HomeMy WebLinkAbout0431.093•
HONORABLE CITV COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
PROJECT
Members of the Council:
lIBPOR~ 1111 UIEl'
29
During the past year, Palo Alto has been pursuing the development
of a project to construct a bike path along the west side of the
CalTrain t~acks, from Churchill AVenue to University Avenue, as
proposed in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master plan and illustrated in
Exhibit 1. Federal and State funding for the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridqe ana Bike Path Extension Project (Project)
has been approved, and the project i;:; includ02d in the FY 1993-94
Capital Improve!llent Program (!Jo~ 19310).
Implementation of the Project is dependent upon the use of Joint
Powers Board {JPBj ICalTrain riqht-of-way throuqhout a major portion
of its lenqth. .In order to proceed further with the development of
this project, staff needs to secure the formal review and
conceptual approval of the JPB Policy Board. The two most critical
issues are the assumption of liability by the city and the cost of
a right-ot-way easement.
'The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that the Counci 1
approve a motion agreeing, in principle, to indemnify the JPB yith
respect to liability that may arise from locating the Project
within the railroad right-of-way. The le""el o.f indemnification
requested by the JPB staff is very broad and represents a level of
risk that the City clearly does not have under existing conditions.
A copy of the indamnity language requested by the JPB is set torth
in Att.acbment 1.
In addition. comments OD several other aspects of the Project are
provided for information and general reference.
CXit,431,9J
•
BACICGROtJIiD
Palo Alto is presently pursuing the development of a project to
construct a bike path along the yest side of the Cal Train tracks l
from Churchill to university Avenues. This facility is identified
as a proposed bikeway in tt..e adopted Palo A.lto Bikeways Master
Plan~
The Project involves the construction of an extension of the bike
route that currently exists running north/south in the area ~est of
the Cal Train tracks, and east of El Camino Real~ The existing bike
route alignment "tallows seqments of wilkie way, Park Boulevard,
Southgate neighborhood streets, and El Camino Park bike pa'th~ This
route is well used by commuter cyclists. students and others, as an
alternative to Alma Street or El Camino Real. At the present time,
there is an 2xisting gap in the bikeway between Churchill Avenue
and University Avenue, adjacent to Palo Alto Hiqh School, Town and
country Shopping Center, the Urban Lane area, and the Holiday Inn~
The proposed Project will complete the missing qap in the b~keway
an~ provide a continuo~s bike route Crom the south city limits with
Mountain Vie .. to the north city limits with Menlo Park. In so
doing, it will serve and facilitate bike travel to the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts, the two Pal~ Alto CalTrain
stations, the palo Alto Transit Center and Stanford University as
~ell as Palo Alto High School, Town & country Shopping CenteL, the
Orban Lane area$ and El camino Park.
The scope of the project includes the construction of a grade
separated pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Embarcadero Road
[adjacent to the existing railroad bridge) anj completion o~ a 0.85
aile secr-nent of bikeway between Churchi~l Avenue and University
Avenue. The project is nOW' referred to as the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bike Path Extension Project and is
included in the FY' .1993-94 Capital Improvement Program (lio. 19310).
S~ATV8 OF THE PROJECT
Last year, a consultant was hired to prepare a feasibility study
for this proposed project. The feasibility study was to determine
potential aliqnment(s) for the bikeway, identify opportunities and
constraints related to implementation, develop a functional design
plan, and prepare a preliminary cost estimate~ This work was
coapleted in Peoruary 1993 and concludes that a bikeway project
through this area is feasible, albeit intricate, since it involves
the interests of several entities, and :clore costly than origina,lly
anticipated. A copy of the feasibility report and master plan for
project imp~ementation, prepared by the consultant~ is included as
Attachment 2.
O!R: 431: 93 7/29/93
Page 2
Primary fundinq for implementil"'q the Project is from Fed.eral
{IntE!r.odal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEAJ I
congestion Mitiqa'tion and Air Quality [CMAQ]) and State
,Transportation Systems Management [TSM} & Transportation
OevelQP~ent Act (TDAJ) funds ~ith supplemen~al funding from traffic
mitigation fees (Holiday Inn) and city funds (Street Improvement
Fund,,) •
~ince this project involves the U6e of federal funds, Palo Alto is
required to follow procedures and standards established by the
Federal Governme.nt and administered on its behalf by Caltrans.
These include reviev and approval by Cal trans staff of each step in
the design and construction of the project, as well as the
selection of consultants and contractors to do the work. Several
items related to this project. which ~ill come before the Council
in the coming months include:
Establishment of a Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE) program for the city of Palo Alto
Program Supplemental Agreement between the City and
Caltrans for design phase
Award ot design ccntract
Right-of-way agre:ements between the city and various
entities, for necessary easements
Environmental review and clearance
Pr-ogram supplemental Agreement between the city and
Cal trans, for construction phase
Award of construction contract
Staff has completed the necessary field review with Caltrans staff
and is now procee..dinq with the establishment of a DBE program, and
the selection of a consultant for the design portion of the
project... Sta.ff i& also i1!vol.ved in continui!'1.g discussions with
representatives of the JPB (CalTrain)~ Palo Alto High School, and
Palo Alto Medical Foundation (Ur-ban Lane interests) regarding the
proposed project, and its related right-of-way requirements. Whj Ie
each entity represants a unique situat.ion that r-equire.s further
discussion and resolution~ the most important, at this time,
concerns the JPB/CalTrain.
301ft POWDB BOARD (JPB/CALTRAIII)
Imple~entation of the proposed project~ as described in the
feasibility study, relie5 on the use of JPB/CalTr-ain right-of-way
throughout a major portion of its length~ Initial discussions
bet~een the feasibility consultant and a JPB staff representative,
and subsequent d.iscussions between Palo Alto staff and the JPB
staff representative, have been cautious but open to, and
supportive of, the possible use of JPB right-ot-way for construc
tion of the proposeQ bike path. It is now time to formally bring
CMR:431:93
....
7/29/93
Page 3
" . ;':"f':~~.
-"~"-~-"~...:'
';:;p .,;::: J-' <.: ~",'
-~:-~-~-. ---.~~.-'--"--' .;;~<~;;.;".--
this project before the JPB for full stafl review._ policy Board
review, and conceptual approval. The three most critical issues
~oncern: (i) use of the JPB riqht-of-way~ (ii) indemnification, and
(iii) right-at-way cost.
The early indication staff has rec.eived is that: (aj the JPB 'Will
nave divided. opinions about whether the proposed project is an
appropriate use ot the railroad riqht-of-way, (b) the JPB would
rQquire t.."tat the City of Palo Alto indemnify the JPB/CalTrain with
res~t to all liability which ~ay arise from loca'+ing the project
within the railroad riqht-of-waYf and (c) th~ JPB may be willinq te
consider the possibility of foregoing any fee for the use of its
right-ot-way.
Use of Right·-of-Way
Regarding use cf the railroad !"ight-of-way, there are differing
opinions and perspectives r-eqardi!'lg any non-railroad use of the
right-ot-way as well as the specific use rig a bike path, as
proposed by this project. Staff believes there is s~fCicient basis
for pursuinq this matter with the JPB, and is hop~ful~ albeit not
certain, of a favorable outcome.
The joint use of eXisting rail cDr-r-idors~ for traditional rail
transport {p3ssanger &: .freight) and trails serving pedestrians and
bicyclists, is a neW" approach to addressing multi-model
transportation options and integration of transportation sys~ems_
The number or rails-with-trails projects is increasinq throughout
the country due to a number of factors, including: (a) increased
ellphasi~ on providing suitable facil i ties for pedestrians and
bicyclis.ts, (hi restruct.uring of the railroad industry, and. (e)
availability of !liqn1ficant fundinq for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities ..
Included tor reference (Attachment 3) is a copy of a report
entitled -Rails-With-Trail3-: Sha.r-inq Corridors for Recreation alld
Transportation,· from a recently completed study hj' the Rails to
Trails conserv&ncy~ The report is a survey of cu~rent ~xperience
of rails and trails sharing corridors at 16 sites, and represents
a variety of situations and conditions. In qeneral~ the e~q>erience
has been favorable and the expectation is that many m.ore such
opportunities will be forthcolting~ This is due in part to
favorable existing experience, increasing interest in providing
improved facilities tor non-automobile transportation, and
increased funding availability.
IndeJRllification
JPB staff and attorneys have stated that before they viII entertain
the possibility of allowing the City to construct the Project
within the railroad right-of-way, they will need assurances from
the City Council that the City will be willing to indemnify the
3PB, its member agencies, Southern Pacific, and Amtrack for all
CI!R:431:93 7129/93
Page .(
clai!ls and liabilities associated with the city's use. of the
railroad right-of-way. The requested indemnity includes liability
arising out of the negligence of the indemnitees (the railroad,
etc.), and e)Ccludes only liability arising out of the cr imjnal
actions or intentional misconduct of the indemnit~~s. It is the
broadest indemnity that is legally enforceable under current law,
and in essence, is ~n insurance policy, althouqh the city ~ill also
be requir~ to provide separate commercial insurance~
The City Attorney's office advises that the ~equested indemnity is
legal, although vr;;.ry broad~ and requires the City to accept a
qreater exposure to liability than would likely be the case in
obtaining an easement to construct and operate a bike path in
another location~ The City Council should understand and
acknowledge this additional rii!:k when considering agreeing to
indemnify the JPB. A copy of the requested indemnity language is
set forth in Attachment 1 of this report~
DisC"lssions at the staff level do nct indicate much, if any ~
flexibility regarding the level of indemnification requested by ~he
JPB. If council wishes to pursue further negotiation regarding the
level of ind~~ification, it would likely be most effective at the
policy board level, through Supervisor Dianne Mcl<:enna (who
currently serve.a;: as Chair of the JPB) and any other JPB board
member-(s) who may have some predisposition toward implementation of
this type ~f project.
If council approves a motion agreeing in principle to indemnify the
JPB, City staff will pursue further discussions regarding the JPB's
conceptual approval ot the project. Subject to the JPB's
conceptual approval, staff will return to the Council with a formal
easement agreement between the city and the JPB (including final
wording regarding indemnification) for final council action.
Right-of-way Costs
Regarding riqht-of-way costs, the further~nce of this project is
directly dependent upon the JPB agreeing to provide the necessary
right-of-way for this project, at no cost. while that may not be
the preference of the JPB, neither is it an impossibility_
The riqht-of-way for this project would be in the form of an
easement for the bike path with a condition that, with reasonable
notice, the easement would be abandoned in the event that the JPB
needed such right-of-way for as yet unspecified long-range system
improvements and expansion (e.g. BART, third track for freight or
light rail~ etc.). In the intervening years, which could be
decades, the proposed bike pa~h project would construct and
maintain a facility and create a presence, that should enhance the
visual aspects over what exists at the present time, and create an
important pedestrian and bicycle linkage to lI",ultiple and.
CMR:431:93 7/29/93
page 5
siqniticant transvortation o~igins and destinations, including two
major CalTrain stations. Furthermore, as tiites along the JPB
riqht-of-way undergo si9nificant change and/or redevelopment, statf
anticipates ~~at provision will be made to transfer appropriate
segments of the bike path froa the JPB right-ot-way, to the
a~jacent properties.
sta.f:t anticipates that negotiations 'With the JPB regarding, its
conceptual approval of the project \dll include the following
issues:
JPB agreement to the use of its right-of-~ay for
this purpose.
city agz:eement to provide all funds to construct
t!le proj ect .
JPB agreement not to charge the city for the use
of ita right-of way.
city agreement to indemnify the JPB Yith respect
to liability which may arise from locating the
pr~ject with the railroad right-of-way.
City aqre~ment to maintain the project~
JPB reserving the right to terminate the easement
and City agreement to vacate appropriate segments of
the railroad right-of-way upon due notice, and
for due cause.
city agr~ement to diligently pursue shiftinq of the
projeot from th~ JPB riqht-of-vay to adjacent
properties, as redevelop:roent and other opportunities
ma.terialize~
In addition to the items related to the JPB, the following items
are noted for information.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise lOBE)
As part of the requirement.s associated 'With the use of
Federal/State funds for this project~ Palo Alto is required to
establish a Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) proqram.
This topic is the subject of a related st~ff report and is
schedu1ed for council consideration and action on August 9,
1993. .
Design Consultant Selection Proce_5s
staff is also proceeding with th~ steps leading toward the
award of a design contract for this project4 The consultant
selection process for this project is the subject of a
companion staff report (CKR:428:93) and will be discussed by
the Policy and Services committee at its meeting on August 3,
1993.
CIIR: 431: 93 7/29/93
Paqf'! 6
Palo Alto Unified SChOQl District
Staff representatives of the Palo Alto 1'Jnified School uistrict
and Palo Alto High School have expressed interest and support
in the proposed project, a major segment of which "'ill
traverse their property; and therefore require an ag~eement
whereby tile District grants the C'ity an easement for the
project, In order for the District to vacate the righ~-of-way
needed for the bike path, the District staft has identified
the need to make some modifications regarding materials
storage, security lighting and supplemental parking, for which
they have estimated a cost of $26, ono. Who pays for what
portions of such costs ~ill be the subject of further
discussion between representatives of the city and the
District, as part of preparing thg easement agreement~
Falo Alto Medical Foundatjon
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAM.F) has secured o\omershjp
rights to a sizeable ~lock of land through and along which the
proposed bike path is intended to traverse, and is developing
plans for a major ne~ medical facility en its site within the
next several years4 City staff is in the process of havinq
discussions with PAMF representatives reqarding an interim
location for-the bike path, prior to the start of construction
of the medical facility, as well as the accommodation of the
bike path within the site desiqn and layout for the new
.edical facility.
Caltrans Program $upplemental~eements
Program Supplemental Agreements are used by Cal trans to cover
financial reimbursement and conditions that are project
specific. They serve as a supplement to a ~al Agency-State
Agreement for Federal Aid entered into b&tween the City of
palo Alto and the state on April 4, 1978, For the proposed
project .. two program Supplements viII be required, one for t.he
design phase and one for constructicn of th~ project.
Fibe~ Optics/communications
staff is also aware that there are communication lines buried
along and within the JPB right-of-way located in the same
general area as the proposed bik~ path. An agreement with the
communications companies and the JPB will be necessary, and
will need to include provisions whe.reby the co1!lltlunications
companie~ reserve the right to disrupt the bike path in the
event it becomes necessary to service the lines.
C!!R: 431: 93 7/29/93
page 7
&lllOIAII.T
T.be Embarcadero Pedestrian Bicycle Br-idge and Bik.e Path Extension
Project (Froject) will complete an important missing gap (between
Churchill and University) and provide a continuous bike route from
the south City limits with Mountain View, to the north City limits
with Menlo Park. It yill serve as an alternative to Alma street
and El Camino Real, and facilitate bike travel to the Oowntown and
California Avenue Business Districts, ~he two Palo Alto CalTrain
stations, the Pale Alto Transit Center and Stanford University as
well as Palo Alto Hiqh School, TCwn and Country shopping Center,
th~ Urban Lane '.rea, and £'1 Camino Park.
While there are a number of issues that need to be acdre6sed and
r-e.so!ved during the coming months., the most impor"tant one, at this
time, concerns the City's willinqness to indemnify the JPB and
others with respect to li~bility which may arise from locating the
Project 'Within the railroad riqht-of--..ay. The level of
indemnification requested by the JPB staff is very breaci and
represents a leval of r-isk that the City clearly does not have
under existing conditions. While information from other similar
projects SU9gests that rails and trails currently co-exist without
incident, ~~e City, by constructing a bike path ~ithin the railroad
riqht-of-wo!llY, will encouraqe people to use the facility and be
prE'sant within the railroad right-of-way 'Who otherwise would/should
not be there. The Project will include chain link tencing between
the path and the rail tracks throughout its length, and provision
will need to be made for periodic £iel~ review and maintenance of
tbe fencing.
Staf.! believes this is a 'Worthy proje.ct for which the bene-fits
outweigh the added risk for-the City. However, this project is not
a &pecific requirement of any federal or state regulation and has
not progressed to a point where it would be difficult to stop. If
council is unwillinq to assume the risk r~l~ted to this project~
then staff will so advise the agencies and organizations involved~
and advise the federal/state rundinq agencies that the city does
not intend to use the federal funds that have been allocated for
this project.
staff recommends that Council approve a motion agreeing, in
principle, to indemnify the JPB ~ith respect to ljability Which may
arise trom locatinq the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and
Bike Path Extension project within the railroad right-ot-way.
CMR!431!9J 7/29/93
Page 8
, .
R~spectfully submitted~
1.40,
c ,
--:'.'
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
t;;;tr;if~( /.Jc/~
KENN ETH R. SCHREI B ER
Director of Planning Chief Transportation official
and Community Environment
City
Attachments!
1. Indemnity language requested by JPB
2. Urban Lane Bikeway Feasihility Repor~
and Functional Design Plan
3. Rails-With-Trails: sharing Corridors fjr Recreation
and Transportation (Attached only for Council Members,
a reference copy of the report is available in the
Transportation Division office, 6th floor~ City Hall)
cc: Palo Alto uni~ied School District (James Brown, Rosemarie
Bednar, sandra pearson)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury, Jay Thorwaldson l
Dena Mossar)
Town and Country Shopping Center (Ron Wilson)
Hoover ~ Associates (Jay Mitchell)
Holiday Inn ,Clement Chen)
Stanford University (Larry Horton, curtis Feeney)
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
Palo A~to High School PTA Prasident
CHR:431:93 7/29/93
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 1
The following is ~he indemnity language that will be required by
the JPB:
'Permittee ag!,'ees to aud shall indemnify, defen.:i and hold
harmleBs J?B~ its member agencies (the San Mateo County Transit
District, the City and County of San Francisco and the Santa Clara
County Transit Dietrict)~ Southern Pacific Transportation Company
and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ('Amtrack·). their
respective officers, agents. and employees (Hereinafter
collectively referred to as -Indemnitees') from and against any alid
all claim5, demands, losses, damages, causes of action, suits~ and
liabiliti~s of every kind (including reasonable attorney's fees,
courc costsr and other expenses related thereto) fer injury to or
death of a person or for loss of or daJM.ge t-:" any property. arising
out Of or in connection with the use of the Subject Property by
Permittee. its contractors, invitees. agents or employees under
this A3reement. I"r IS THE EXPRESS INTENTION OF THE PARTIES HRRETO,
BOTII P~TTllB AND JPB, THAT THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS
PARAGRAPH INDEMNIFIES THE INDEMNITBES FOR '!'HEIR OWN NEGLIGENC1l,
IiHBTIIIiR THAT NEGLIGENCE IS AcrIVE OR PASSIVE, OR IS THE SOLE OR A
CONC!lRRrNG CAUSE OF TIlE INJURY, DEATH DR DAMl\GE; PROVIDED THAT SAID
DID_ITY SHALL NOT PROTRCT INDEMNITEES FROM LIABILITY FOR DEl. TH,
INJUI!Y OR DAMl\GIl ARISING SOLELY OUT OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OR
INT2II'l'IOIIAL MISCONDUCT OF INDl!MNITBB3.·
It should be noted that the final phrase, beginning with the words
'provide~ that· ~ might appear to require the City to accept
liability for dama9~8 that are partly caused by criminal acts of
the indemnitees. However, the law will not relieve a party of
liability caused.. in whole or io part, by its criminal acts;
therefore, while the language is scmewhat ·slick~, there is ample
legal protection for che City in this regard.
,-< " ....
;Jt ATTACHMENT 2
Urban Lane Bikeway Feasibility Report
and Functional Design Plan
Palo Alto, California
Prepared for:
City of Palo Allo
Transportation Division
2.50 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Califor:nia 94303
Prepared by:
Jona Sokale, Environmental Planner
Mark Feldkamp, Landscape Architect
Newark, California
City of Palo Alto
Urban Lane Bikeway Feasibility Report
and
Functional Oesign Plan
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
February 8, 1993
Table of Contents
lr.troduction ......................... _ ....... __ ............ _ ................ __ ................................ 1
Approach
Area Interests
Design Criteria
Conceptual Design Plan. ...................................................................................... 4
location
Bileeway Alignment
Secondary Alignment
Interim Alignment
Cost of Development .. __ .................................................................................... 1 0
COS! Estimates
Maintenance Costs
ImplemenlatlDn_ ...... _ ........................................................................... _14
Agency and Are.a Interest Review
Environmental Documentation
Project Funding
BiblJography .............................................................................................. 16
Appendix
L Conceptual Design Plan
•
Introduction
The Urban Lane Bikeway corridor is localed in Palo Alto immediately
west of the CalTraln tracks which run from the City's northern !><-roo<
with Menlo Park to its southern limit with Mountain View. The Urban
Lane conidor Is Identified as a missing link in the Ot,s 1981 Bikeways
Master Plan. Severa! segments of the Urban Lan. Bikeway have been
Implemented and currenUy provide facilities for commuters Ira veling to
the University Avenue CaJTrair. Station and studenUi tiding to and from
Palo Alto High School. Students and commuters comprise !he majority
of t.lte users or. these segments. The subject of this study was to explore
the feasibility 01 constructing a missing link in Ihe Urban Lane Bikeway
to connect the University Avenue CaITra:!n Station to Churchill Avenue
(5« Figure 1).
The segments of Loe bikeway currently in use are located to the north and
south of the .tudy area. The bikeway Is aligned along the EI Camino Real
bike path from Menlo Park 10 the University A.enue CaITrain Station
and begins again on Castelleja Avenue at Churchill Avenue where it
Figure 1 -Project Location Map -No Sal.
Introduction
extends south to bicycle routes along Pari; Boulevard and Wilkie Way
until reaching Mountain View, Construction of the segmer: t from the
University Avenue CalTrain Station to Coo r.:h111 Avenue would
co::lmplete a mi.'5Sirlg Unk In the Urbar. 1.a.'1e Bikeway iUld provide lor direct
north--s.ouih travel through Palo Alto.
The missing segment of the bikeway is adja<ent to the Urban Lane
Redevelopment Ana, Town & County Wlage shopping plaz.a and Palo
Alto High School. The corridor crosses the dep ..... "" Em""!":Ode." Read
which posed an obslade to proViding for an uninterrupted bikeway
alignment. A significant componen~ of the bikeway plan was to provide a
safer crossing of Embarcadero Rood _n Palo Alto High School and
Town &:: County Village where more than HXlO pedestrian cr .JSSings occur
each day during the lunch hour when school is in session. The-concept
plan integrates an improved crossing of Embarcadero Road with the
bilceway alignment 10 expand bctl1 pedestrian and bicycle access and
circulation to downtown Palo Alto,. the University Avenue CalTrain
Station, Stanford Campus, Palo Alto High School, Town and County
Vllli>g. and existing on ...... t bkycIe routes.
Approach
Bad<ground information was gathered through • Iiwature review of
J>n'viously completed reports and pton. and studies rurrently in progress.
Site visits were conducted to verify background information. Identify
o~nities and constraints to development, examine land use; and
explore the environmental condition of the corridor. Numerou.~
individual me!ting> with Gty stalf, adjacent property owners, blcycting
organizations. stud~nt groups and ag..v:ies with jurisdiction along the
corridor Wen! hel<! to elicit the opinIons and attitudes of area in_
The involvement of area interests was 2SSenIial to understanding the
Iimltations of previously proposed plans and the opportunities and
constraints currently posed by the .tie. The biJ<e<",-.y a1ignmmt Is based
upon the analysis of the sitt'" visits, comrnmts from ilC~ interests and
review of City plans and proposals.
Area Interests
• CaITrain· Joint Powtn Board
• Palo Alto High Unified School District
• Palo Alto High School
• Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Town & County Village
• Palo Alto Medical Foundation
• Holiday Inn
• Stanford Unlversity
Introduction 2
•
Design Criteria
The design intent was to provide a comple~e separation of pedestri.cm and
bicycle traffic /rom the existing automobile and rail tranoportation
corridors.. Strict adhaence 10 Callrans and Joint Powers Board design
guid<ilines were observed. The alignment and conceptual cross sections
moe! or exceed the design guidelines established by the California
Department of T ...... portation for a a ... I pedestrian and biL)'cle pathway.
aass I pathways """'e the ."c.\usive use of pedestrians and bicyclists and
&rl! separate from motor vehicle street and highway traffic (Cal trans, 1987).
The bikeW'ay alignment and amenities are sited to preserve and ~hance
the exis."ing slands of vegetation. Proposed additional planting .,..,.. are
Intended to compliment the e><isting plan! materials. Design elements
such as railroad tie terracing. sigru>ge, lighting and site furniture should be
selected to recall the rail transportation L~emes that exists along the
COr.id.OL These elements will develop an identity for the bikeway.
Introduction 3
I Conceptual Design Plan
Location
The study area runs from the Ullivet'!ity Avenut CaITrai."'l Station 10
ChW"Chill Avenue and is Icx:ated west o( thi!" rai11ines. The area Le;
congested with existing and proposed development directly adjacent to
the railroad tracks for the entire length of the corddoe. As. result,
alignment opportuniltes were llmited. The majority 01 the bikeway 15
aligned within Ihe <:amain -10int Powen; Boan! (JPB) right-of-way. The
)PB has tille to an appro:dmately 50' strip of property from the centerline
of the the southbound track from the University Avenue CalTrain Station
to ChurchlII Avenue. The alignment of tI1e blkway is located within this
right-of-way &om the south end 01 the Urban Lane Redevelopment
property to Oum:hll.l Avenue. In the area adjacent to the U!ban Lane
property, tI1e blkway straddles the JPB right-of-way. TIlEs site posed
different constraints a..'\d offered unique options lor aligning the bikeway.
The alignment meets the sarety and mainlenance design criteria of the
JPB. The project is designed 10 provide adequate dEstmce between the
centertine of the southbound track and the shoulder of lbe blkway 10
allow fur maintenar.<:e vehicle passage along the tracks. In addition,
spedlic areas wiD require.fencing to provide • safe separation lor blkway
US<'I'S. The distance betweerl the O!l1terline of tI1e southbound track and
the blkway wiD vary according to site specific condlltons, but must meet
minimum cIeatance oll5' 10 25' (5« Figure 2)
FJ8Wo 2 -Typic:.al Bikeway Cross 5fttIon
Coro::eptua1 DesIgn Plan
'< -"
;~,~,'-"~~::.~:, '
". =<.
Bikeway Alignment
The bihway alignment begins on the north side of Churchill Avenue.t a
crosswalk that connects Palo Alto High School to Castejelia Avenue.
Existing: asphalt paving which extends the v..idth of the sidewalk along
Churchill Avenue would be removed and replacal with a meandering
bikeway separated from the concrete sidewalk. The bikeway design would
meet Caltrans design guKlellnes lor a C1ass I bike path (Olltrans, 1987).
InfiU plantings to match existing ITees and shrubs could be added between
the side'h'''allr:', and blUway to further differen tiato! and enhance the
facilities.
As '.he bikeway nears the railroad tracks the alignment veers north and
enters the)PB right-<>f-way. A raised Iand.«apir.g area separates the
bikeway from sidewalk traffic and prevents bicyclists from making wrong
way crossings of Alma Street Pedestrian access between the sidewalk and
the bikeway is accomplished through an extens.ion of the sidewalk west of
the Churclilll Avenue/Alma Street Intersection (See ConceptlllJi Plan;.
The bikeway enters the)PB right-of·w.y directly behind Palo Alto High
School and runs through an approximately 25' strip of land that is fenced
along both the tracks and the school until reaching the sch 001' s
mamlenance yard.
Schoo! personnel currenUy INlce informal use the)PB right-of-way to
park veh:id.e;. TItirty-nine parking spaces would be reiocated to provide
adequate width for the bikeway. Fencing would be irulaJJed to secu.. .. the
maintenance yard from unwanted aca!$S. The bikeway exits the
maintenance yard and meand ... beneath a row of Monterey pines before
reachIng Embarcadero.Road. A pedestrianlbicycle bridge Installed
adjacOht Embarcadeno Road provides II<USS aao5$ the depressed roadway
(See Figvn 3). An alternative alignment is also proposed along Ille
raUroacI bridge (See S=m44ry Align """t).
Installation of lighting along the Emban:adero Road bridge is
re<:ommended to enhan<e the safety of the crossing. The lighting
slandards should duplicate the existing lighting matdUng the rich
architEctural style of this 1920s bridge. The lighting along Alma Street
should be renovated and relamped with energy efficient bulbs.
A vital component of the conceptual plan was the integration of a
crosswalk at Embarcadero Road connecting Palo Alto High School to
Town ,. Country Village. This linIcage was of primary concern to area
interests, especially Palo Alto High students who INlce more than 1000
pedestrian crossings a day during the lunch hour with the assisJance of •
IIaIfic guand.
This situation was resolved through the separation of automobile and
pedestrian traffu: entering Town ,. Country Village. This would be
achieved through the installation of. pedestrian activated Signal located
east of the aulomobUe entrance to Town &: Country Village. AI this
Conceptual Design !'Ian 5
location, Eml>az<adero Road traffic is restricted 10 through traffic only
which CRates a welJ.deJlned and wer pedoslrlan crossing. Pedestrian
circUlation paHoms existing on 1M Palo AIlo High School campus
Inlegrate with !he crossing. In addition, the crossing would be linked to
the bikeway along the old Embarcadero roadway adjacent to Town &;
Country Village (Sa Conaptual PIar.).
Unlike prev\ou.ly proposed signal pmjects, this one does not require
synchronlz.atior< with the signals located on El Camino Real and is not
anlldpated to renill in tr.IHk oock-ups along Embarcadero Road. The
signal will solve a va.rkty of traffic concerns for minimal cost. Details of
the signalcroosing would be finalized by the Cily'. Transportation
Division.
Departing the aT'" 01 !he Embarcadero Road cross:ng, the bikeway would
continue north through the JPB right-oI-way traveling behind Town k
Country Village. California live oak trees form a vegetative screen
between the shopping plaza and the railroad tracks. The bikeway would
run between the trees and the southbound track. The trees will provide
shade for bikeway users. The bikeway would be graded to drain away from
Conceptual Design Plan 6
, ;;
the tracks and toward the trees to meet DlTrain design criteria and
provide additional watering to th~ vegetation.
As the bikeway approaches the Redevelopment Area, the alignment
would tum west away from the tracks and travel along the property line
at the toe of the slope which separates the two land forms... Throughout
the length oj the Redeveiopment Area, the )PB ;L'ld Urban La~ property
line is dernarated by a steep slope (2: I). The tracks are located above the
hinge of the slope with the Redevelopment Area situated below, The
distance belWe<!Jl the cen""line of the southbound track and the hinge of
the slope narrow. from approximately 40' to approximately 20' toward the
northern end of the property. ThIs liII'lting factor suggested that the
bikeway alignment straddle the jPB rlght-¢f·way.
A benefit 01 this alignment is the grade separation that exists between the
railroad tracks and the bikeway alignment The drama tic grade change
requires recontou:ring In this arm. The terraced planters anow lor a
gradual dlange in grade wlul. pro·.'!dIng • soft vegetative barrier from the
railroad tracks. The temo:ed plantings will offer a pleasing transition into
the Redevelopm~nl Area, provide slope stability and enhance the
Ol<perieoce fur bikeway users (s.. Fiture 4).
FIgUfe " • Redevelopment Alea Cross Section
Cot-aptualDesignl'lan
, ':.;'-0::'_,.
:~.:',,-.-
':-'':~~~/;:J :
.. ,'£<',
, .. _~GIIIIafp_.a:.
7
The bikeway would er1t·:!r the southerly end of the CalTrain Parking Lot ilS
it approaches the University Avenue CalTrain Station. The aligI'l..ment
taW advantage of • wider than required parking lot that wilh mlnlmal
modification can continue to proV=.de parking and adequate space for the
bil<2way. The bikeway wm.ld be constructEd up<>n the S\lrlaced parking
area din!ctly adjacent 10 the oxisting planter thaI divides the parking lot
from the Incks. Six landscaped traffic islands would require minor
modifica~on (Sa Fjgure 5). Six feet of the HI' require<! for the bil<2way
would be obtained by silortening the center aisle of the parking lot !rom
its actual width of 32' to I.~e 26' required by Palo Alto's Parldng
Regulations (Oly of Palo Alto Plannlng Departmenl, 1992). Another 3'
would be secured by repositionlr.g the parking ~ located at the far
side of the lo! :r doser to the gutter The remainir.g l' could be obtaL,ed
through a vari..ance to further reduce the widfh of the ;;~l1ter aisle or the
parldng !Dt or the bik<wa y could be reduced to 9' ill !!tis constrained area.
.' c:At.T'R.'lN I"AIft{ING IoREA CROSS st"CTION 1 . ..
SECTION C-cc ., '/iPoOll'l . .A... _ ....
Figure 5 -Camain l'uldn8 Are. Modifications
The bikeway lerminates .t the south eod of the CalTrain Station. It does
not provide Improved acass through the ",ation to the E1 Camino RW
bike path connecting to Menio Park. The 01)' is CU!Tel\tly pursuing plans
10 enhance acc ... to the station and to downtown Palo Alto .. part of the
jPB'. Key Station Accessibility Plan (Craln &: Assoda",", lru:., 1992). The
plan does denote .several future undercrossings 10 improve access to
Conceptual Design Plan 8
downtown Palo Alto which are propos€<! in the City'. Url:>an Design Plan
(1992). Bicycle lockeJ"S are proposed at the south er:d of the station to serve
CalTram commuters.
Secondary Alignmenl
A secondaIy alignment along the Embamtdero Road bridge would
provide a more din!<;t route for bicyclists. In this instance, the bikeway
would travel across ~ ttain bridge in ~ vicInlty of CalTrain'. special
event plat/orm which is used during Stanford UnivelSity footl:>aD games.
A slidIng fence would be inslaDed botween !he concrete platform and
asphalt bridge orurla"" to provide a separation for bikeway users and allow
access during .. ""Is(S .. Figure 2). The sliding fence would be modeled
after that V!hiclt Is in use at CalTrain's Hll1sdale Station near Say
Meadows Raa! Tracl<
If implemented as the primary alignment, the route would preserve the
archi_ integrity of the Eml:>arcadoro Road b<k!ge, retain existing
trees and provide a less expe:nslve alternative. The significant drawback
\" this alternative is the close proximity of !he bikeway to the railmad
tracks. This co_t was fell 10 be signiiicant enough to warrant tile
construction a separare, adj;><enl bicycle/pedestrian bridge.
Access to Palo Alto High School could be enhanced fur students with Ihe
installation of an on-street bicycle route through the staff parldng lot.
nlls alignmenl would encourage students to foDow the rules of the road
while traveling to and from school It would require tile elimination of
approximat2ly eight parallel perking spaces (s.. Co.ceptwU Plmt).
II1terim Alignmenl
An Inlerfm alignment is proposed through the Redevelopment Area in
the event construction has not begun Within the same time frame of this
project. The interim alignment would provide ar. on-street route along
Urban Lane and Homer connecting to the CalTrain parking lot Minimal
surfacing would be required al the .nels 01 both streets 10 connect Ihrough
the Redevelopment Ar ...
Conceptual Design Plan 9
Cost of Development
Cost EstiJrulles
The construction costs for implementing the the Urban Lane BU::eway
&om Churchill Avenue 10 the University Avenue CalTrain Stanon is
estimaled at betw..." $600.000 and $700.000. These estimates are based
upon 1M conceptual plan and renect Cal"""" design criteria. Figures are
calculated using 1992 dollats and fluctuations could occur depending
upon 1M bidding dimale. Cost ranges for allemative items have been
applied in cases where a variety of conctructlon materials could be used to
achieve the same functional result ThIs eslimate does not include cools
for right-of-way. Cost rise estimates for oul years have 001 been included,
but typically average approxh.",tely 50{, per yea::
Maintena.. .. "" Costs
The majority of Class ! Oicyde fadlitles require light maintenaoce
consisting of debris removaL oo::asional sweeping. weed abatement and
landsotpe and irrigation maint",unce. Resean:h on OlMr successful
bikeways suggest. thai annual maintenance costs can be estimated at
al'?"'xlJnately $6.000 per mile.
Coot of Development 10
Urban Lane Bikeway Construction Cost Estimate
IAkma,: AUlnmcDi Qulllllb: Unit 1lJ111~t CauB&-"JIC Subtotal
Sit. ""'paroUon
Clear and grub (path, .hould ..... access areas) -64,000 SF 0.15 9,600
Remove Aspbalt (Culm. to Alma) -4,000 SF 0.25 1.000
Tree/Shrub Removal (North End of Redevelopment) -20 EA lSO.00 3.000 • E>dstIng Tree Protection and Trlmrnlng allow 2,iJOO
15.600
Ttoil Surfacing &: Rough Grading -40,000 SF 3.00 120.000 120,000
Culmeja tG South End of CaITraln Parking Lot
r..ndscape Barr! ... at Churchill '" Pedestrian Acc ...
ImpGrt TGP""il, Sol\ Amendment &: FlniBh Grading -60 CY 25.00 l.soo
IrrlgoU"" -BOO SF 0.80-1.00 640-IJlO
Shrub/Perennial Planls (5 gal. 4' o.c.) -30 EA 25.00 7SO
COJ1aete Sidewalk -50 SF 5.00 250
3,140 -3.300
Ped .. trlon Bridge at Embarcadero Rood (10 loot width)
Clear Span Pedestrian Bridge -130 LF 150.000-ltll,000
" :', ,f':··,)i1~Y\'/~ __ "< Lighting Reno.atlon allow 5.000
Tree Removal -6 EA 5(10.00 3,000
158.Il00-188,000 '11' Ped .. trlan Mtlvaled Signal at Embarcadero Road SO.OOO -60.000 50.Il00-60.000
Fencing ( vlnt-coaled cbaln link va. wrought Iron)
LF 15.00-25.00 Securing A HIg\> maintenance yard -360 5.400 -9,000
Maintenance yard to Redevelopment Area -1A40 LF 15.00-25.00 21.600 -36.000
Redevelopment Area to C.ITraln JXltktng lot -880 1.1' 1.~.00-2S.00 13.200 -22.000
40,200-67.000
Cmtol~_t 11
BlkelltJX Allan_nl tllllL QUlalla
Single neT TOl'l'O<:e (Emb.rcodot. \0 Redenlopment)
Import Topsol~ Soil Amendment &. Finlsb G",dlng ~400
Drip IrriSaUon ~5300
Ground Cover ( I gal -4' ... ,t.) ~265
Rl!. 'l'1. -1,()60
0001>10 TIer T.",,<o <Redevelopment to C.I'fiain Lot)
Import TOpsoil, Soil Amendment &. FInish Grading -650
DrIp Irrtgatkm/Bubbl .... -8.soo
Inlm 'l' .... ( 15 gal-30' -40' o.c.) HI5
Cnrund Co.ert I gal ·4' D.c.) -440
RR Tie (2 tier. plUs de""m"" @ 880 Lf) -2,000
Modllicallon& to Cam.ln P.ridng Lot
OomoUtlon/Ground Prep to pla"ter Islando 6
New toncrete curbing -900
Repoaillonlng of paridng bumpen1 on Wett .lde of lot -90
Ext.nding !Un stripping on eM\ side of 101
Signag. 5
Sealing Area at Enclna
Benches 2
DrIp Irrigation/Bubble ..
Cobble Rock (al ba •• 01 .. IBUng oak,)
Ground Cover ( 1 gal -4' o.c.) -25
O""of~
.J.IIIIt
0:
SF
llA
LF
0:
SO
IlA
liA
LP
EA
LF
EA
EA
IlA
SO
IlA
CooIiUnIl __ CtmJIaIlRl! _ Sublotal
25.00
O.m-l.oo
10.00
2O.OQ. 24.00
lU1lOO
4,l4il-S,JOO
7.650
21.100 .:25,440
38'()%-43,390
25.00 16,250
O.m-I.OO 7,040· 8,rol
SO.OO 1,200
10.00 4,400
20.00-24.00 40.000 -43.000
68,890-78,65(1
allow 1.500
9.00 8,100
allow 1,00>
allow 1.00>
11.&Xl
25().350 1,250-1 ,750 1.250-1,750
1.000
allow
allow
10.00
Subtotal
2,000
500
250
250
S~ Mobilization
lS~ eonllng.ney
PmjectTtJI.1
J.OOO
S 509,770 -59'J.290
$ 25,490 -29,615
S 76465 -8I,8t5
$ 611,725-710,750
12
~
C)
ScamdaO' AUlI'mcnt Qgantity Unit CgttlUnlL Cgt\ Ranae SubtptAl
PA High Access Route
Route Stripping -520 LF allow 500
Sidewalk 10 new signal -200 SF 5,00 1M
Embarcadero Bridge Retrofit
Sliding Fence" C.ale
Aaphall Reourfadng (13() Ll' X 8' Wldlh)
New Railing
-13()
-1,iJ40
-130
Interim AUanment Quantity
Rodevelopmenl Are. Interim Alignment
New Asphalt Surfoclng (200 LF X 10' Wldlh) -2,000
Route Stripping
Signage 2
Cootof~4
LF
SF
LF
22.()()' 32.00 2,S6Q-4,160
5,00-6,00 5,200-6,240
15,1)). 20.00 1,950-u.oo
5o<ondory Allgnmfll\ Subk>I.1
1,500
10.010-13,00;>
$l1,!'tO-lf,SOO
UnfL_ CostlUnit ---.COlli Ranft Subtotal
SF 1.50-2.00 3,000. 4,00;>
allow 700
EA 75.C4HOO.OO IS\}-200
3.850-4,900
Inlrrlm Allgnmenl Subtotal $ 3,850-7,740
13
•
(~~\ .".j/
Implementation
Agency and Area Interest Review
A variety of reviews, approvals and agreements are necessary [or
implementation of the Urban Lane Bikeway. They include:
c..JTrain -lo;ntl' ........ Board
A joint use agreement wol11d need to be developed between the City
and !he Joint Powers Board prio. to implementing the project.
Review and acceptance of the construction documents ar.d
maintenance plan fo. !he facility a .. srandMd components of this type
of an agreement.
Palo Alto Unified School Dlslrkt
The bflceway alignment requires the removal of parking spaces located
on the loint Pow",. Board right-of-way directly behind Palo Allo High
School These parking spaces .'" lnionnally used by school sfa ft.
Relocati~n of !Use parking fadlities would require negotiation with
the school distIict.
10wn .. Coomtry ValJos<
The conceptual plan relocates the pedestrian crossing serving Palo
Alto High School and Town " Country Village. Aped_Ian
actinted signal would be Installed to the east of the exi5ling aoosing
on Embaraldero Road cbanging the pedestrian dn:ulallon patterns at
Town ole Country Village. New striped aosswaIk& would be needed
within Town .. Country Village. Tn ... modified facilities would
require negotiation with the management.
Redevelopment Area
The bikeway would straddle the Joint Powers Board right-of-way
overlapping Into the properties located In the Redevelopment Area.
As the p.operty ...ctevelops, an oasen"",t or zoning change wow..; be
n!qUind to provide adequate width for the bila!way. In addition, the
City may aISD wish to require thai the plans developed to. the site
tnclude not only the bikeWay, bul aISD provide pedestrian and bicycle
access into the facility to enhance-the connection to downtown Palo
A110 and the UnIversity Avenue CalTrain Station (5« Concept"'"
Po,"). This connection may ultimately encourage CaJ!raln ridership.
Environmental Documentation
The Urban Lane Bfkeway is categorically .. "'"pt under the guidelines of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Howeve.,
approximately six _ and a number of shrubs, of various sizes and
condition. would be removed 10 accommodate the new pedestrian/bkycle
Implementation 14
-,-: .....
•
bridge al Emborcadero Road and the grading al the north end '" tlle
Redeve10pment ATea where the bikeway tra1\."'itions to th-e CalTrain
parking lot Replacement of this vegetation al a 3; 1 ralio is recommended.
The trees and shrubs could be planted along EmbaIta<lero Road or could
be used as lnfill planting along the alignment or the b'.keway.
Funding
The Oly's succ ... in obtaining Intenru>dal Surface Transportation
Effid.ency Act (ISTEA) fundlng for the bikeway provided the Impetus for
conducting this study. The construction cost estimates provided in the
IeasiblIity report exceed the funding received by the City. Interim and
_orulary alignmen:' which allow for project phasing have been
provided to accommodate financial constraints and the planned
redevelopment of the Urban lane area.
The City may also wish to pwsue additional outside funding for the
project. Transportation Development Act ITDA) -Article 3 funds would
prOevide it logical funding solution. These funds are distributed. aIuwaUy
on a per capito basis. In addition, a pontion of the IDA funding is set aside
for competitive projects. The Oty has been extremely successful in
securing these fonds in the past.
The Oty typlcaUy levies development fees. The fees secured 1hr<».1gh the
redevelopment of the Urban lane properties could be used to complete
the bikeway. In addition, an agreement with the Redevelopment Area
owners to IncInde L'>e segment of the bikeway adjacent to their property
in the construction plans for Urban Lane may reduce the ovoraD
construction costs for the bikeway project by eliminating mobilization
costs and combining the grading and asphalt paving components of both
projects.
ImpJementa~ 15
•
Bibliography
Ca\IIans, Hi3hwoy Dnip M .... ual: Chapt .. l000 Bikeway Plaaning
iUtd DesIgn. January 1987.
Cnin It A!.sodates, Inc., Key 5b1tioo A<CtSSibility Plan: Plan for
ComplioDte with the Amerirans with DloabUitieo Act, June 1992.
DKS AssocIates, Embarcadero ~ n.Hk Safety Study, August 1986.
Palo Alto Tnnsportation DiVision. City of, Bikeway M_ Plan. 1981.
Palo Alto l'Iannin!!; Department, City of, 19110 • 1995 Comprehensive
I'L1n: OIop1er4 ·'f ..... portaUOn, 1981.
Mo Alto TranspomUOn Division. City of. ISTEA 8icycle AppUation,
Man:h 1992.
Palo Alto Planning Department, City ot Zoning Res"'l&tions: a..pter
1t1.83· 00·_ PEking iUtd toacIlng llegnIatlon$, 1992.
Pa\o All<> Planning Department, City or. Utban Deoign PIm, 1992-
Slate An:hilect; Office of the, Deputmmt of Tr"""P".uation • CaITfllin
P_ ClIIIlDIute Service • Palo Alto Stalloa Matu PIm, 1989.
BibUography 16
•
URBAN LANE BIKEWAY
PROJECT MAP
A project map illustrating the Urban Lane Bikeway is attached to the
City Council Members Urban Lane Bikeway Feasibility Report.
Copies of the illustration may be obtained at the Transportation
Division office on the sixth floor of City Hall.
• .. 0-
ATTACHMENT 3
Rails-With-Trails:
Sharing Corridors
For Recreation and Transportation
By Michael BrilliO! ""d
Julie A. ""interich
~v:~~
NOTE:
The Rails To Trails Conservancy
has qiven pe~ission to reproduce
only ~ liftit~ number of copies
of this report~
A full copy of the report is
available for reference in ~~e
City of Palo Alto, T7anspo%taticn
Oivision~ 6th Floor, civic Oente%,
250 Eamilton ~venu~.
A full copy of the report can also
be purchased frOl!l the Rails '1'0 Trails
Conservancy at a cost of $5.00 per
copy.
1400 16th Street, NW, #300
Washington, DC. 20036
202-797-5400 (phone)
202-797-5411 (fax)