HomeMy WebLinkAbout0546.092•
December 10, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
P~lo Alto, California
13
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZ!NG THE Cl'l'Y ___ MANAGER TO SU8MIT AN AP..iJJ ... ..1~_~,_T __ 10N
FOR PROPOSITION 11~ _FUNDJ)~G FOR THE AI.JMA BIKE BRIP_GE PROJECT
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
proposition 116 is an approved state 'Wide proposi tior. that provides
tor the sale of $20 million in bonds to fund bicycle projects. The
California Transportation Commission (eTC), ""'orkii1g t.hrough
caltrans, is charged """ith administering the revie'w and approval of
projects for Proposition 126 funding. Last year they approved $9.2
million worth of projects. They are now accepting project
applications for the remaining $!0.8 million.
The Alma Street Bike Bridge project is a proposal to construct a
bicycle bridge over San Francisquito Creek (a short distance east
of tIle existing railway bridge) to provide. an important connection
between the extensive bicycle facilities in both Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. This project has been a high priority for both Palo
Alto and Menlo Park for many years, and has the enthusiastic
support of both the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
and the Menlo Park Bicycle Committee.
The purpose of this staff report i5 to reC~IT~end that Council adopt
the attached resOlution (Attachment 1). authorizing the City
M.:tnager to submit an applicat:ion for prop,:.si tion 116 funding for
the Alma Street Bike Bridge project and certifying a number of
points set forth in the application procedures.
BACKGROUND
The Alma Street Bike Bridg~ project is an integral part of Palo
Alto's bike'w'ay master plan and has been a high priority for Palo
Alto for the last ten years. as evidenced by its inclusion in t.he
~geo Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The nost recent periodic revie .......
of hicycle related priorities by PABAC reaffirmed the continuation
of this project as a high priority tor Palo Alto. The project is
also a high priority for Menlo Park as ~ell as an integral part of
their bikeways plan.
CMR:S46:92
~-------_.-.. ---
" i
~ ,
o --
The primary obstacle to proceeding ",ith this project ha.s been the
identification of an appropriate funding source f0r the project,
t::,h~ costs of 'ar(hich e;.;ceed our traditional annual Transportation
Oevelopment Grant (TDA) funds from the State. Oth€"r issues
included the fact that it \.IQuld be a joint project bet .. een two
cities, it 'Would crOGS San Francisquito Creek and involve tvo
county water districts, and it would connect into E~ Palo Alto park
on the Palo Alto side.
The advent of possible. funding by Prop. 1 Hi addresses the
app~op=iatc funding source issue. Discussions and field reviews
with Menlo Park staff, repre~entatives of both county water
districts, Public Works engineers, the City Arbori5t and other
Parks Division staff have resolved the ot~1er issues to a level
necessary to e$tablish a viable project.
PROPOSITION H6 EmWING
The Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act (CATIA) of 1990
(Prop. 116) makes available $2D million to fund a program of
competitive grants to local agencies for capital outlaYr for
bicycle improvement projects that iMprove safety and conveniencE
fer bicycle commuters. The California Transportation Commission is
the designated policy body for the administration of these funds.
Last year the CTC approved $9.2 million worth of pr?jects
state'«ide. Applications are no ..... being received from throu,;hout the
state for the remaining $10.8 million.
The CTC has established a c0111pre:hensive set of policies and
guidelines for the current round of project evaluation and
~election 'Which seem to favor projects that benefit bicycle
commuters (versus recreational bicyclists .or vehicles), enhance
coordination 'With other transportation modes {bus, train), provide
interconnection and coordination ..... ith existing bicycle routes,
improve safety for bicyciists l and have stro~g local support.
While there is no finn requirement reg3.rding local match
partiCipation, the criteria used to evaluate the proPQsed projects
is a point system 'Which incl:.;.des add i tional poir,ts for higher
levels of ~atching funds.
ALMA STREET BIKE BRIDGE PROJECT
The proposed proje-:::t is to construct a bicycle bridge over San
Francisquito Creek (a short distance east of the existing railway
bridge) and short se~~ents of bike path conne.cting t.o Alma street
on the Menlo Park side and the existi~g path syst8m of the park
area on the Palo Alto side. The project is estimated to cost
$218,500 and would not involve any private right-at-way. Funding,
CMR:546:92 12/10/92
Page 2
if the project is approved, is likely to be <:lIvailable dur ing SlHnmer
1!;93, and -che project could be constructed ..... ithin a one-year
pEriod, ther~after. Since the Palo Alta side of the project ~ould
fall within a designated park area, a park improvement ordi'1an-:::e
would be required at the time of final plan ~pproval, and prior to
actual construction of the project.
The project would provide an i~port2nt linkage and complete a major
missing gap in the local area bikeway net ..... ork by providing: (1) a
connection b~tween the extensive bike facilities in Palo Alto and
Menlo Park and (2) direct access to major e~plo~~ent, retail and
educiltio!\al centers as well as roul ti-rnodal transit centers/Cal T~ain
stations in both Falo Alto and Menlo Park
Exhibit 1 illustrates the location of the project. Included as
Attachment 2 is a complete copy of the Proposition 116 a!"'_plication
forms which provide more detailed information about the need,
purpose and type of the project.
Field reviews 'iJiith the city arborist, public .. ·orks engineers, wa.ter
district and Menlo Park representatives ':'~,dicate that a bicycle
bridge could be installed 'Without any significant adverse effect on
the creek banks, trees and other issues of concern, including El
Palo Alto.
Discussions with Menlo Park staff have established a common
inter~st in pursuL1g funding and jmplernen"'=.ation of thi~ project and
agreement to do it as a joint effort between the two cities~ with
Palo Alto serving as the lead agency.
Following completion of the project, the Public Works Department
will have the additional responsibility of maintaining the bridge,
path, and signs. The two existing bicycle bridges crossing San
Francisquito Creek between palo Alto and Menlo Fark are maintained
jointly by the t~o cities~ with Menlo P~rk performing the 'Work and
Palo .~lto reimbursing Menlo Park for half of t}1.e cost. Some
similar type of arrangement between Palo Alto and Menlo ~ark is
anticipated fot' the Alma street Bike Bridge pr~ject.
The prcposal is to apply for $196,650 of prop+ 116 funjing to cover
90 percent of the total proj ec'; cost. The remaining 10 percent
"Will be shared equally between Menlo fark and Palo Alto. Menlo
Park's source of local funding is the San Mateo County Measur~ A
funds. Palo Alto's source of funds is proposed to come from the
City's General Fund with possible reimbursement from future State
Transportation D~velopment Act (TDA) fund allocations.
CMR: 546: 92
nwwlf>l
12/10/9'
Page 3
If ~ •
I
,. '-,
J'vD ~ ~f) ~~ f 9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Alma street Bike Bridge
over San Franc1squito Creek
and short bike path segments
to connect with bike routes
in Palo Alto and Henlo Park.
Project Lellgth = 500 [to
100 0
~ .---w----~.
i 0 ()
SCALE, I" , 100'
200
J
:)
ALMA STREET SIXE BRIDGE PROJECT HAP
12
"
EXHIBIT 1
V)I (iI~~ ~ -...;
"'-E./ f P~i·C
~pPLrC~TIOK PROCESS
All applicatiof!s for Proposition 116 funds are to include a
resolution of the council approving the applic~tion and attestlng
to ~ number of eligibility criteria and conditions regarding th~
agency's interest and ability to assume re~PQnsihility for
implementing the project:. Due to time constraints, it · .... as not
possible to have council consider and adopt the required resolution
prior t.o the submittal deadline t:Jf November 20, 1992. Therefore,
staf~ completed the necessary application form (Attachment ~) to
apply for Proposition 116 funding fer the Alma Street Bike Bridge
and forwarded the application to Caltrans/C~C and t~e Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC)~ ~ith the understanding that th~
Council resolutioll, if approved, ~ould follow during the mcnth of
December.
If the Council decides that the City should not pursue Proposition
116 funding for the Alma Street Bike Bridge project, staff will so
advise Caltrans/CTC and M're and ... ithdra .... the previously submitted
application.
While the subject project is an important and beneficial project
for Palo Alto and Menlo Park and appears to fit the type of project
intended tor proposition 116 funding, the fact that there is only
$10.8 million to allocate on a statc'Wide basis and the fact that
tne decision process is in the hands of the Co", 1 i tcrnia
Transportation Commission, over which Palo Alto has little or no
understanding and influence, suggests a restrained level of
expectation regarding the. probabi 1 i ty of Prop. 116 funding for this
project ~ould be appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency, will comply with all
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA~).
The application, itself, is not considered to be a project;
however, city staff will be preparing an environP.'.ental analysis and
proposed negative declaration for the project inr a):-prox.irr,ately,
Fehruary 1993.
RECOMMEN"DATIfJN
Staff recommends that Council adept the attached resolution
(Attachment 1), authorizing the City Manager to submit an
application for Proposition 116 funding for the Alma Street Bike
Bridge project and certifying a nu~ber of pcints set forth in the
application procedures.
CMR:546:9, 12/10/9,
Page 4
~"~'~"''''1 ,. r 11' •. 00;--.... " ... -',.-
-~,;ti.·
..
Respectfully submitted,
M.'.RVIN L. OVERWA'i
Chief Transportation Official
~~ !ruN FLEMI NG
Int rim city Manager
~ /!.5UN~
RENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
CDmmunity Environment
Attachments: A. Resolution for Proposition 116 Application
B. Propcsition 116 }~~lication
cc: Menlo Park ,Jan Dolan I Don r -:=y)
Marc Klemencic, Santa Clara Valley Water Di&trict
Bob Frame, San Mateo county Public Works Dep~rt~ent
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee
stanford Management Company (Bill Phillipsl Diane Healey)
Stanford Unive~sity (Andy Doty, Mike Kuntz, David Neum3n)
Downtown North Neighborhood Associatio1"'. (TOn.y Badger)
101 Alma Residents Associ~tion (Chris Roden)
CMR:546:92 12/10/92
Pagp. 5
.. ~ ....
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE--trTY OF PA!.O ALTO
APPROVING AND AUTllORIZHlG EXECUTION OF AN
APPLICATION FOR PROPOSITION 116 FUNDS TO TIlE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS. the Clean Air and Tranaportation Act of 19S0
(Proposition 116, the IAct-) made available grant funds to local
agencies far bicycle improveme~c projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters, and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto, in cooperation '.o'ith the
City of Menlo Park. desires to apply for Proposition 11E fur:.ds for
construction of a bicycle bridge over San Fran~isquito Creek (a
sho:t't distance east of the existing raj h.a.y bridge) and short
segments of bike path connecting ~o Al~ Street in Menlo Park and
the existing path system of El Palo Alto Park in Palo Alto (the
·Al~a Street Bike 8ridge~); and
WHEREAS, the project 'Would provide an important linkage and
complete a major missing gap in the local area bike~ay network by
providing {1} a connection betweEn the extensive bike facilities in
Pal" Alto and Menlo Park and (2) dil"ect access to major employment.
:::-etail and educational centers as well as multi-modal tz.ansit
cE::nters/CalTrain stations in both Palo Alto and Menlo Park; and
WHEREAS, the project is proposed to cost $218.500. would
not involve any private right of-way. and could be designed and
constructed within a one-year period following funding approval,
with the Proposition 116 funds covering 90 percent of the cost, and
the rema i.ning 10 percent shared equally by Palo Alto and Menlo
Park;
Nm'l, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of ralo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SBCTION-1" The Ci ty Council hereby approves and authorizes
the City Manager to file with the California 7rar:.sportation
Cocmission an app11cation for Propositi~n 116 funds fur the Alma
Street Bike Bridge. and authorizes the City Manager to execute all
appropriate documents for receipt of such fu~ds"
I>1lCTION 2.
with the screening
follows:
The City Council hereby certifies compliance
crite-cia required for the application, as
(a)
requirements
Section 99650
The City of Palo
for Proposition 116
of the Act.
Alto meets
funding, in
the eligibility
accordance ~ith
(b) The City of palo Alto has the resources and the
financial capacity to construct, operate, and maintain the project~
and will maintain the project until at least 2010.
1
o
(e) The City of Palo Alto will be able to expend the
funds within 24 months of t:-le close of tho: bond sale ar.d
reinlburserr,ents of eligible right-of-wa)" acqllisition costs within
six months of the close of the bond sale.
(d) The project is a new Class r Bikeway, and the City
has documented that the bikeway will be principally used by bicycle
commute:rG. The bikeway 'W'ill be on a co:npletely separated right..-of
way, providing a missing link between existing on-street bike lanes
OD both sides of a .major creek. separating Palo Alto and Menlo PaI:k.
(as well as separating Santa Clara and San Mateo Count.ies1. The
phySical design of the bike bridge and approach paths will ensure
exclusive use by only bicycles and pedestrians.
(e) The City of Palo Alto, as lead agency, will comply
with all re~~irement9 of the California Environmental Quality Act
{-CEQA-}. The application itself is not considered to be a
project; however, City staff will be preparing an environmental
analysia and propcsed negative declaration for the proj eeL in
app40ximately February, 19S3.
(f) The project will be designed in conformity with the
standards set forth in Chapter lOOe of the Highway Desi~ Manual,
·Bikaway Planuing and Design R •
SEC'rIQN" ':L The City Council further certifies as follows:
lal
planned, or
purposes.
No other capital funds previously programmed,
approved for bicycle projects will be used for other
(b) New development fees. taxes or exactions~ or permit
fees have not and will not be included in thE operating budgets for
this project.
(c) No other state funding source;:; will be used to
complete this proj ect if costs exceed th;:-se identified in the
approved application.
(d) The City of Palo Alto has the financial and
institutional ability to accept the legal liabilities associated
with this project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED,
ABSTENTIONS,
2
92] ZOIII ~ (0)0591
ATl'ES!':
APPROVIID AS TO FOR.~:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
3
9212081K 003G.S9]
APPROVED:
Mayor
Cj ty Maniger
Director of Finance
Director of P~aDning and
Community Environment
Chief Transpartation Official
.~
'I
I
I
1
o
November 19, 1992
Mr. Rick BI unden, Ch ier
Caltra.1' Office of Bicycle Facilities
P.O. Box 942874, MS 38
1121) N Street, Room 4500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. 81 unden:
,.
CityoChloAlto
Office oflk City !Ylnrwger
ATTACHMENT 8
On behalf of the Cities of Palo AllO and Menlo Park, I am pleased to submit this application for
Proposition 1 [6 funding, for the Alma Street Bike Bridge project.
This jnter-counly project is the highest priority bicycle projecl in both communities, and will
provide an important missing connection between extensi ..... e bicycle routes that aIready exist in
born communities.
Palo Al!o is consistently ranked as one of [he top bicycle communities in the nation, anlj this
project represents an important element in our coi::inuing efforts to provide bicycle commuters
with direct. safe, and convenient travel routes.
The requirro Council actions regarding this applka:ioll will be forwarded by the end or
December. Thank you f'Or considering this application. If you have any questions or require
ad.ditional inrormation, please contact Marvin Overw2:Y, Chief TransP9rtation Offtcial, at (415)
329-2578.
Sincerely,
~~
Interim City Manager
jF:oe
cc: Dou~ Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportaticn Commission
Bruce Couchman, CaltrJns -Transportalion Planning. District IV
Jan Dolan, City Manager, City of Menlo Park
PO-fu:r.1G.!.'i(J
ra.bA.li("CA~
41332';1,00
4L"..31:; 36.31 Fa."
0.
CALI~ORNI~ TRANSPQRTAZION CO~ISSJOH
PROPOSITION )16
C~EAH AIR AND TRANSPORTAT~O~ ]KP~OVEMrHT ACT
BICYCLE PROJECT APPLICAl'ION' FOR F'i 1992/93 FUNDS
PART 1. I~FORMA~ION SHEETS
A. Title and Certificatioa Sbee~
--------
:<' 50 'Ham i I t.::m )l,vEm"u"''---_____ _
PalCl Alto. CA ___ .~.4~'~O~1'__ ___ _
Contact Per.en:
Telephone ~o.:( 415) 329-2518
Proj ec t T i t.le: ___ .,,-,l.m"a~ St reet B i k p !I.£i,d~g"e,--___ _
Project Location (County. Cit}! or C:'tie5): Sa.'1ta Clara" san .Mi'lteo ___ £~.unl':ie9. and
Cities cor Palo Alt.o andJ:lE!.nlo Park
CA'I'IA Fundi Request.ed in FY 4,992-93: $ 218 . 5"0"0'--___ _
'I'c the be5·~ of my knowledge and beli,etl the inf::l1:rr'.ation in this applicat.ic,r. is
true and c"::~rect, and I am a'.lth;:;'.ciz'3'd to file tl-.is application on t>ehalt of th€
app::'icant.
Sigr.atur-e:
o
c~]rORNIA TRANsPORTATION CDMMISSIOh
PRepOSITION '-16
CLEAN AIR AND 'rRA.NSPORTATION IMPRoVEMENT ACT
II ICYCU:: PROJECT APPLICATION FOR fY 1992/93 rmros
B. P.rcjllct S:~a.ry Fact. She""t;
250 Ham!.ltol1 Avenue
:;:
------
Contact P~r.on:
Te~ephOfle lio.: I 415 .. 1 nS-.2~S~-'~8,-___ _
Proja<::t Ti'tle~ Altt'.a St~l\!et 8ik~_B"-,,r--,i"d"9.e,-_____ _
l'.roject Location (County, City or CitiE"I!I): Santa Clar.! '" Sar. ,..;ateg CO'lntif>5. ar.g.
(5e-e .Htachment ) I Citt~.!....Q.f. Pale Alto and Menlo P?.flL
Project Type: CL I.....!..-CL. I f __ CL III __ or Orni:;FI (Specify ) __
Proj@o::t Oe'!!cripttD~\t Ccnstr'lctic.n of it. .Bike bl:"idge 0"4'.1:" 54n F.f . .cl __ Qf..,i,.~.quito CrEek
~ 5ilhort bikE: path sf!'gme-nt .. ~~ ___ pro .... ide a.n e93ential l't'-iSS.tD9 l~nk bet.r..>eeo
e~g tin", facil.i.tJes _il'l Palo }.lto .end .HE';-,lo Ptl..;:-lt-=--_
Project L •. ?9th (if appropriate) in miles: 0.1 ~ile3 1500 feet)
Pr~ject C~~letion Date.
C!I.'!lA Fund~ Request.~d in t''t 1992-9L
Tot-al CArlA Funds Requeste~ for t-I"lis project
in prior a~A future years:
Total Oth~~ Funds requested or
received fer this project:
Total Proj~~t Cost:
,
' ____ -"-0_
21. 850
PlEase att..-::h a copy of a map that clearly designates the project and proj€.ct
limits. T~ map should be 8 1/2" x 11·~ with a north arrD~. scale, and lp.gend,
and ba reF~~ducible in black and whi~e.
SeE ~ttac~ments 2 and 3
.'j.
-.
-" "., , .
PAk~ •• PROJE~ SC~E~1NG CRl7ERIA
A. Screen C_rit-eria
P!.pplicant.B a't\all satisfy the following screening crited.a 1:.:;) t'e o?ligih~_~ fOr CATIA
bicycle proqram funds. An applic,1.nt may satisfy this req'J H"€l':",er.t by ,providing a
1!1ngle mlister resoh.:tiDn Irotrl its governing board/body (or .all sc"reening crit-e:ria.
If the qovltJ:ning board/body has delegated aut~,ori<;y fe'r making these scrtHmi11g
critwriil aBBura:nc-es to an executive of{l!:er, general milnaget", <:Ie otne-r person, !"le
or &he may certify that the applicant ~genc! s~tisfie$ the scre~n~n9 criteria.
If an applican.t elects to cert..i fy compliance w.'itn the screening criterie.; t.he
application IIIUS'i:: in01'.10e a copy of the governing board resolution deleqatin'J sue"h
.~thority to the person making the certification.
It the IIppli~ant i.s • .. Hlable to s:.Jbmit tr,€ requJ..red resolu.tions/certifications at
t.he tittoe, of t.he &ppli.caticn~ the iLppli.ca.nt. s!"'.a.ll in,i~c~t.12: ~t',en t.he docu\'l",12:I)t.ati'Ot\
will ~e submitted.
'Ihe screeniT".q criteria are listed be-le .... :
1. Statu'tory Eligibility -Does ya'lr agenr,;y(project meet the &tat'Jtory
req-uirernent to be eligible for CJ!,.TIA tU'1::lir.g, puC!:>uant to Ssct;.cn 99650 of the
Cla.n Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990?
[XI Ye. [ J No
2. Policy e.oard "ppro"al -Hag your agency's palle)' board/body appro .... ed
the proj~ct and the project fund applicatio~7
IX I No
(P.esclut-ion to be
sw.!:;mit-t .... d by
December 31, 1992)
J. Pin.ancial/:Hanagernent Cap:J.city -Does your agency ha.'le the resources
and the financial capacity to construct. operate, and maintain the projezt~ and
vili your _gency operate and ~aintain the project until at least 201D?
fX I Ye. [ )
4, Timely Use of Fur.ds -WUl ),o'-lr <!ger-:c)" be ac,le to eX"P'=i1G the stat:~
bot',d p;r-QcHf'la approved ter your ag~ncy fot" re;"mOl:fE:e:-:-er.ts ')( e::"igibl-e c'"-pital
costs ,,,,It:''l.n 24 months of c.he close Df t:he bc·nd sale a:ld reimburs~ments of
eli';1i.bll! n.~ht.-o!-willl:i acquisition costs witnir. six Trlc:J'.hs of the close of t.he bond;
Bale?
IXI
'5. C~ut.er US4!" -
~gl!::",cy dOCW\!oltflted II rnettl.Od
used b}' bi("ycle cc...rmIuterll?
[ XI
Ye.
If the project
tor dete.rninl."",q
r.t yes, please
No
is .a !"leo'" Class I Bl.k:e .... a.y •• "'as your
that the bikcln'ay will be principally
provide a descriptio:1 of t.he rnetl"Jod,
I J No
"'hi.1 proic:ct i ... CU:S8 I Bl.k:e ... ay (0<1 <:ompletoely separated right-of-... ·ay
provilHnq I .iI8il19" li nit bet.;.,een exl.5ting on-street bl.k:s lanes on both sides of
a majcl' cr_k .... p.llratin9 Palo J\.lto aJ"'ld Menlo Fa.rk. The physlca.l design of tr.e
bike brldl). an.d II!IIppro05~h pat.he IoIUl insure exclusive us~ by only bicrcl,",s and
pedtelltt"i.n ...
)
.::!
6. Envlronrnental Documentation -Has yO'.lr agency completed, or ..... ill it
complete prior to alloc.tion of state funds, the req~ired envirorum&ntal
docurnentlltJ.on, pl.Orsuant. to tl"1e Ca~ifo=-r.ia Er:·;iro:-,Il'E>."ltal Quality Act (CEQIIJ?
(XI No
,. DesiS-" s>:an·:brds -1-[ \':'1e project is 8; bikeo·.re.y, is it or ... :-,1.1 it be
desigr,ed in conforrr,icy .... ith the standards se-t. fc·r-th in Chapter 100',) of the H':'ghway
De&ign Man~al. ~BikewllY Planning and Design"?
(XI Yes
8. ot.her ReeolutioD./C";t'tification Requiremeots
Ir. addition to the resolutions/certifications requ:.r;a:d to meet. the above screening
criteria, each applicant shall 8t;bmit. resolutions or cl?rtlfic ... tl..ons satisfying the
Commisaiof: policies and CAl'IA reqUirements i..isted beio.... A master
resolution/certification ~dy be used in the same manner a~ for the Ii;;:reeni~g
crit.eria.
(P,esoiution to be submitted by De-cernber 31, ]992)
]. NO other capital !und~ previously pro.;ramr.1ed, planned, or approved for
bicycle projects will be used Iar other purposes.
:I. New deYelopr!'lent fees, taxes or exac:tions, or permit fees have not and
will not be included in the operat.ing budgets for tt.ls project.
J. NO other state funding sources .... ·ill be used to cl;.'mplete this project
if costs exceed those identified in the approve-d application .
.4. The applicant a13ency hag th"!' fin",ncial 3t.::: institutional ability to
accept the legal liabilities as~ociated with this project.
PARr l. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Describe 'the project for \IoI'I".ich you are app:!.yin-g for funds 'Using the fCllowing
format:
SectioD J. Pr~ject Oe~crip~ion
a. The pcoject is to co:'stcuct a t>.'o way bi:cyr;le brldge over Sa!';
~rancis<J1Jito Creek to provide an impact.ant. inter-county connection
bCtwee-n. the el(tensive bicycle Iaciliti ... s in both Pale Alto (Santa
clara County) .and Her,lo Fark (San Mateo Count J ·) servin] employment
centers, shopping ;areas and t~·o multi-modal transit centersjcalTrain
stations.
palo Alto, as the lead agency,
implementation C'f t.he project.
out through standard competitive
Alto.
will have full re~por:s.i.bility for
The actual work ~ill be contracted
bid<ling procedures tollowsd bt Palo
Palo Alto staff will manage the constructior, and e,x;rcLi.nate efforts
with other involved pu.blic agencies including Me,lla Parlt and the two
county (santa Clara and San ~ateo) water districts. palo Alto sta!f
will also provide on-site insp.eetion during the p.2ri·"d of
cor.struction.
•
•
Secticm :2.
1.
. -~'.:::c_. _ '-;'.'
,
,~ ... ". ~-.
o
Included al'l Attac!-.rnent!;'l
drawing that illustratE's
PC':lj'5lt;;t limits.
2 -'!nd :3 is a COpj: of a map an~ project.
tr.e p!'cject l0r:ati.on, type of pz:oje-ct and
project Scoring Criteria
a. The project providea a"'J i~porta:'"lt linkll.g ... and ccmplet~s a major
~isBing gap in t~e local ar~a bikeway networK by prov~~ing: Ii}
a connection bet~e~n the E~t2nsive bike facilities 1n Palo Alto
and Menlo -Fark and {ii} pro"iding direct: access to major
ernploy:'!1e;ct areas, s"oppinq areas and m!.!lti-rnodal transit
center8/Cal'!rain stations in both Palo Alto and Menl~ Pd::-k.
At the present: tirr.~, the alternatives available to bicyclists
are: ei) to ~Be an E:xisti'l<; railroad bridge aojar.-'"'I";t tCJ ~he
proposed bike bridge and (ii) to detO'.lr their route to a. parallel
road· ... ay {El camino Reall~ s'Om@ (100 !eet to the WElst, .... h-ere a
roadw<lY t-ricige presently exists across sat". F't:-i!ncisqI,OH.o Crl'"ek.
7he existing railroad bridge (serv:"ng calTr3in) altr.rnative i6
t.ota.lly inadequate ar.d 'Unsafe for bicycl i.sts. El Camir-.o Real, th~
other alternati .... e, ia a major art~rial roadway (state P.oute 82)
that serves in exceii8 of 50,000 ver.icles per day and has
inadeq1Jat.e pa·"ement width to provide bicycle lanea. Over<!lJ
operating conditions are no~ conducive to the provision of s~fe
an: conve.'lient conditions that ..... ould facilitate ane:. encourage
bicycle usage.
b. The proposed project is locat.ed within a travel corridor ti;at
serves multiple major employment areas-, schools, stlopping
centers, and tlRJO multi-modal transportation centerS'. By
completing the ll'1iB:Bing: gap linking the e)(tenSi\'E bicycle
facilities already existing in Palo Alto and l1enlo park, the
proposed project will significantly enhance opportunities for
bicycle usage for transportation purposes such as work, school,
shopp~ng and access to Ir.ulti-modal transportatioI": cp.nte-r!<.
Attachment 4 illustrates these major area9 irJ bot.;.h convr,ur.it ies,
inclu1ing the follo, ... ir,g:
r:.Alika P}..RX
Menlo Pa~k CalTrain stati~n
Menlo P4rk Civ~c center
Oo~n~own Henlo Park
St~nford Rpsearch Institute
t1enlo College
PA.L~
Palo ~ltc CalTrain station
Palo AJto Civic Cen~er
Dow~town palo Alto
Stanford Medical Center
Stanford Shopping Center
rown & Country Shopping Center
Stanford UniverSity
Palo ".lto High School
5
. .
-
, .
<:)
The alternative to constructil"i'~ the propc-se,1, bicycle ~ridge J.s to
det.our the bike route ::,ver and back to E1 Camino Real -"'rid \o,'idBT'l
E'l Camino Real to provide adeC;::..i.ate bik.e ;,anes. :-;uc~ a p~cjec:t
.... oul::! be m~ch more costly and ::li.sl"uptivt!-, provide <l 1e$5
convenient and. safe route, and disco\Jrage bicycle use. The
proposed project is l'ril.:ch less costly, with essentially no
disruption, and is a direct, cow.-efJiEnt, anri safe rowte tr.at r,.ril i
encou:oage and facUitate t-ic/cle "Usage"
2. Carve" ience
&. ~he proposed proj~ct .... ill fill & major missing link bet~ee~ Palo
Alto and Henlo Park ... '~t.hin the 1I1rnJ/El C'l.~Lno 1l:~al corridor. San
Fr .. nciaquito Creek, a maje-r creek bed trlat presently marks t.he
boundary and physi~ally separates Pal.:l Alto &nd Menl~ Park,
Sf!rve.s as a major irnpedlment to bicy,:;le comrnutil'lg within the
~lma/El Camino Real corridor. The proposed bik~ bridge over San
Fra:-Lci.squito Crep.k ""ill fill tl'",E' e)(isting gap il.nd link the
extensive bike facilities that e)(ist in both c~~unities on each
s:ide of the cr-eek and greatly .e-nhance the opportunities for
bicycle co~~uting in 2 co~ridor-full of commote related
dest.in.ations.
b. l'he proposed project. by bridging the ~,issing gap over San
Francie:guito Creek, pro .... ides a continuous an>1 interconnected
routa t~at ""ill pr~vide direct acc@ss for bicycle co~utet& to
... ork, 9ch001. II~Opp ;"ng and mOl 1 ti-rnoda 1 t ran:!!lportat ion centers
within the Jllma/El Calnino R~a.l cot·ridor~ 1I.ttachment 4
illustr~tell the rnultip~icity of destinatia~ opportunities that
exist \Within the 1I.lma/EI CalT,Lno Jteal corridor fOr bicycle corrvnute
travel.
In Palo Alto, the proposeci bixe bridge ~ill c~nnect ~ith al~eady
e~lBting on-street bike lanes along Alma Street. In Xenlo Park,
tlle proposed bike bridge will cormect. ...,ith on-stree-t bike lanes
or, Alma Street. and "'i.Ilo"" Road. On-street bik.: lanes along Alma
Street in Menlo Par-k ... ;ill be implemented by Menlo Fack in
conjuncti.on Io'ith t.he pr.:lIJ!.slon of a ~ike br Ldge o .... er-Sa:"]
7rancisqwito Creek.
c. The proposed prajp.ct will sen'" as it prirnery 1 ink3ge that .... ill
interconnect ar.d coordinate the e)('::f-l"!!;ive syetem ot bicycle
routes that already exist thro'.J"ghaut P.alo Alto and: Menlo Park.
~,ttachments 5 and: 6 illustrate the extensivl::i system of bicycle
route& in both Palo Jllta iI!l.d Menlo Park thet serve J>!':lplOlfIDent.
shopping and educational cent,(!rs. tl'-,coughout beth cC'TM1unities.
d. Both the Palo Alto and Kenlo Park CalTrain stations are located
in the Alm.l!El Camino corrid::.!" a:1d botr, serve as multi-r.lcdal
transportation cent€rs incluoir.g the sec ..... Lees of CalTrains, S:un
Trans, sa.jta ':lara COIJ.:1ty 'Irans~t as well as a r,urrWei:' of s'huttle
programs th .. t ac~e9S these two stations including Stanford
University Marguerite shuttle and other special shuttle services.
Both of these stations already ha.ve e~te:"]sive 10("'ke1;5 and racks
for bicycle stoLage. 'Ine P~lo Alt~ CalTrain station is the third
most utilized 6tati.:Jn, e.)(C'[:eded or.ly b:i the San Francisco a.nd 5"ln
JOSE stati:lns.
e
3.
The proposed bik.e b:idge .... il1 facilitate int.er-modal trips by
bridging an existing barrier to more convenier.t bicycle commute
access to these two importa.nt mul~i-rnod31 transportation centers.
In addition to the extensive leckers and rO'!.cks that: an. already
a·:ailable at bot.h centers, the adv€rtt of on-board bicyc!e
tranElp0rt. on Cal'Trains and buses is certain to furt:her er,hance
t. ... &! role of bicycle cOI'TV"~,Jtir.g in intermodal travel throt.lgh these
two stations~
;II. The pri:nary benefit of the peoposed project is the provision of
~ direct, 8ate an~ mcr~ conveni~nt bicycle route to the exi~tir.g
alternatives of traveling ~long El Carr.ino R€al Or using t"'e
adjacent rail ... ay :'ridge. Traffic conflict hazi1rds and
CalTrairt/t,ike cOI'.tl ict ha:tards that cou~d c-au!'!e accide:"\ts to
t-ic),cle comrnuter-s .... ill be eliminated by provlctng a. safe, mor.,
direct alter-native route and eliminating the need for-bicyclists
to consider using either of the cuccent availablp. altern~tives.
Personal safety f~r bicy~le commuters will
proviciir.g a safe, more direct alterr.al:.ive that.
bi~ycle commuters to t.he high traffic vol~~es
charact.eri:e E1 Camino ~eal traffic an~ the high
of the railway bridge.
be improved by
""ill not e",pose
and speeds that
risk alternative
c. While thE" propo51i1d project does not s}"e=ifically included any
p~oviBion of secure storage facilities, it should be noted t"'at
secure iitorage facilitle'S for bicycles and equipment already
exis1:s for bicycle COrMluters at: the I2"mplaytl',ent~ shopping-,
education!!l and m\llti-modal transit centers identified within thi!
AlmajEl Camine P.eal corrido~ I~ttachment 4).
4. Funding Con6~ratlonA
a. The cost of the project cor.o.pilres favorably with similar type
projects Ln Palo Alte that have already been built and are being
planned. Palo l'alto has several existing bike bridges and is in
the process of planning twc addition.a! btk~ bridges at alternate
locations.
:E:ngineering staff f ... -om the Palo }l.lt'~ P'..!.blic Works depa.rtmer,t has
revier..led the proposed pl":Jject as ""ell as the existing !>ite
conditions, and there is no evident reason or concern that this
project would involve any specia!. or unique features that .... ould
esc~late the cost.
b. The proJect, as proposed. i~cludes local fu~ding at 10 percent of
t"'e total project cost \o'ith thl"" remaining 90 percent to come from
Frc'position lIe· funds. Henlo Pa=k and Palo f'..lto .... ill jol.r.tly
share the 10 pE"rcent lC1cal funding. Menlo Park.'!O 50!..lrCe of local
fun.ding is the San Mateo County Measure A funds .... hich are already
apprOyed~ and available to Henlo pal."'l(. Pala }l.lto .... ill use funds
from lhe City's general fund, and expects t.o apply for 5ta"te IDA
c.
funds for possible .reimburseClent.
Palo Alto has a long standing, sustained
to the fu.nding and irnpl~ment".ation of
facilities as evidenced by the following
ar,d ongoing commitment
t.ikeways and related
proj e::ts:
o
$15, (,lOO fr.om Sta~e 7DA FUnds for bicycle bouteva~d
exte~sion project
$99,000 from City Utility Fund (or bi::yc:..e
bouleva>:"d exte;ls;'cn proje'=t
F'i 9J-22
$71,000 tram S~ate TDA Fu~ds [or bike lan~ and
relat.ed irr.prcvements at <In e:kis!:ing i~ter5(>Ct:ian
EL.92-S3
530,000 from City General F~nd for bicycle
b~idge ~encvetion projEct:
$2S,ClOQ from St.ate TrA Fl.lnds for on-st.t:eet bicycle lane p,,-ojec:t
$69,000 fcOl'll Sta~'I! T!)A Funds for bicycle houle ... .!rd
extension project
.$10,COO from p:ivate funds for Urban Lane Bike'.ray Study
Menlo Pa.rk haa traditionally folded bike related: improvement
projects into their nOrmal roadway and development projects. In
add it lon. beg inning in F'i 1992 -9 3. Men 1 C Park has started to
b~dget S50,OOO a year for other blke r@lat~d improvement.
~. Local Sup~~
5ectio. ).
il. Included as Att.achment 7 are letters of sUpPOL"t fcom (1) the Palo
Alto Bicycle Advisory Commit:tee which serves as an advlsory
commlttee to the Palo Alto City Council anu staff, 12J the Henlo
Park Bicycl~ Committee whiCh 5erV~5 a~ an adviso~y co~~ittee to
the Henlo rark City council and 9taff, and (3) a petition from a
aampl@ of bicycle comm~ter8 currently using the ~xisting railway
bt:'idge.
The bicycle advisory c·~.mittl!'es in Falo Alt.o and Menlo Parlt are
both open for p-acticipation bi <!lny in.tl!'rested Individ~als.
Meeting date8 are p~blicly noticed.
The proposed project ha.s beer a high priority for Palo Uto for
the last ten years and 11 recent periodic revie ..... of bicycle
rel/lltE-d prioritiea reaffirmed tl-:e COrltinuatic,:-, of this project as
a high priority for Palo ,II.ito. T:'"!e pr-c':}er.;t is An ir:tpgral part
of Palo 1dto's bike-way !!',aster plan as ... eil as the 'Tcansportatio~
Element of the Palo Altlj COIT'fJrehensive plan. The p:oject also
supports the-Regicnal TI:;J.nsportatior. Plan, the, cong"!stior.
Manllgemcnt Plan, and tbe Bay Area ClE'<ln 1>.ir Plan i", terlr.Q of
encouragin; ~icy~le commuter travel and ir.~ermodal tra¥~l within
congested tc~vel corridors.
The proposed project is also an integral
plan for Menlo Park and has ~ndergone
scrutiny as part ot the current proces5 to
General Pla:"l.
Project status
p ... rt of the bik.r • .;ays
considerable publ~c
update the Menlo Pa~k
The current status of the prcject is that the planning and teasibUi!:y to~
the projE-ct haVE! been completee!. 'The enginE-erlng dpsigll and construction
await project funding. The project is relatively simple, involves no
right-ot-way issues, and could proceed !O"xpl.'!!ditiously, once funding has
bean secured.
8
--.~ ,-----,._ ..
•
PUT 4. PRO.rnCT Bt1DGET
1. Please pr~\rlde a project t',ud'Jet, indudir-:g a t·reCi1tdown D! all prDject.
costs and ceven~es and any m~ltl-year p~aEes c! the project:
PROJECT COST
Engineering/Design
Property ~cquialtiQn
Construction/Rehabilitation
TOT"t. pROJECT COST
PROJECT REVENUES
Cen~cal Fund (Pa1~ Alto)
Private
Other (San Xateo county
Xeasure A)
Sta.t.e:
Proposition 116 Funds
other ( )
Feder .. l
Other <
'I"OTAL PROJECT REVEI'WE"S
92(S3 :;~~~:I .. ,.. I .. ' ..
JO."~ I
1 0, 925
195,650
o
o
~18,SOO
•
2. pllli'a.se de-!lcribe the illEl9Umpti-=Tls on whi.;;h your cost/revenue estimates are t-ased.
The project coet9 are based upon the following bu~get: .. Bridge (at:.utment st;ruct(.!re) S 100,000
b. Path S 25,ODO , . signing; striping S 2, 000
d. Road"'ay connectiOn curb
reZJlac~mer:t islands $ 30,00Q .. Pa::::h lighting S IS ,000
t. Ri9h~-of-\oIay (nor. reql,.;iredJ $ 0
s.. Inspec-'ti:l.tl __ and "t.P.6t i~_ 5 ]; 000
Subtotal 5 19:),0.00
h. Design .nd !:ngineering (@ ...5\) S 9,500
1. Cont ingenclcs (@ 10\ ) i 19,009_
Total 218,50D
The abc·". costs are based upon un.l.t costs that the City of Palo Alt.::l experiences a.o:; part
of its CTlgoing Ca.pital Improvement Program ad;llinisterecl by the P'J.blic Works Del?ar-I:.ment;
throug:~ the established competitive bidding procedures. No ri-ght.-of-way purchase is
r@q~ir~ for this project.
9
, t
":.'
o
Pl.lt:r $. EN~IROHMrNTAL DOCUMr.NTATION
ploeas(!o describe the st.a~ua of the envir-or:mental cteara.1ce fc·r ti'.€' pr..)j::oct.
Appropriate
Environmental Document
cateqo=i~al Zxemption
Other €xernption (cite)
Notice at Exemption
Negative Declaratio~
Dra.ft EIR/ElS
Final EIIl/EIS Certification of EIP.
Notice of Determination
Actual or [stimat.ed
Compl~tiq~ Date
--------
February 1991 ___ _
---------
PAR:r ,. PROJECT CONSTRUCTJON/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
pleaSe degerib. the schedule for the proje~t.
En\ir~~ntal Assescme~t
Preliminary ~n9ineering
Final Design
property AcquiSition
cons~ru~ion/Rehabilitation
Begin W;:>~k
[Month/Year)
Not applicablE!
Alma Street B~ke Br dge Location X&P
Alma Street 8ike 8r dge Project ~~p
Alma street Bike Br dge Typical Sections
Cor-.plete WC'~:k.
(Month/'tear)
At ti'chmenta: 1. , .
3-
•• 5.
Map of adjacent areas served by A!ma Street bike bridge prcject
Palo Altc Bike~~y~ ~a5cer Plan
6. , . Menlt::! Park Bikeways pla!'1
Letters of 6~pport for project
JO
------~-.--,-
ALMA STREET EIH: BRIDGE LOCAT10N MAP
J J
•
ATTACHMENT 1
STREET
BRIDGE
~ ~
" ~
.'
:1 I
-j I ,
J
,j
'1
I
/
!
" 3 ~
<;:,
~ ~ ~
I" \J
I
I PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Alma street Bike Bridge
over San Francisquito Creek
~nd short biKe path segments
to ccnnect ~ith bike routes
in Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Project Length = 500 ft.
100 0 iO(; 200 r..N5lS.v ___ I
SCALE, I" • 100'
ALMA STREET BIKE BRIDGE PRDJEC'r MAP
12
.' ~ .. -: .. -,.
: ... ,'"
ATTACHMENT 2
."
r._
'!
o
Typice.l r .ross S ection of B" H;:e Path
'l'ypic:a] Style
ALMA STREE'T BIKE BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS
11 -,-----_ .. r"_""
,-
\
f
ATTACHMENT 3
of BiF.e Bridge
!
I
-
.~~·L
,~i>F:;
o ATTACHMENT 4
EMPLOYMENT Jo..REA5, SCHOCLS, SHOPPING AREAS, AND
MULTI-MODAL CALTR).o.,IN STATIONS)TRAHSPORTATI0N CE.NTERS
SERVED BY ALMA S'j'REET BIKE BRIDGE PROJECT
14
ATTACHMENT 5
r-----------------------
PALO ALTO
BIKEWAYS
Proposed Alma Street Eike Bridge
E.XISTING elf~E;"'AYS
P"'-O;:.OSEt> 'e>Kl':.W""YS
Pl.i'-NNlNG Af'-E.A
BOUNi:>A.;:"Y
s .,
,~
0, .' r:, ... ,,"': 1:,; ,,. ..... "'~ .....
PALO ALTO BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN
AS SHOWN IN
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
OF THE ADOPTED
PALQ_ALTO COMPP.EljEN.SIVE PLAN
IS
,
~"~r
~t.;,/c<~ e.&ItQ.-.
1_.-
)--<
cqr CF" PAl.O A,CTO
~ _____ foC __ ~N __ ~_~
Q I W I S I (l1j
CIVIC Cfi'll1f.~.lIEi'IILO 'UK, C ... '~Da
r.I~~ ~~,:;"2C
Proposed All':"1a St.reet Bike Brtdge
MENLO PARK BIKEWAYS PLAN
16
o ATTACHMENT 6
.. -'.---,-"""~~---
·-·tJ
•
"': ;<~;',';2;''''''''''-',o
\p'
"
o
Letters of local suppor~ for Alma Street
5ike Bridge Project:
-:-TT ACHMENT 7
"
14 Pale Alto Bicycle Advis~ry Committee
2. Menlo Park Bicycle Comrni ttee
J. Petition from a .s.atllple of persons utilizing
the existing railway bridge on Novevembe~ 19
1
1992
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
17
•
'it'
( ...
,
PABAC
5, ,,: ~ Scupnllrl
:~~,<t \ja!"oli& Dr ;\In. F;oJ" Ai'o.CA ".Pl,t;
(~::,)~,~'1166
.~;'gm...,'1l;,:s ItUlJ"d oed"
"un ",t', c. sla,n[(',rd ..... rl ,,< .~I "I!;moVl
So"ember 16, 19D:2
On behalf of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committet' (?AR.\.C), 1 .,,'ould!.ike to,:;:xpre~~
our fuTI and enthusiastic support fOj thE' ptOyOS~ Aim?. Str~et Bih Bridge project.
~fhe bridge will provide a':". important missirJg link be~w€en the extens'lvt' bi(ydc fad!ili(,5
in Pale Alto and Menlo Pa.rk. It 'oI,;iU e11Nura.gc bicycle (:(lrtlllluting bi r~dlJcing many
trip distances suhstantially. It wiU pro\'id(' Jit<."tt bir_"de COlll;]lutei' aCH!SS to downtown
Palo Alto and S(,VNaJ employmenl a.re .... 'i, ~hopplng ar"as, a.nd mvlti-nlodal tra.!lsrt ern
tcrfCahraill StatiolL'i along the Alma/El Camillo R('al comdor 'In P ... lc Alto alld !,f{'lllo
Park, It wjJl erld' the iargal and dangerous use ortllf' railroad briJg!." by Pldll." bi(yclisL'i,
~rhis projo:!cl is a IOrlg·standil!g priority !ot P.1.BAC, and ha.'i bt:'C'il ::1d"ded in til.:' PaiD
Alto ComprEh'msivE Plan for the past decade. lts import ana WAS again cOllfirlllcd by our
r('cent review d bicyde prloritie-s i~ Palo Alto. We urd~r<'itand thal our counterparts in
Menlo Park ft:'ellll..ewise, and betie\·e that thi!. projPct will SN\'C a..~ a model of cooperation
between (h'les alld between counties in Callrornia,
The joint app!.ic.ation by Pa.lo A.ho and .Menlo Pa.:!.: frjr Proposition 1 J6 LJllds for til'lS
project is ~:gh!y appropri.i.le. \\"e hope it will rC'sult in the implementatioll or this llluch
nl'ed~d project that \Will !tl'rve well the n'X'd~ of present and futur~ hirycle connl1utelS"
Chair
13
.,
,
, TIIO~tOP'I::-.eN
"-''<CO
~I(II.~
W,"'OAHIOT11t
<1EIV.L~ II o.uOf1'
cO'J~ .... ! .. .,,,,
~-~ .• ' II 'I
• I : CITY Of I
ME~LO PA",K
So,.mber 19. 1992
MalVin Overway
Chief Tr&llSJlMition Officio!
City of Polo AltO
Palo Al!O. CA 94303
Dear Mr. Ov6!Way.
Menlo Park Bicycle Adviso,) Committee
On behalf of the Menlo Park BiltewIY. Committee 1 would like to .... nd cor whole
hearted support for the proposed bicycle b11dg~ aero .. San Francisquito Cruk at Alma
Street This project is our top r.e.nj:ed improvement anc! one which has wide commurrity
.uppan which is boot demonstrated by the well worn path luding I<l the idjacen: train
bridse which was used by 34 poopl. between 7;00 and 9:00 this morning doopi .. th.
cold, wet weather. If approved, L'le bridle will link major aotivity c.n ....... , provIde. b»P. ... arOW1d a ,ix lane highwlY and an o.lternAtive to the very hawdou. ColTrain
bridge.
Unfammately due 10 &eheduling confUCts thi& item h.s not yet been brought before our
oily council for approval so I must clarify that this letter does not yet represent city
policy. W. arc hopeful though that ence th. coun~ h .. on hid opportunity to review
I~ tllAl!hey '00 will enthusiastically support this project
While there are undoubtedly a. large: number of quality projects c-ompetins for Proposi
tion 116 b'Jceways fund., I doubt if there "'" many which will Un!:. a.s many high in
tensity activity centers. AI con be .een from the attached map, the bridge will connect
our :especti· ... e busine$s di,trict5 and Can"rain stations. Stanford Univenity and the
'hopping center and the Menlc Pa.rk: QV]C Center, These centers, and Ll-te v.ride range
of low to high density hou.ing ,tock which surround. ~ comb'.nc to make thls an
or .. which has • high degree of non-motonzea trlveI.
en. of !he moot oxcitin$ aspects of this project i. that by hnldng Alma it will provide
In lltemate to El Canllno Ret! for travel between our cities, While we support the
critical ovaluation given Clw I facilities under !he Prop",ltion 116 guideline., we feel
that this projact exemplifies !he best characteristics of • Cia .. I facility as Guilined ;n
the Clltr8!U bilteWIY' guidelines. By prOviding a missing bnk between ".cond.r)'
roads it provides a "short cut" between activity cimten. and in alternate to a hiih
yolum. "","rial which has many common bicycle hazard, such .. on·street parking and
tntCTSCCtiolli/driv~a.ys .... i th poor light clearance. 'While aetondary roads sometim=-s
,ontain more haZArds to bicycle travel :hAn aruriils. Alma with lts good 'ight clear·
1J'lCD. lack of through intersections itld and low b"aftic volume 1$ an jd:ea.l JJr.ernati.."e to
~1 Camino.
19
_ •• o;~. __ ... "" __ rlo..o_, ....
,----f'\ _
Altho"~ II-e bri~ge i> ew:.iy justine4 in ilS own righl [ do thin): that it i. important
to consIder the conneetivi.ty it woul~ provide in conjur.ction with o~ ICce" improve
mentl. !'erhaps most exciting in thi' regard is II-e role it would pia) when combine4
with & bJcycl~lPedC&nian CTOiSin8 or El C&l":lino at Alma. C\.lI'T'ently e.ast·we$t trav6i is
v~ dlffic.ul in the project area due to the rugh rr-.ffk vol,.,,-., and bicycle tlnfn,ndly
desIgn of the few CaiTrai!VEl Camino Real Cl'OU point.>, The bridge. coup!ed with •
biero)c Cl'ossing of EI Camino It Al",a would provide. wonderful alternati,e 10 both
Umv=ity and Rovea.wood for "'1-w"01 cravel. Plans to improve the ir.tersection of
Aim. and Ravonswood in Menlo Park will al,o enJ-"r" II-e utility of the propose4
.!rUc;ture.
Safety is ano~ powerful reason for implemenring this project The CalTrain bridge,
which is used eX:':lSi',ely by both pedestri"" one bicyclists ;. • vel)' real .. fe~j ha
zard, Not cnly i. there the obvious :a.'gor of • ttllin accid,nt, there is also. YOf)' real
chance of ,omeone tripfnS on the rough d""ldns of the bridg, and either IttiJcirlg •
glrder or falling approxima:'ly fifty feet ir.to the creek bed. PlanMd increase. in c.J
Tl1in lervice will orly increase the poa.ibility of accidents if I "pOTato f,cility i. nO!
provided. Although a check with the Menlo Pm Police Department did notleveal any
",cidento on the bridge "ithin the l .. t thr"" yean, I distinctly r;call It least one fatal
accident t'lete in the =nt past. This diSCl'epancy may be due 10 the fact th .. the
depanment does not have a cl,,"ification for an accident of uu. t)1'< in its databoso.
Betau .. it providto incross'" conne.;tivi.ty in • hiShly urbanlMd "ttina ard • real al
ternative to routeS which are nOl conciuc:ve to b~ tn.v~l, we feel I.h&t this bridg~ is
OX&C~y the type of project which is .0 desperltely neede<l if we are to redefine the IIT
ban landscape into one whioh " 1 ... dependenl upon the automobile. We sincerely
hope that thOS" responsible for evaluating uu. application will Igree thaI uu. project is
of the rughest quality .. ,d approve its fundini.
Sir<:erely,
~~
Eric Gilbertson
Chairp<>rson
(408) S22-3119
20
.'
o
Dear Mayors Morris and Fazzino,
I fully support the efforts of Menlo Park and Palo lUIO to con
SL'1.1ct a bike/pedestrian bridge over the San Francisquito Creek
at Alma Street The extensive bike/pedestrian use of the curren!
train bridge is extremely hazardous, due to both the increasing
number of trains and the gravel laden bridge deck which is quile
slippery. The construction of a separate faciltty will provide a
safe crossing for those who currently use L'Je train bridge, as well
as encouraging more non-motorized travel along this heavily
traveled corridor.
.,
.
\"
/.u, r ... ft.. Te' ,
_K'-'-i-Y .4<>&_;1/},-,-". -,,~=~.;..;::;. ____ 'l-,-,,-o c:..' _l:..'.:...l L_~_rr_n.:...,;...'''-_· ___ --'.=S'--==S"',_t_f_'"_. '_." r<i, 4.'1")
Mw...;,/ 7><,~--P.I}
P/7
-7 f / .f
-"/' ') ) -,
L_~ \J ~.GLj\ 1:Z 3 ic' v~ S \ Dr
~ v'\
-II~
Pr:':
rn ,f.
(}f.
,PA-
21
"lI m'?'
,
'I
1
o
Dear Mayors Morris and Fazzino,
I fuUy support the efforts of Menlo Park and Palo Alto to can· ~)./a...
struC! a bike/pedestrian bridge over the San Francisquito Creek
at Alma Street The extensive bike/pedestrian use of the current
train bridge is extremely hazardous, due to both the increasing
number of trains and th.e grayel laden bridge d~k which is quite
slippery. The construction of a separate facility will proyide a
safe crossing for those who currently use the train bridge, as well
as encouraging more non·motorized travel along this heavily
traveled corridor,
ADDRESS
..7c 6 s.::0..-~.-J ,,">} /' ;; ¢ I 2. ;-
/i1 f
~N,)V>o}Jon-z:/~r2 .. we:;. Mf'f;1,1;; IMrel::_
, [. <. '<-'..A /C'/, 7, I A I.. I Y / _ A (i"/\-,.~"",,-1. ..:;;:""-"'. 7 '-1 e..-c /1U-, I (h..-t. f r .f c .... ,,"\.....
•
-JEff./'A r;kJ~E;1L (L6 {t+!7 (fiFe;:: oK! /,Y1w-c:' p~
~Jl~l~V-('t, i3"'Y ,<C.IJ jJ~.
..