bicyclists
and vehicles to safely share a lane, traffic volumes
and speeds must be low—criteria often unmet on
roads where sharrows are used today, leading to
unsafe conditions. As a result, in 2026 BPTP, sharrows
are not proposed as a bicycle facility. Roads in the
bike network with existing sharrows (Image 10) will
be upgraded to more convenient and comfortable
infrastructure, such as bike boulevards or dedicated
bike lanes.
Image 9: Existing Bike Route on Oregon Avenue
Image 10: Existing Sharrow Pavement Marking
Enhanced Bikeway Option: Floating Bicycle Lanes or Restricted Hours Bicycle Lanes
In the 2012 BPTP, enhanced bikeway options such
as a floating bicycle lane or restricted hours were
proposed and implemented to accommodate cycling
and parking needs. Since then, they have been found
to be ineffective due to non-compliance and lack
of enforcement. These enhanced bikeway options
are not included in the 2026 BPTP. Existing floating
bicycle lanes or restricted hours bicycle lanes are
upgraded to other bicycle facilities.
Image 11: Existing Restricted Hours Bicycle Lane
3. Recommendations 74
The 2026 BPTP proposes the six bicycle facility types illustrated and described in Image 12 and Image 13.
Image 12: Updated Bicycle Facility Types
Image 13: Bicycle Facility Types
TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class I Shared Use Path A shared use path is a physically separated path from vehicles that
can be used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. They should be
implemented on high volume collectors and arterial roads where
speeds and volumes are high. They can also be implemented
through parks and recreational areas. The City of Palo Alto has an
extensive existing shared use pathway network that is used for
both recreational and non-recreational use as they are low-stress
routes that are attractive, comfortable, and for people of all ages
and abilities.
Considerations: Shared use paths must be designed with care at
intersection crossings, to promote visibility and proper yielding
behavior. At high user volumes, increased width or user-separated
zones should be considered.
Challenges: Major challenges in planning and designing a shared
use path include limited right-of-way and gaps in the trail network
that hinder connections to key destinations. Environmental
considerations, such as potential impacts to habitat areas or heritage
trees, also pose constraints. In addition, trail maintenance can be
difficult when responsibilities are shared across multiple agencies.
Class IIa Bicycle Lanes
A bicycle lane is a dedicated lane for bicycles that is visually separated
from the motor vehicle lane through pavement markings. As they are
only visually separated, bike lanes should only be implemented on
low-to-moderate collector roads where the speeds are less than or
equal to 30 mph. Repurposing the public space for dedicated bicycle
facility. Bike lanes should be at a minimum of 5 feet but preferably 6
feet when space allows.
Considerations: Existing bike lanes that are 4 feet should be updated
when possible.
Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include
limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts
with right-turning vehicles.
75
TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes
A buffered bicycle lane is similar to a painted bicycle lane, but it has
an extra painted buffer to create more space between bicyclists and
motorists. A buffered bike lane should be implemented on collector
roads with low to moderate volumes, around 4,000-6,000 vehicles
per day (vpd).
Considerations: Parking lane or travel lane reconfiguration may be
necessary to create space for buffered bike lanes.
Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include
limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts
with right-turning vehicles.
Class IIIa Advisory Bike Lanes An Advisory Bike Lanes or Edge Lane Road is a treatment where
people riding bicycles and motor vehicles share the road space.
These should only be used on local streets or on collectors with low
volumes and speeds. With low traffic volumes drivers can negotiate
the reduced space, then the travel area can then be reduced to 1
lane for two-way travel, and advisory bike lanes can be painted on
either side.
Considerations: Advisory bike lanes are an experimental and
emerging facility type. Outreach and education should be conducted
before any installation to promote user awareness and project
success.
Challenges: Major challenge with advisory bike lanes is that they are
suitable only for roadways with low traffic volumes and low vehicle
speeds.
3. Recommendations 76
TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevards A bicycle boulevard is a low-stress shared roadway, where bicycles
are prioritized and share the roadway with motor vehicle traffic.
A bicycle boulevard should be implemented on a local street or a
collector where speeds are low, and volumes are typically less than
or equal to 2,000 vpd. A bicycle boulevard is recognizable based on
the wayfinding and traffic calming elements. Gateway treatments
should be implemented along major roadway entrances to indicate
to drivers that they are entering a bicycle boulevard and to slow their
speeds. Stop signs should be oriented to favor bicycle travel. Traffic
filters should also be installed along the route to manage traffic
access and keep motor vehicle volumes low. Design exceptions
should be considered for situations such as Suggested School
Walking and Rolling SRTS System Route Maps.
Considerations: For bicycle boulevards to provide a low-stress
experience, traffic volumes and speeds must be intentionally
managed and monitored over time.
Challenges: Major challenge with advisory bike lanes is that they
are suitable only for roadways with low traffic volumes. In addition,
design bike boulevard crossing at major streets can be challenging.
Class IV Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway, also referred to as a Protected Bike Lane, is
a dedicated facility for bicycles that is physically separated from
motor vehicle traffic. Separated bikeways should be implemented
above 6,000 vpd, or when motor vehicles are travelling above 30
mph, and it is unsafe for them to mix and share the same space.
Separated Bikeway travel area width should be 5 feet to 7 feet with
an additional 2- to 3-foot or larger buffer depending on the available
road space.
Considerations: Care should be taken at intersections to improve
the visibility and slow the speed of turning drivers. Maintenance of
separated bikeway spaces is important to maintain their usability.
Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include
limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts
with right-turning vehicles.
Source: Mobycon, 2025
77
3.2.3 BICYCLE FACILITIES SELECTION APPROACH
A simplified facility selection approach to the different types of bicycle facilities was chosen for the updated
bikeway network presented in 4.2.1. The approach is informed by the Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle
Traffic1, the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide2, and the NACTO All Ages & Abilities Bikeways guidance3. The bicycle
facility selection approach (Image 14) first looked at road classification (local, collector, and arterial). Then traffic
volumes followed by posted speeds were examined. Given the limited availability of traffic volumes, the network
criteria relied on community input, and on-ground knowledge from the in-person working session in April 2024.4
This approach was applied to each segment of the bikeway network and the facilities were selected based on the
approach but also considered in the greater network and whether they met the 2026 BPTP vision and objectives.
1 CROW. “CROW Manual Updates Bike Lane Width Recommendations” CROW, 2023.
2 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: FHWA-SA-18-077. U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2018.
3 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). “Choosing the Age and Ability of Bicycle Facility.” NACTO, n.d.,
4 BPTP Team conducted a series of site visit in April 2024 to understand the roadway context. This is further described in the community
engagement section.
Image 14: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach
Source: Mobycon, 2025
3. Recommendations 78
3.2.4 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK
Figure 16 shows the Complete Vision Bicycle Network map. The Complete Vision Network represents the long-
term vision for a fully connected, all-ages-and-abilities bikeway system. This map also includes existing bicycle
facilities that are not being upgraded to illustrate the full network once fully implemented. The Complete Vision
Network includes some lower-priority projects that may be reevaluated as the City grows. In the near term, the
focus will be on developing the low-stress bicycle network, as described in the following section.
Low-Stress Bicycle Network
Figure 17 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the foundation for
citywide bicycle connectivity, focused on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term.
It builds upon the City’s existing network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of shared-use paths and
neighborhood-based Bicycle Boulevards, to rapidly expand access with minimal disruption and promote broad
community support.
This approach prioritizes calm, residential routes that are already preferred by many community members,
rather than rely on separated bikeway on busy arterial streets. Through public engagement, Bicycle Boulevards
were identified as the most comfortable and familiar type of bikeway, offering a practical path forward with
fewer trade-offs in terms of cost, complexity, and impacts to vehicle traffic or parking.
The Low-Stress Network emphasizes continuity and citywide coverage. While most of the network is routed
along local streets, Class IV protected bike lanes are included in strategic locations—specifically on high-traffic
gateway corridors where no safe, parallel alternative exists and where regional connectivity demands it.
Additionally, short segments of separated bikeways may be used to close key gaps between Bicycle Boulevards,
enhancing network cohesion.
The goal is to create a citywide bikeway system that is connected, calmed, and protected, delivering meaningful
benefits to people biking now while laying the groundwork for a more complete network in the future. By
focusing on what works well today, the Low-Stress Network allows the city to move quickly and cost-effectively
toward a safer, more accessible future for active transportation.
The 2026 BPTP proposed a total of 94 bicycle projects, representing 62 miles of upgraded and new bicycle
facilities, as shown in Table 5. A total of 63 projects, representing 37 miles of upgraded and new bicycle facilities
is proposed as part of the Low-Stress Network. Additionally, 33 Crossing Projects, 5 Studies, and 5 Special
Projects are recommended. A list of projects that make up the Complete Vision Network is included in Appendix
L: List of Projects.
Table 7: Summary of Proposed Bicycle Projects (Complete Vision: Bicycle Network)
PROJECT TYPE
COMPLETE VISION NETWORK LOW-STRESS NETWORK
Number of
Proposed Projects Length (Miles)Number of
Proposed Projects Length (Miles)
Shared Use Path (Class I)14 7.95 7 1.27
Bicycle Lane (Class IIa)11 3.78 9 3.38
Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class IIb)10 5.93 9 5.09
Advisory Bike Lane (Class IIIa)2 0.30 2 0.30
Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIb)25 21.00 24 19.86
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)32 22.80 12 7.50
Total 94 62.29 63 37.39
79
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Class IIIc - Slow Street
Class Ib - Community Street
Caltrain Station
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing Improvements
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Figure 16: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Complete Vision Bicycle Network
80
Figure 17: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Low-Stress Bicycle Network
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection
Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or
Underpass
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
City of Palo Alto
81
3.3 Recommended Bicycle Support Facilities
This section includes a description of bicycle support facilities such as signs and bicycle parking.
3.3.1 BICYCLE PARKING
Easy access to secure parking makes bicycling a more attractive option. People are more likely to ride if
they know they’ll find a safe place to lock up their bike near their destination. Lack of parking often leads to
uncertainty or inconvenience, discouraging trips by bike. Bicycle parking is generally categorized into short-term
and long-term installations. These two kinds of parking serve different needs, and the starting point for most bike
parking projects is recognizing whether the installation should serve short-term users, long-term users, or both.
If users typically park for two hours or longer, they are likely to value security and shelter above the convenience
and ease that should characterize short-term parking.5 Image 15 shows common short-term bicycle parking
options that are currently available in the City.
5 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015
Image 15: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term
Source: Kittelson, 2025
Inverted U - Circular
Elevated
Inverted U - Rectangle
Wave
Series Inverted U
81
3. Recommendations 82
Short-term bike parking should be visible from and close to the entrance it serves—50’ or less is a good
benchmark. When installing sidewalk racks, maintain the pedestrian through zone. Racks should be placed
in line with existing sidewalk obstructions to maintain a clear line of travel for all sidewalk users. Image 16
shows guidance on placement and spacing requirements for bicycle racks. Additionally, the City could explore
opportunities to install high security smart racks such as integrated electronic locking swingarms.6
Long-term parking is designed to meet the needs of
employees, residents, public transit users, and others
with a need to park for several hours and leave their
bicycles unmonitored. Appropriate locations for long-
term parking vary with context. Long-term parking
facilities should anticipate the presence of a variety
of bicycles and accessories, including—depending on
context—recumbents, trailers, children’s bikes, long-
tails, and others. To accommodate trailers and long
bikes, a portion of the racks should be on the ground
and should have an additional 36” of in-line clearance.
As a part of 2026 BPTP, the City has included the
following policy and programs to ensure ample
availability of bicycle parking.
• Bike Parking Inventory & Usage Monitoring
Program: Conduct an inventory and monitor
usage of bike parking at City properties and City
right-of-way (such as sidewalks) and continue
to provide sufficient supply. Ensure the City’s
bike parking program provides facilities that are
publicly accessible and available for use by all
members of the public, helping achieve a mode
shift and corresponding lower motor vehicle
emissions and traffic congestion.
• Bike Parking Requirements For New
Development: Regularly review the City’s
minimum short- and long-term bike parking
requirements for new development projects and
update requirements to reflect changes in parking
demand. Update and maintain the City’s list of
approved bike parking designs to accommodate a
variety of bicycle types such as e-bikes and cargo
bikes.
Additionally, the City has been working with advocacy
groups to reach out to local businesses or groups
to help support and promote installation of bicycle
parking.
6 BART. High Security Bike Racks. Accessed from https://www.bart.gov/guide/bikes/parking
Image 16: Placement and Spacing Requirements
Source: APBP Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015
Locker
83
3.3.2 WAYFINDING SIGNS
Wayfinding involves the use of signs, maps, and other visual cues to help people navigate through an area.
Effective wayfinding systems improve accessibility and user experience. Image 16 illustrates the comprehensive
bicycle wayfinding sign system family, incorporating both fundamental and enhanced wayfinding components.
Image 17 shows the existing signs in Palo Alto that assist bicyclists in wayfinding.
Image 17: Types of Wayfinding Signs
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025
3. Recommendations 84
Image 18: Existing Signs in Palo Alto
Source: City of Palo Alto, Kittelson and Mobycon, 2025
Bicycle Boulevard Sample
Signage
Temporary Wayfinding Signs
Sign regulating direction
Bicycle Boulevard Sign at Bryant
Street and Forest Avenue
Sign at Caltrain Station
Sign regulating parking and bike
lanes
Downtown Pedestrian
Wayfinding Signs
Bicycle Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding Sign assisting with
confirmation and navigation
85
The 2026 BPTP includes a program to develop a non-motorized wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and
pedestrian facilities with key local and regional destinations such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations.
Additionally, the wayfinding facilities will be implemented as part of the bicycle and pedestrian projects.
3.3.3 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program represents a local community partnership between the City of Palo
Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Palo Alto Council of PTAC. The partnership mission is to
reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable
alternatives to driving solo more often.
Educating Student Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Palo Alto’s history as a bicycle-friendly town is about more than its flat terrain and many bicycle facilities, it’s
about shared community values. Since the 1960s, transportation staff, the Palo Alto Police Department and the
school district have met regularly to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families
to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often.
In 2025, SRTS partners recognized the thirty-year anniversary of the Palo Alto School District (PAUSD), Parent
Teacher Association (PTA), and City of Palo Alto-supported Safe Routes to School (SRTS) education program.
Educational efforts, in tandem with engineering and encouragement programming, are foundational to helping
families enjoy safe, active, healthy, sustainable school commutes in Palo Alto. Beyond Education, Encouragement
and Engineering, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity considerations guide partnership outcomes and
considerations. Key 30-year achievements include:
1. National Recognition - Compared with national walk/bike school commute percentages of 11 percent,
more than 53 percent of Palo Alto students walk and bike to school. Since 2016, students have completed
approximately 17 million walk/bike school commutes, reducing risk for families who walk and bike and
improving access for families who must drive.
2. Lifelong Safety Skills - Over 23,000 students in the Palo Alto Unified School District now receive 560 minutes,
(nine hours) of in-school transportation safety education between grades K-6 compared with 45 minutes of
third grade education in 1991. Palo Alto’s Bicycle Life Skills program, including Bicycle Rodeo events, have
helped thousands of families gain confidence and learn important road-sharing safety skills. Palo Alto is one
of the few communities to offer such robust safety education programming. In 2025, transportation safety
education was expanded to middle and high schools, and the City is constructing the Bay Area’s first bicycle
safety education traffic garden to enhance offsite programming to even more students throughout Palo Alto
and the surrounding community.
3. Car Trip Reductions - A 76-mile network of dedicated school commute bicycle lanes, boulevards and
shared-use pathways, bicycle rack and facilities upgrades at all PAUSD campuses and the subsequent 2016
development of twenty Walk and Roll Suggested School Route to help families navigate this network has
helped prevent the carbon emissions equivalent of more than 3,500 gasoline-powered cars annually,
eliminating roughly 3,824,000 car trips from local roadways between 1994 and 2025.
4. Parent Involvement - During the past three decades, more than 450 parent volunteers have stepped up to
serve as PTA-appointed Transportation Safety Representatives at each PAUSD school. Parents are essential to
validating SRTS Partner projects and programming and setting community expectations. PTA Transportation
Safety Events like biannual Walk and Roll to School days and 3rd-grade bicycle skills rodeos engage more
than 2,000 parents and students annually, significantly Since 1994, the Palo Alto PTA has been at the
forefront of hosting monthly City School Transportation Safety Committee meetings, demonstrating that
SRTS is more than a program, it’s a community value.
3. Recommendations 86
Safe Routes to School Policies
In the face of changing transportation habits, SRTS policies ensure families have a voice in shaping Palo Alto’s
local transportation landscape. SRTS is directly referenced in four City Comprehensive Plan 2030 Programs and
Policies. In 2021, the PAUSD Board of Education-approved a dedicated SRTS policy. SRTS is also cited in the 2022
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). In 2025, unanimous support from the PAUSD Board of Education,
City Council and Palo Alto Parent Council of PTAs (PTAC) led to the renewal of an updated SRTS Partnership
Agreement, rededicating Palo Alto to the SRTS Partnership’s mission, goals and objectives. The 2026 BPTP
builds off these efforts by prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to schools, and by recognizing the
foundational nature of this work within the Office of Transportation.
Moving Toward the Future of Safe Routes to School
Between 2017 and 2022, a City School Transportation Safety Committee-approved Palo Alto a Five-Year Action
Plan. Core objectives are paraphrased below:
1. Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies
2. Provide SRTS education programs, materials and communications
3. Expand and enhance events and encouragement programs and materials
4. Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes
5. Engineer routes to school to develop a more safe and efficient network for families
6. Increase awareness & engagement between City Departments and the community
7. Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources
Five-Year Plan yearly strategic objectives yielded a mean completion rate of 72 percent, while Five-Year Work
Plan ongoing objectives yielded a 100 percent completion rate. Several emergent trends, including a post-
pandemic contraction of parent involvement, transit service reductions, restricted school access and the
adoption of new transportation modes suggest that a second SRTS Five-Year Action Planning process may help
support 2026 BPTP implementation, in addition to helping reverse net losses in post-pandemic active school
commute mode share at the secondary level.
TRAFFIC GARDEN/ PALO ALTO BIKE SAFETY PARK
The City installed a Traffic Garden at the Ventura Community Center. The course, roughly the size of two
basketball courts, serves as a hands-on classroom for young cyclists to learn road safety and cycling skills.
87
For three decades, the SRTS Partnership has shaped Palo Alto’s identity as a leader in student bicycling and
walking. Its achievements, millions of active commutes, improved infrastructure, and parent engagement,
demonstrate the power of collaboration. While pandemic-related disruptions and emerging mobility trends
present new challenges, the Partnership’s history of resilience and innovation provides a strong foundation for
Palo Alto to continue supporting safe, healthy, and sustainable school commutes for the next generation.
The 2026 BPTP further supports SRTS program by enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to schools.
Additionally, it includes the following programs:
• “Enhance and sustain the City/PAUSD/PTA/Youth community partnership to reduce risk to students enroute
to and from school, and encourage more families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to
driving solo more often. Grow and strengthen community-wide support through the SRTS 6 E’s (Education,
Encouragement, Engineering, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity) model for safe, active, healthy,
sustainable, school commutes. Safe Routes to School Action Plan Updates: Revisit incomplete 2019 Safe
Routes to School 5-Year Action Plan yearly strategic objectives and determine whether to move forward to
complete those goals.”
3.4 Pedestrian District Guidelines and Toolbox
This section identifies priority pedestrian areas within Palo Alto and presents a toolbox of potential pedestrian-
oriented treatments for use within these areas. These guidelines build upon existing foundational planning, bring
in new ideas and innovations, and address changes and developments since the prior plan was adopted in 2012.
3.4.1 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT
TOOLBOX
The pedestrian district toolbox includes a range of
selected treatments aimed at improving pedestrian
safety and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The
elements range from infrastructure improvements,
such as raised crossings or curb extensions that
improve yielding rates, to aesthetic changes, such as
benches or public art, that can elevate the walking
experience. Together, these elements will meet
universal needs for safety and accessibility and create
conditions where walking is comfortable and an
enjoyable experience for all.
Implementing pedestrian-oriented enhancements
help in advancing the plan objectives of supporting
a City that is Safe and Inclusive, Connected and
Accessible, and Comfortable and Enjoyable.
Image 18 lists pedestrian toolbox enhancements.
Detailed information about these tools and their
recommended application in the three pedestrian
districts and two priority areas is available in
Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.
3.4.2 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTS
Priority pedestrian areas are key to creating a
walkable, accessible, and enjoyable City. They offer
areas where walking is prioritized to allow people
of all ages and abilities to get around without
competing with vehicles. Within these areas, slower
vehicle movement is encouraged, and opportunities
are provided for people to pause and enjoy their
surroundings. Walking should be the preferred mode
of choice for all trips within these areas with wider
sidewalks that support high volumes of pedestrian
activity through building a well-connected pedestrian
network.
Figure 18 maps three pedestrian districts and three
priority areas which are focus areas for pedestrian
recommendations. These areas were identified
based on prior planning efforts, including the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the Palo Alto Economic
Development Strategies Plan, as well as community
input and on-the-ground knowledge from the in-
person working session held in April 2024.7
7 BPTP Team conducted a series of site visit in April 2024 to
understand the roadway context. This is further described in the
community engagement section.
3. Recommendations 88
Image 19: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements
89
U ni versi ty
Avenue
Di stri ct
Cal i forni a
Avenue
Di stri ct
El Cami no Real
N ei ghborhood
Commerci al Center
M i dtown
Di stri ct
Embarcadero
N ei ghborhood
Commerci al Center
San Antoni o
Road Area
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
M i dd
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al ma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
H am
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
U ni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
N e
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channi ng Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
M ead
o
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wi l k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
H an
o
v
e
r
S
t
H i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
M at
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
M a
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
H om
e
r
A
v
e
Col o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M i l l e
r
A
v
e
Centr
a
l
E
x
p
y
M i d dlefield Rd
Ki n
g
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
E AST
PALO ALTOM E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
Byxbee Park
M i tchel l
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
El eanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robl es
Park
Bol
Park
Al ta M esa
M emori al
Park
Ri nconada
Park
Bayl ands
N ature
Preserve
Pal o Al to
H i gh
School
Gunn
H i gh
School
JLS
M i ddl e
School
Greene
M i ddl e
School
Fl etcher
M i ddl e
School
Wal ter H ays
El ementary
Duveneck
El ementary
Ohl one
El ementary
El Carmel o
El ementary
Pal o Verde
El ementary
Addi son
El ementary
H oover
El ementary
Greendel l
School
Juana
Bri ones
El ementary
Barron
Park
El ementary
Pal o Al to
Cal trai n
Cal i forni a Ave
Cal trai n
San Antoni o
Cal trai n
M enl o Park
Cal trai n Pal o Al to
Ai rport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
E AST
PALO ALTO
M E N LO
PARK
STAN FORD
U N I VE RSI TY
LOS
ALTOS
M OU N TAI N
VI E W
LOS ALTOS
H I LLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLE Y
F
Recommended Pedestrian District
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 18: Recommended Pedestrian District Location
These pedestrian districts and priority areas include:
Pedestrian Districts:
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian
Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.
Image 20: University Avenue Pedestrian District
Pedestrian District Recommendations
University Avenue Pedestrian District
Downtown Palo Alto’s historic main street and original civic/commercial core; today it functions as the City’s
primary regional and commercial center and the “front door” many visitors remember.
91
• Add midblock raised crossings (Hamilton Ave) and update existing midblock crossing (Forest Ave) to prioritize
pedestrians.
• Install bike/micromobility corrals at key destinations (Caltrain lot at Alma Street, Palo Alto Transit Center,
Lytton Plaza) and anchor district wayfinding at University & Alma and the Homer Tunnel, coordinated with
the MTC pilot.8
• Advance special projects: raised side-street crossings on University (Univ_A); permanent pedestrianized
Ramona Street (Univ_B); alleyway activation (Univ_C); University & Alma interchange reconfiguration
(Univ_D)(continuous/wider sidewalks, gateway, wayfinding); and improvements to the Transit Center/
University undercrossing.
8 The MTC Regional Mapping & Wayfinding Project, https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/transit-regional-network-management/regional-
mapping-wayfinding
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian
Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.
Image 21: California Avenue Pedestrian District
California Avenue Pedestrian District
A pedestrian activity center with compact blocks, back alleys, and active ground-floor commercial uses;
recognized in City policy as a Multi-Neighborhood/Community-Serving center.
• Use on-street flex zones for placemaking and add street treewells on Park Blvd, Ash St, and Birch St.
• Provide wayfinding at El Camino Real/California Ave and the Caltrain station; add street art at key
approaches.
Midtown Pedestrian District
A mid-century neighborhood shopping area that has grown into a vital, neighborhood-serving hub; identified in
recent plans as a neighborhood serving place for everyday needs.
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian
Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.
Image 22: Midtown Pedestrian District
93
• Apply gateway treatments at Middlefield (Moreno Ave to the west; Matadero Canal to the east), plus bike
corrals, street furniture, and wayfinding.
• Advance special projects: a Midtown master street plan (Mid_1); a Middlefield Rd road diet (Mid_2) (raised
intersections, continuous/wider sidewalks, pedestrian signals, flex zones, street furniture, treewells); a Sutter
Ave mid-block crossing with ped signals (Mid_3); temporary parking-lot activation (Mid_4); and a central
plaza parkway (Mid_5).
Commercial Center Recommendations
El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
A linear, citywide commercial corridor with a diverse mix of shops, restaurants, and services serving both
residents and visitors.
• Treat the corridor as a multimodal main street: add raised crossings on unsignalized side streets and provide
street furniture to improve waiting areas.
• Enhance Corridor walkability, bike lanes, and streetscape upgrades are underway as part of ongoing
revitalization by caltarans in coordination with the City.
Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center (Edgewood Plaza)
A neighborhood hub anchored by the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center, known for its mid-century modern
character and a mix of groceries, cafés, and local businesses—remaining a vibrant, accessible destination for
nearby residents.
• Provide bike parking corrals and wayfinding to local businesses and trail connections (notably the US-101/St.
Francis Dr link), to support short local walking and biking trips.
San Antonio Road Area
A STET district to be guided by the same framework as other pedestrian districts—prioritizing walking, slower
movement, and a connected sidewalk network—using the plan’s toolbox (e.g., raised crossings, wider sidewalks,
3. Recommendations 94
bike corrals, gateway/wayfinding) as sites redevelop.
• As sites redevelop, apply the plan’s pedestrian toolbox to create a walk-first environment: raised crossings/
raised intersections, curb extensions/reduced curb radii, continuous and wider sidewalks, bike corrals, and
flexible curb zones.
• Coordination with the City’s San Antonio Road Area Plan
95
3.5 Policies and Programs
As part of developing the Plan, the City identified
policies, programs, and practices to improve
conditions for walking and biking in Palo Alto. City
staff from multiple departments participated in
discussions to assess how the City is implementing
existing policies, programs, and practices and ranked
the highest priorities for inclusion in the Plan. This
section presents the 2026 BPTP’s recommended
programs and policies. It provides recommended
strategies and actions to support walking and biking
in Palo Alto as well as best practices that the City can
undertake in developing programs to encourage active
transportation.
The recommendations are organized under the 2026
BPTP’s five objectives, identified previously in section
1.4.2 Objectives:
• Comfortable and Enjoyable
• Community-Led and Cooperative
• Safe and Inclusive
• Connected and Accessible
• Integrated and Collaborative
Recommended strategies are summarized below and
presented in more detail in Appendix N: Policy and
Program Recommendations.
Comfortable and Enjoyable
• Active Transportation Design Policy and
Standards: Adopt a policy to develop or adopt
design standards and specifications based on
recent research and modern best practice for
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly street
design and green stormwater infrastructure.
• Older Adult Mobility Program: Support older
adult mobility options, including a Trishaw Pilot
via Cycling Without Age, to provide access to
statistically low-risk transit, possibly operated by
trained student and/or older adult volunteers
along low volume residential streets.
• Bike Parking Inventory & Usage Monitoring
Program: Conduct an inventory and monitor
usage of bike parking at City properties and City
right-of-way (such as sidewalks) and continue to
provide sufficient supply. Establish a program for
members of the public to request site inspections
and evaluation for installation of bicycle racks
or parking corrals. Ensure the City’s bike parking
program provides facilities that are publicly
accessible and available for use by all members
of the public, helping achieve a mode shift and
corresponding lower motor vehicle emissions and
traffic congestion.
• Bike Parking Requirements For New
Development: Regularly review the City’s
minimum short- and long-term bike parking
requirements for new development projects and
update requirements to reflect changes in parking
demand. Update and maintain the City’s list of
approved bike parking designs to accommodate a
variety of bicycle types such as e-bikes and cargo
bikes.
• Walk- & Bike-Friendly Development: Consider
prioritizing or requiring certification that
encourages bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
developments, such as Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) or Fitwel
certification. Encourage developments that limit
vehicle parking.
• Wayfinding Plan: Develop a non-motorized
wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and pedestrian
facilities with key local and regional destinations
such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations.
Evaluate cut-throughs, short connections, ramp
access, and ADA compliance. Continue to expand
wayfinding facilities as the bicycle and pedestrian
networks are implemented and in coordination
with Caltrans. Develop a Wayfinding Signage
Program specific to El Camino Real to help cyclists
connect to the local bicycle network.
• Bike Racks on Buses: Work with Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and coordinate
3. Recommendations 96
with their Wheels on the Bus Pilot Program,
to monitor the use of bike racks on buses and
determine if demand is being accommodated.
• TDM Program: Promote and expand the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program and continue to support implementation
of TDM programs in an effort to increase the share
of trips made by walking and biking and advance
the City’s sustainability, climate action, vehicle
miles traveled and carbon reduction goals. Pursue
full participation of Palo Alto employers in the
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
and pursue expanding the TMA from Downtown
to California Avenue and other areas of the City
when appropriate.
• Crossing Guards: Periodically evaluate school
crossing guard locations and warrants to
determine their appropriateness and evaluate
opportunities for new locations. As part of the
evaluations, consider factors such as the needs of
younger bicyclists who may cross while walking,
and incorporate collision and location data
to assist in identifying opportunities for pilot
locations that could increase the walk to school
mode share.
• Development Review Updates: Development
review and roadway design will be evaluated by
metrics that focus on safety risk, user comfort,
and access for all users including pedestrians
and bicyclists such as kinetic energy risk, level of
traffic stress, and travel time by mode. Clearly
communicate to help residents understand why
proactive enhancements to support low-stress
network buildout may be needed.
Community-Led and Cooperative
• Bicycle Lending Library: Partner with the Palo
Alto library and local community partners that has
space, capacity and expertise to create a bicycle
lending library that enables residents to check
out different types of bicycles, supplies, including
trailers, and educational materials, including
bike blenders, bike trivia wheels, safety vests for
events, helmets and more; consult with agencies
that have implemented similar programs such
as the City of Oakland and San Mateo County
Libraries.
• TDM Pilot Program for City Employees:
Conduct a City of Palo Alto TDM pilot to improve
facilities and encourage employee use of active
transportation vehicles, given the high percentage
of City vehicles that are used for <2 mile single
occupant trips around town. Determine how best
to pilot and incentivize trips to focus on both the
right tool for the trip relative to the distance.
Formally incorporate a variety of bicycle types and
trailers into the City vehicle fleet for employees
to use. Provide access to different types of bikes/
trailers and access to an improved storage facility,
conduct regular rides and safety trainings, ensure
bicycles are regularly maintained and that there
are risk management and anti-theft provisions to
ensure safety and security.
• Long-Term Education Program: Create a long-
term education program to change the travel
habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and
workers by informing them about transportation
alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with
the PAUSD and with other public and private
interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce
and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and
implement this program.
• Bike Education Program: Partner with groups to
advertise and carry out bike safety and education
classes in the City, including classes oriented
towards children, older adults, and non-English
speakers.
• Employee Education Program: Encourage and
fund the participation of employees working on
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in professional
organizations and conferences in order stay up-
to-date on the state of the practice and successes
in other cities. Provide resources and support for
employees to further their education, develop
new skills, and keep up with changing patterns
and transportation technologies.
• Interactive Map Tool: Update the City's website to
enhance its static bicycle facility and Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) Walk & Roll Suggested Route
maps with interactive mapping applications when
these are viable. Work with PAUSD, PATMA, and
other partners to share this resource.
97
• Community Rides Program: Partner with
organizations to lead all ages and abilities bicycle
rides throughout the calendar year, including rides
that utilize recently-implemented projects.
• Valet Parking Program for Events: Collaborate
with the Community Services Department to
partner with and budget for organizations to
provide bike parking and/or bike valet services at
City-sponsored or other large events.
• Street Closures - Open Streets: Prioritize street
closures on areas located on the High Injury
Network (identified in the Safety Action Plan),
where high bicycle and pedestrian activity is
expected, and where there is community support.
• Street Closures - School Streets Pilot: Implement
a Street Closure - School Streets Pilot Program
that can be used to gather data and outcomes
that could then be applied to other schools.
Community input will be used to identify locations
for the pilot. School streets implement timed
closures that prevent vehicles from entering the
specified school zone. Restrictions are in place for
approximately 15 to 90 minutes during drop-off
and pick-up times and is enforced using signage
and physical barrier(s). During this time, only
pedestrians and cyclists can enter the School
Street zone, aside from exempt vehicles (e.g.
residents living in the zone).
• Active Transportation Incentives Program:
Encourage or require PATMA to provide additional
bicycle/scooter incentives citywide.
• Safe Routes to School: Enhance and sustain the
City/PAUSD/PTA/Youth community partnership
to reduce risk to students enroute to and from
school, and encourage more families to choose
healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to
driving solo more often. Grow and strengthen
community-wide support through the SRTS 6
E's (Education, Encouragement, Engineering,
Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity) model
for safe, active, healthy, sustainable, school
commutes. Aim to:
• Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices
and policies and gather best practices.
• Provide, expand, and enhance school and
community-based SRTS education programs
and materials.
• Promote and encourage use of the new traffic
garden at the Ventura Community Center to
increase bike education.
• Expand and enhance encouragement
programs to communicate the value of SRTS.
• Gather data to assess and improve outcomes.
• Engineer routes to develop a more safe and
efficient network.
• Deepen awareness and engagement with City
staff, Council, and community representatives
to advance and institutionalize SRTS.
• Commit an equitable distribution of resources
to encourage broad community participation.
• Maintain a Secondary School SRTS
Coordinator to develop a youth SRTS program
for grades 6-12
• Safe Routes to School Action Plan Updates:
Update the 2019 Safe Routes to School 5-Year
Action Plan, relaunch the process to establish
strategic objectives and define a five-year action
3. Recommendations 98
plan to advance safe routes to school.
• Community Partnerships Program: Consider
establishing or working with existing advocacy
groups to reach out to local businesses or groups
to help support and promote walking and bicycle-
related projects and to maximize public-private
funding opportunities.
• Bike and Pedestrian Count Program: Establish
regular citywide bicycle and pedestrian counts
at key corridors, intersections, destinations, and
require that intersection traffic counts collected
for development projects' transportation studies
include bicyclist and pedestrian volumes. Utilize
the counts collected in 2024 to establish a
baseline for select locations. Enhance bicycle
count efforts and collect more data to guide
decisions by installing permanent automatic
counters along key bikeways in representative
locations. Using bike counters with displays along
popular routes can encourage people to bike
more often.
• Performance Reporting Program: Collect data and
conduct analysis as part of periodic status reports
detailing the City's performance in relation to
metrics recommended in this plan.
• Community Feedback Program: Expand survey
efforts such as the Palo Alto Community Survey
and the Performance Reports and National Citizen
surveys to collect information related to walking
and bicycling facility quality, Plan implementation,
and programs.
Safe and Inclusive
• Institutionalize Safety: Via the 2025 Safety
Action Plan, the City has committed to reducing
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on the
City's roadways. Institutionalize safety into all
aspects of policies, planning, program, design,
implementation, and maintenance.
• Safe Routes to Work, Shopping, Downtown,
Community Services, and Parks: Where the Walk
and Roll Map Suggested School Routes overlap
with the HIN, prioritize speed management and
pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially at
intersections.
• Review Protocols for Updating Suggested Walk
and Roll Maps: Develop protocols to review the
City's walk and roll suggested routes to school to
proactively determine if traffic controls or other
engineering modifications may be needed to
improve student safety.
• Speed Management Program: Implement a
proactive speed management program following
the FHWA Safe System Speed Management
Framework to guide location specific interventions
in all focus areas. Lower speed limits and design
speeds on streets within the bike network and
without separated bikeways to 25 mph or lower.
• Systemic Uncontrolled Crosswalk Placement/
Enhancement Program: Develop a systemic
uncontrolled crosswalk placement/enhancement
program for pedestrian safety and accessibility,
and proactively design proposed crossings to
provide bicyclists and pedestrians with context-
appropriate facilities such as marked crossings,
bike boxes, bike signal heads, bike detection, and
leading bicycle intervals (LBIs)/leading pedestrian
intervals (LPIs), audible and/or countdown signals,
accessible push buttons, and curb ramps.
• Update Traffic Calming Program: Systemically
identify speed management needs and
opportunities (such as speed humps and
neighborhood traffic circle) and prioritize into
a yearly implementation program based on
kinetic energy risk, equity, proximity to schools,
community input, and similar factors. Most
funds should be programmed proactively,
but some can be reserved for quick response
discretionary purposes. Implement speed
management strategies to moderate vehicle
speeds to a contextually appropriate target speed.
It is recommended that that the Traffic Control
Maintainer II position in Public Works (eliminated
during the pandemic) be restored, so City staff can
respond more quickly to add, maintain, or repair
roadway safety infrastructure such as delineators,
bollards, signage, guardrails, crash attenuators,
faded striping and curb paints, and other features.
99
• Near-Miss Reporting Program: Utilize SafeTREC
Street Story mapping portal (https://streetstory.
berkeley.edu/city/palo-alto) to enable and
encourage residents to provide information on
near-misses and other safety information that
would otherwise not be included in regularly-
reported safety reports and statistics.
• The City's Office of Transportation Traffic
Engineering Team: Add or reallocate staff to
administer quick-build or traffic safety programs,
including coordination, evaluation, planning, and
engineering.
• Prioritize Maintenance of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities: Incorporate and prioritize bicycle and
pedestrian facility maintenance needs into the
City's transportation maintenance program
standards and funding.
• Prioritize Bikeways in the Repaving Program:
Prioritize repaving of existing bikeways as part of
the repaving program.
• Incorporate Pedestrian Improvements Into
Repaving Program: Change the approach to
the repaving program to include pedestrian
improvements including sidewalk widening and
curb extensions. This would require additional
funding and a change in City processes for
completing road and sidewalk repairs or
installations.
Connected and Accessible
• Better Bikeways: Incorporate best design
practices and guidance, such as those outlined in
the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, when
designing and implementing walking, biking, and
rolling facilities to create a network that meets
the needs of users of all ages and abilities; this
includes guidance on recommended facility
widths and low-stress intersection treatments.
Design and implement safer roads to facilitate
travel by vulnerable users through appropriate
walking and biking facilities in the context of
adjacent vehicle facilities, speeds, and volumes,
including sufficient width and horizontal
separation. Implement strategies to provide better
bike crossings of major streets, such as diverters,
daylighting, dedicated signals and phasing,
pavement markings, and protected intersections.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Capital
Improvement Program: Establish dedicated
funding for implementation of projects identified
in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update and Pedestrian District Guidelines.
• Station Access Program: Coordinate with Caltrain
to deliver local station area access improvements
that meet universal design principles such as curb
ramps, tactile and audio crossing cues, improved
sidewalks, slower traffic speeds, shorter crossing
distances, and increased crossing time. Partner
with Caltrain to encourage plans for low-stress
active transportation facilities to Caltrain stations
and coordinate to ensure that grade separation
projects adjacent to stations reflect multi-modal
access needs.
• Signal Modification Program: Incorporate the
crossing needs of bicyclists and pedestrians and
encourage safe driver behavior when reviewing
and adjusting signal timing at City traffic signals.
• Bicycle Detection Pilot Project: Implement
innovative "blue light" (or other) bicycle detection
indicators and signs at complex bicycle crossings.
Consider adding "Bicycle Detected" signal heads
to recommended bike routes intersecting with
arterials.
• Update CIP Funding to Prioritize Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access and Route: Allocate funding
and prioritize implementation of bicycle and
pedestrian projects as part of the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
• Identify Funding Opportunities: Continue to
monitor federal, state, and regional funding
opportunities to augment local funds to
implement recommended walking, biking, and
rolling improvements.
• Maintain Dedicated Funding Source: Maintain
(and increase as available) the existing dedicated
funding for BPTP implementation in the City's CIP.
3. Recommendations 100
• Quick-Build Program: Implement quick-build
pilot/trial projects of the Plan's walking and
bicycling infrastructure recommendations.
• First-/Last-Mile Connection to Caltrain Stations:
Implement bikeways with connections to Caltrain
stations to promote access.
• Existing Trail Access Improvements Project:
Enhance on-street intersections along the existing
trail network, key existing bridge/overpass
approaches, and school route shared use paths,
to improve ADA access, bikeway connectivity,
and convenience for all users. Priority upgrades
include: modifying or replacing substandard safety
corrals with bollards and associated striping/
signage; installing accessible curb ramps and
regrading poor transitions; pedestrian-scaled
lighting; installing high visibility crosswalks at key
locations; and landscaping maintenance/removal.
• Safe Routes for Private Schools: At the request
of private schools with dedicated staff available
to support Safe Routes to School program
development, and as resources are available,
provide guidance to private schools regarding Safe
Routes programming and developing Walk and
Roll suggested route maps to reduce vehicle trips.
Integrated and Collaborative
• Update Municipal Code to Revise Walking,
Biking, and Rolling Guidance: Review the City's
municipal code and ordinances to remove
language that can discourage walking, biking, and
rolling (such requirements to cross at crosswalks
and at a right angle, to report secondhand bike
purchases to the police department, and for
skateboarders to wear reflective devices while
riding between sunset and sunrise). Update
code to align with State guidelines and create
consistent language (e.g., for bike access on
bridges, over and underpasses).
• Regional Network: Continue to consult with other
agencies on bicycle and pedestrian improvement
projects that abut or intersect jurisdictional
boundaries to ensure consistency in facilities,
including Cities (East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Los
Altos, and Mountain View), Counties (Santa Clara
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Membership Structure & Term Limits
• Establish staggered term limits (e.g.,
3-year terms, renewable once) to ensure
fresh perspectives while maintaining
continuity.
Representation Balance
• Limit the number of representatives from
the same organization or stakeholder
group to avoid overrepresentation.
• Ensure a balance of residents, business
representatives, and institutional partners
(e.g., major employers).
Demographic Representation
• Update membership criteria to reflect
the community’s demographics, with
attention to age, gender, race/ethnicity,
and income diversity.
• Establish specific seats for
underrepresented groups, such as youth,
seniors, people with disabilities, and
residents of underserved communities.
Duties & Responsibilities
• Revise duties to align with the 2026 BPTP
Vision and Objectives and current needs
• Expand the committee’s role to include
reviewing performance measures
Transparency & Accountability
• Require annual reports summarizing
recommendations, progress, and
community input.
• Create clear conflict of interest guidelines
for members representing organizations
with potential project interests.
101
and San Mateo), Caltrans, and Caltrain. Partner with VTA and adjacent jurisdictions to develop a connected
network prioritizing access while minimizing distance between regional access points.
• PABAC Structure: Work with the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to evaluate
existing role and structure, discuss membership and the potential to include members and/or liaisons from
local non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, transportation management associations, City committees,
and other groups, and propose changes that increase efficiency and effectiveness of the committee.
• Effective Regulation and Education on Electric Bikes for Youth Safety: Advocate for comprehensive
statewide regulations and safety initiatives to ensure the responsible use of electric-bikes bicycles, electric
scooters, and other electric mobility devices, particularly by youth. Prioritize youth safety through effective
regulation and education. For example, mandatory safety courses, stricter age restrictions and helmet laws,
public awareness campaigns, and investment in bicycle infrastructure to create safer riding environments.
• Electric Bicycle Engagement Strategy: Work with the Palo Alto Police Department to develop strategies to
encourage the safe use of e-bikes on public roads.
• Discouraging Driver Speeding: Work with the Palo Alto Police Department and other partners when
implementing and publicizing engineering, education, and enforcement efforts discouraging vehicle speeding
in the city, particularly near schools and high-injury locations.
• Transit Integration: Some bikeway and crossing recommendations are on routes and at intersections
currently served by various transit. The City will coordinate with transit providers to provide comfortable and
convenient bike lanes, paths, and crossings to and from transit stations and to provide bike parking at transit
hubs with clearly marked routes to people navigate to transit easily.
• Caltrans Coordination: Work with Caltrans to streamline permitting and integrate connected bikeways into
Caltrans projects; improve bikeway design approaching and crossing Caltrans facilities.
• Implementation Updates: Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that new or upgraded
facilities are reflected in each agencies’ respective bikeway maps and applications.
• Green Street Principles: Incorporate stormwater management into bicycle and pedestrian planning by
applying the design strategies outlined in the NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide. Green infrastructure
elements should be integrated into street design to manage stormwater, improve sustainability, and extend
the life cycle of transportation infrastructure. Stormwater management plans should be overlaid with
recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements to identify opportunities for co-investment and multi-
benefit projects.
4. Implementation and Funding 102
4.
IMPLEMENTATION
AND FUNDING
103
This chapter provides an overview of the project delivery process, project prioritization process, project cost
estimates, and identifies funding sources to advance implementation.
4.1 Project Delivery Process
This 2026 BPTP adopts a long-range vision for Palo Alto’s pedestrian and bicycle networks. With implementation
of the Complete Vision Network recommendations, every resident in Palo Alto would have access to low-stress,
comfortable bikeways that connect to major destinations throughout the City, along with connected sidewalks
and frequent and appropriate crossing locations and designs. The recommendations included in 2026 BPTP
could require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, public engagement, and engineering
design before they can be implemented. Some portions of these networks will be implemented under near-
term (less than 10 years), while other recommendations are expected to be advanced beyond that timeframe.
Implementation of the proposed network and programs may occur in phases over time and would be dependent
on available resources.
When considering when and how to implement
these projects, the City incorporates design
requirements, including maintaining access for people
with disabilities, maintaining access for emergency
responders, preserving access for utilities and
maintenance, and meeting stormwater requirements,
among other considerations. As projects advance to
design, studies that consider the inclusion of bikeways
or other right-of-way reallocations will be evaluated
and potential trade-offs, such as repurposing of
parking or travel lanes will be reviewed. The project
development process generally consists of:
• Project development, scoping, funding. As the
first phase in the development of projects, the
City conducts meetings with key stakeholders
to define the scope of the project and identify
funding opportunities.
• Concept design. Concept design includes
identification of a preferred alternative for
approval by City Council. This stage typically
includes collecting traffic, safety, parking, and
operations data and analyzing the data to
understand existing conditions, and potential
concept design alternatives. Key studies would
be conducted to understand the project benefits
and impacts. Community engagement would
be conducted as part of this effort to identify a
preferred design.
• Detailed engineering design. After designs are
approved by City Council, detailed engineering
will be conducted to answer remaining technical
questions, develop accurate cost estimates,
finalize the funding plan, and solicit construction
bids.
• Construction. Following award of the construction
contract, the project will be built with notification
to affected residents, property owners, and
businesses.
Certain long-term projects may be advanced through
quick-build interim improvements, allowing the City to
deliver early benefits while funding, design, and other
challenges are being resolved. Quick-build strategies—
such as paint-and-post treatments, curb extensions,
or temporary traffic calming measures—can provide
immediate safety and mobility enhancements
at relatively low cost. In addition, quick-build
implementation offers an opportunity to test design
concepts, gather real-time performance data, and
evaluate community feedback. This phased approach
enables the City to strengthen community buy-in,
refine project elements, and build momentum toward
full implementation.
Project Initiation & Scoping
Concept Design Engineering
Construction
4. Implementation and Funding 104
4.2 Project Prioritization
Prioritization Framework
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term list of improvements. This 2026
BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over the
next ten years. An initial prioritization was conducted to develop scores for each roadway segment in Palo Alto
based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity.
Projects that scored higher than 70 points were advanced to supplemental evaluation along with a subset of
additional projects selected for further review. The supplemental evaluation considered project readiness,
project cost, and project support to determine the top priority projects for near-term implementation.
Table 7 presents proposed prioritization factors and evaluation criteria. The project prioritization included two
stages of evaluation. The initial evaluation quantitively prioritizes projects based on the safety and connectivity
factors. The second stage (supplemental evaluation) involved the consideration of three feasibility-oriented
factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support. (Only the projects that
scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation and those that are on
the Low-Stress Network are considered for near-term implementation.) Additional information is presented in
Appendix O: Project Prioritization.
Table 8: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria
Note: * Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
Additionally, the list of near term implementation projects was revised based on the feedback from the
community and the City Council to prioritize the high-comfort, low-stress, tree-lined streets to encourage the
interested but concerned users.
PRIORITIZATION FACTOR CRITERIA
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Recommended Walk & Roll SRTS suggested
route maps
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost and Funding
High, Medium and LowProject Readiness
Project Support
4. Implementation and Funding
105
Near-Term Implementation
The 2026 BPTP focuses staff resources to make incremental progress on the highest priority locations shown in
Table 9 (not a ranked list), representing a total of 12 miles of enhancements on the network. The estimated cost
of implementing all 16 projects is $12.8 million. Initially, projects scoring above 70 under the evaluation criteria
were considered for near-term implementation; however, based on guidance from City staff, City Council, and
community feedback, the list was refined. The remaining 78 bicycle projects would be considered for long-term
implementation.
Table 9: Near-Term Bicycle Projects
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE
SUP_1
Quarry Road
Transit Connection
Project
Construct an extended trail from the intersection with El
Camino Real to the Palo Alto transit center and Mitchell Lane.$599,250.00
SB_11a
Middlefield Road
Separated Bikeway
Connection to
Menlo Park
Construct a new separated bikeway from Menlo Park to
Everett Ave to allow for intercity connectivity.$202,745.00
SB_12 Homer Avenue
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to a buffered or separated
bikeway on north side and Extend the protected bike lane
on south side on Homer Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant
Street.
$402,095.20
SB_18
East/West
Meadow Drive
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to separated bikeway on West
Meadow Drive from El Camino Way to Alma street and
continue onto East Meadow Drive from Alma Street to Fabian
Way. Consider raised crossings to slow traffic and create
safer crossings for students. (Coordinate with the Middlefield
Protected Bike Lane project for safe intersection crossings.)
$3,002,134.80
SB_20 San Antonio Road
Separated Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway along San Antonio
Avenue frontage street from Alma Street to E. Bayshore
Road. Request new developers to reconstruct street
according to new design. Coordinate with the City's San
Antonio Area Plan planning efforts and with surrounding
towns to create smooth transition between cities.
$4,220,679.40
SB_23 Fabian Way
Separated Bikeway
Coordinate with the existing South Palo Alto Bikeways
Demonstration Project as part of the Palo Alto Safety Action
Plan. Upgrade painted bike lane to buffered and/or separated
bikeway along Fabian Way from East Meadow Drive until
Charleston Road to separate road users and create a more
low-stress route for school commutes. Lane reconfiguration
needed.
$1,044,655.40
BLVD_2
Bryant Street
Bike Boulevard
Downtown Access
Project
Install traffic diverters, speed bumps, traffic circles, or
other similar interventions on Bryant Boulevard between
Embarcadero Road and downtown. Include a turn restriction
from Embarcadero Road going northbound onto Bryant
Boulevard.
$459,337.80
BLVD_15 Cowper Street
Bike Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route to a bike boulevard on Cowper
Street from Coleridge Avenue until East Meadow Drive.
Install raised crossings at Hoover Park. Implement traffic
calming elements and wayfinding along route and gateway
treatments at intersections.
$1,170,582.00
4. Implementation and Funding 106
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE
BLVD_24 Park Boulevard
Bike Boulevard
Construct a new bike boulevard along Park Boulevard from
Castilleja Avenue to Lambert Avenue, transforming the
current bike lanes into a slow, calm shared roadway bicycle
boulevard environment. Use modal filters to lower traffic
volumes.
$1,204,620.20
BBL_4 El Camino Way
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade El Camino Way to a buffered bike lane from Los
Robles Avenue to Maybell Avenue. Parking removal needed.
Intersection improvement and wayfinding at the intersection
with West Meadow Drive to connect to the separated
bikeway and Wilkie Way bike boulevard. Coordinate with
major intersection improvement at El Camino Real and
Maybell Avenue intersection and new bike boulevard.
Alternatively, consider one-way traffic on El Camino Way to
retain parking and accommodate buffered bike lanes.
$86,486.40
BBL_7
Cambridge
Avenue Buffered
Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Cambridge Avenue and Yale
Street from Park Avenue to California Avenue, crossing
El Camino Real. This is an alternate route for use when
California Ave is occupied with community events.
$102,995.20
BBL_8 California Avenue
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade painted bike lane to a buffered bike lane on
California Avenue from El Camino Real to Hanover Street.
Parking reconfiguration needed to create space for buffered
bike lanes. Coordinate with the El Camino Separated Bikeway
project and the Hanover Street Buffered Bike Lane project to
create smooth intersection crossings.
$107,811.20
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo
Buffered Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Amaranta Avenue and
Clemo Avenue from Los Robles Avenue to Arastradero
Road. Consider design details appropriate for a more rural
neighborhood context. Coordinate with Arastradero Road
Separated Bikeway to create a safe intersection crossing.
$103,331.20
BL_5
Stanford Avenue
Bike Lane
connection to
Hanover
Upgrade bike route and sharrows to painted bike lane on
Stanford Avenue from Harvard Street to Dartmouth Street.
Connect to existing bike lanes on Stanford Avenue and new
Bike Boulevard on Hanover Street. Coordination is needed
with the Stanford University and Escondido Elementary
School. Consider a study of impacts of no left turns on to
Escondido Road and Hanover Street.
$11,688.90
BL_6 California Avenue
Bike Lane
Painted a bike lane on California Avenue from the Caltrain
station to Birch Street. Coordinate with California Avenue
Streetscape project. Consider reorientation of parking stalls
to create more space for bicycling.
$39,381.30
CS_1 California Avenue
Community Street
Community Street design on California Avenue from Birch
Street to El Camino Real to align with the California Avenue
Streetscape project.
$28,143.60
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Note: The costs include only construction expenses; additional funding may be required for planning and engineering assessments.
107
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Construct an undercrossing of Caltrain and Alma street at Seale
Ave
CROSSING_09
Matadero Creek
Highway 101 Seasonal
Undercrossing
Convert the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
maintenance road along Matadero Creek under Highway 101 to
a seasonal public trail with reconfiguration of the approaches
and addition of lighting, railings and signage. Constructing
the new undercrossing and other improvements will help
implement the Matadero Creek Trail/Midtown Connector
project.1
CROSSING_10 Southern Palo Alto Bike/
Ped Crossing
Construct a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing
of Caltrain/Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park
Boulevard or between El Dorado and Loma Verde Avenues.
This project closes a 1.3 mile gap between existing crossings at
California Avenue and Meadow Street, greatly improving east-
west connectivity in conjunction with other improvements.2
BLVD_
CROSSING_01
Chaucer Street crossing
of University Avenue
Configure the approaches of Chaucer street with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_02
Carlson Streer Crossing
of E Charleston Rd
Configure the approaches of Carlson Street with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_03
Wilkie Way Crossing of
West Charleston Road
Configure the approaches of Wilkie Way with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_04
Cowper Street Crossing
of East Meadow Drive
Construct jogged connection from Mitchell Park Path to
Cowper Street Integrate with East Meadow street bikeway
upgrades.
BLVD_
CROSSING_05
Seale Avenue Bike
Boulevard Crossing of
Middlefield Road
Construct a low-stress crossing of Middlefield Road to
encourage yielding to bicyclists on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
Consider a full intersection median to filter out auto traffic on
Seale Ave.
BLVD_
CROSSING_07
Greer Road Crossing of
Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of Green Road with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_08
St. Francis Drive crossing
of Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of St Francis Drive with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_10
Bryant St crossing of E
Meadow Dr
Enhance the crossing of East Meadow Dr with a median island,
flashing beacon or hybrid beacon.
BLVD_
CROSSING_11
Nelson Dr crossing of E
Charleston Rd
Enhance the crossing of East Charleston with a bike box and
crossing markings for clear connection between the pathway
and bike boulevard.
1 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled “Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian
2 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled, “South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade
Separation”: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian
In addition to the recommended bicycle network projects, the following 22 intersection and crossing projects
should be considered for near-term enhancements. Of these, nine projects are on either bicycle or pedestrian
HIN. Figure 19 shows the 38 near-term bicycles, intersection and crossing projects.
Table 10: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects
4. Implementation and Funding 108
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
INTERSECTION_01
Page Mill Road
and Hanover
Street Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection.
INTERSECTION_02
West Meadow
Drive and El Camino
Way Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection.
INTERSECTION_03
Quarry Road and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection at Quarry Road and El
Camino Real as part of the Quarry Road Transit Connection
project.
INTERSECTION_05
California Avenue and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Widen and improve the existing sidewalk undercrossing along
University Avenue at the Palo Alto Transit Center. This project
will improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit and
between downtown Palo Alto and one of Stanford University's
main entrance, and should include lighting, wayfinding and
public art enhancements. Include areas beyond the transit
center and undercrossing too, like the Quarry Road Connection.
INTERSECTION_06 Park to Serra Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection to support circulation
between Park Avenue, Serra Avenue bike lanes, El Camino Real
and the Serra Avenue pathway.
INTERSECTION_07
E Charleston Road
and San Antonio Road
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El
Camino Real
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_10
Embarcadero Road and
El Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_11
Quarry Road and
Arboretum Road
Protected Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Projects that are not identified for near-term implementation may be advanced as opportunities arise
through existing infrastructure programs, as well as new developments, or other funding mechanisms. The
comprehensive list of projects is presented in Appendix L and includes 138 total projects: 94 bicycle projects, 33
crossing and intersection projects, 3 special projects, and 5 recommended studies.
109
Table 11: Other Priority Projects
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
Study_02 Embarcadero Road
Corridor Study
Following the recommendations of the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan,
conduct a corridor study to understand potential safety countermeasures
for use on Embarcadero Road. This will determine the feasibility of the
full corridor Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway project.
Study_04
Bryant Blvd & E
Meadow Crossing
Feasibility Study
Assess the feasibility of a traffic signal or other crossing treatment to
facilitate crossings of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. This Study
would be coordinated with SB_18
Study_05
Cal Ave Station
Gap Closure
project
Explore ways to connect Cal Avenue Station over Oregon Expwy to Page
Mill Road, over the Page Mill Rd Bridge or via a new connection along
the railroad.
SpecProj_01
Hamilton Ave
Pedestrian Signal
Heads
Install pedestrian signal heads on Hamilton Ave in downtown.
SpecProj_03 Ellen Fletcher Bike
Blvd Project
Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd. Project: Work with the Palo Alto Art Center and
local volunteers to assign a historic designation to the Fletcher Bicycle
Boulevard as the first in the US. Explore collaboration with Palo Alto
History Museum. Provide an interactive art installation/digital signage at
the El Carmelo/Bryant Bridge that identifies the number of daily cyclists
and provides useful education and encouragement messages. Examples
are in Fremont. Consider synching with apps like Strava for additional
feedback.
110
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Near-Term Improvements
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class Ib - Community Street
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Protected Bike Lane
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Railroad
Caltrain Stop
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 19: Near-Term Improvement Projects
111
4. Implementation and Funding 112
4.3 Cost Estimates
To develop planning-level cost estimates, a sample of recent bicycle projects in Palo Alto provided by the City
was reviewed to determine unit costs (cost per mile) for each facility type. These estimates are based on the
assumption that corridors include an average of 12 intersections per mile and that contingency costs range from
20% to 40%, depending on the complexity of the facility. Standard assumptions were applied to estimate costs
for elements such as mobilization, traffic control, engineering, and construction management. The estimates do
not include costs related to right-of-way acquisition, grading or retaining walls, utility relocation, landscaping,
striping removal, or lighting, except in the case of Class I Shared Use Paths.
Table 11 summarizes the planning-level costs for the recommended bicycle projects. For bike boulevards and
separated bikeway, it is assumed that half of the projects will fall into the high-cost category and the other half
into the low-cost category. Based on these assumptions, the total cost to implement the 94 bicycle projects
included in the 2026 BPTP is estimated at approximately $78 million.
Table 12: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Projects
TYPE OF FACILITY COST PER MILE LENGTH (MILE) COST
Class I Shared Use Path $4,700,000 7.95 $37,365,000
Class IIa Bike Lanes $141,000 3.78 $532,800
Class IIb Buffered Bike Lanes $224,000 5.93 $1,329,400
Class IIIa Advisory Bike Lanes $419,000 0.30 $124,400
Class IIIb Bike Boulevard (Low Cost) $466,000 10.77 $5,017,900
Class IIIb Bike Boulevard (High Cost) $720,000 10.77 $7,753,000
Class IV Separated Bikeway (Low Cost) $358,000 11.40 $4,080,500
Class IV Separated Bikeway (High Cost) $1,886,000 11.40 $21,496,900
Total (High Cost)62.29 $77,699,900
Costs for intersection and crossing improvements are not included in the 2026 BPTP, as they vary widely by
project and cannot be accurately estimated at the planning stage. The costs could be estimated using the
previous bid documents and Caltrans Contract Cost Database.1
1 Caltrans. Contract Cost Database. Accessed from https://d8data.dot.ca.gov/contractcost/index.php
113
4.4 Funding Sources
Bicycle and pedestrian projects can be funded through a range of local, regional, state, and federal sources. To
enhance its competitiveness for these funds, the City of Palo Alto should ensure its projects align with the core
goals of the funding programs—typically centered on equity, safety, sustainability, and connectivity. Besides
dedicated funding sources, some bicycle and pedestrian projects can be implemented by integrating project
elements into streets scheduled for repaving through the City’s five-year paving plan.
Certain grants such as Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) require a project to reduce motor vehicle
emissions or traffic congestion to be eligible for funding.2 All near-term implementation projects identified
in the 2026 BPTP meet this criterion, as they were prioritized for their ability to improve access to transit and
encourage mode shift. Similarly, the Active Transportation Program (ATP) requires applicants to show public
health, safety, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits, as well as evidence of strong community engagement.3
The near-term projects satisfy these requirements, having received broad community support while advancing
health, safety, and sustainability outcomes.
Project readiness is another key factor; projects that have completed environmental clearance, secured right-
of-way, and are close to being shovel-ready are often prioritized. In addition, strong support from key agency
partners such as VTA, Caltrans, schools, nonprofit organizations, and neighboring jurisdictions can significantly
strengthen a project’s application. The list of funding sources is included in Appendix P: List of Funding Sources.
2 Bay Area Air District. TFCA Regional Fund. Accessed from https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and-incentives/funding-sources/regional-
fund
3 California Transportation Commission. Active Transportation Program. Accessed from https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-
transportation-program
5. Conclusion
5.
CONCLUSION
115
Safe
and
Inclusive
Connected
and
Accessible
Community-
Led and
Cooperative
Comfortable
and
Enjoyable
Integrated
and
Collaborative
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term investment in infrastructure, programs, and policies
to support the Plan’s vision and objectives. Together, these components create a comprehensive
approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities
to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health throughout Palo Alto.
The 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update promotes and
encourages active and sustainable transportation in Palo Alto and establishes the
City’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving conditions for walking,
biking, and rolling. The vision is a universally accessible, safe, convenient, and
integrated system that promotes walking and biking for people of all ages and
abilities. The Plan’s performance measures allow for the ongoing tracking of
progress towards implementation of the five objectives:
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
Middl
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alma
S
t
Brya
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
New
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cowp
e
r
S
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
d
Louis
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colora
d
o
A
v
e
Loma
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Meado
w
D
r
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San An
t
o
nio
R
d
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gree
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wilkie
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serr
a
B
l
v
d
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ross
R
d
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Color
a
d
o
A
v
e
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Miller
A
v
e
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Middlefield Rd
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
__`101
§¨¦280
∙þ82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Near-Term Improvements
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class Ib - Community Street
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Protected Bike Lane
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Railroad
Caltrain Stop
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Near-Term Improvement Projects
105
Near-Term Implementation
The 2026 BPTP focuses staff resources to make incremental progress on the highest priority locations shown in
Table 9 (not a ranked list), representing a total of 12 miles of enhancements on the network. The estimated cost
of implementing all 16 projects is $12.8 million. Initially, projects scoring above 70 under the evaluation criteria
were considered for near-term implementation; however, based on guidance from City staff, City Council, and
community feedback, the list was refined. The remaining 78 bicycle projects would be considered for long-term
implementation.
Table 9: Near-Term Bicycle Projects
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE
SUP_1
Quarry Road
Transit Connection
Project
Construct an extended trail from the intersection with El
Camino Real to the Palo Alto transit center and Mitchell Lane.$599,250.00
SB_11a
Middlefield Road
Separated Bikeway
Connection to
Menlo Park
Construct a new separated bikeway from Menlo Park to
Everett Ave to allow for intercity connectivity.$202,745.00
SB_12 Homer Avenue
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to a buffered or separated
bikeway on north side and Extend the protected bike lane
on south side on Homer Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant
Street.
$402,095.20
SB_18
East/West
Meadow Drive
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to separated bikeway on West
Meadow Drive from El Camino Way to Alma street and
continue onto East Meadow Drive from Alma Street to Fabian
Way. Consider raised crossings to slow traffic and create
safer crossings for students. (Coordinate with the Middlefield
Protected Bike Lane project for safe intersection crossings.)
$3,002,134.80
SB_20 San Antonio Road
Separated Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway along San Antonio
Avenue frontage street from Alma Street to E. Bayshore
Road. Request new developers to reconstruct street
according to new design. Coordinate with the City's San
Antonio Area Plan planning efforts and with surrounding
towns to create smooth transition between cities.
$4,220,679.40
SB_23 Fabian Way
Separated Bikeway
Coordinate with the existing South Palo Alto Bikeways
Demonstration Project as part of the Palo Alto Safety Action
Plan. Upgrade painted bike lane to buffered and/or separated
bikeway along Fabian Way from East Meadow Drive until
Charleston Road to separate road users and create a more
low-stress route for school commutes. Lane reconfiguration
needed.
$1,044,655.40
BLVD_2
Bryant Street
Bike Boulevard
Downtown Access
Project
Install traffic diverters, speed bumps, traffic circles, or
other similar interventions on Bryant Boulevard between
Embarcadero Road and downtown. Include a turn restriction
from Embarcadero Road going northbound onto Bryant
Boulevard.
$459,337.80
BLVD_15 Cowper Street
Bike Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route to a bike boulevard on Cowper
Street from Coleridge Avenue until East Meadow Drive.
Install raised crossings at Hoover Park. Implement traffic
calming elements and wayfinding along route and gateway
treatments at intersections.
$1,170,582.00
4. Implementation and Funding 106
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE
BLVD_24 Park Boulevard
Bike Boulevard
Construct a new bike boulevard along Park Boulevard from
Castilleja Avenue to Lambert Avenue, transforming the
current bike lanes into a slow, calm shared roadway bicycle
boulevard environment. Use modal filters to lower traffic
volumes.
$1,204,620.20
BBL_4 El Camino Way
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade El Camino Way to a buffered bike lane from Los
Robles Avenue to Maybell Avenue. Parking removal needed.
Intersection improvement and wayfinding at the intersection
with West Meadow Drive to connect to the separated
bikeway and Wilkie Way bike boulevard. Coordinate with
major intersection improvement at El Camino Real and
Maybell Avenue intersection and new bike boulevard.
Alternatively, consider one-way traffic on El Camino Way to
retain parking and accommodate buffered bike lanes.
$86,486.40
BBL_7
Cambridge
Avenue Buffered
Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Cambridge Avenue and Yale
Street from Park Avenue to California Avenue, crossing
El Camino Real. This is an alternate route for use when
California Ave is occupied with community events.
$102,995.20
BBL_8 California Avenue
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade painted bike lane to a buffered bike lane on
California Avenue from El Camino Real to Hanover Street.
Parking reconfiguration needed to create space for buffered
bike lanes. Coordinate with the El Camino Separated Bikeway
project and the Hanover Street Buffered Bike Lane project to
create smooth intersection crossings.
$107,811.20
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo
Buffered Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Amaranta Avenue and
Clemo Avenue from Los Robles Avenue to Arastradero
Road. Consider design details appropriate for a more rural
neighborhood context. Coordinate with Arastradero Road
Separated Bikeway to create a safe intersection crossing.
$103,331.20
BL_5
Stanford Avenue
Bike Lane
connection to
Hanover
Upgrade bike route and sharrows to painted bike lane on
Stanford Avenue from Harvard Street to Dartmouth Street.
Connect to existing bike lanes on Stanford Avenue and new
Bike Boulevard on Hanover Street. Coordination is needed
with the Stanford University and Escondido Elementary
School. Consider a study of impacts of no left turns on to
Escondido Road and Hanover Street.
$11,688.90
BL_6 California Avenue
Bike Lane
Painted a bike lane on California Avenue from the Caltrain
station to Birch Street. Coordinate with California Avenue
Streetscape project. Consider reorientation of parking stalls
to create more space for bicycling.
$39,381.30
CS_1 California Avenue
Community Street
Community Street design on California Avenue from Birch
Street to El Camino Real to align with the California Avenue
Streetscape project.
$28,143.60
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Note: The costs include only construction expenses; additional funding may be required for planning and engineering assessments.
107
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Construct an undercrossing of Caltrain and Alma street at Seale
Ave
CROSSING_09
Matadero Creek
Highway 101 Seasonal
Undercrossing
Convert the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
maintenance road along Matadero Creek under Highway 101 to
a seasonal public trail with reconfiguration of the approaches
and addition of lighting, railings and signage. Constructing
the new undercrossing and other improvements will help
implement the Matadero Creek Trail/Midtown Connector
project.1
CROSSING_10 Southern Palo Alto Bike/
Ped Crossing
Construct a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing
of Caltrain/Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park
Boulevard or between El Dorado and Loma Verde Avenues.
This project closes a 1.3 mile gap between existing crossings at
California Avenue and Meadow Street, greatly improving east-
west connectivity in conjunction with other improvements.2
BLVD_
CROSSING_01
Chaucer Street crossing
of University Avenue
Configure the approaches of Chaucer street with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_02
Carlson Streer Crossing
of E Charleston Rd
Configure the approaches of Carlson Street with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_03
Wilkie Way Crossing of
West Charleston Road
Configure the approaches of Wilkie Way with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_04
Cowper Street Crossing
of East Meadow Drive
Construct jogged connection from Mitchell Park Path to
Cowper Street Integrate with East Meadow street bikeway
upgrades.
BLVD_
CROSSING_05
Seale Avenue Bike
Boulevard Crossing of
Middlefield Road
Construct a low-stress crossing of Middlefield Road to
encourage yielding to bicyclists on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
Consider a full intersection median to filter out auto traffic on
Seale Ave.
BLVD_
CROSSING_07
Greer Road Crossing of
Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of Green Road with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_08
St. Francis Drive crossing
of Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of St Francis Drive with bike boxes to
prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.
BLVD_
CROSSING_10
Bryant St crossing of E
Meadow Dr
Enhance the crossing of East Meadow Dr with a median island,
flashing beacon or hybrid beacon.
BLVD_
CROSSING_11
Nelson Dr crossing of E
Charleston Rd
Enhance the crossing of East Charleston with a bike box and
crossing markings for clear connection between the pathway
and bike boulevard.
1 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled “Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian
2 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled, “South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade
Separation”: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian
In addition to the recommended bicycle network projects, the following 22 intersection and crossing projects
should be considered for near-term enhancements. Of these, nine projects are on either bicycle or pedestrian
HIN. Figure 19 shows the 38 near-term bicycles, intersection and crossing projects.
Table 10: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects
4. Implementation and Funding 108
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
INTERSECTION_01
Page Mill Road
and Hanover
Street Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection.
INTERSECTION_02
West Meadow
Drive and El Camino
Way Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection.
INTERSECTION_03
Quarry Road and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection at Quarry Road and El
Camino Real as part of the Quarry Road Transit Connection
project.
INTERSECTION_05
California Avenue and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Widen and improve the existing sidewalk undercrossing along
University Avenue at the Palo Alto Transit Center. This project
will improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit and
between downtown Palo Alto and one of Stanford University's
main entrance, and should include lighting, wayfinding and
public art enhancements. Include areas beyond the transit
center and undercrossing too, like the Quarry Road Connection.
INTERSECTION_06 Park to Serra Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection to support circulation
between Park Avenue, Serra Avenue bike lanes, El Camino Real
and the Serra Avenue pathway.
INTERSECTION_07
E Charleston Road
and San Antonio Road
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El
Camino Real
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_10
Embarcadero Road and
El Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_11
Quarry Road and
Arboretum Road
Protected Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve
safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with
future bikeway upgrade projects
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Projects that are not identified for near-term implementation may be advanced as opportunities arise
through existing infrastructure programs, as well as new developments, or other funding mechanisms. The
comprehensive list of projects is presented in Appendix L and includes 138 total projects: 94 bicycle projects, 33
crossing and intersection projects, 3 special projects, and 5 recommended studies.
109
Table 11: Other Priority Projects
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
Study_02 Embarcadero Road
Corridor Study
Following the recommendations of the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan,
conduct a corridor study to understand potential safety countermeasures
for use on Embarcadero Road. This will determine the feasibility of the
full corridor Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway project.
Study_04
Bryant Blvd & E
Meadow Crossing
Feasibility Study
Assess the feasibility of a traffic signal or other crossing treatment to
facilitate crossings of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. This Study
would be coordinated with SB_18
Study_05
Cal Ave Station
Gap Closure
project
Explore ways to connect Cal Avenue Station over Oregon Expwy to Page
Mill Road, over the Page Mill Rd Bridge or via a new connection along
the railroad.
SpecProj_01
Hamilton Ave
Pedestrian Signal
Heads
Install pedestrian signal heads on Hamilton Ave in downtown.
SpecProj_03 Ellen Fletcher Bike
Blvd Project
Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd. Project: Work with the Palo Alto Art Center and
local volunteers to assign a historic designation to the Fletcher Bicycle
Boulevard as the first in the US. Explore collaboration with Palo Alto
History Museum. Provide an interactive art installation/digital signage at
the El Carmelo/Bryant Bridge that identifies the number of daily cyclists
and provides useful education and encouragement messages. Examples
are in Fremont. Consider synching with apps like Strava for additional
feedback.
Attachment D: Links to the Appendices for the Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Update
• Appendix A: Literature Review
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-a-literature-review-
1.pdf
• Appendix B: Phase 1-Visioning Community Engagement Summary
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-b-phase-1-visioning-
community-engagement-summary-1.pdf
• Appendix C: Phase 2-Existing Conditions Community Engagement Summary
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-c-phase-2-visioning-
community-engagement-summary-1.pdf
• Appendix D: Phase 3-Recommendations Community Engagement Summary
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-d-phase-3-visioning-
community-engagement-summary-1.pdf
• Appendix E: Bicycle Parking Data Collection Summary
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-e-bicycle-parking-
data-collection-summary-1.pdf
• Appendix F: Future Activity Levels
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-f-future-activity-
levels-1.pdf
• Appendix G: Major Barriers Analysis
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-g-major-barriers-
analysis-1.pdf
• Appendix H: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-h-bicycle-level-of-
traffic-stress-1.pdf
• Appendix I: Collision and Safety Analysis
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-i-collision-and-safety-
analysis-1.pdf
• Appendix J: E-Bikes and Shared Micromobility Memorandum
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-j-e-bikes-and-shared-
micromobility-memorandum-1.pdf
• Appendix K: Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-k-network-corridor-
criteria-and-development-approach-1.pdf
• Appendix L: List of Projects
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-l-list-of-projects-1.pdf
• Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-m-pedestrian-district-
guidelines-1.pdf
• Appendix N: Policy and Program Recommendations
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-n-policy-and-program-
recommendations-1.pdf
• Appendix O: Prioritization Framework
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-o-prioritization-
framework-1.pdf
• Appendix P: List of Funding Sources
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-
walking/bptp-update-2024/draft-plan-and-append/appendix-p-list-of-funding-
sources-1.pdf
Also found on the project webpage: www.paloalto.gov/bikepedplan
DECEMBER 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov
DRAFT 2026 BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN UPDATE
City Council Meeting
Ozzy Arce
Senior Transportation Planner
Ozzy.Arce@paloalto.gov
Ria Hutabarat Lo
Chief Transportation Official
Transportation@paloalto.gov
Sylvia Star-Lack
Transportation Planning Manager
Transportation@paloalto.gov
Amanda Leahy
Project Consultant
aleahy@kittelson.com
Meeting Purpose & Recommended Action
Recommended Action:
Receive Report and provide feedback on the Draft Plan and near-term
projects.
Purpose: Present the Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) Update and near-term projects.
3
1
BACKGROUND
4
•What is the 2026 BPTP Update?
A City-led initiative to update the 2012 BPTP and establish a 10-year strategy for bicycle and pedestrian network
investments, policies, and programs in Palo Alto.
•Vision: We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives.
Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and
rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in
active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.
•Objectives:
•Safe and Inclusive
•Connected and Accessible
•Comfortable and Enjoyable
•Community-led and Cooperative
•Integrate and Collaborative
Project Timeline
Proposed Bicycle Network
Pedestrian Districts
Prioritization Framework
Project List
Visioning;
Objectives Final PlanAdmin.
Draft Plan
Existing
Conditions
Analysis
CSTSC + PABAC + PRC + PTC + RC + CC
Public
Review
Draft Plan
CSTSC + PABAC + PRC + PTC+CC CSTSC + PABAC + PRC + PTC + RC + CC PABAC + PTC + CC City Council
20262023
Phase 1
Introduction &
Visioning
Phase 2
Existing Conditions,
Needs & Concerns
Phase 3
Recommendations
Phase 4
Draft Plan
Phase 5
Final Plan Adoption
& Implementation
2024 2025
Workshop
Online Mapping Survey
Walk Audit
Bike Ride
Council, Commissions, Committee
Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan Update
www.paloalto.gov
Table of Contents
EX. Executive Summary
1.Introduction
2.Existing Facilities
3.Recommendations
•2026 Bicycle Network
•Complete Vision
•Low-Stress
•Pedestrian Districts
•Near-Term Projects & Implementation
4.Implementation & Funding
5.Conclusion
7
Highlights of feedback incorporated into the Draft Plan
•Focus on high-comfort, low-stress facilities, less on “Big Streets”
•Low-Stress Bicycle Network = Bike boulevards!
•Near-term projects list & map
•Prioritizing improvements on Cowper St. Bike Boulevard over Middlefield Road
•San Antonio Road corridor as a Pedestrian District
•Providing bike access on Cambridge Avenue and California Avenue
•Car-free Cal Ave. as a “community street”
•University Avenue as a slow street (Class IIIc), not a bike boulevard
•Show the relationship between the BPTP Update and the Connectivity Project
•Bike Boulevard description & stop sign orientation
•“Stop signs should be oriented to favor bicycle travel.”
•Support for prioritizing the Homer Avenue separated bikeway; and the E. Meadow &
Bryant Blvd. Crossing Feasibility Study; Bicycle wayfinding signs for ECR
8
2026 Bicycle Network
9
Near-Term Projects
Low-Stress Bicycle Network
Complete Vision Bicycle Network
2026 Bicycle Network:
Low-Stress Network
•104 projects
•63 bicycle projects
•33 crossing projects
•3 special projects
•5 recommended studies
10
2026 Bicycle Network:
Near-Term Projects
•44 projects
•16 bicycle projects
•23 crossing projects
•2 special projects
•3 recommended studies
11
1
District Areas
Pedestrian Districts:
•University Avenue District
•California Avenue District
•Midtown District
•San Antonio Road Area
Neighborhood Commercial
Centers:
•Embarcadero Neighborhood
Commercial enter
•El Camino Real Neighborhood
Commercial Center
12
Phase 4: Draft Plan
Preliminary key themes from Phase 4 feedback:
•San Antonio Road: Strong support for prioritizing San Antonio Road bikeway improvements, including advancing
implementation before or concurrent with anticipated high-density housing development, despite anticipated high cost.
•Park Boulevard Extension: Support for adding the Park-Maclane-Wilkie-Miller to Mountain View section to the Park
Boulevard Bike Boulevard (BLVD_24) project on the Near-Term list.
•Bryant Street Focus: Specific endorsement for immediate upgrades to the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard, particularly the
route heading downtown and necessary improvements at the East Meadow Drive crossing.
•Speed Reduction: Support for establishing a maximum speed of 20 MPH (or less) on all bike boulevards.
•E-Device Concerns: Concerns were raised regarding the increasing use of electric bikes and scooters and their
operational impact on network safety and design.
•Age-Specific Education: Support for incorporating bike education programs tailored for an older population to help
residents remain active and mobile.
•Justification & Policy: Requests included providing clear justification for each project on the near -term list and securing
legislative support to allow for the use of speed cameras in Palo Alto.
•PABAC’s Role: The Committee requested establishing a formal, direct communication channel between the PABAC, the
Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council, suggesting a review of the PABAC Charter for necessary
modifications.
13
Recommended Changes to Near-term Projects
For Council consideration:
1.Modify project BLVD_24 (Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard) to include the Park-Maclane-Wilkie-Miller to Mountain View
section, including wayfinding;
2.Modify project SB_11a (Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway Connection to Menlo Park) to a Class II Bike Lane, and
extend the project boundaries from Channing Avenue to Menlo Park instead of Everett Avenue to Menlo Park.
3.Add a new project: Class IV (separated bikeway) on Churchill Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant Street, with a traffic
circle at Churchill Avenue & Bryant Street.
4.Programmatic: A new program to fill pedestrian facility gaps along key pedestrian routes without specifying specific
locations as a response to the desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations.
14
Plan Adoption & Next Steps
•PTC recommend adoption of the Draft Plan: November 12
•Draft Plan public comment period closed: November 14
•City Council Study Session on the Draft Plan: December 1
•Final Plan presented to the City Council for adoption: Early 2026
15
Recommended Action: Receive Report and provide
feedback on the Draft Plan and near-term projects.
DECEMBER 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov
DRAFT 2026 BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN UPDATE
City Council Meeting
Appendices
www.paloalto.gov
18
The City adopted the current BPTP in July 2012
Summary of feedback received
www.paloalto.gov
Phase 1: Visioning
Key themes from Phase 1 feedback:
•Safety is the top priority, particularly for students traveling to and from school.
•Strong demand for separated or wider bike lanes and safer street crossings.
•Need for a seamless network that crosses major barriers (e.g., highways, rail).
•Direct connections to schools, transit hubs, and key community destinations.
•Integration of e-bikes and other micromobility options.
•Emphasis on high-quality design, including comfort, aesthetics, wayfinding, and
shade.
•Education, outreach, and ongoing community input are essential.
20
Phase 2: Existing Conditions Analysis; Needs & Concerns
Key themes from Phase 2 feedback:
•Strengthen the existing network by addressing critical gaps.
•Prioritize improvements along key corridors, including San Antonio Road, Alma
Street, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, and El Camino Real.
•Enhance sidewalk continuity, wayfinding, and placemaking in pedestrian-oriented
areas such as University Avenue and California Avenue.
•Improve transitions between different types of bicycle facilities to create a
smoother, more consistent experience.
21
Phase 3: Project Recommendations
Key themes from Phase 3 feedback:
•Mixed reactions to “Big Streets” projects: while they provide direct connections,
many questioned their overall return on investment.
•Strong call for a clearer initial prioritization framework that accounts for real-world
constraints.
•Desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations.
•Emphasis on improving overall network connectivity and cohesion.
•Support for non-infrastructure strategies such as education, policy tools, funding
mechanisms, and planning for emerging mobility modes.
22
Revised Prioritization Framework**
Prioritization Factor Criteria
Initial
Evaluation
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental
Evaluation*
Project Cost & Funding
High, Medium, LowProject Readiness
Project Support
*Only the projects that scored 70-100 in the Initial Evaluation will advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
23
**Presented to the City Council at the June 2, 2025 meeting
Ranked Priority Project List
Ranked Priority Project List – Top 10
•Projects were ranked based on
the results of the Supplemental
Evaluation
•Intended to guide order of
implementation and identify an
actionable project list
•Revisited and adjusted based on
community and City Council
input
24
Bikeway mileage totals: 2012 vs. 2025
25
How is the 2026 BPTP different than the 2012 BPTP?
26
•Class III Bike Routes are not proposed
•“Sharrows: are not proposed, except for bike boulevards
•Enhanced bikeways not included
•Such as floating bike lane or restricted hours bike lanes
2026 Bicycle Network:
Complete Vision
•135 projects
•94 bicycle projects
•33 crossing and intersection
improvement projects
•3 special projects
•5 recommended studies
27
2026 Bicycle Network:
Near-Term Projects
28
1
District Recommendations
For each pedestrian district
or neighborhood center,
the plan identifies:
•Potential Application of
Pedestrian Toolbox.
•Special Projects to serve
the district unique
contexts.
29
1
Pedestrian Toolbox
Enhanced Crossings Signal Adjustments
Street Reconfiguration Design Enhancement
Activation
Major Intersections
30Note: This is just a sample of the toolbox items and not a complete list.
Implementation
31
1
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EFFORTS
32
Specific Projects (e.g.
South Palo Alto
Bike/Ped Connectivity)
1
BPTP + SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
33
A near-term project: “CROSSING_10”
1
E-BIKES
34
•The Draft BPTP Update includes the following Programs and Policies:
•Bike Parking Requirements For New Development: Regularly review the City’s minimum
short- and long-term bike parking requirements for new development projects and
update requirements to reflect changes in parking demand. Update and maintain the
City’s list of approved bike parking designs to accommodate a variety of bicycle types
such as e-bikes and cargo bikes.
•Electric Bicycle Engagement Strategy: Work with the Palo Alto Police Department to
develop strategies to encourage the safe use of e-bikes on public roads.
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:crosswalks on Stanford Avenue
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:34:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing & Council Members,
I am writing to ask that the department of transportation implement crosswalks to Stanford Avenue given your
authorization. In a staff report from 2004 the PTC agreed that crosswalks are needed at Oberlin and Wellesley
Streets. Yet these were not added.
Now traffic has accelerated greatly on Stanford Avenue. I am a resident of College Terrace and have witnessed
friction on the avenue. Stanford Avenue is a main cut through from Junipero Serra to the El Camino Real. We have
pedestrians crossing the avenue regularly.
The city needs to add more than just the two mentioned above. Right now there are crosswalks at Yale, Bowdoin
Streets and another near Escondido School. It isn’t prudent to have only three on this busy corridor.
We need to keep residents and especially children safe as they cross Stanford Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration of these critically needed crosswalks.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
CMR:486:04 Page 1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 CMR: 486:04
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
SELECTED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN IN THE COLLEGE
TERRACE AREA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the following:
1. Adopt the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H of staff report to the
Planning and Transportation Commission);
2. Direct staff to implement the physical traffic calming devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to Commission) on a trial basis in the College Terrace
area; and,
3. Evaluate and report on the effectiveness of Plan A within one year of completion of its
construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project was initiated in response to a request signed by over 225 College Terrace
residents who raised their concerns regarding cut-through traffic and excessive speeding.
The request was submitted to the City Council on September 27, 1999. Development of the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan was funded by the Stanford University General Use
Permit (GUP). Design and implementation of the Plan will be fully funded by the
mitigations fund of 2475 Hanover Street. The Planning and Transportation Commission
requested tha t the subject condition of approval be stated in the staff report to Council. The
approval condition states: “The applicant shall pay the City the sum of $150,000.00 before
commencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist
with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood.” This condition of
approval (No. 11.4) was adopted by City Council on February 19, 2002.
7
CMR:486:04 Page 2 of 5
Following a comprehensive process of data collection, traffic analysis, identification of
alternative traffic calming plans and community consultation, the devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to the Commission) were selected and are now recommended
for trial implementation. The selected Plan does not include any additiona l closures and
employs less restrictive physical traffic calming devices namely traffic circles, speed tables
and raised crosswalks as listed below:
- Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A recommends a
speed table west of Wellesley Street and a raised crosswalk just west of Oberlin
Street. The Plan also recommends speed tables west of Amherst Street and
Dartmouth Street.
- College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale
Street, Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
- Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale
Street.
- California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with
Wellesley Street, and a speed table west of Princeton Street.
Detailed description of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Project, its background,
performed analysis, developed alternative plans, and costs breakdown of selected alternative
is provided in the staff report to Commission (Attachment B).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended the
trial implementation of this project during the Commission’s meeting held on October 13,
2004. Minutes of the Commission’s meeting are provided under Attachment C.
Commission member Bonnie Packer requested that the staff report to Council note the
following:
- Relevant section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan that illustrates consistency with
the project; and,
- Performance measures to be emp loyed during the project’s trial period that are
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document.
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the application of traffic calming.
Policy T-34 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Implement traffic calming measures to
slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over
congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among
these measures.”
The recommended one -year trial period will be utilized to monitor the project in terms of its
effectiveness and level of community acceptance, as well as in terms of any potential
CMR:486:04 Page 3 of 5
impacts and possible corrective measures. The MND developed for the trial implementation
of this project (detailed in Attachment H of staff report to the Commission) covers
performance measures controlling potential projects’ impacts as summarized below:
· With regard to short-term impacts during project’s construction, the MND identified
mitigations covering truck movements to and from the neighborhood, construction
hours, dust control and other construction specifications.
· Pursuant to the guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the project should not cause deterioration in the operational level of
service of the two signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue/Escondido Road and
Stanford Avenue/Hanover Street during either of the AM or PM peak hours. Should
any significant deterioration is detected, appropriate corrective actions will be taken
that could include improvements in signal timing and phasing plans.
· In compliance with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), the
plan should not cause significant traffic diversion impacts on neighboring streets.
Significant traffic diversion is identified by a 25 percent increase in traffic volume on
local and/or collector streets with “before” counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day
(vpd), and more than 10 percent increase on local streets with a “before” count of
2500 vpd or greater. In the event that monitoring shows substantial traffic
diversions, corrective actions will be taken that could be removing, relocating, or
replacing one or more of the constructed devices.
· The traffic calming plan should not significantly impact response rates of emergency
services. For example, travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the
College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department’s mission goals of 4
minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical respons es, and 6 minutes for 90
percent of advanced medical responses (paramedics). Also, establishment of the
recommended traffic calming devices should not increase the demand for police
protection services nor substantially delay response times within the College Terrace
neighborhood. The Police Department has a 3-minute response time goal for
emergency calls. In the event that monitoring shows substantial increases in response
travel times, the necessary changes will be applied that could include removal,
relocation, or replacement of one or more of the traffic calming devices contained in
the Plan.
Additional Crosswalks
The Planning and Transportation Commission also requested that staff investigate the
feasibility of establishing additional pedestrian/school crosswalks across Stanford Avenue,
particularly at Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street. It should be noted that the establishment
of a pedestrian/school crosswalk at an uncontrolled location could give pedestrians a false
sense of security. Transportation staff typically establishes a pedestrian/school crosswalk at
CMR:486:04 Page 4 of 5
stop or signal controlled intersection approach. The establishment of a crosswalk could also
be considered at a physical device (such as a refuge center median, or a speed table)
constructed to increase motorists’ awareness/visibility of pedestrians and improve crossing
safety.
From site observations, Stanford Avenue is an east-west collector roadway bordering the
north side of the College Terrace area. This collector street has two vehicular travel lanes
and bike lanes. Curb-side parking is allowed only on the south side of the roadway. A
pedestrian sidewalk is also provided on the south side only. Pedestrian crosswalks across
Stanford Avenue are established on the easterly and westerly legs of the intersection of
Stanford Avenue/Yale Street, which is controlled by an all-way stop control. Marked school
crossings of Stanford Avenue are provided on the easterly leg of the intersection of
Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue and westerly leg of Hanover Street/Stanford Avenue.
Both of the intersections of Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue and Hanover Street/Stanford
Avenue are signalized. School crosswalks are also painted across Stanford Avenue on the
easterly and westerly legs of its intersection with Bowdoin Street, which is controlled by an
all-way stop control. Each of the intersections of Stanford Avenue/Wellesley Street and
Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue is a four-legged intersection with stop signs only on the two
minor approaches (i.e., only on Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street, respectively).
During staff’s site evaluation, a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic to and from
Escondido Elementary School was observed using the sidewalk on the south side of
Stanford Avenue and crossing at the signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue with
Escondido Road and Hanover Street was noted. Some pedestrians also choose to cross
Stanford Avenue at Yale Street, then travel along the frontage road that runs parallel to
Stanford Avenue within the Stanford campus. This frontage road has two travel lanes with
available side shoulders used for 90 degree angle parking. There is a paved sidewalk
provided along the north side of this frontage road.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that crosswalks
should be marked at intersections where there is a substantial conflict between vehicular and
pedestrian movements. The MUTCD criteria for establishing an all-way stop control and
associated analysis are provided under Attachment A.
It has been concluded from the performed MUTCD analysis that the establishment of an all-
way stop control is not presently warranted at either of the intersections of Stanford
Avenue/Wellesley Street, or Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue. Consequently, without the
traffic calming plan, it is not recommended to paint pedestrian crosswalks across Stanford
Avenue at these evaluated intersections. The requested crosswalks can only be considered if
physical traffic calming devices are established at the intersections.
CMR:486:04 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Criteria and Analysis of All-Way Stop Control Based on Provisions of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
B. Staff Report to Commission, dated October 13, 2004 (including its attachments A–J).
C. Additional correspondence received from Mr. William D. Ross dated October 13 and
November 1, 2004 (Mr. Ross’s concerns are addressed in the report to Commission and
other attached documents).
Minutes of October 13 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting
PREPARED BY:
HEBA EL-GUENDY
Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:______________________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_______________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Mana ger
cc: Traffic Advisory Committee of the College Terrace Residents’ Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Crosswalks in College Terrace
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:12:17 AM
Attachments:WebPage.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2004/11-
november/3967.pdf
From:Alan Wachtel
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Study Session (Dec 1 meeting, Agenda Item 2)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 8:14:18 AM
Attachments:Separated Facilities Discussion.pdf
Separated Bikeway Research--A Response.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Members of the Council:
The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update that will be presented during
your study session reflects the enormous time and effort that have gone into it, and it has many
good points. But I want to focus here on areas where there is room for significant
improvement. For reference, some of my concerns are set out in greater detail in the attached
documents.
FYI, I'm a long-time member of the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC), but I'm not speaking here for the committee. I'm also a member of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, and I was a member of the California Bicycle Advisory Committee
(CBAC), which advised Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento, from its formation in 1992 until
it was dissolved in 2018. From 1999 to 2013, I served as CBAC's chair.
Roadways Are for All Users
The draft plan's proposals for bicycle infrastructure are limited almost exclusively to
designated bikeways. But even the most optimistic scenario, in which the Complete Vision
Network is fully built out at some distant future date, would provide bikeways on only about
half of City streets. What about the other half? Cyclists will always have a significant need to
travel on most of the remaining non-bikeway streets, because their origins and destinations
often don't lie on designated bikeways. As long ago as 1978, Caltrans's "Planning and Design
Criteria for Bikeways in California" found that "Probably the most important effort that could
be undertaken to enhance bicycle travel would be improved maintenance and upgrading of
existing roads that are used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are
designated."
And in fact, Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.5 already states, "When constructing
or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users." Other policies and programs
set out, to a limited extent, how this is to be done, but much more could be added, in the
Comprehensive Plan or elsewhere.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
The BPTP draft cites Policy T-1.19, to "Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling
and walking," but none of the other relevant policies and programs, notably Policy T-3.5. The
update's lack of guidance for facilitating and improving bicycling on all roadways, not only
designated bikeways, is a major omission that calls out to be rectified. Some possibilities not
already enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan might include striping wide outside lanes or
shoulders on busier streets, removal of on-street parking (granted that this is a politically
sensitive issue), shared-lane markings, speed limits and traffic calming, signal timing, and
roadwork and temporary traffic control. The plan should not only describe desirable policies,
but indicate what procedures and workflows in the Office of Transportation, Public Works
Department, or other bodies might be established to assure that these policies are carried out.
This approach would help to make the City bicycle-friendly everywhere, in both the short and
long term, at relatively little cost.
Separated Bikeways
The draft's uncritical enthusiasm for Class IV separated bikeways--often, though misleadingly,
referred to as "protected bike lanes"--should be replaced by a more balanced approach. It's true
that the Council has shown a preference for separated facilities in the Safe Streets for All
Safety Action Plan, in the grade separation project, on East Meadow Drive, on El Camino
Real, and at a few other locations. It's also true that the Council has never been informed by
the OOT that, despite the undeniable appeal of separated facilities, they raise substantial safety
concerns, and the case for them rests on flimsy foundations.
The fundamental issue is that, for the most part, bicycles cannot be fully separated from
vehicular traffic, because they necessarily interact at turning and crossing points. Separated
facilities complicate this interaction. They typically require through bicycles to pass right-
turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side, and right-turning traffic to turn
at or near right angles from the left of and across the path of bicyclists overtaking on their
right, in what for many drivers is a blind spot. This geometric conflict, often called a right
hook, is a well-established cause of car-bike collisions and contrary to long-standing bicycle
facility design guidance. A motorist would call it being cut off. It would never be employed to
place right-turning vehicular traffic to the left of through traffic. This is not the only drawback
of physically separated facilities, but it is a major one, and it will become even more acute
with the increasing popularity of higher-speed e-bikes.
Car-bike collisions between intersections, on the other hand, which separated facilities might
arguably help to protect against, are already relatively infrequent (as the BPTP Update itself
shows).
I presented a thorough technical and historical analysis of this critical safety issue at the
August PABAC meeting, and it's attached here as Separated Facilities Discussion.pdf. The
lengthy discussion at that meeting included a presentation by Nick Falbo of Mobycon, one of
the BPTP Update consultants, in favor of these facilities. (PABAC agendas and minutes are
available at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-
Walking/Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Advisory-Committee-PABAC.) Nick later provided further
information in a memo titled "Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the Palo Alto Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan," which appeared in the October PABAC packet. My
response (which quotes Nick's memo in full for reference) was included in the November
PABAC packet and is attached here as the file Separated Bikeway Research--A Response.pdf.
In brief, I found nothing persuasive in the studies Nick cited to support separated bikeways as
typically designed, and I actually interpreted several of those studies as favorable to my
position, rather than Mobycon's.
While I hope that the Council will at least look over these attachments to confirm that their
arguments are well-grounded, I won't ask you to peruse them in detail or to make technical
judgments that lie outside your domain. What you might reasonably do, however, is to request
staff to respond to them--not just briefly and casually at your study session, but in writing, as a
thorough, considered, substantive, responsive, and impartial review and evaluation of these
concerns and their policy implications. This would need to be done by staff, not consultants
(whose opinions are already fixed), and in a timely way that would allow potential changes to
the updated plan before its adoption. You deserve to be fully informed on this central issue
before making any decisions.
My recommendation would be that projects involving separated facilities be prioritized in the
proposed network only where there is an identified problem that separation would help to
address; that this objective could not otherwise be accomplished as effectively; and that
whatever hazards the facility might introduce can be reasonably mitigated. This means I
cannot endorse any of the high-cost near-term separated bikeway projects in Table 9 (p. 105)
of the draft without further justification.
Respectfully,
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
Separated Bicycle Facilities: Innovative Comfort
and Safety, or Old Wine in New Bottles?
Alan Wachtel
PABAC, August 5, 2025
The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update represents a substantial investment
of effort and contains many welcome observations and suggestions. In these comments, however,
I intend to focus on a single more problematic issue. This plan, as well as the Safe Streets for All
(SS4A) Safety Action Plan, the El Camino Real Bikeway project, the South Palo Alto Bikeways
Project on East Meadow Drive, the VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and
several existing installations in the City depend on the appealing, widely popular, but, I believe,
fundamentally misguided premise that bicycle safety can and should be promoted by physically
separating bicycle traffic onto Class I bike paths or Class IV separated bikeways within or
adjacent to busy roadways, including arterials. The BPTP includes many proposals for such
facilities, regardless of the speed, frequency, or volume of crossing and turning traffic at
intersections and driveways, and the conflicts created there, which receive no mention.
The BPTP draft quotes the Dutch cycling network design principles:
A safe bicycle network is one that creates a safe environment for all road users. When
designing safe cycling infrastructure, it is important to minimize conflicts and minimize
the negative outcomes of unavoidable conflicts between different roads users by striving
to avoid differences in speed and mass as much as possible. At the street level this can
be done by creating separated cycling infrastructure when cars are going at high speeds
or traffic calming streets so that cars and bikes can mix safely.
The draft also states:
A protected bike lane is a dedicated facility for bicycles that is physically separated from
motor vehicle traffic. Protected bike lanes should be implemented when cars and bikes
are moving at different speeds, and it is unsafe for them to mix and share the same
space. The updated bicycle network proposes 28 protected bike lanes. Protected bike
lanes should be implemented on all arterials and high-volume collectors.
The SS4A plan that the Council recently adopted likewise includes the following policy: “Instead
of a primary focus on shifting behavior through education campaigns or enforcement, it
encourages roads, vehicles, and policies that are intentionally designed to prioritize safety.” That
is, as much as possible, it relies on infrastructure to replace and compensate for user behavior.
This plan also states that “The City will also focus on projects that reduce exposure related risks
by separating users traveling at different speeds or different directions with physical separation,
to minimize conflicts and reduce the risk of crashes,” and refers numerous times to protected
— 2 —
bike lanes or separated pathways facilities and the provision of protected bicycle facilities as
safety measures. Separated facilities claim to “reduce conflicts between people biking and
motorists. They also provide more physical protection that further reduces the risk of severe
conflicts between bicycles and vehicles on the road.”
The premise of separation, appealing though it seems on the surface, directly contradicts prior
design guidance (still in effect), traffic law, and collision statistics. In particular, this approach
gives no attention to the speed, frequency, or volume of crossing and turning traffic at
intersections and driveways, and the significant car-bike conflicts created there by such facilities.
It is often presented as new or innovative thinking, but in my opinion it more accurately
represents old thinking from the 1970s whose lessons have been forgotten. If recent designs are
to be credible and their use justified, these issues must be acknowledged and addressed directly. I
hope this discussion will provide an opportunity for a direct response to the questions I raise,
which Kittelson & Associates, a firm that helped to prepare several important design guides, as
well as the ongoing BPTP Update, may be best qualified to provide.
(A word on terminology. I take issue with the term “separated (or protected) bike lane.” The
primary direction of these comments is to question whether such facilities are “protected” at all.
But it’s also misleading to refer to them as bike lanes in California, where bike lanes are
designated Class II and separated bikeways are Class IV. This distinction matters, because
California vehicle law requires bicyclists to ride in Class II bike lanes under certain
circumstances, but not Class IV. It would be preferable to use “separated bikeway” or “cycle
track,” the terms that appear in the Streets and Highways Code and the Highway Design Manual,
or “separated bicycle facility” instead.
These legal considerations don’t apply in most states, so I don’t object to use by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) of the term “separated bike lane.” But it should be avoided in
California.)
Over-reliance on separated facilities undermines the safety, efficiency, and mobility of
experienced, transportation-oriented bicyclists. A comprehensive transportation system should
include a full spectrum of bicycle facilities, including shared travel lanes, wide shoulders, Class
II bike lanes (including buffered ones), elimination of on-street parking and with it the hazard of
dooring, and bicycle boulevards.
What Does Separation Mean?
Because the concept of separated facilities figures heavily in the BPTP Update and so many
other plans and projects, it deserves careful examination that it has not so far received.
To begin with, the idea of separation is far from novel. In fact, all traffic engineering separates
users, in the basic sense that two users must not occupy the same space at the same time. It does
this through a combination of geometric design, traffic control devices, traffic law, education,
user behavior, and human factors.
— 3 —
Separation does not always, or even usually, need to mean a physical barrier. Longitudinal white
lane striping serves to indicate travel paths for both motorized and nonmotorized traffic, and
opposite-direction road users can be separated in space by yellow centerlines. Class II bike lanes,
delineated by paint or cross-hatched buffers, are another example that demarcates preferential
space for bicycle traffic. Less often, physical medians or channelizers are used, but we do not
expect (and would be very surprised to see) physical barriers routinely separating same-direction
lanes of vehicular traffic. And that might be because such separation, far from minimizing
conflicts, has a very real potential to exacerbate them.
But, with certain exceptions, it is topologically impossible to maintain separation everywhere, or
even for any extended distance. Traffic (of all varieties) needs to turn, to cross traffic moving or
turning in other directions, to change lanes, and to merge. In other words, road users may have a
need to occupy the same space, and this, too, is routine, so long as they do it at different times.
Stop signs and traffic signals at intersections, for example, accomplish the desired separation in
time. So does the process of merging left or right (after yielding) to change lanes into a gap, in
order to pass or in preparation for a turn.
The Safe Systems Approach often cites a redundancy or Swiss cheese model, in which holes
(weaknesses) in one slice are mitigated by solid portions of adjacent slices. But slices cannot
necessarily be considered independent. A change in geometric design, for instance, might be
inconsistent with traffic law, habitual user behavior and training, or human factors. This
interdependence must be taken into account, and the Swiss cheese model is best considered as a
complement to traditional traffic engineering, not a replacement for it.
All this may seem like recapitulating the trivial and the obvious. The point is that separating road
users is not by itself new. New approaches simply have their own theory of how it should be
done, which is not integral to the concept of safety and should be examined critically on its own
merits.
Channelization by Destination
One way traffic law provides for separation is by channelizing traffic into separate lanes. (The
whole of Topic 403 of the Highway Design Manual is devoted to principles of channelization.)
Between intersections, slower traffic keeps right and faster traffic passes on the left (and this
applies equally to bicycle traffic, which is often, though not invariably, slower). At left and right
turns, however, traffic is instead channelized by destination (and this also applies equally to
bicycle traffic). Both the approach to a right turn and the turn itself, for instance, must by law be
made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (or in lanes designated
by signs, signals, or pavement markings). And this is true even in the presence of bicycle lanes,
which drivers of right-turning vehicles may (Vehicle Code §21209)—indeed, they must
(§21717)—merge into within 200 feet of an intersection. Following the California MUTCD, bike
lane stripes are typically dropped 50 to 200 feet before an intersection to facilitate this
movement.
— 4 —
There is one principal exception to these rules: Pedestrians receive physical separation in the
form of sidewalks, onto which they’re channelized regardless of destination. Separated bike
paths or separated bikeways adjacent to or within roadways treat bicyclists, in effect, as a species
of pedestrian (they’ve been called “pedalestrians”) who are likewise channelized outside the
vehicular stream (usually on its right side).
The unacknowledged design element common to most “innovative” bicycle facilities is that
through bicycles must pass right-turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side.
This is true, for example, of Class I bike paths adjacent to roadways, Class IV separated
bikeways, two-stage left-turn bike boxes, many (though not all) advanced stop line bike boxes,
so-called protected intersections, and possibly buffered bike lanes (since whether and where
turning motorists may merge into or cross the buffer has never been clearly defined, in either the
California MUTCD or traffic law). It is not true of Class II bike lanes or shared roadways, where
normal destination positioning and merging rules apply.
It would be extraordinary, however, to employ that same geometry for two lanes of vehicular
traffic, which would never be designed to place right turns to the left of through traffic. Try to
imagine striping a vehicular through lane to the right of a right-turn lane (except in rare cases
where a traffic signal separates the movements in time). Now imagine it with a physical barrier
separating the lanes. Does that seem like a reasonable design?
Physical separation of road users has the potential to create new conflicts, which did not exist
before, at every driveway and minor intersection. I’ll say it again—the casual use of this design
for nonmotorized traffic demands to be carefully scrutinized. (It has other safety implications as
well, but it will be enough to focus on this one.)
Sidewalks
Geometrically, Class I sidepaths and Class IV bikeways resemble sidewalk bicycling. They do
have certain advantages over sidewalks: they aren’t shared with pedestrians, and they’re
generally straight and smooth and lack street furniture. But they also allow and encourage much
greater bicycle (or e-bike) speeds, and lead bicyclists to believe they have right-of-way at
conflict points and need not take care, look around, slow down, or yield.
But pedestrians and bicyclists have very different operating characteristics, and do not
necessarily benefit from similar facilities. Most pedestrians walk at 3 mi/h or less, and can stop
or move backward or sideways within a single step. Many child bicyclists can travel at 10 mi/h;
adults are often much faster, and e-bikes, which are rapidly gaining popularity among both adults
and children, are capable (in the case of Class 3 e-bikes) of as much as 28 mi/h—comparable to
cars, and exceeding most local speed limits. Greater bicyclist speed creates a far greater area
within motorists must scan to avoid conflict, as well as less time to react.
Bikes, moreover, require a much greater distance to stop than pedestrians, and their
maneuverability is very limited in comparison.
— 5 —
It’s easy to see that many bicyclists love to ride on sidewalks: bikes on sidewalks are a
commonplace sight, even on quiet streets or on roads with bicycle facilities. These bicyclists
almost surely feel more comfortable on the sidewalk, where they undoubtedly believe they’re
safe from cars. It’s not surprising that they might also prefer a sidepath or Class IV cycle track
that resembles a sidewalk, especially one that is expressly promoted as separated or protected.
But it has been firmly established for many years that sidewalks are not generally suitable for
bicycles. Bicycling on sidewalks, especially adjacent to busy streets, though it might feel safe, is
frequently more dangerous than on the adjacent roadway, because of unexpected conflicts, often
with poor sight lines, with crossing and turning traffic at driveways and intersections, at locations
where neither party expects or can easily see the other. There are many studies to this effect
(including my own). A primary conflict (though not the only one) goes by the familiar name of
right hook: a right-turning car cuts off and collides with a through bicyclist on the right. This is
also a common collision type on the roadway. “Innovative” design types have an inherent
potential to create and intensify the same type of conflict, with the same false sense of security.
Prior Design Guidance
Prior design guidance (still valid, and still in effect) cautions against this geometry. For instance,
the Highway Design Manual states:
Index 1003.1: Please note, sidewalks are not Class I bikeways because they are
primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for
Class I bikeways, and do not minimize vehicle cross flows.
Index 1003.1(5): Intersections are an important consideration in bike path design.
Bicycle path intersection design should address both cross-traffic and turning
movements. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with the most
beneficial intersection characteristics should be selected.
Index 1003.1(7): Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not
recommended. While they can provide separation between vehicles and nonmotorized
traffic, they typically introduce significant conflicts at intersections. . . . They are not a
substitute for designing the road to meet bicyclist’s mobility needs. Use of bicycle paths
adjacent to roads is not mandatory in California, and many bicyclists will perceive these
paths as offering a lower level of mobility compared with traveling on the road,
particularly for utility trips. Careful consideration regarding how to address the above
points needs to be weighed against the perceived benefits of providing a bike path
adjacent to a street or highway. Factors such as urban density, the number of conflict
points, the presence or absence of a sidewalk, speed and volume should be
considered.
Index 1003.3(2): Wide sidewalks that do not meet design standards for bicycle paths or
bicycle routes also may not meet the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists. Wide
— 6 —
sidewalks can encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase the potential for
conflicts with turning traffic at intersections as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) says (Section
9C.04):
Standard:
06 A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to
the left of a left turn only lane.
Support:
07 A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right of a right-turn lane
or from the left of a left-turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and
would violate the expectations of right-or left-turning motorists.
Guidance:
10 Posts or raised pavement markers should not be used to separate bicycle lanes from
adjacent travel lanes.
Support:
11 Using raised devices creates a collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects
immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist. In addition, raised devices can
prevent vehicles turning right from merging with the bicycle lane, which is the preferred
method for making the right turn. Raised devices used to define a bicycle lane can also
cause problems in cleaning and maintaining the bicycle lane.
While the facilities discussed in those sections are not necessarily identical to the ones being
promoted and proposed, in many cases they are analogous, and the guidance provided above
should be considered carefully.
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89, “Class IV Bikeway Guidance,” which is directly
applicable, notes that intersections (both major and minor) and driveways present significant
issues:
Intersection crossing points offer unique challenges to the design and operation of a
separated bikeway. [T]he usability and safety of the separated facility depends heavily
on the manner in which intersections, driveways, and alleys, as well as pedestrian
facilities, interact with and connect to the separated bikeway and bikeway network. The
bikeway must provide adequate visibility at intersections, driveways, and alleys, to avoid
right or left hook collisions in which vehicles turn in front of bicyclists traveling straight.
As such, it is critical that careful thought and planning go into the design of all
intersections, driveways, and alleys located along a bikeway.
The FHWA publication “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways” notes that
“Driveways that intersect with separated bicycle lanes create a potential crash risk due to the
conflict between turning motor vehicles and through-bicyclists.”
— 7 —
DIB 94
Advocates of separated facilities, however, do not generally cite these design principles. They
prefer to rely on Design Information Bulletin 94, “Complete Streets: Contextual Design
Guidance,” which recommends Class IV bikeways on high-speed, high-volume roads—exactly
where the conflict with crossflows may be greatest. This recommendation is summarized in a
graph on p. 23, whose source is unattributed. The foundation for this deviation from previous
(and unrefuted) guidance remains mysterious and impossible to evaluate.
During the external review of the DIB 94 draft, I made the following comments (among others
about the frequency, speed, and volume of crossflows):
The enthusiasm shown in these guidelines for Class IV separated bikeways almost
entirely neglects—as is typical—their critical weakness: the unnecessary geometric
conflicts (commonly known as right hooks) that they create at crossflows such as
intersections and driveways (conflicts that would unequivocally never be designed into
vehicular lanes). These conflicts can be (but are not always) mitigated at major
intersections by providing merging areas or separate signal phases (at the cost of delay
and possible noncompliance), but that cannot be done at every minor intersection and
driveway, where the conflicts remain. The same considerations are true, to a lesser
extent, of Class I bike paths.
Unlike Class II bike lanes, where turning vehicles can merge safely across the bike lane
stripe in advance of the turn (as required by law), separated bikeways force vehicles into
an almost 90-degree turn, while bicyclists overtake in their right rear blind spot at full
bicycle speed, expecting to have right-of-way. Meanwhile, parked cars, shrubbery, or
other devices used as separators often obstruct sight lines.
The token measures suggested in design guides are inadequate to mitigate these
conflicts, and are treated as an afterthought, rather than a built-in consequence of the
facility. Instead, the ability to minimize or mitigate these geometric conflicts should be
treated as an essential element of facility selection from the very beginning.
[A facility selection list] omits the most critical factor: frequency, speed, and volume of
crossflows at intersections and driveways.
Individual responses to external review comments were not provided, but the final DIB does not
mention the term “crossflow” or any variation or synonym that I can find. The only mentions of
“conflict” in connection with Class I or Class IV facilities involve buses and their passengers.
My concerns were not addressed, even to dispute them.
There is good reason to believe that Kittelson was involved in creating this draft of DIB 94, and
would be well placed to justify it and to answer questions about it.
— 8 —
In response to the Phase 2 draft of the BPTP prepared by Kittelson, I commented in 2024: “DIB
94 unaccountably neglects the importance of minimizing and regulating crossflows on separated
bikeways,” and cited DIB 89 and HDM Index 1003.1(7), as quoted above. The consultants’
response was simply “Noted.” There was no attempt to engage with the issues I raised. No other
comment received such a perfunctory response.
Another commenter (it might also have been me) observed: “Broadside collisions are the most
frequent type of bicycle collision that occurred in Palo Alto within the five year study period.
This statistic indicates that to prevent collisions, intersections and other crossing and turning
locations should be the focus, segments between intersections less so.” To this the response was
“Agreed.” Yet separated facilities provide separation between intersections (where it is needed
less), while not only failing (unavoidably) to provide separation at intersections (where it is
needed more), but exacerbating the conflict at those points. How does this contribute to safety?
This is an essential question.
The BPTP draft found that broadside collisions are the most frequent type of bicycle collision
that occurred in Palo Alto within the five year study period. The Safety Action Plan reported that
broadside crashes were among the highest percentages of KSI crashes. (The SS4A statistics are
hard to interpret, however. They don’t seem to differentiate among types of road users. It also
isn’t clear whether this category includes car-bike right-hook collisions, though the definition,
“between two vehicles on conflicting paths where the front of one vehicle contacts the side of
another,” implies that it might.) This plan notes that on Walk & Roll Routes crossing higher
stress streets, 99 percent of crashes occurred at intersections.
These statistics indicate that to prevent collisions, intersections and other crossing and turning
locations should be the focus, rather than segments between intersections. Yet separated facilities
provide separation between intersections (where it is needed less), while not only failing
(unavoidably) to provide separation at intersections (where it is needed more), but actually
exacerbating the conflict at those points. How does this contribute to safety? This is an essential
question.
Are Mitigations Possible?
What mitigations do advocates of these facilities propose for intersection and driveway conflicts?
They have not entirely neglected the question. For instance, NACTO has released a publication
called “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection,” and its “Urban Bikeway Design Guide” contains a
section on intersections. The section on cycle tracks (in California also known as Class IV
bikeways) advises in part:
Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A
review of existing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance
may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections:
— 9 —
If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection
to improve visibility. The desirable no-parking area is 30 feet from each side of the
crossing.
For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway,
street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight
triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from minor street crossings, and 10 feet from
driveway crossing.
These distances are far less than the up to 200 feet provided for Class II bike lanes. They result in
a sharp, nearly 90-degree turn across the bicycle facility—that is, a right hook; a motorist would
consider it being cut off—rather than a merge into it.
The FHWA “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” (which Kittelson & Associates
also helped to prepare) correctly notes that:
It is not possible to maintain permanent physical separation of bicycles and automobiles
through intersections, where cross street and turning movements must cross the path of
bicyclists. Intersections are where most bicycle-vehicle collisions occur, and where riders
feel the most stress. Designers have implemented a variety of strategies, including both
time- and space-separation, for maintaining the benefits of separated bike lanes through
intersections.
One method of doing this is through separate bicycle signal phases. That method can work, but
as I noted in reviewing the DIB 94 draft, it introduces delay for all modes, which may in turn
raise issues of compliance. (Bicyclists are not known for strict adherence to traffic control
devices, and many motorists seem baffled by the concept of no right turn on red.) In any case,
this method does not extend to STOP-signed and uncontrolled intersections and driveways,
which are generally much more numerous.
Another often-proposed mitigation is the so-called protected intersection. I fail to see, though,
what about this design is protected, other than its name. It only shifts, not resolves, the point of
conflict. (If this intersection design and geometry, coupled with physical barriers between
adjacent lanes of traffic, are felt to be so desirable in reducing conflicts, why aren’t we applying
them to vehicular traffic as well?) But even taken at face value, this design also has applicability
only in limited locations and is not a general solution.
This guide also suggests shifting through bicycle traffic laterally to the left of the right-turn lane
before vehicles can move right, which is a more conventional approach that I see as consistent
with standard engineering practices. There are further proposals that would take too much time to
go into here, without changing the overall conclusion.
The FHWA “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways” (which Kittelson again helped
to prepare) recommends separate signalization, “protected” intersections, and setback crossings.
I’ll simply point out again that these treatments are at best applicable only at certain locations,
not generally.
— 10 —
This guide also says that “Crossings on higher speed roads should be as short and infrequent as
possible, with vertical protection extended for as long as possible.” I find the second part of this
statement astonishing. Extending the separation as long as possible prevents merging and
increases the conflict, not reduces it.
What all these discussions have in common, however, is that they implicitly treat intersections
as, at most, residual areas that cannot be separated or “protected,” where bicyclists and motorists
must unavoidably interact. Improving those interactions is treated as an enhancement. What they
do not acknowledge or address is that new geometric conflicts, created by the bike path or
separated bikeway itself, may very well pose greater hazards than the less frequent midblock
conflicts that might be ameliorated.
90-Degree Turns vs. Merging
Furthermore, no matter how successfully special facilities might somehow manage to resolve
turning conflicts at intersections and driveways, they train bicyclists to pass right-turning traffic
on the right, and motorists to turn right from bicyclists’ left, without merging, as a general rule at
all locations—everywhere, not just at special facilities (the traditional right hook). These are
dangerous practices that should not be encouraged. However, it seems possible that proponents
regard these behaviors as a feature, not a bug, that should indeed be practiced everywhere. They
may consider 90-degree turns to be as safe as, or safer than, merging. (In 2024 there was actually
an unsuccessful bill to that effect in the California Legislature.) So it might be helpful here to set
out certain key differences:
A merging driver can change lanes at a time and place where it’s safe to do so, rather than
at a fixed location. A driver who is prevented from merging into a bikeway is forced to
slow down or stop close to the turning point.
When merging, the relative speed between car and bike, which are both moving, is lower,
making it possible to accept a smaller gap. If the driver slows or stops, it increases the
closing speed of overtaking bicyclists—which e-bikes will only worsen, and which
motorists often underestimate—who are also led by these designs to understand they have
right-of-way and can pass at full speed. This higher relative speed makes it harder to find
and judge an adequate gap for turning.
Turning drivers must scan a much greater distance to the rear for bicyclists than they are
accustomed to with pedestrians. Underestimating bicyclists’ (or e-bicyclists’) speed will
result in inadequate scanning.
Merging into a new lane is a routine driving skill that drivers perform many times a day.
Many motorists, depending on vehicle design, headrests, cargo, rear window size, roof
pillars, and sideview mirror adjustment, may have a blind spot in the area where a
bicyclist is approaching, assuming they’re aware of the presence of bicyclists at all. The
blind spot is also relevant when merging, but a merging driver can continue in motion
and wait a second or two for any traffic to move out of the blind spot. A driver who’s
waiting to turn from a fixed location sees shorter gaps and may be less patient.
Turning sharply places additional cognitive demands on drivers, who must now scan for
rapidly overtaking bicyclists on the right, in addition to any potentially conflicting traffic
— 11 —
from other directions, all at once, instead of in stages. In the process, these drivers may
overlook pedestrians approaching from the opposite direction.
In fact, p. 7 of the SS4A plan identifies 90-degree-angle conflicts between motorists and
bicyclists of all ages as a safety focus area, based on crash data analysis, community input,
stakeholder feedback, and systemic risk analysis. Why, then, propose to create so many more of
them? P. 34 identifies improper turning as among the most common primary injury risk factors.
Why encourage more of it?
The Effect of Separated Facilities
It is not enough to simply declare who has right-of-way, whether through education, signage, or
even traffic law. The party who must yield must actually be able, in a practical sense, to see and
yield to the traffic that’s given right-of-way. Yes, I understand—cyclists are virtuous, cyclists are
vulnerable; that doesn’t change sight lines or speeds. Drivers properly bear much of the
responsibility, but they can’t be assigned all of it. Bicyclists, like pedestrians, have their own
responsibilities, must have appropriate skills, and must stay alert. Separated facilities don’t
necessarily benefit the casual or less experienced bicyclists they’re meant to attract; those
cyclists are just less likely to recognize their deficiencies. The rapidly growing popularity of e-
bikes only emphasizes these concerns.
The effect of separated facilities, it seems to me, is to provide comfort and the perception of
safety, rather than its reality. In addition to their geometric conflicts, physical barriers also create
a nontrivial crash risk (they’ve been known to cause severe injuries), and two-way separated
facilities introduce all the well-known hazards of wrong-way travel, which I can’t see as
somehow mitigated by being intentional. Still, it might be contended that separated facilities,
despite their manifold drawbacks (were they to be acknowledged), should nonetheless be
provided, on an optional basis, for bicyclists who prefer them, with anyone else free to continue
using the roadway.
This argument, however, overlooks important points. The cross section occupied by the separated
bicycle facility and barrier will likely result in the remaining roadway lanes being too narrow for
bicyclists and motorists to share comfortably side by side (as they might have formerly). It will
be intimidating, even for experienced bicyclists, to ride in a narrow lane on a higher-speed
roadway. And motorists who expect bicyclists to keep to their designated facility, out of their
way, might not take kindly to being delayed. Bicyclists who dare to ride in the roadway risk
harassment, at least by honking, and the most antagonistic drivers might tailgate or pass too
closely. Do Safe Streets for All (for “travelers of all ages and abilities”) and the BPTP include a
commitment to preserve the rights of bicyclists who prefer, for reasons I’ve detailed at great
length, to continue riding safely and efficiently on the roadway—for instance, by routine
installation of the BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign (p. 100) on roads with separated
facilities, and education of motorists and law enforcement officers that bicyclists may lawfully
do so, whether or not there is such a sign?
— 12 —
The City of Cupertino provides an instructive example of the unintended consequences of
separated facilities. No doubt with the best of intentions, raised islands have been installed along
many streets popular with bicyclists to create separated bikeways. As a result, bicyclists are
confined within a narrow channel bounded by the crash hazards of the island on the left and the
curb on the right, with barely enough lateral space for shy distance from either (plus the issues of
passing, road debris, and irregular surfaces inside the channel). These islands extend to within a
few feet of intersections and driveways, forcing bicyclists and motorists into right-hook conflicts
at every such point.
Even leaving aside the risk of motorist harassment, there are few gaps between islands where
bicyclists can leave the facility and merge into a left-turn lane. Instead, they have to make do
with two-stage left-turn bike boxes, which are confusing—they may mislead bicyclists into
turning left in a single movement, without yielding to traffic overtaking in the original direction;
introduce delay; and may expose bicyclists to yet another right-hook conflict on the cross-street.
The net effect of this design is a regression toward the bad old days of mandatory sidepaths.
Though sidepath use may no longer be legally required—assuming law enforcement officers
understand that, which is not a given—the roadway, thanks to the presence of a separated facility,
narrow traffic lanes, and impatient motorists, has been made hostile to bicycling. For those who
recognize their hazards, it is no longer possible to bicycle safely or comfortably on those streets.
Palo Alto should resolve not to follow Cupertino’s example.
The Bottom Line
Let me reiterate that, for all this lengthy discussion, my question is ultimately a simple one. What
is the basis for believing, contrary to long-standing engineering practice for both vehicles and
bicycles, that it is safe, much less desirable, for through bicycle traffic to pass right-turning
vehicular traffic on its right side? Where, when, and how have proponents of separated facilities
recognized and addressed this fundamental issue?
The appendix examines the historical origins of recent guidance and its compatibility with traffic
law. This history turns out to have Palo Alto connections.
— 13 —
Appendix: What Are the Origins of This Reversal?
What are the origins of the sudden reversal in bikeway design guidance? The following
discussion is lengthy and of secondary importance to engineering questions, so those with
limited time may treat it as optional. But it does help to explain the current state of affairs.
Chronologically, the turning point was the 2011 National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” which was followed by the FHWA
“Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” (2015) and “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher
Speed Roadways” (2024); Caltrans Design Information Bulletins 89, “Class IV Bikeway
Guidance” (first issued in 2015) and “Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance” (2024);
similar publications in several other states; and, most recently, the fifth edition of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities” (2024).
But this history is only descriptive. The NACTO Guide did not develop from a comparative
assessment of various bicycle facilities; the Request for Proposals had already determined the
treatments to be included.
Psychologically, the appeal of bikeways that are “protected” or “separated” from motor vehicles;
that claim to be suitable for all ages and abilities (implicitly including little or no ability); that
enable infrastructure to take the place of user behavior; and that place any responsibility that
might remain entirely onto the drivers of motor vehicles is difficult to resist. Little wonder that
such bikeways should prove so popular, with planners and designers as well as users. But of
course I don’t propose to psychoanalyze bicyclists or transportation professionals here. What I’m
interested in is the technical foundations of these approaches.
(By the way, wouldn’t the ideal method be to design roadways for motorists of all ages and
abilities? Why don’t we just do that?)
Light was unexpectedly shed on these questions—both the turnabout in design guidance, and the
reluctance of its proponents to confront doubts—by an article in the March 2025 ITE Journal,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As I mentioned above, I consider these
not so much new ideas as old ones recycled from the 1970s and long since superseded. But I
didn’t realize that this account is, in fact, literally true.
In “The AASHTO Bike Guide Sets a New Standard for Safe, Comfortable Bikeways,” Bill
Schultheiss of Toole Design, who was project manager for the guide, and his co-authors stress
comfort as their priority. It’s right there in the title, and I count the words “comfort” or
“comfortable” occurring eleven times in the article. Of course this is an admirable goal, but it
should not come at the expense of safety. It’s no secret that the authors and I would disagree
about the resultant safety of the designs.
Under the subhead “Everything Old Is New Again,” the authors write:
— 14 —
[T]he promise and value of bike lanes is not a new idea.
In 1972, two analyses out of California suggested a new way of thinking about bikes: a
study by De Leuw, Cather & Company that analyzed the performance and safety of the
nation’s first bicycle network in Davis, California, and a report from UCLA that reviewed
national and international research on bikeway planning and design. These studies
found that both bicyclists and motorists preferred streets with bike lanes, and that
separated bike lanes improved safety (although they may require additional
maintenance and parking restrictions).
In 1974, AASHTO published the first national guidance for bicycling in the United States,
which recommended designs that will look familiar:
Continuous bike lanes on streets
Marked bicycle crossings
Two-stage turn queue areas or boxes
Offset geometry of bike lane to manage turning vehicle conflicts
These elements are visible as illustrated in Figure 7 of the 1974 Guide.
The continuous bike lanes in the figure extend unbroken along the curb and through the
intersection, or else are offset onto the sidewalk and crosswalk or an adjacent crossing in
advance of the intersection. The caption describes these as “now known as separated bike lanes
and protected intersections.”
The De Leuw, Cather study treats a right-turning car that makes its approach to the intersection
in the bike lane as a “deliberate encroachment” on the territory of the bicyclist. In other words, a
geometric conflict at right turns is assumed to be necessary and unavoidable. It likewise
considers a bicycle that leaves the lane approaching an intersection in order to execute “an
unauthorized form of left turn” a deliberate encroachment by the bicyclist. It’s no surprise, then,
that its recommendations do not allow for bicyclists (or motorists) following traffic law; no such
options are even presented.
Even so, this report finds protected lanes to be appropriate only in very specialized situations.
The UCLA report seems to be the source of the Class I, II, and III bikeway terminology (later
augmented by IV) now confined almost exclusively to California. Its discussion of intersection
design is aligned with what Schultheiss et al. describe, but that seems to follow necessarily from
an implicit assumption in both reports, never expressed outright, that bicyclists must always hew
closely to the curb for their own safety. As in the De Leuw, Cather study, no alternatives are
examined or compared. The only occurrences of the word “merge” or a variation are in other
contexts.
— 15 —
As for the safety of separated bikeways, the report reviewed several European studies, one of
which found that:
At intersections, the investigators reported that fewer accidents occurred to bicyclists
and moped drivers when there were cycle tracks; and for one-way tracks the decrease
approximated 30%. In these cases physical barriers between the road and the track
prevented cyclists from carelessly moving towards the left before they reached the
intersection so as to make a left hand turn. On the other hand, and consistent with later
Danish findings; chances of a vehicle colliding with a cycle while making a right hand
turn onto the minor road, slightly increased when a track was provided. The investigators
however, concluded that the net result of providing cycle tracks was beneficial.
This is a weak conclusion at best, and the authors observe that none of the studies were subject to
statistical testing, that no firm inferences can be drawn, and that any recommendations cannot be
generalized beyond the studies themselves. In any case, “carelessly moving towards the left
before they reached the intersection so as to make a left hand turn”—also a concern of the De
Leuw, Cather study—would not, I hope, be viewed today in so negative a light. Again, this
study’s designs are incompatible with bicyclists following traffic law.
Why did the De Leuw, Cather and UCLA studies, and the 1974 AASHTO Guide that relied on
them, not become the basis of subsequent practice? Because, to put it melodramatically, in this
Garden of Eden there lurked a serpent. Schultheiss, of course, words it differently:
But in the late 1970s, these ideas faced backlash. Bicyclists feared they would lose their
right to bicycle in travel lanes; concurrently, the transportation industry deemed
separating bikes from cars impractical. A philosophy known as “vehicular cycling”
emerged, based on the premise that few people would bicycle, and that those who did
should operate essentially as motorists and share travel lanes. . . .
The vehicular cycling approach was adopted into national guidance, impeding the
development of American bicycling infrastructure for nearly 50 years. Now, we’re
returning to the evidence-based approach we glimpsed in 1974. Informed by robust
research and urban bikeway experimentation that has occurred over the last 15 years,
the new AASHTO Bike Guide marks the beginning of a new era.
I’m sure that many people seeing this can already read well enough between the lines. But
Schultheiss and two other authors make their argument explicit in a Transportation Research
Board paper from 2018 titled “A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement.”
After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a
network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy – vehicular cycling (VC) –
formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of
losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular
cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. . . .
— 16 —
I’m curious what positions of power this refers to—political? professional? The only power I’m
aware of that vehicular cyclists have ever possessed is the persuasive one of knowledge,
experience, logic, analysis, and persistence.
In 1972, the City of Palo Alto, CA, began to implement a bicycle network by installing
unprotected bike lanes and signed bicycle routes – including sidewalk bike routes, and
created an ordinance requiring the use of bike lanes.
I remember these early bike lanes. At a time when there were no widely accepted standards and
no uniform regulation, they were marked by an obscure dark-green stripe that was universally
disliked. There were also sidewalk bike paths along Middlefield and Embarcadero. Palo Alto
enacted an ordinance requiring use of both on-street and sidewalk bicycle facilities (as cities in
those days were permitted to do).
Since there were no exceptions to mandatory bike-lane use, through bicyclists came into conflict
with right-turning motorists at intersections. I remember seeing a handout—a utility bill insert,
maybe?—cautioning that in this situation no one had right-of-way, and everyone needed to be
careful. That ambiguous advice was quickly found not to work, and there is no reason to believe
it would work better now. It was also unclear how bicyclists were to turn left.
This attracted the attention of John Forester, a local engineer and amateur bicycle racer.
It attracted Forester’s attention because he lived in South Palo Alto and commuted to work in
Menlo Park by bicycle along Middlefield Road. (I should disclose right here that I knew John
Forester well personally. I visited his home in Palo Alto many times (before he moved to
Sunnyvale, and then Southern California), and worked with him on bicycle issues for years. I
also received certification from him as an Effective Cyclist and an Effective Cycling Instructor.)
Concerned about the mandatory use ordinance and the potential to be required to
bicycle on narrow sidewalks with pedestrians, he became involved with the California
Statewide Bicycle Committee, which was tasked with developing proposals to modify
legislation and create bikeway standards.
Here the authors confuse two different committees: the Statewide Bicycle Committee, which was
primary concerned with legislation (which Forester was indeed a member of) and the later
Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, which dealt with bikeway standards (which he was not a
member of). More about these committees below.
Forester believed bike lanes would increase risks associated with turning motorists,
motorists opening doors from parked vehicles, and bicyclists turning left, and, most
importantly, delegitimize a bicyclists’ right to operate on a street.
Forester’s safety concerns were entirely reasonable ones. And his fear of losing the right to
bicycle on the road was well-founded, given the restrictive ordinances in Palo Alto and many
other locations. The Vehicle Code to this day retains a mandatory bike lane law (though modified
with many exceptions, thanks largely to the good work of the Statewide Bicycle Committee).
— 17 —
And bicyclists’ right to the road faces recurrent danger again today, less now as a matter of law
and more as a matter of in fact:
The very concept of “separation” as the ultimate goal might suggest that shared roadways
are undesirable, and that accommodating bicycling on them should carry at best low
priority.
As mentioned earlier, the right-of-way needed for Class IV bikeways usually results in
the general traffic lanes becoming too narrow to share side by side, and intimidating even
to experienced and confident bicyclists.
Aggressive policing of the roadway by even a few territorial motorists can lead to
harassment of bicyclists, especially when Class IV bikeways are misleadingly referred to
as bike lanes (whose use is mandatory).
Despite extravagant promises to accommodate all ages and abilities, experienced cyclists
receive scant attention in current bicycle planning. They are often classified as “strong and
fearless” (in a set of arbitrary categories that, though widespread, have no empirical validation),
as if only the young and foolhardy would dare to brave the roadway.
To prove protected bike lanes were dangerous, he rode his bicycle at roadway bicycling
speed on a sidewalk designated for bicycle use and attempted to turn left across all
lanes of traffic from the sidewalk at this speed. He published his account of this ride as
“the one valid test of a sidepath system” that proved sidepath style bikeways were
“about 1,000 times more dangerous than riding on the same roads.” While this account
was clearly anecdotal, Forester used this experience—as well as his position as an
engineer—to claim sidewalks, sidepaths, and protected bike lanes were dangerous and
would increase liability for designers and cities in the event of a crash.
Here, for comparison, is what Forester wrote in his first publication on the subject, in Bike World
magazine in 1973:
The sidewalk is dangerous: even a brisk pedestrian rarely walks faster than 2.5 mph,
while average cyclists do 10-12 mph. It’s like putting 18-mph cyclists on a 70-mph
freeway. Furthermore, there are no rules of the sidewalk—anybody may walk in any
direction he chooses, stop, start, and turn anywhere. I know of two pedestrian fatalities
caused by cyclists already—one in San Jose a month ago and one reported by a friend
in Minneapolis. And cars cross the sidewalk everywhere. A car emerging from its hedge-
lined driveway may be quite safe for pedestrians, who travel slowly and stop in one step,
but it is highly unsafe for cyclists. At intersections the same rule holds—the motorists are
supposed to stop for crosswalk traffic, but they never allow for anything faster than a
pedestrian.
This sounds, and is, indignant, but its observations remain perfectly reasonable.
These events inspired him to author a book titled Effective Cycling, which centered on a
philosophy that “bicyclists fare best when they act as, and are treated as, drivers of
— 18 —
motor vehicles.” The book explains his methods for driving his bicycle in a manner
similar to a motorized vehicle, a concept he later popularized through articles in Bicycling
Magazine. . .
First of all, that should properly read vehicles, not motor vehicles or motorized vehicles. The
difference matters. No one imagines that bicycles are as large, as heavy, or as powerful as cars;
bicyclists are also far more vulnerable than motorists, and most of the time they’re slower
(though nowadays even younger riders can operate e-bikes at speeds comparable to cars on local
streets).
Under Vehicle Code §670, a vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway. All such devices, regardless of their other
characteristics, are subject to the rules of the road in Division 11. For historical reasons, that
section goes on to exclude devices moved exclusively by human power. But §21200 effectively
undoes that exclusion by granting bicycle operators all the rights and subjecting them to all the
responsibilities of drivers of vehicles.
In other words, what Forester advocated, far from a radical, elitist proposition, was only what
traffic law has always required. His contribution was to analyze, codify, and disseminate how
bicyclists could and should do this do this more thoroughly than anyone before him.
Without access to the paper copies of 1970s studies Forester critiqued (only recently
available via the internet), transportation professionals, public agency staff, and citizens
who were unaware of research contradicting Forester’s claims had few sources other
than his books for bicycle planning. . . .
But this statement is inconsistent with the next paragraph, which describes a much more
influential document. The authors trace most bicycle planning and design guidance from 1978
until relatively recently to Caltrans’s “Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California.”
Under the direction of California Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, a new design
guide was developed between 1975 and 1978.
In this they are correct: this guidance was highly influential. But they are wrong to view this so
negatively or its development as biased.
The work of the committee was heavily influenced by Forester, who was now president
of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. . . . The two primary references
for the 1978 CalTrans Guide were Munn’s 1974 ASCE paper and Forester’s Cycling
Traffic Engineering handbook.
I’m uncertain where this claim came from. Those sources constituted only two of the 16
references appended to the guide. Among the others were the De Leuw, Cather study, the UCLA
study, and the 1974 AASHTO guidelines. So those publications were hardly overlooked during
the development process.
— 19 —
To explain further, I need to go into the history of this committee.
Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California
The “Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California,” adopted by Caltrans on June 30,
1978, to be effective September 1, were indeed highly influential in the field of bikeway
planning and design. This was a standalone publication whose contents were later incorporated
into the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, where much of that guidance remains to this day. The 1981 AASHTO “Guide for
Development of New Bicycle Facilities” also drew heavily on California’s recommendations,
sometimes nearly verbatim, as did subsequent editions of the AASHTO guide (the name varies
slightly over the years), as the TRB paper goes on to describe in some detail.
Its influence may have been the result of the painstaking and transparent manner in which this
publication was developed by the Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, as part of a study
authorized by the Legislature. The committee was chaired by Rick Knapp of Caltrans (later a
long-time Caltrans district director) and consisted of a diverse set of members:
Rick Blunden, representing the League of American Wheelmen (later known as the
League of American Bicyclists); Rick later became Chief of the Caltrans Office of
Bicycle Facilities when it was reinstated in the early 1990s
Merick Chaffee of the California Department of Parks and Recreation
David Pelz, representing the League of California Cities and long-time traffic engineer
for the City of Davis
Richard Rademacher of the California Highway Patrol
James Ray of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee; as traffic engineer for
the County of Sacramento, he’s best known for inventing the two-way left-turn lane
Lloyd Roberts, representing the County Supervisors Association of California (later
known as the California State Association of Counties)
John Finley Scott, representing the California Association of Bicycling Organizations
(also Forester’s organization—and, to be fair, mine); he was a sociology professor at U.C.
Davis
I have copies of minutes of most of the committee’s meetings. In addition to those meetings,
which were open to the public, two well-advertised meetings were held, one in San Francisco
and one in Los Angeles, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each, to solicit public comment on a draft
of the report. Comments were also accepted by mail. Among the attendees and commenters at
the Northern California meeting were Joan Thompson (who preceded Gayle Likens with the City
of Palo Alto) and Ellen Fletcher, representing the Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association (now
known as the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition).
In the minutes of several, though not all, committee meetings, John Forester is listed among ten
or so advisors to the committee (which only means interested parties). He gave a presentation at
the September 14, 1977, meeting, as did Jim Ray, traffic engineers from Santa Clara County, and
traffic engineers from the City of Cupertino. It’s clear, however, that Forester’s opinion did not
— 20 —
carry disproportionate influence; in his own report of this meeting, which I also have, he noted
that “I attach a copy of my proposed section on planning which was rejected without discussion
by the committee.”
I’ve looked through the minutes for topics related to bike lane marking and right turns or to
separated bikeways and found these:
In a slide presentation on existing bicycle facilities in the United States, Europe, and
Africa, some “of questionable geometrics and design” and others “of high standards,” one
observation was that “Dikes on the outside edge of bike lanes should be avoided where
not required as they collect debris. Dave Pelz stated that the City of Davis has removed
dikes where they were used to separate autos and bicycles. They were determined to be a
hazard to both motorists and bicyclists (presently contrary to Section 21717, CVC).”
Among “Some Design Details to Consider in Study” was “Striping configuration at
through intersections (conventional intersection).”
Proposed revisions to an early draft document included “Strong recommendation against
bike paths immediately adjacent to roadways.”
“The use of raised bars, dikes on bike lanes—It was concluded that the standards would
include a mandatory prohibition against the use of raised barriers to delineate bike lanes
because they prevent right turning motorists from merging into the lane in accordance
with the Vehicle Code; they prevent bicyclists from exiting the bike lane when necessary
to turn left or avoid hazards in the bike lane; and they represent a hazard to bicyclists and
motorists.”
These notes reveal why it was inevitable that the committee would recommend dropping or
dashing bike lanes in advance of an intersection. It wasn’t the result of rhetoric or pressure; it
was to comply with traffic law. In particular, §21717 of the Vehicle Code, which became law in
1976, reads: “Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane
that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into
the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.”
I’m not aware of any other states that have laws precisely like this, but Vehicle Code §22100 (as
cited just above) provides that “Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn
shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,” with
specified exceptions. This has been the law in California at least since 1939; a similar provision
was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code (a national model code) in 1930, and the laws of all fifty
states and the District of Columbia, with some variation, are in conformity. The only exception I
could find is that Wisconsin Statutes §346.31(2) also provides: “If, because of the size of the
vehicle or the nature of the intersecting roadway, the turn cannot be made from the traffic lane
next to the right-hand edge of the roadway, the turn shall be made with due regard for all other
traffic.”
It’s also important to note that the merging operation must observe §21658(a): “A vehicle shall
be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane
until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”
— 21 —
Schultheiss et al. quote disapprovingly the following statement from the 1978 Caltrans
guidelines, calling it “a remarkably different view of bicycling from the research conducted to
date”: “Most of these roads are sufficient to accommodate shared use by bicyclists and motorists,
and hence, most bicycle travel has occurred and will continue to occur on that system.” This
statement remains in the Highway Design Manual to this day, in slightly modified form (Index
1002.1): “Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway
designations and this may continue to be true in the future as well.” It adds, “In some instances,
entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, where signing
and pavement marking for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as
a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel.”
The HDM also contains (or cross-references) extensive guidance about the planning and design
of bikeways of all classes. It would seem unexceptionable that most streets will not be designated
as bikeways; that bicyclists, whose origins and destinations, like motorists’, can lie almost
anywhere, need to travel on many of those streets for at least part of their trip; that those streets
should therefore be suitable for and accommodate bicycle travel; and that both bicyclists and
motorists need to understand how to share the road safely and courteously. But Schultheiss et al.
seem wary of any street that does not include a bikeway.
(On the other hand, Schultheiss et al. cite favorably Anne Lusk’s misinterpretation of the work
on sidewalk bicycling that Diana Lewiston and I published in 1994. But I’ll leave that discussion
aside for now as too much of a digression.)
SCR 47 Committee
So, to be thorough, we should also inquire into the origins of §21717, even though it merely
emphasizes what is already required by traffic law. The answer is that it can be traced to another
committee with a similar name, the Statewide Bicycle Committee—also known as the SCR 47
Committee, because it was created in 1973 by the Legislature’s Senate Concurrent Resolution 47
to study problems related to bicycling in California and to review the Vehicle Code and
recommend changes that would benefit both bicyclists and motorists. I ought to list this
committee’s membership, too (it has some overlap with the other committee:
Dick Rogers, Caltrans, Chair
Barbara Bania, Office of Traffic Safety
John Forester, California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Neil Good, State Senate
William Owen, League of California Cities
Manuel Puentes, Automobile Club of Southern California
Merick Chaffee, Department of Parks and Recreation
Lloyd Roberts, County Supervisors Association of California
Jim Swatsenbarg, California Highway Patrol
Forester was indeed a member of this committee, but it, too, had a diverse makeup, and he was
the only bicycle advocate represented. There is also a ten-page list of advisors (interested parties
— 22 —
who could provide valuable information). Among those named are Ellen Fletcher; Dave Uggla, a
long-time member of PABAC; and Ted Noguchi (traffic engineer for the City of Palo Alto). This
committee’s work, too, was a thorough, comprehensive, and transparent process. It held public
meetings in Redding, San Francisco, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, and
Sacramento, attended by a total of about 800 people.
Most of the committee’s recommendations were quickly added to the Vehicle Code. One of them
was this: “When necessary to make a right hand turn on a roadway which has a bicycle lane to
the right of the motor vehicle lane, the motorist must merge into the bike lane in accordance with
Section 21658 and make his turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the
roadway in accordance with Section 22100.”
This, with minor changes, became §21717. (See above for the content of the cross-referenced
sections.) I think it is important to cite the committee’s reasoning: “It is the Committee’s opinion
that inconsistent local rules of the road . . . cause confusion and lead to additional conflicts at
intersections. For this reason the Committee recommends that motorists be required to merge
into the bike lane and make a right turn in the usual manner as close as practicable to the right-
hand curb or edge of the roadway.”
Is Vehicular Cycling Elitist?
Forester’s detractors often misrepresent his views, and that is the case here. Earlier I quoted
Schultheiss as saying, “A philosophy known as ‘vehicular cycling’ emerged, based on the
premise that few people would bicycle, and that those who did should operate essentially as
motorists and share travel lanes. . . .”
In a description of his book, however, Forester claimed the contrary: “Rather than a book for
experts, as many people originally described it, Effective Cycling is a book that can show every
beginning cyclist how to ride in the way that is best for him or her.” He even developed a
training course for upper elementary and middle school students (I’ve taught this course myself).
This is far from elitist.
I’ve already dealt with operating as “motorists.” Moreover, vehicular cyclists are taught to share
travel lanes only when they are too narrow to share side by side, and then only when the speed
differential is relatively low.
Forester could be charming in person, but he was a very ineffective advocate for his beliefs. He
was famously argumentative, abrasive, and impatient with and intolerant of those who he thought
didn’t see as clearly as he did. He had the influence that he did because of the power of his ideas,
not his personality, rhetoric, or insistent voice.
From reading distorted accounts of vehicular cycling, you wouldn’t realize that Forester
emphasized, above all else, respect for traffic law (barring a few discriminatory exceptions) and
cooperatively sharing the road with all other users, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians alike.
This framework of order, regularity, and predictability, far from being, as some people seem to
— 23 —
see it, an imposition on bicyclists’ freedom or an attempt to control them, is actually highly
protective.
Also contrary to the way he’s often depicted, Forester was a great believer in science,
experimentation, and evidence. He conducted many observations of road users on his own, and
zealously analyzed whatever material on bicycle operation and safety he found published (and
here I’ll agree with Schultheiss and others that there has been far too little of it). He might at
times have overstated his case, and he had little use for subtlety or tact, but he was always to be
taken seriously.
Other Contemporary Commentary
Rick Knapp, the Caltrans engineer who chaired the Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee,
presented a paper titled “An Effective Bicycle Program: More Than Paths, Stripes and Signs” to
a transportation conference in Oakland in 1978, at the time the committee’s work was in its final
stages, describing the personal insights his work on the committee had given him into typical
approaches to bicycle planning. These observations remain particularly apt:
A large percentage of work on bicycle facilities to date has been counterproductive—has
caused more problems than it solved. . . .
The agencies that address the “bicycle problem” usually seek the solution that will make
bicyclists disappear. They develop bikeway master plans and programs designed to get
bikes off the road—at least off the roads where cars are apt to be. . . . Some do this
because they believe this is the only safe place for bicyclists to ride. Others do it
because they believe this is where bicyclists want to ride. Far too many do it because
they do not want bicyclists interfering with the flow of auto traffic in major transportation
corridors . . .
Agencies addressing the “bicycle problem” become very frustrated when they find that
many bicyclists avoid their bikeways in making their trips. These bicyclists are looked
upon as dissidents by the local agency and many motorists (who take credit for paying
for the highways and the bicycle facilities). . . .
Local organizations usually view bicycling organizations as radical interest groups—and
they usually are. They are viewed as representing only elitist bicyclists and are not
considered a valid sounding board for proposals intended to the serve the general
public. . . .
Many bicycling organizations have actively opposed bikeways in general because of the
bad experiences they have witnessed. . . .
Yes, it’s true. Everything old is new again.
— 24 —
It is important to recognize that there are less than 2,000 miles of bikeway in California
compared with 130,000 miles of road. Obviously, the utility bicyclist cannot get around
without using the road system.
This ratio has surely improved since 1978, but the disproportion remains. The road system is
crucial.
A year later, Alex Sorton, a senior transportation engineer with Northwestern University’s Traffic
Institute and chair of the ITE committee on bicycle facilities, wrote in “Bicycle Facility
Standards: Designing for Tomorrow with Obsolete Information” in Bicycle Forum magazine:
“The AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Routes was a useful document at the time it was developed in
1972. Since then, however, much of it has become obsolete as better and more complete
information has become available.”
He continued, “Some of the design alternatives discussed in the Guide have been found not
desirable.” One of those he listed was the use of curbs or parked cars as buffers between the bike
lane and the outside travel lane, which “creates more problems than it solves, such as motor
vehicle-bicycle conflicts at intersections caused by parked vehicles’ shielding the bicyclists from
motorists’ view.” Another was the channelization of bicycle traffic through intersections.
Among the features Sorton looked for in a new guide being developed by the FHWA was
“independent bikeways that complement the existing roadway system . . . and that do not require
bicyclists to operate in a manner contrary to the rules of the road.” He recommends as the most
current state of the art the Caltrans “Planning and Design Criteria,” which “has been developed
using current research, operational experience and input from the total bicycling community.”
In Conclusion
As Sorton says, those early bikeway design guides were thorough, professional efforts that were
valuable in their day, and much of their guidance has stood the test of time. But certain designs
implicitly assume that bicyclists will not and must not, for their own safety, follow vehicular
traffic law, and the renewed popularity of these designs is in part a backlash against an erroneous
conception of vehicular cycling.
These early publications are not rediscovered long-lost manuscripts, containing the wisdom of
the ancients, and they have not been suppressed by an elitist but vocal minority. If guidance has
changed, it might be because lessons have been learned, though it might also be that sometimes
those lessons are forgotten and must be learned again.
Separated Bikeway Research: A Response
Alan Wachtel
November 4, 2025, PABAC Meeting
At the August PABAC meeting, I questioned the safety and utility of physically separated bikeways, which
form a significant portion of the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Update, the Safe Streets for All
Safety Action Plan, the El Camino Real Bikeway project, and several other local projects or plans. (These
facilities are also known as cycle tracks, Class IV bikeways, or commonly but incorrectly, as separated or
protected bike lanes. “Protected” is a subjective term that I take issue with (though others might disagree), but
objectively they are not bike lanes, which are designated as Class II bikeways in the California Streets and
Highway Code, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. This distinction matters in California and should be carefully observed, because Class II bike lanes
create legal obligations that Class IV separated bikeways do not.)
My concerns about separated bicycle facilities are detailed at length in Attachment 1 to the August PABAC
agenda. There is no need to repeat them all here, but the fundamental issue is that this design (as well as Class I
bike paths adjacent to roadways; two-stage left-turn bike boxes; many, though not all, advanced stop line bike
boxes; so-called protected intersections; and, depending on interpretation, buffered bike lanes) requires through
bicycles to pass right-turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side, and right-turning traffic to
turn at or near right angles from the left and across the path of bicyclists overtaking on the right. This
geometric conflict, often called a right hook, is a well-established cause of car-bike collisions and contrary to
all previous bicycle facility design guidance. A motorist would call it being cut off. It would never be
employed to place right-turning vehicular traffic to the left of through traffic. This is not the only drawback of
physically separated facilities, but it is the major one.
The lengthy discussion at that meeting included a presentation by Nick Falbo of Mobycon, one of the BPTP
Update consultants, in favor of these facilities, which appeared as Attachment 2 to the August agenda. I told
Nick at that time that I’d appreciate evidence supporting the safety of separated bikeways. He replied in the
form of a memo to Ozzy Arce, dated September 10 and titled “Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.” Nick cited a number of studies, which he thoughtfully
provided copies of (with one exception, discussed below). Nick’s memo and the full text of the studies
constituted Attachment 2 to the October PABAC agenda.
I thank Nick for providing this information, which I will respond to here. I’ll distinguish Nick’s memo by
quoting it with a gray background.
— 2 —
Memo
To : Ozzy Arce, City of Palo Alto
From : Nick Falbo, Mobycon Inc.
Date : Sept 10, 2025
Subject : Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Mobycon recommends protected bike lane facilities on many roadways in the City of Palo Alto as part
of the update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transpiration Plan. These recommendations are in
alignment with national guidelines and are made with the intent to improve comfort and safety of
people riding bicycles.
As explained above, I prefer to avoid the misleading term “protected bike lane.” Please consider that comment
to apply to all further occurrences.
As I contended in my earlier memo, comfort—which is a subjective judgment heavily influenced by framing
and experience—seems to have superseded safety as the primary facilities criterion. It’s true that a number of
guidance documents (listed in my August comments) make recommendations along the lines that Nick
suggests. But those guidelines do not seem to have developed from a comparative assessment of various
approaches to bicycle facilities. Instead, as I observed then, they appear to rely on an idealization of early
1970s design guidance, which assumed implicitly that bicycles should travel near the curb and motorists would
necessarily turn across their path at near right angles—an unstated principle that also seems to govern current
guidance favoring separation. This nostalgia was combined with a revisionist history of bicycle facility design,
which I earlier refuted in detail, in order to reject long-standing prior guidance.
I’m looking for the foundation that the guidelines Nick prefers should rest on: reasoning, evidence,
experiments, or data to support these design choices. That’s what Nick’s memo is meant to provide.
Note that many of the studies cited were conducted before the recent dramatic popularity of e-bikes (as, of
course, was other earlier research, including my own). The substantially greater speed of many e-bikes,
compared to most pedal bikes, increases the area in which motorists need to scan for them and reduces the time
available to react. These differences may call for reassessment on all sides.
The following memo documents key studies exploring the safety of protected bike lane facilities, also
known as Separated Bike Lanes or Cycle Tracks. This list is not exhaustive but can provide some
context for facility selection and design.
In-road crashes matter
Many concerns about protected bike lanes have to do with the potential for crashes at intersections.
This is important, and much research and guidance are focused on understanding and mitigating
— 3 —
these risks. It is also important to consider the risks of conflicts where motor vehicles overtake or
pass a bicyclist in the roadway. Research from the UK found that the most common cause of fatal
bicyclist collisions in urban areas is overtaking (McCarthy, Gilbert, 1996).
I agree that overtaking crashes are a significant crash type (one that many bicyclists fear) that deserve careful
attention. However, this study does not support the claim that they are the most common type (which Lusk et
al., cited below, also make, citing the same source). With limited data available, the researchers tentatively
concluded that the most common cause was left turns (corresponding to U.S. right turns), in 34 out of 86
fatalities to which causes could be assigned. Being hit from behind was second, with 22.
The draft BPTP Update dated October 2025 reports that in Palo Alto in the five years from 2018 to 2022, “The
most commonly-cited collision types for bicyclist-involved collisions were broadside collisions (61%)
followed by sideswipe collisions (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions specifically, the most
common collision types were broadside collisions (54%), followed by head-on and hit object collisions (15%
each).” The most commonly cited primary collision factor for bike-car collisions in general, and for fatal and
severe injury collisions in particular, was improper turning. Overtaking or hit-from-behind crashes were not
mentioned.
Protected bike lanes largely prevent overtaking crashes.
Protected bike lanes protect users within the protected segments of the facility, eliminating an entire
subset of vehicle-involved crashes that occur within the roadway or bike lane during overtaking
events.
Yes, agreed. But nothing in the U.K. or Palo Alto data suggests that there would be a net benefit to preventing
overtaking crashes with physical separation at the expense of complicating bike-car interactions at intersections
and driveways, where the majority of crashes (turning and broadside) are known to occur.
Looking at both overtaking and intersection crashes, a study of cycle tracks in Montreal found that
the injury rate for cycle tracks was 28% lower than in the street. These were all bidirectional cycle
tracks and the study acknowledged that one-way configurations would likely have been safer (Lusk,
2011).
The study by Lusk et al. has been widely cited, but also widely criticized, including on methodological
grounds. John S. Allen, the author or co-author of many publications about bicycling, including Bicycling
Street Smarts, which has been adopted as the bicycle driver’s manual in several U.S. states, summarizes this
criticism on his blog:
“Flaws of the study include describing stretches of paths in parks and away from streets as cycle tracks;
including stretches which had not been built yet in the reported mileage; selecting a multi-lane comparison
street 10 blocks away with heavy, faster traffic for comparison with a cycle track street which is small and has
light, slow traffic; examining short stretches which end just short of busy intersections; giving the length of one
of the paths as twice as long as it is, halving its reported crash rate, and neglecting injuries to pedestrians.”
Allen’s blog page includes links to a very lengthy, detailed rebuttal of Lusk’s study and to another negative
review of it.
— 4 —
Lusk’s study also misinterprets the work that Diana Lewiston and I published in ITE Journal in 1994. For
reasons of space, I’ll defer discussion of that issue to another time, but let me say briefly that Lusk’s analysis
estimated the number of midblock collisions, rather than relying on observational data; her conclusion was not
statistically significant; and she failed to account for a statistical phenomenon known as Simpson's paradox.
Most drivers don’t look before turning
Researchers in the University of Toronto's Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering studied the eye
movements of drivers at busy Toronto intersections and found that more than half failed to make
necessary scans for pedestrians or cyclists at right turns. (Kaya, et al. 2018).
This finding supports measures to improve conspicuity before the turning maneuver, as well as
increased visibility within and after the turn.
The authors of this study begin by summarizing another study: “An in-depth analysis conducted in Finland
found that cyclist-car crashes occurred most commonly when the driver was turning right. Only 11% of these
drivers noticed the cyclist before impact, whereas 68% of the cyclists noticed the driver and most of them
thought that the driver would give way as required by law. The drivers were identified to be misallocating their
attention because they were looking left for vehicle traffic.”
The disparity here between driver and bicyclist expectations helps to explain why right turns across a lane of
bicycle traffic so often result in conflict, but looking to the left is standard (and often necessary) driver
behavior at a right turn. If the driver had instead moved safely into the bike lane in advance of the intersection,
the merging behavior (looking right and to the rear) would have been decoupled from the turn (looking left).
In the Toronto study, the bike lane was physically separated from the roadway, and drivers were compelled to
turn across it at near right angles. At one intersection out of the two studied, the parking lane that provided the
physical separation seems to have obstructed sight lines. At the other, four out of the six failures were due to
participants entirely failing to check the bike lane for cyclists behind. This may not be surprising, considering
that the interaction between drivers and bicyclists is concentrated at a single conflict point, and drivers may
tend to focus there, rather than behind them for approaching bicycle traffic.
The graphic in Nick’s memo illustrates just this point:
Exhibit 2A from the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide illustrates how a wide
separation from the travel lane provides space to see bicyclists during the turning maneuver.
— 5 —
Notice that even with an offset, bicyclists are visible to motorists looking ahead only within a narrow cone.
Faster bicyclists or those on e-bikes might well approach the conflict point from outside the driver’s range of
vision.
Another graphic from the MassDOT Guide, which Nick did not include, is instructive:
Though it’s labeled as a conventional bike lane, a Class II bike lane would permit drivers to merge into the
lane, and bicyclists to move out of it, to avoid conflict, behavior that differs from what’s shown. This graphic
more closely resembles the geometry of a physically separated bikeway, and illustrates the inherent risk of a
right hook. The bicyclist is completely out of sight of drivers who only scan ahead.
Wide buffers increase safety
A study from the Netherlands found that increased separation between the bikeway and the
roadway can improve safety over immediately adjacent bike lanes. Separating the bike lane by 6.5 to
15.5 ft through an intersection allows drivers to yield to people bicycling during a right turn
movement (Schepers, 2011). The study theorizes that his design decreases the complexity of the
driving task in that it offers drivers turning into the side road extra time to notice cyclists.
Raised crossings increase safety
The same study found that raised bicycle crossings have a large effect on drivers’ behavior and were
effective in reducing the number of bicycle crashes at priority intersections by decreasing drivers’
speed and improving their visual scanning (Schepers, 2011).
This study primarily considered crossing conflicts at intersections, not turning conflicts. Even so, some
designs, such as two-way cycle tracks and colored pavement, were found to increase, rather than decrease,
collisions. Merging before the turn was not included as an option.
— 6 —
Perceived danger from motor vehicles is real, and protected bike lanes help
alleviate that fear
The chief obstacle to bicycling, especially for women, children and seniors is perceived danger of
vehicular traffic. This perceived danger from cars appears to be real, and there is a preference for
cycle tracks over roads in face of that fear. (Winters, Teschke, 2010)
I can’t dispute that many bicyclists fear being hit from behind, even though that’s objectively less likely than
other conflicts. This attitude, however, is only strengthened by the implication that painted bike lane stripes are
inherently unsafe. Still, this is primarily a mobility issue, discouraging bicyclists from using certain facilities.
The greater concern is that these bicyclists often fail to recognize the danger of crossing and turning conflicts
(hence the ineradicable popularity of sidewalk riding), and that is a safety issue. Separated facilities reinforce
this pattern, too, by explicitly promising bicyclists that infrastructure can protect them from traffic. These
facilities promote a comforting reassurance that, while understandably appealing, may not always be justified.
Of course facilities should be attractive and comfortable to their users, but those qualities should not be
founded on unreliable premises.
Studies of early US protected bike lanes demonstrate safe operations, and
widespread appeal
A landmark study in 2014 included direct observation, counts and preferences surveys to understand
the effectiveness of protected bike lanes at encouraging safe and comfortable bicycle mobility (NITC,
2014). Key finding includes:
• Separated bike lanes were observed to be safe: Out of 6100 observations, there were zero
(0) “Major” or “Substantial” conflicts. There were (5) “Minor” conflicts with precautionary
breaking and 306 “Precautionary” observations with “Low risk” and minor change of
direction.
• Ridership within the studied facilities increased 11% over the before conditions
• Public support for these facilities was strong, among all groups of surveyed people.
The appeal of these facilities isn’t surprising, as discussed just above. The NITC study is a good one, by far the
most thorough in this group; I thought so when it was published, and I haven’t changed my mind. But I draw
rather different conclusions from it.
Note particularly that the intersections in this study resolved turning conflicts not through the typical right-
hook geometry, but by different means:
“Three different design approaches were evaluated. First, some designs require the bicycles and turning
vehicles to ‘mix’ in the same space. These designs are called ‘mixing zones.’ The second approach moves the
through bicycle from the protected lane near the curb to the left or right of the turning traffic into a narrow
through bike lane. These are called ‘turning zones.’ There is a defined turn/merge gap for this maneuver and
the lanes are marked with dotted lines recognizing that larger vehicles may encroach on the bike lane due to the
narrow widths of the turning lanes. The third design involves signalization to separate the bicycle and turning
— 7 —
vehicle movements.”
These design elements closely resemble those of conventional painted bike lanes and vehicular traffic
engineering, so I’m reassured that they were found to be safe and effective. But equally important:
“With some exceptions . . ., the large majority of drivers and bicyclists stated that they understood the intent of
the mixing zone designs and were observed to use them as intended. In addition, a majority of bicyclists using
the intersections stated feeling safe.”
In other words, both drivers and bicyclists understood, accepted, and approved the intersection designs
included in this study. That is a high bar to clear, and it suggests that even where there might be valid reasons
for physical separation between intersections, a broader range of design features should be considered in the
vicinity of intersections themselves.
Research into conflict mitigation is ongoing
Research continues, with ongoing attention to conflict mitigation. These tools include signalization at
high turn volumes, reduced radii, increased separation, minimizing exposure, and visual
enhancements (MioTraffic, 2022).
There seems to be a typo in this citation, and the PDF file that Nick provided must have been damaged
somehow and cannot be opened. The corrected reference is MicroTraffic, “Advancing North American Design
Practices to Mitigate Bicycle Right-Hook Conflicts”; a copy can be found here.
I find this report, which deals primarily with separated bikeways and sidepaths, refreshingly forthright in
several respects. Its very title acknowledges that the geometry of unmerged separate facilities can present an
inherent car-bike crash hazard. It also observes that:
“Despite painted bike lanes often requiring that drivers merge with cyclists to make a right turn from the bike
lane (dashed line on approach), many do not. This observed behaviour suggests that the typical painted bike
lane merge is not working as intended, resulting in the same potential right-hook conflicts as with a protected
approach but with driver and cyclist behaviour being less predictable to one another. For improved cyclist
comfort and a more inclusive design, designers are likely better off simply designing for full physical
separation up to the intersection, taking the many considerations raised in this study into account.”
This, like the NITC study, is highly unusual in recognizing that there are methods of routing vehicles and
bicycles through intersections without creating a right-hook geometry. Unfortunately, it immediately goes on
to discard that approach, and to conclude that we might as well cement the right-hook conflict into our
facilities and deal with it as best we can. This is at least a straightforward rationale for preferring separation
(even if not one I would accept), which is a great deal more than proponents are usually able to offer.
Still, I would have preferred to ask, What is the evidence that drivers fail to merge? (The NITC study found
otherwise.) Is there a correlation between the rate of driver compliance and intersection conflicts? Could driver
behavior be improved by signage, markings, or other means? Why abandon these ideas, when so many other
options were chosen to pursue? The NITC study’s findings suggest that merging and related designs deserve
thorough consideration.
It’s also important to recognize that taking physical separation as the default renders it impossible for those
— 8 —
drivers and bicyclists who want to merge or change lanes to do so. Furthermore, even if we assume, for the
sake of argument, that there are effective mitigations for intersection conflicts along physically separated
bikeways, those mitigations can be provided, for the most part, at only a limited number of discrete locations
along the bikeway. At all other intersections and driveways, motorists and bicyclists will be left to their own
devices.
More generally, these facilities train bicyclists to pass right-turning motorists on their right, and motorists to
turn sharply across the path of overtaking bicyclists, at all locations, even where no physical barrier prevents
merging. The potential increase in bike-car collisions that such behavior might produce on shared roadways or
those with conventional bike lanes would not be captured by isolated studies of separated bikeways.
Recent updates to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2024) include
comprehensive design guidance for the design of protected bike lanes.
I’ve already discussed the bias in this guide in my August comments, which there is no need to repeat here.
Conclusion
Recommendations in the update to the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan for
protected bike lanes in higher traffic contexts is appropriate and in line with national guidelines for
facility selection.
The overall safety and comfort performance of an individual bicycle facility is highly influenced by
design details beyond the basic facility type selection. We encourage the City of Palo Alto to pay
special attention to the design engineering phase of all protected bike lanes to implement the latest
practices in design to increase conspicuity and visibility of bicyclists, decrease driver speed at turns
and conflict points, and increase yielding rates at turns.
Physically separated bikeways may have a place in individual situations where their drawbacks (of which
intersection conflicts are the most serious, but not the only ones) can be addressed. I urge the City to consider
recommendations for them in the BPTP Update with great caution; these are expensive installations that may
provide little benefit, or even its opposite, and are not easily reversed. The evidence in their favor, as I mean to
demonstrate here, even if it’s crept into recent design and facility selection guidance, is much less robust than
their proponents are ready to acknowledge.
I agree, however, with Nick’s second paragraph, except that I would replace “protected bike lanes” with the
more general “bikeways.”
From:Pamela Mayerfeld
To:Council, City
Subject:Changing E Meadow Dr between Middlefield and Fabian into a separated bikeway would create dangerous
situations
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 7:45:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please do not change E Meadow Dr between Middlefield & Fabian by creating a separated bikeway. E
Meadow Dr in this area is presently wide enough to enable both bikes & cars to use it safely. A
separation is not necessary and will make both E Meadow Dr & Ross Road more dangerous for bicycles
and pedestrians
Converting E Meadow Dr to a separated bikeway would require the elimination of necessary
parking resulting in reduced safety for the following reasons:
Ramos Park is actively used by people from around the area for soccer practices & games, volleyball
games, picnics, parties, etc. They need a place to park as they often bring equipment and there is no
parking lot there.
Taking parking away from E Meadow Dr would force people to park on Ross Road which is a shared
bike boulevard. Ross Road would be more dangerous to bike on as it doesn't have as much room for
moving cars, parked cars & bikes
Parking on the south side of E Meadow is already often full so people park on the north side of E
Meadow as well as Ross Road -- this would increase.
It's more dangerous for pedestrians to cross from the north side than to walk directly into Ramos
from the south side of E Meadow.
Ramos Park's wonderful new bathrooms are used often by many people including PA city workers --
where would they park to do so?
People make U-turns on E Meadow Dr when parking adjacent to Ramos Park is taken, this would
increase significantly, making E Meadow Dr more dangerous overall.
There are multiple ADUs on E Meadow Dr (and inevitably more coming) so cars don't have garages or
driveways and need to park on the street
Please listen to the local people who live in/near E Meadow Dr & use Ramos Park. Making E Meadow
Dr a separated bikeway would change a safe transit route into a dangerous transit route.
Thank you
Pam Mayerfeld
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Kyla Farrell
To:Council, City
Subject:Reguarding the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:31:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am a resident of Midtown Palo Alto with two children in PAUSD. I am writing
you regarding the proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update.
I implore you to prioritize making the Middlefield business districts a "bicycle friendly zone"
like the city's other business districts.
South Palo Alto residents shouldn’t have to bike all the way to Downtown or Cal Ave just to
run an errand or grab a coffee. We have grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, youth
programs, and community hubs right here in Midtown—but they’re not safely reachable by
bike.
Additionally, nearly half of PAUSD’s K–8 students—around 3000 kids—live or attend school
south of Oregon Expressway and east of Alma. These children and their families frequently
travel to Mitchell Park and multiple shopping centers in the Midtown area.
Middlefield Road today is the opposite of what a neighborhood street should be: cars regularly
travel 35–40 mph in a 25 zone, bike lanes vanish without warning, sidewalks are cramped, and
bike parking is almost impossible to find. These conditions make the corridor hostile for
anyone who isn’t in a vehicle.
The core problem is that in South Palo Alto Middlefield has been allowed to function as a fast-
moving cut-through rather than as a neighborhood street. This is not the case on the north side
of Oregon, where Middlefield drops to two lanes with clear bike lanes and traffic slows. Why
do we need four lanes on Middlefield in South Palo Alto but not North Palo Alto?
Middlefield should be reduced to two lanes through South Palo Alto—especially from Loma
Verde to Oregon where the traffic lanes barely accommodate a modern car and there is zero
space for bikes, but many local businesses which would be easily accessible by bike or on
foot. The fact that Middlefield works with two lanes of traffic north of Oregon is only proof
that we could drop to two lanes in South Palo Alto as well. Imagine how lovely the Midtown
commercial strip could be with additional street trees and a protected bike path. We could
have art fairs and farmers markets where we live, not just on Cal Ave or Downtown. And then
the corridor can begin to function like other Palo Alto business districts where safe, reliable
biking is the norm.
Additionally, I ask that you prioritize:
Further improvements around Alma/Churchill to help keep our Paly students safe since
grade separation is still a long way off.
Prioritize the bicycle improvements planned on E. Meadow despite ongoing budget
constraints (budget constraints have already delayed this critical safety improvement
project impacting our Gunn, JLS and Fairmeadow students).
Approval of the proposed El Dorado underpass but with the underpass taking cyclists
and pedestrians under Alma as well as under the railroad tracks (the current proposal
would install a traffic signal and require bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Alma).
Prioritizing bike lanes early in the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
Best,
Kyla Farrell
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on the Draft BPTP
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:53:50 PM
Attachments:Draft BPTP Comments PDF.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 my comments on the DRAFT BPTP you will study on Monday night.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual citizen)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
Updated Draft BPTP Comments, 11/14/2025 – Penny Ellson
Thank you. I appreciate the time staff and others have spent listening to the public and writing this. I
appreciate the expertise applied, and I look forward to supporting efforts to realize this vision.
Comments and questions follow. –Penny
Comments:
p.53- Linear Barriers map needs correction. Creek barriers do not interrupt all the bike routes that the
barrier map indicates. For example, Matadero Creek has bridge crossings for bikes/peds/autos on Greer,
Louis, and Ross. (Perhaps these were left out intentionally for some reason?) Also, the bike/ped Magical
Bridge over Adobe Creek in Mitchell Park is missing from this map. These are just a few examples I
noticed where the map shows barriers on bike/ped routes where facilities to cross the barrier already
exist. There may be more. I mentioned at least some of these in previous review phases. I did not
carefully check the entire map.
Existing Bicycle Facilities Map excludes important facilities. Please re-check this map. A few omissions I
noticed are:
• Paradise Way connection to Bol Park path (used as a school route).
• Georgia-Coulombe-Donald school route connection to Bol Park path at Gunn HS
• Nelson Drive connection to Charleston Road. This is an existing well-used school route (crossing
guard location at Charleston/Nelson) and connection to Cubberley and probable future bike
connection to SARAP area. Nelson Drive is part of the adopted City of Palo Alto School Commute
Corridors Network. (See 2012 BPTP, pp. 6-22,7-1,F-8 and Comprehensive Plan Program T6.4.1
Consider the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network and adopted “Walk and Roll” maps
when reviewing development applications and making land use and transportation planning
decisions. Incorporate these requirements into City code when feasible.
• Mayview is a well-used school route that is not shown on this map. There is a Crossing Guard
post at Mayview/Middlefield.
Again, I did not thoroughly check the entire map.
p.89—Upzoned housing sites in the SARAP area are mostly well outside the ¼- ½-mile urban
walkability radius of the San Antonio Caltrain Station. Yet, this area is identified as a pedestrian
district and not a future bicycle-friendly district. Bikes will be essential to get people out of cars here
because of distance from the train station and because auto parking requirements for these high-
density buildings are low. There are no safe, comfortable pedestrian crossings and minimal bus transit.
There are almost no bike facilities at all on this auto-dominated, high volume, fast, truck route arterial.
This area has been upzoned for transit-oriented density. It must be turned into pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly district, or essential mode shift will not be possible.
Midtown should also be a bike-friendly district. I bike and walk there a lot to shop. Kids bike there after
school. People bike there to shop. It already is a pedestrian-friendly district. It needs to be more bike-
friendly. Lots more easy-to-find bike parking is needed. (More racks and wayfinding signage so newbies
can find it and drivers notice it!)
Downtown is already a very bike/ped-friendly environment compared to most other parts of town.
Downtown is already much more transit-rich, bike friendly and ped-friendly than upzoned areas of south
PA .Prioritize parts of town that are being impacted by growth and have almost no bike facilities at all. No
grid network of streets, no existing grade separations…
SARAP area, in particular, is a bike facility desert. Fixing the total lack of any useful bike facilities in the
SARAP area before new residents move in must be a high priority. Resources are limited. Please
prioritize bike/ped improvements to massively upzoned areas that are completely unprepared for the
growth that is coming. Move faster. Build bike/ped facilities before new residents move in, so new
housing draws buyers and renters who want alternatives to driving. To do this, great bike/ped facilities
must be in place when they move in to support healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving.
Commute habits get established quickly. Let’s set these new Palo Alto neighborhoods up for success.
p. 96- Policies—I see no mention of continuing city collaboration on specific popular community bike
route exploration events like Bike Palo Alto! Please correct this omission.
p.100—Potential changes to PABAC Structure
Before we decide how to change the committee, let’s please consider why we are doing this. What are
we trying to accomplish with this change? That goal is not clear to me from the list of potential changes
I see here.
A smaller PABAC with term limits makes sense for efficient discussion and decision-making. However,
given the time it takes to acquire depth of knowledge to be useful on this committee, it would be good
to keep people on longer—for instance, a maximum of three 3-year terms. They can reapply after a
three-year hiatus. This means that hard-working, knowledgeable committee members with historical
knowledge won’t be lost because of term limits. (Term limits have well-known disadvantages. Less
experienced committee members can be weak advisors, especially in an area that requires some
technical knowledge, familiarity with policy and local history, and a lot of local bicycling/walking
experience.) How are other similar communities’ BPACs organized?
Another important question is what should be the role of this new PABAC in relation to PTC, CC, and
staff? PTC agenda time appears to be filled increasingly by development projects and busy work, not
bike/ped projects. Ditto for PABAC. Transportation projects don’t rise to the top of PTC agendas as often
as they should. How might PABAC work with staff, PTC and CC more effectively?
I agree that a smaller committee would work more efficiently. However, all members must be people
who usually walk, bike, use mobility devices other than cars for their primary modes of transport. It’s
more important that PABAC members are people who regularly bike and walk for transportation and
recreation. Without that experience and perspective of the street system, they cannot be useful on the
committee. I’d like to see at least one representative who uses these facilities with a supportive mobility
device like a wheelchair or someone who may have other differences that our city’s transportation
system isn’t adequately supporting (sight or hearing impairment, etc).
Something staff might think about: Staff often does not tell PABAC what kind of feedback they are
seeking. For instance, for the last four months, there has not been an Action Item on any PABAC agenda.
If staff wants a vote taken, they could offer an Action Item. There have been lots of Discussion Items,
but limited guidance from staff about what kinds of specific feedback they seek or what questions they’d
like answered. I notice that when this sort of guidance is provided on CC and PTC agendas, and it helps to
focus discussion and voting. I think something similar could be helpful to PABAC (and, ultimately, to staff
to get the information they seek).
p. 105 (107)—San Antonio Road Separated Bikeway. Will this be on the WB or EB side of the road or
both? If it is only on the WB side of the road, this likely will force bicyclists to go out-of-direction to get
to the train station from new homes on the south side of San Antonio (where most of the high density
housing is to be built). Out-of-direction travel is a known deterrent to bicycling. Given what Mountain
View has recently announced they are building at Rengstorff/Leghorn (901-987 N. Rengstorff: 15-stories,
455 units), this intersection is likely to be very impacted by new traffic. Also, if there’s no direct facility
on the southside, bicyclists may be incentivized to ride wrong-way on the sidewalk—a hazard for
pedestrians on the sidewalk and a safety hazard for bicyclists at intersections like Middlefield/San
Antonio Road. How do we prevent that? This is why I have been pressing the ROW issue so hard. I
think a two-way facility on the south side of San Antonio is extremely important for safety and for
successful, essential mode shift in this new high-density area.
p.112
Appendix E- Only downtown, the area of town with the best existing bike parking infrastructure
(excepting, of course, PAUSD school sites) got a Bicycle Parking Survey? We need parking surveys of
areas where there is known existing paucity of easy-to-locate-and-access bike parking and a lot of
development coming. Look southeast and southwest where thousands of units of new housing and
other high-density development are going—and existing facilities are lacking.
Appendix F, p. 4- The first housing proposal sites are on San Antonio Road, where few people currently
live. As a result, relatively low activity level is reported there—even though future residents will surely
need to shop, go to work, use the Caltrain Station. There is a gaping “demand hole” in what surely will be
a busy activity area along all road sin the SARAP area and near the San Antonio Caltrain Station. Could
estimated future demand be incorporated in this map somehow? As it stands, this map is very
misleading about what is coming. When will cumulative traffic impacts analysis of MV and PA
development in/near the SARAP area be complete? I’m disappointed this work wasn’t done before the
rezoning and housing element changes were complete.
Investment in bike/ped infra in SARAP areas before new residents move in will be essential to achieve
mode shift. Mode choice habits form quickly and are hard to change once established. Further, people
who are inclined to bike are more likely to buy homes where they see good bike infra. Likewise, people
who prefer to drive are more likely to buy where they see lots of on-street parking. Do not delay. Let’s
get this done, or fully developed San Antonio will be a serious auto congestion problem.
Appendix F, p. 12- Replica only captures data from people who carry phones. Lower income people who
cannot afford a cell phone may be more inclined to bike or walk to a bus stop or train station. Also,
many people who like quiet time, like me, do not take smart phones everywhere when they walk and
bike. Many parents do not give smart phones to their kids.
There are so many pages of disclosures on what does and doesn’t work in this data, I hope some traffic
counts were done to ground truth the Replica counts. For instance, based on previous multi-modal
traffic counts on Nelson Drive and my daily personal experience there, the Replica report is inaccurate—
very low.
Appendix F, p. 14 says, “K-12 student personas are constructed synthetically, with the only daily activity
being a trip to school.” What about students walking or biking to/from after-school activities or jobs in
Palo Alto? We plan bike/ped routes for after-school commutes to community centers, libraries, and
playing fields and courts for practice, etc. because we know kids with working parents generally have
organized after-school activities.
One daily school trip is an incorrect assumption. (Each school commuter generates two trips daily, not
one. One trip to school and one trip home.) Please look at actual campus bike counts and multiply by
two to check your Replica data against those numbers. Ditto for every PAUSD school.
Appendix F. Fig. 7, p.18- That there no bike trips recorded on this Replica data-informed
origin/destination map for Paly or Gunn HS or Greene MS or Fletcher MS. This is a very big red flag.
The city has recorded bike count data for these campuses. The Replica data map does not at all conform
with what we know about bike trips to these campuses. I pointed this out when PABAC discussed it.
What actual counts were done to ground-truth this data?
Appendix F. Fig. 14, p. 24 - Same comment (I said this at PABAC). Please note there are no walking trips
recorded to any PAUSD elementary, middle, or high school. This data conflicts with school commute
data the city has been documenting for decades.
This looks like adult bike commuter phone data. These trips mostly look like adults dropping off kids at
childcare and going to work. I’d bet most of them work at SRP or Stanford University where there are
incentives for tracking trips. I pointed this out when PABAC reviewed it. Was this checked?
Appendix F, Table 3, p.30 – High-density housing (built or proposed to be built should be on this list.
Appendix F, Figure 18 p. 32 –The San Antonio Caltrain Station and SARAP area likely show only medium
to low demand because proposed high-density housing hasn’t been built there yet. How will staff
account for upzoned and proposed future high-density development in this demand scoring, if at all?
Appendix G. Fig. 3, p. 9 - See my remark at the top of this document re: the Linear Barriers map.
Appendix G. Fig. 9, p. 15 – It looks like a new South Palo Alto Connectivity option at Colorado that I’d not
seen before has been added. Why was this option not in the original set (and, at this writing, is not on
the South PA Connectivity project page)? Is this an error?
Appendix G. Fig. 9, p. 15 – Re: Option H. I have asked what the grade change and uphill climb length of
the San Antonio overpass bike facility would be. I still don’t see this information in project documents,
and it seems like important information for decision-making. Is this option still on the table? This
project would cross into MV jurisdiction has City of Mountain View weighed in on this?
Appendix G. p.-16 – The summary of Transit Barriers analysis for San Antonio Caltrain Station fails to
mention that there are zero existing bicycle facilities in the upzoned housing areas that would safely
connect bicyclists to the existing train station bike/ped facilities. Most of the SARAP parcels that have
been upzoned for housing are outside the ¼-1/2- mile urban walkability radius, so excellent bike facilities
to the station will be essential. Also, the existing pathways into the station are too tight for high volumes
of pedestrians and bicyclists to share safely without dismounting. The Alma pedestrian crossings (at
Mayfield and at San Antonio Avenue) are both impacted by very fast, high volume auto traffic which will
increase with increased area population. Though there are traffic signals at both crossings, sometimes
drivers do not stop. Connections to this train station from future housing need a lot of work to prepare
for transit-oriented density that is coming to this area. (See Bicycle Level of Stress maps in Appendix H.)
SanAntonio Caltrain Sation offers a connection to Shower Drive and California Street and San Antonio
Train Station. It would take cross-jurisdictional cooperation to develop this, but both cities are
developing big projects in this area. They both (along with Caltrain) have an interest in increasing train
boardings here and providing better bike/ped access to the shopping center.
Appendix H. Fig. 3, p. 4 – I agree with a lot of this map, except for San Antonio Road intersections at
Charleston, Middlefield and Alma where there are zero or severely inadequate bike facilities. At San
Antonio/Middlefield, for instance, there are no bike facilities at all on three of the approaches and a
narrow, Class II painted bike lane on SB Middlefield only on the south side of the intersection. The entire
intersection and all of its approaches should all be marked bright red. There are similar problems at the
other above-mentioned intersections. I said this in my earlier response to this document. Google Earth
and on-the-ground experiences of these locations are very different.
Appendix H, Fig. 9, p.21 and Fig. 10, P. 22– I invite staff and City Council and PTC to please take a bike
ride with me at commute time to the San Antonio/Middlefield intersection. Please attempt to execute a
left turn from SB Middlefield (which future residents of this area will have to do to get home). As you do
this, watch out for truck beds that swing wide. Middlefield, at this intersection and on its approaches, is
not LTS 3 or LTS 1. It is LTS 4, especially at commute times—when it matters most.
Appendix K, p. 4-Charleston is listed as a HIN. I’m curious whether anyone checked the dates of the KSIs
against completion dates of various phases of the Charleston-Arastradero Plan. I know that the one
fatality between Carlson and Nelson on Charleston occurred May 5, 2018 before that segment of the
project was built. Existing buffered bike lanes, narrower travel lanes, built median refuge islands and new
signals did not exist at that time. Please check when these KSI’s occurred and the completion dates of
each project segment to understand whether today’s existing conditions need improvement. Here are
road diet completion dates for each phase:
Phase 2: Charleston Road (from Alma Street to Middlefield Road, not including the intersection of
Middlefield):
Start of construction (date the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor): June 8, 2018
Construction completed (date the City accepted the project): November 12, 2020
Phase 3: Charleston Road (from Middlefield Road to San Antonio, Alma Street to ECR) and Arastradero
Road (from ECR to Los Palos Avenue):
Start of construction (date the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor): August 23, 2021
Construction completed (date the City accepted the project): July 1, 2025
Appendix L, P. 22- Advisory Bike Lanes--We need an accompanying education program to teach people
(especially drivers) how to navigate these, or we’ll have another uproar similar to the traffic circle
outcry. U.S.-trained drivers will not know what to do. They must be taught. How can we reach adult
drivers to teach them?
Appendix L, p. 24- BLVD_18 – Has staff considered the likelihood that drivers from San Antonio Rd. and
San Antonio Avenue will start exploring these BB routes with the help of navigation apps like Waze as
auto cut-throughs to Charleston to bypass arterial congestion. Would some filtering make sense?
Appendix N- Does this list represent a complete list of present and proposed BPTP policies and programs
that will be proposed? Are these policies and programs to be added to existing policies and programs or
are they intended to replace any existing policies and programs? Were any policies or programs
removed? If so, which ones? It is difficult to comment without knowing that.
Appendix N, p.5 – PABAC Structure- This reorg proposal doesn’t speak to a specific goal.
1). Please be more clear about what you are trying to accomplish by making structural change. I’m not
opposed. What problems we want to solve with this reorg? What is the Goal?
2). This suggests PABAC include new people from:
• non-profits (Which ones? Why?),
• advocacy groups (a number of current PABAC members are SVBC members, including a local
team co-Chair, other groups?),
• What about people with disabilities?
• More women who bike.
• People from diverse backgrounds—(I don’t remember PABAC ever turning anyone away who
expressed interest in joining)
• TMA (PATMA makes sense, but isn’t Cedric on PATMA’s board?)
• City committees (which committees—toward what purpose? Are other committees asking for a
seat?
• Other groups (What groups? Why?)
This kind of diversity is less important than how much experience PABAC Members have walking and
bicycling and how broadly afield they bike. The most important thing about this committee is that its
members actively walk and bike regularly in Palo Alto. It is evident that some city staff and most
consultants do not, especially in south Palo Alto.
PABAC Members should be familiar with local routes as bicyclists and pedestrians, and be willing to read
policy documents and spend time reviewing and understanding and commenting thoughtfully as
interested laymen on data, policies, programs and plans.
I shared what I thought about committee size, purpose, and term limits in another section above.
Here is how our web page defines our role:
“Palo Alto receives technical advice from its volunteer Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC). PABAC is a citizen advisory committee which reports to the Chief Transportation
Official. Members have interest in or knowledge of bicycling. The Committee's role is to review all issues
related to bicycling in the areas of engineering, enforcement, education and encouragement.” (Note
there’s no mention of pedestrian issues here. Huh.)
We might start this reorg process by rewriting this statement. We should agree on PABAC’s purpose,
how we fit in the city’s organization, and define the kinds of tasks that need to be accomplished by the
committee, and also staff’s role in that. Once we’ve defined that, framing the rest should be easier.
Appendix N- Missing Policy Change Recommended by PABAC unanimous vote at our May 7, 2024
meeting. PABAC recommended adding the following sentence to Comprehensive Plan T4.1: “Street
closures may be considered when such closure will enhance safety or will increase use of active
transportation modes”. Was this omission a mistake, or did staff decide not to include it? Please let
PABAC know. Thank you.
Appendix N: To Older Adult Mobility Program, I would add encouragement and education programming
to help people find ways to stay active longer through walking and bicycling as our population ages.(See
Mineta Institute Study on this.) I think the Trishaw idea is unlikely to have legs.
Appendix N: Electric bicycle engagement. I was expecting more substantive work on this. We need
parent education on what to buy and not buy for kids --for starters. We need to work with the State on
age and licensing requirements to ride some of these vehicles. We have kids rolling around at high
speeds on two-wheeled vehicles are not appropriate for their developmental ability to handle them.
Many of these vehicles are not street legal. We need a well-considered education program for students
and parents.
Appendix N: Under Bike Parking Requirements—Add, “Do an inventory for all parts of the city where
none has been done.” We cannot fix problems that are invisible because we haven’t looked. Also, use
the bike parking survey to identify where we need to add wayfinding to bike parking wherever it is
needed citywide.
Appendix N: Under Walk & bike-Friendly Environment. I’m not sure LEED-ND requires bike facilities
(Does it? I think it does reward them). Let’s choose our city’s requirements for bike and ped facilities
that represent the best practices.
Appendix N: As the city rolls out new kind of bike facilities, like protected intersections, bike boxes, cycle
tracks, protected bike lanes, advisory bike lanes, we need an education program for DRIVERS as well as
bicyclists on how they should be used. Maybe this is something we work on with PA Weekly? DMV?
SVBC? Stanford? All of the above?
Appendix N: regarding PABAC Structure. See my comments above. It is disappointing this was not
included until the last minute, allowing no time for discussion with PABAC Members. This Description
needs thorough discussion and revision.
Additional Request that I’ve been meaning to raise:
Please consider restoring 1998 Comp Plan Policy T-36 –specifically for areas where high volumes of
auto drop-offs occur at locations where children might be walking or biking, such as school sites,
playing fields, community centers, etc. : “Make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by
residents. “ Vertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice
in area where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks by planting strips. When conversion from
rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be, in general, a street block and not
individual properties. “
I’ve observed, and I know staff has too, some awful driver behavior in these locations. Vertical curbs
would provide some physical safety control of the sidewalk space in these sensitive locations. Thank you,
in advance, for considering this idea.
One final comment:
Park BB—2012 BPTP plan is much better. That’s all I have to say about it. Southern part of the Park BB is
what needs work.
From:Lara Anthony
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 3:16:27 PM
Attachments:Lara Anthony Council Letter BPTP- 112825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached a letter regarding the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update.
In short, please add to the Plan further safety improvements around Alma/Churchill, and
improved bicycle access to Middlefield businesses for the many South Palo Alto residents and
students who frequent them (but cannot currently do so safely or comfortably on bicycle).
Please also prioritize the South Palo Alto Bikeways project (safety improvements to E.
Meadow) despite ongoing budget constraints, and please approve the El Dorado underpass,
but with the underpass also taking the cyclists and pedestrians under Alma, not just the
railroad tracks.
Thank you for your service and for advancing enhanced bicycle and pedestrian safety projects
which greatly benefit our students, families, and our whole community.
Best regards,
Lara Anthony
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Dear Honorable Council Members,
My name is Lara Anthony, I’m a Palo Alto resident, PAUSD parent of two elementary
school children (as well as host parent of an exchange student attending Paly this year), and I
am the Palo Alto PTA Council Chair for Safe Routes to School, however I am writing today as
an individual.
I commend and thank the City for advancing improved safety and connectivity for
bicyclists and pedestrians as outlined in the draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update (the “Plan”); however, while there are numerous important and worthwhile projects
enumerated in the Plan, there are two glaring holes where critical projects are missing from the
Plan.
First, the Plan should prioritize on a near-term basis any and all additional engineering
and infrastructure opportunities possible to make it safer for students on bicycles to get to and
from Palo Alto High School’s Churchill entrance. The recent improvements around
Alma/Churchill help, but grade separation is still a long way away and further safety
improvements are needed on Churchill Avenue between Emerson and Castilleja to protect our
students in the meantime. Please consider with urgency:
● A stop sign on Churchill at Castilleja for eastbound traffic (understanding train
regulations prohibit a stop for westbound traffic);
● No Right Turn on Red restrictions for westbound Churchill traffic at Alma and
southbound Alma traffic at Churchill (at least at school start/end times) - there is already
a “no right turn” light up arrow there that can be used; and
● Green striping and signage to help Paly students cross to the correct side of the street
on eastbound Churchill between Alma and Emerson when leaving the school.
Second, the Midtown business district on Middlefield from San Antonio through Greene
Middle School should be a bicycle-friendly zone like the City’s other business districts. For
residents in south Palo Alto, it usually doesn’t make sense to bike all the way to the
bicycle-friendly zones downtown or around Cal Ave for our everyday shopping, errands,
activities or a quick coffee or bite to eat; however, the businesses and community centers in
south Palo Alto cannot be safely or comfortably accessed by bicycle. For example, my children
enjoy ice skating classes at Winterlodge Ice Rink, baseball at Middlefield Ballpark, and ice
cream from Rick’s or Baskin Robbins, and I frequent many Middlefield-based businesses
regularly. Despite that we prefer to bike and live only a few minutes away, we typically drive to
our Middlefield destinations because it doesn’t feel safe or comfortable to bike to them. This
corridor also contains five public schools and several private ones, Mitchell Park, Library, and
Community Center, several shopping centers, Allcove, groceries, pharmacies, restaurants,
coffeeshops and numerous other small businesses, dance and martial arts schools, and other
activity providers.
As I’m sure you are aware, vehicle speeds on Middlefield frequently exceed 35-40 mph
despite the posted 25 mph speed limit; where bicycle lanes exist, they disappear without
warning; the sidewalks are narrow and used by pedestrians; and there’s virtually no bike
parking. It is the opposite of bicycle friendly. I urge you to reconsider the Middlefield business
corridor in south Palo Alto for real bicycle enhancements to allow local residents and the many
JLS and Greene Middle School students who frequent Middlefield destinations to do so safely
and comfortably on bicycle.
Additionally, I am grateful to see upgraded bike lanes on East Meadow included in the
Plan. That project (South Palo Alto Bikeways) was previously intended to begin construction
around now but was delayed last year for budget reasons. Understanding we continue to be
budget constrained, I urge the City to prioritize this critical school route (serving students and
families at JLS, Fairmeadow, Gunn, and private schools, as well as Mitchell Park destinations)
and ensure that budget constraints don’t cause any further delay to this very important project.
The San Antonio Road Area Plan is detailed in a separate project. Please prioritize
excellent bicycle/pedestrian facilities development early to support transit-oriented density that
is being planned in this area. Please ensure that these facilities are completed and ready to use
before occupancy permits for new housing are issued.
Finally, I strongly support the PTC and staff’s recommendation that the City proceed with
plans for a tunnel at El Dorado Avenue. However, the tunnel needs to take bicyclists and
pedestrians under Alma as well as the railroad tracks. Alma operates like an expressway in this
part of Palo Alto, where vehicle speeds are typically over 40 mph and the proposed signalized
multi-lane intersection configuration presents sightline problems. If the signal changes while
someone is in the intersection, sight lines of shorter young people on bikes and on foot will be
obstructed by stopped or passing vehicles in the multiple lanes. (This is very different from the
Homer/Alma intersection, which is slowed due to several blocks of downtown cross traffic,
merges and signals and a 25 mph posted limit). For students and families to be safe and
comfortable using the planned underpass, the design needs to grade separate Alma. A
signalized intersection would be insufficient at this location for nearly all users.
Thank you for your service and for making our community a better, safer place for
children, families and all residents.
Best regards,
Lara Anthony