Attachment A - Draft 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update

October 2025
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Update
Draft

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS

2. EXISTING FACILITIES

2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 43

2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 45

2.3 Walking and Biking Activity 49

2.4 Barriers to Walking and Biking 52

2.5 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 56

2.6 Collision Analysis 59

2.7 Shared Micromobility and E-bikes 65

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 Purpose and Vision 11

0.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 12

0.3 Community Engagement 15

0.4 Recommendations 16

0.5 Project Prioritization 22

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose 26

1.2 Plan Organization 26

1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking 27

1.4 Vision, Objectives, and Performance
Measures 28

1.5 Setting 31

1.6 Relationship to Other Documents 35

1.7 Public Outreach Summary 37

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria 70

3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network
and Facilities 71

3.3 Recommended Bicycle Support Facilities 81

3.4 Pedestrian District Guidelines and Toolbox 87

3.5 Policies and Programs 94

4. IMPLEMENTATION AND

FUNDING

4.1 Project Delivery Process 103

4.2 Project Prioritization 104

4.3 Cost Estimates 112

4.4 Funding Sources 113

5. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES
3 LIST OF MAPS
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators 33
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops 34 Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map 47
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location 48
Figure 5: Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements 51 Figure 6: Linear Barriers 53
Figure 7: Transit Barrier Study Areas 55
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results 57
Figure 9: Intersection LTS Results 58
Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity 61 Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity 61 Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022) 62 Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022) 63 Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network 64 Figure 15: Recommended Bicycle Network 72
Figure 16: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Complete Vision Bicycle Network 79 Figure 17: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Low-Stress Bicycle Network 80 Figure 18: Recommended Pedestrian District Location 89
Figure 19: Near-Term Improvement Projects 110

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Performance Measures 29
Table 2: Potential Performance Measures 30
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 32
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025 46
Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022) 61
Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria 70
Table 7: Summary of Proposed Bicycle Projects (Complete Vision: Bicycle Network) 78 Table 8: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria 104 Table 9: Near-Term Bicycle Projects 105
Table 10: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects 107 Table 11: Other Priority Projects 109
Table 12: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Projects 112 The BPTP Update is grant funded
by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's (MTC) Transportation
Development Act 3 program.

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Literature Review
Appendix B: Phase 1 – Visioning Community Engagement Summary Appendix C: Phase 2 – Needs & Concerns Community Engagement Summary Appendix D: Phase 3 – Recommended Project & Programs Community Engagement Summary Appendix E: Bicycle Parking Data Collection Summary
Appendix F: Future Activity Levels and Benefits Analysis Memorandum Appendix G: Major Barriers Analysis Memorandum
Appendix H: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Memorandum
Appendix I: Collision and Safety Analysis Memorandum
Appendix J: E-Bikes and Shared Micromobility Memorandum Appendix K: Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach Appendix L: List of Projects
Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines
Appendix N: Policy and Program Recommendations
Appendix O: Project Prioritization Framework
Appendix P: List of Funding Sources

LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 31
Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement 37
Image 3: Virtual Visioning Workshop held on January 31, 2024 38 Image 4: Bike Palo Alto Event held on October 1, 2023 38 Image 5: Bicycle Network Development Workshop 39
Image 6: Community Walking Tour 39
Image 7: Types of Bicycle Facilities 45
Image 8: Relationship between LTS and Comfort 56
Image 9: Existing Bike Route on Oregon Avenue 73
Image 10: Existing Sharrow Pavement Marking 73
Image 11: Existing Restricted Hours Bicycle Lane 73
Image 12: Updated Bicycle Facility Types 74
Image 13: Bicycle Facility Types 74
Image 14: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach 77
Image 15: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term 81
Image 16: Placement and Spacing Requirements 82
Image 17: Types of Wayfinding Signs 83
Image 18: Existing Signs in Palo Alto 84
Image 19: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements 88 Image 20: University Avenue Pedestrian District 90
Image 21: California Avenue Pedestrian District 91
Image 22: Midtown Pedestrian District 92

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Palo Alto would like to express our gratitude to the residents, community leaders, community- based organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders who have helped shape the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. We appreciate your continued support and commitment to promoting Palo Alto as a healthy, safe, and vibrant community.
2025-2026 City Council
Ed Lauing, Mayor
Vicki Veenker, Vice Mayor
George Lu
Greer Stone
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Keith Reckdahl
Patrick Burt
2025-2026 Planning & Transportation Commission
Allen Akin, Chair
Bryna Chang, Vice Chair
Bart Hechtman
Carolyn Templeton
Forest Peterson
Kevin Ji
Todd James
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bruce Arthur, Chair
Nicole Rodia, Vice Chair
Alan Wachtel
Art Liberman
Bill Zaumen
Cedric de la Beaujardiere
Eric Nordman
Jane Rosten
Kathy Durham
Ken Joye
Paul Goldstein
Penny Ellson
Robert Neff
Steve Rock
City/School Transportation Safety Committee
Lt. Ben Becchetti, PAPD
Lt. Kara Apple, PAPD
Lara Anthony, PTAC SRTS Liaison
Rachel Vazquex-Reina, PTAC SRTS Liaison
Leslie Crane, PAUSD
Mike Jacobs, PAUSD
Eric Holm, PAUSD
2025-2026 Parks and Recreation Commission
Nellis Freeman, Chair
Jeff Greenfield, Vice Chair
Amanda Brown
Anne Warner Cribbs
Bing Wei
Shani Kleinhaus
Yudy Deng
City of Palo Alto Team
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, Former
Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner & Project Manager Charlie Coles
Katie Heuser
Rose Mesterhazy
Ana Lopez
Consultant
Kittelson & Associates
Mobycon
Page left blank intentionally
7 LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAA All Ages and Abilities
AB Assembly Bill
BPTP Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
CIP Capital Improvement Program
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CSAP Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
CSTSC City/School Transportation Safety Committee
DIB Design Information Bulletin
DP Director’s Policy
E-Bike Electric Bike
EPC Equity Priority Community
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HIN High-Injury Network
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Seriously Injured
LTS Level of Traffic Stress
MPH Miles per Hour
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials NRSS National Roadway Safety Strategy
PABAC Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
PAPD Palo Alto Polic Department
PAUSD Palo Alto Unified School District
PCF Primary Collision Factor
PDO Property Damage Only
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
PTAC Palo Alto Council of PTAs
PTC Planning and Transportation Commission
SB Senate Bill
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
US DOT United States Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
9 0. Executive Summary 10

0. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

11 The City of Palo Alto (City) last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) in 2012. An update to BPTP is necessary to maintain funding eligibility, respond to evolving community needs, account for recent trends in cycling and technology, and align with current planning and design standards.

The City undertook a comprehensive effort to update the BPTP by analyzing the existing walking and bicycling conditions, engaging the community, and incorporating the best practices in multimodal transportation planning.

0.1 Purpose and Vision
The 2026 BPTP serves as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. The purpose of the 2026 BPTP is to gather meaningful input from the community, evaluate progress since the 2012 plan, and update the City’s approach to policies, programs, and infrastructure that support walking and biking.

To guide the 2026 BPTP Update, a vision statement and set of objectives were created based on strong community input gathered during the visioning workshop and early engagement activities. The resulting vision statement is
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.

All Ages and Abilities facilities are designed to serve everyone—not just confident adult riders who have historically been the primary focus of street design. An All Ages and Abilities network provides safe and comfortable travel for children, seniors, women, people with disabilities, people of color, low-income users, bike share riders, and individuals carrying goods.

0. Executive Summary 12

0.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I, II, III, and IV, as illustrated in Image EX 1. In addition to these statewide classifications, the City of Palo Alto uses further sub-classifications: Class IIa – standard bike lanes, Class IIb – buffered bike lanes, Class IIIa – bike routes, and Class IIIb – bike boulevards.

Image EX 1: Types of Bicycle Facilities
Source: Caltrans, Toward an Active California, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2017.

13 Figure EX 1 illustrates the existing bikeway network in Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions. In 2012, the City had 59.3 miles of bikeways. Since then, approximately 14 miles have been added, bringing the total to 73.5 miles as of 2025. Notably, there were no Class II buffered or Class IV separated (or protected) bikeway in 2012; today, the City boasts 3.3 miles of buffered bike lanes and 4.3 miles of separated bikeway. Table EX 1 includes comparison between 2012 bicycle network mileage with existing network in 2025.

Table EX 1: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025
FACILITY TYPE 2012 2025
Class I Multi-Use Path 13.9 11.7
Class II Bike Lane 33.2 34.6
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.3
Class III Shared Lane 8.0 12.6
Class III Bicycle Boulevard 4.2 7.1
Class IV Separated Bikeway* 4.3
TOTAL 59.3 73.5
Source: 2012 BPTP
Note: Includes the recently constructed El Camino Real separated bikeway. 2012 lane mile data is sourced from the 2012 BPTP; 2025 lane mileage is calculated using the 2025 roadway centerline file. The Class I length has not decreased between 2012 and 2025—differences are due only to the calculation method.

14 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
Kingsley Ave
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Library
Community Center
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
15 0.3 Community Engagement
The 2026 BPTP was shaped by a four-phase community engagement process combining online tools, in- person events, and meetings with the City Council, committees, commissions, and focus groups. Outreach was promoted through City channels, community partners, and local events.

PHASE 1:

VISIONING
Gathered nearly 1,000 public comments through
surveys, workshops, and events. Key themes included
prioritizing student safety, closing network gaps,
expanding separated bikeway, improving crossings
of major barriers (Caltrain, US-101), and integrating
micromobility.

PHASE 2:

NEEDS & CONCERNS
Involved walking and biking tours and workshops
that identified priority corridors (El Camino Real,
Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, San Antonio
Road, Alma Street), the need for smoother transitions
between facility types, and improved pedestrian
environments on streets like University Avenue and
California Avenue.

Across all phases, safety (especially for students), network connectivity, high-quality separated facilities, and strong pedestrian-focused design emerged as top community priorities, alongside support for education, policy, and funding strategies.

PHASE 3:

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
& PROGRAMS
Solicited feedback on draft projects through
workshops, focus groups, and an interactive map
(around 400 comments). Support was strong for
safety improvements, pedestrian features, bike
boulevards, quick-builds, and wayfinding, though
projects on major arterials drew mixed reactions due
to traffic and parking concerns.

PHASE 4:

PLAN ADOPTION
Presented the Draft Plan to committees, commissions,
and City Council for review and approval.

0. Executive Summary 16

0.4 Recommendations
Network Development Approach
The 2026 BPTP bikeway network builds on the 2012 Plan and incorporates recent regional and local planning efforts, including the MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, VTA Bicycle Superhighway Plan, and Safe Routes to School maps.

Primary Criteria: The first round of network development synthesized these plans to identify areas of agreement and highlight routes with less consensus.

Secondary Criteria: Where multiple options existed, routes were refined by prioritizing directness to key community destinations, lower traffic stress, alignment with high-demand travel flows, and the ability to overcome major barriers.

0.4.1 RECOMMENDED

NETWORK
Figure EX 2 shows the updated bikeway network and
bicycle friendly zones developed using the network
corridor criteria explained in the previous section. It presents the complete vision of the bicycle network,
including both the existing facilities and the low-stress network.

0.4.2 LOW-STRESS BICYCLE

NETWORK
Figure EX 3 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network
map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the
foundation for citywide bicycle connectivity, focused
on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes
in the near term. It builds upon the City’s existing
network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of
shared-use paths and neighborhood-based Bicycle
Boulevards, to rapidly expand access with minimal
disruption and promote broad community support.

0.4.3 COMPLETE VISION

NETWORK
Figure EX 4 shows the Complete Vision Bicycle
Network map. The Complete Vision Network
represents the long-term vision for a fully connected,
all-ages-and-abilities bikeway system. This map also
includes existing bicycle facilities that are not being upgraded to illustrate the full network once fully
implemented. The Complete Vision Network includes
some lower-priority projects that may be reevaluated
as the City grows.

A total of 138 projects have been identified in 2026
BPTP to achieve the Complete Vision Network.

These consist of 94 bicycle projects, 33 crossing
and intersection projects, 5 special projects, and 5
recommended studies.
17 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY

LOS ALTOS
HILLS
F
Bicycle Network
Bicycle-Friendly Zones
City of Palo Alto
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, Mobycon 0 1 2
Miles
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
As of 9/1/2025
To Stanford
Figure EX 2: Recommended Bicycle Network
18 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed
Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection
Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or
Underpass
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
City of Palo Alto
Figure EX 3: Low-Stress Bicycle Network
19 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

0. Executive Summary 20

0.4.4 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND TOOLBOX
The pedestrian district toolbox includes a range of selected treatments aimed at improving pedestrian safety and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The elements range from infrastructure improvements, such as raised crossings or curb extensions that improve yielding rates, to aesthetic changes, such as benches or public art, that can elevate the walking experience. Together, these elements will meet universal needs for safety and accessibility and create conditions making walking comfortable and an enjoyable experience for all.

Priority pedestrian areas are key to creating a walkable, accessible, and enjoyable City. They offer areas where walking is prioritized to allow people of all ages and abilities to get around without competing with vehicles.

Within these areas, slower vehicle movement is encouraged, and opportunities are provided for people to pause and enjoy their surroundings. Three pedestrian districts and three priority areas which are focus areas for pedestrian recommendations are included in the 2026 BPTP , these include:

Pedestrian Districts
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area

21 0. Executive Summary 22

0.5 Project Prioritization
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term implementation strategy. This 2026 BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over the next ten years. An initial prioritization was conducted to develop scores for each roadway segment in Palo Alto based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity.

Projects that scored higher than 70 points were advanced to supplemental evaluation along with a subset of additional projects selected for further review. The supplemental evaluation considered project readiness, project cost, and project support to determine the top priority projects for near-term implementation. Table EX 2 presents the prioritization factors and evaluation criteria used in the prioritization process.

Table EX 2: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Note: *Only the projects that scored 70 or more points with a few exceptions in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.

PRIORITIZATION FACTOR CRITERIA
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Recommended Walk & Roll SRTS suggested
route maps
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost and Funding
High, Medium, and LowProject Readiness
Project Support
Near-Term Implementation:

A total of 16 bicycle projects
(covering approximately 12 miles
of the proposed network) and 22
intersection and crossing projects
have been identified for near-term
implementation. These projects
are illustrated in Figure EX 5. The
estimated cost of implementing
all 16 bicycle projects is $12.8
million.

Cost Estimation:

The total cost to implement
all 94 bicycle projects included
in the 2026 BPTP is estimated
at approximately $78 million.

This does not include cost
for intersection and crossing
improvements as they vary
widely by project and cannot be
accurately estimated at this stage.

Funding Strategy:

Bicycle and pedestrian projects
can be funded through a range
of local, regional, state, and
federal sources. To enhance its
competitiveness for these funds,
the City of Palo Alto should
ensure its projects align with
the core goals of the funding
programs—typically centered on
equity, safety, sustainability, and
connectivity.
23 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Near-Term Improvements
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class Ib - Community Street
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Protected Bike Lane
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Railroad
Caltrain Stop
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 5: Proposed Near-Term Projects

1. Introduction 24

1. INTRODUCTION
25 Famous as the birthplace of Silicon Valley, the
City of Palo Alto (City) is also a pioneer in active
transportation, home to the nation’s first bicycle
boulevard on Bryant Street. With its relatively flat
geography, mild climate, abundant green spaces, and
vibrant, historic downtown, the City offers an ideal
setting for walking and bicycling. Strong connections
to Stanford University and regional transit further
enhance its appeal, helping Palo Alto achieve some of
the highest walking and biking rates in the Bay Area
and nation.

The City last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (BPTP) in 2012. That plan
established key planning, policy, and implementation
strategies to enhance the safety and appeal of
walking, biking, and rolling for both transportation and recreation. Since then, the share of residents driving
alone to work has decreased significantly from 64.4%
in 2012 to 51.65% in 2023. The Covid-19 pandemic
also brought major shifts in travel behavior, including a sharp rise in telecommuting. By 2023, 27.9% of Palo
Alto residents worked from home, nearly 2.5 times
the rate in 2019 (9.7%).1 These changes, along with
the growing use of emerging mobility options such
as e-bikes and ridesharing, have prompted the City
to initiate an update to the BPTP to better respond to
current trends and future needs for walking and biking.

The 2026 BPTP reflects community needs and
desires, considers recent trends in cycling and
bicycle technology, and addresses changes in bicycle
and pedestrian planning and design. It builds upon
extensive planning and design efforts already
underway by the City, including the implementation
of the 2012 BPTP , Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety
Action Plan, and land use planning such as the 2023-
2031 Housing Element Update, Downtown Housing
Plan, and the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The 2026
BPTP was drafted in collaboration with the City and the community through multiple phases of engagement
occurring over the course of BPTP development.
1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 and 2023 American Community Survey, Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics by Sex. Accessed June 28, 2025.

A pedestrian is someone
traveling on foot along sidewalks,
crosswalks, or pathways. This also includes
individuals using assistive devices such as
canes, walkers, or wheelchairs.

A bicyclist is a person riding a
bicycle, which may include pedal-
powered bicycles, electric bicycles
(e-bikes) with pedal-assist or
throttle features, and adaptive bicycles
such as hand-cycles or tricycles.

Shared micromobility refers to
the use of small, low-speed
vehicles like bicycles and
scooters that are available
for public rental on a short-
term basis.

1. Introduction 26

1.1 Purpose
The 2026 BPTP serves as a comprehensive action plan
for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. The purpose of the 2026 BPTP is to gather meaningful
input from the community, evaluate progress since the
2012 plan, and update the City’s approach to policies,
programs, and infrastructure that support walking and
biking.

To achieve this purpose, the 2026 BPTP investigates
safety data to propose impactful recommendations,
explores the role of emerging transportation
technologies such as electric-bicycles and micro-
mobility devices, and establishes a long-term vision
to make walking and biking easier, safer, and more
accessible for everyone. This plan is also intended to
support the City’s broader goals, including those in
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan, and the City’s Safety Action Plan.

1.2 Plan Organization
Who Can Use the Bike Lane?
All bicycles are allowed on the bikeway
network, including modified types such as
unicycles, cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, and
longtail bikes. E-bikes with pedal-assist speeds
up to 28 mph are permitted on most bikeways
but are not allowed on unpaved trails (See
Palo Alto Open Space and Park Rules and
Regulations for more information).

Who Can Use the Sidewalk?
Pedestrians can use sidewalk. In Palo Alto,
riding on sidewalks in the California Avenue
and Downtown Business Districts is prohibited
(See Palo Alto MC 10.64.130 (c)).

Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter summarizes the vision statement and
objectives that guided the development of 2026 BPTP .

It includes performance measures that will help track
the City’s progress toward these goals, describes the
relationship between other planning efforts and 2026
BPTP , and summarizes the public engagement efforts.

Chapter 2: Existing Facilities
This chapter documents the existing walking and
bicycling infrastructure in Palo Alto. It analyzes the
walking and bicycle activity, barriers and safety
conditions. It includes information on the use of
micromobility and e-bikes, and bicycle parking.

Chapter 3: Recommendations
This chapter includes the bicycle and pedestrian
recommendations. It includes the process for
developing bikeway network corridor criteria. For
pedestrians, it includes recommendations related to
the pedestrian district guidelines and toolbox. Lastly, it includes recommended policies and programs.

Chapter 4: Implementation and Funding
This chapter includes a prioritization framework
classifying the recommended projects into near- and
long-term categories. Additionally, it includes planning level cost estimates and identifies potential funding
sources.
27 1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking
Walking and biking offer significant public health,
environmental, and economic benefits that align with
the goals for sustainable transportation. The Caltrans’ Toward an Active California plan highlights how active
transportation improves physical and mental health,
reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports
equitable access to mobility.2 Additionally, walking
and biking reduce auto ownership costs, estimated
at $8,500 annually per car and save $830 million
in congestion, collision, and vehicle maintenance
costs for the state of California. Furthermore, active
transportation enhances community character,
supports local businesses, and results in increased
land values.

However, key barriers remain. State and national
reports emphasize challenges such as high-speed
traffic, incomplete or disconnected pedestrian
and bicycle networks, missing first- and last-mile
connections, and a lack of secure bicycle parking. In
Palo Alto, these issues are echoed by local feedback
that calls for safer crossings, better lighting, and more low-stress, separated bicycle facilities. Equity also
remains a concern, with a need to ensure access to
high-quality infrastructure for all ages and abilities. 2 Caltrans. Toward and Active California. 2017. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of- transportation-planning/complete-streets/toward-an-active-california-state-bicycle-pedestrian-plan What does “All Ages and Abilities (AAA)”
mean?
To truly encourage walking and biking,
facilities must be designed for everyone—
not just confident adult men who have
historically been the focus of street design.

An All Ages and Abilities network ensures
that children, seniors, women, people with
disabilities, people of color, low-income
users, bike share riders, and those carrying
goods can travel safely and comfortably.

These groups often face unique barriers,
including safety concerns, visibility challenges,
accessibility needs, inequitable investment,
or inadequate infrastructure. By prioritizing
comfort, traffic separation, and equity, All
Ages and Abilities design expands the reach
of walking and bicycling, enhances mobility
and independence, and makes active
transportation a safe and appealing choice for
all.

1. Introduction 28

1.4 Vision, Objectives, and
Performance Measures
To guide the 2026 BPTP Update, a vision statement and set of objectives were created based on community input gathered during the visioning workshop and early engagement activities. The 2026 BPTP also includes performance measures that will help track the City’s progress toward these goals.

1.4.1 VISION STATEMENT
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.
29 1.4.2 OBJECTIVES
To achieve the vision for the 2026 BPTP , the following objectives were developed that guide the recommendations.

Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability and ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the community while reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations, encouraging a shift away from driving and improving environmental health through lower vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting active transportation, supported by education, programming, and infrastructure investments, in a way that cultivates learning for network users of all ages.

Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes.

Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

1.4.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 1 lists performance measures that have been established to track progress toward achieving the Plan vision and objectives and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling in Palo Alto.

Table 1: Performance Measures

OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORTING PERIOD
Safe and Inclusive
Annual pedestrian and bicycle collisions per 100,000
residents Annual
Annual pedestrian and bicycle killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions per 100,000 residents Annual
Connected and
Accessible
Walk/bike/roll to school and commute mode shares
Annual (school mode share);
Annual (commute mode share)
Walking and biking volumes at key locations Annual
Community-Led
and Cooperative
Number of walking and biking promotion events held per
year at schools in the City Annual
Number (and percent) of schools with at least one
Transportation Safety Representative Annual
Number of open street events held Annual
Number of active pedestrian and/or bicycle advocacy groups Annual Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025

1. Introduction 30
Table 2 outlines potential performance measures that could be introduced as the 2026 BPTP is implemented and as walking, biking, and rolling network grows, prompting the need to expand how the 2026 BPTP is tracked.

Biannually (every 2 years), the City of Palo Alto can consult with the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to determine if the annual performance measures exhibit trends (compared to baseline conditions and year-over-year) that illustrate a clear path forward for allocating resources. If it is determined that additional direction is needed to invest in the network to achieve 2026 BPTP vision and goals, then performance measures such as the following could potentially be established. Developing these measures will require further research and a formalized methodology including identifying reliable data sources that could be tracked periodically.

Table 2: Potential Performance Measures

OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORTING PERIOD
Safe and Inclusive
Number of top pedestrian and bicycle KSI collision or
high injury network locations improved or studied Annual Percentage of existing affordable housing projects
within 1,000 feet of completed and connected
all ages and abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure
(bikeways, trails)
Annual
Connected and
Accessible
Miles of bikeway facilities (per each bikeway type and
total network) Annual
Share of transportation budget spent on walk/bike/
roll improvements Annual
Comfortable and
Enjoyable
Percentage of cycling infrastructure mileage that are
AAA routes or Level of Traffic Stress1 (LTS) 1/2 Annual Canopy coverage percentage of designated walking
and bicycling routes. Annual
Integrated and
Collaborative
Number of completed walking/bicycling projects that
improve cross-jurisdictional gateways Every 3 years
Percentage of transit stops and stations accessible on
AAA cycling routes. Every 3 years
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
Notes: 1Level of traffic stress (LTS) is an approach that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel when they bicycle close to traffic. It is further described in section 2.5.
31 1.5 Setting
Located between the open space preserves of the foothills and the tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, Palo Alto encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, nearly half of which is designated as parks, open space, and Baylands. With an established grid network of streets, vibrant business districts, a well-known park and trail system, and direct proximity to Stanford University, Palo Alto is an ideal place for walking and biking. Flat terrain, tree-lined streets, and a temperate climate also make Palo Alto a relatively easy place to bicycle. Palo Alto’s main transportation corridors are Interstate 280, Highway 101, Highway 84 (the Dumbarton Bridge), State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road. Within the City, commuter rail stations include the Palo Alto University Avenue stop (one of the most frequently used in the Caltrain system) and the California Avenue station. Bus service is primarily provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and limited service is provided by SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit District), Dumbarton Express, and Standford’s Marguerite Shuttle. Since 2012, the City of Palo Alto’s population has remained relatively consistent with around 66,000 residents, whereas the median household income has increased by 55 percent. Image 1 and Table 3 shows the key demographic indicators as obtained from 2023 U.S. Census ACS 1-Year estimates.

Image 1: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023 1-Year Estimates.

1. Introduction 32
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators

DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATOR ESTIMATE
Total Population 65,881
Population Density 2,846 Population per square mile
Sex ratio (males per 100 females) 98.6
Average Household Size 2.35
High School Graduate or Higher 97.6%
Median Household Income $184,068
Per Capita Income $97,307
Unemployment Rate 3.5%
Mean Travel Time to Work 20.4 minutes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023 1-Year Estimates.

1.5.1 KEY DESTINATIONS
There are several key destinations, community amenities, and resources, including medical and education centers, schools, grocery stores, childcare centers, pharmacies, parks, libraries, and transit stops, within a walkable distance of half a mile and a bikeable distance of two miles of many Palo Alto residents.

Figure 1 identifies key destinations, or existing activity generators, that will benefit from improved bicycle and pedestrian connections.

Figure 2 illustrates the 10-minute walk and bike sheds (area that is accessible within 10-minutes of walking or biking based on the existing street network without consideration of available existing facility) for major transit stops, which include Caltrain stations and bus stops served by rapid bus service. These walk and bike shed areas represent the majority of populated areas within the City. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements on streets and sidewalks connecting to these stops are critical in providing safe and comfortable connections to transit.
33 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
M itchell
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta M esa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Wal ter H ays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo V erde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
H oover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Matadero Creek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
Stanford
Medical
Center
Lucile Packard
Children's
Hospital
VA Palo Alto
Medical Care
System
Stanford
Shopping Center
Downtown
Shopping Area
Town &
Country
V illage
California A v enue
Shopping Area
M idtown
Shopping Center
Downtown
Library
Children's
Library
Rinconada
Library
Lucie Stern
Community
Center
Mitchell Park
Community
Center
Cubberley
Community
Center
Jewish
Community
Center
College
Te r r a ce
Library
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Santa Clara
County
Superior
Court
Palo Alto
Transit Center
Stanford
Research
Park
East
Bayshore
San Antonio Road/
Bayshore Corridor
Alma
V illage
Edgewood
Plaza
Palo Alto
Art Center
Charleston
Shopping
Center
Public Safety
Building
!!TC
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
E AST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
City of Palo Alto
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Employment District or Other High-Intensity Uses
School
Parks and Open Space
Community Center
Library
Medical Center
Shopping Center/Area
Employment Center
!!TC Transit Center
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators
34 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
10-Minute Walk Area
10-Minute Bike Area
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops
35 1.6 Relationship to Other Documents
The 2012 BPTP , along with a variety of local, regional, state and federal plans, legislation, and policy directives, provides guidance for the development and safe operation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Appendix A:

Literature Review provides a more detailed review of existing plans and policies.

Across various plans, there is strong alignment
on promoting sustainability, climate action, and
increasing the rate of people walking and biking.

Common vision and goals include:
• Increasing biking and walking trips for all purposes
• Constructing and maintaining safe and accessible
streets for walking and biking and people of all
ages and abilities
• Developing a network of bikeways, pathways,
and traffic-calmed streets that connect various
business districts, residentials areas, open spaces
and parks
• Improving the aesthetics of walkways and bike
paths to attract more walking and biking trips
• Reducing the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Seeking to improve the quality of life, as well
as environmental quality, economic health, and
social equity
The 2030 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
introduces programs and policies such as collecting
bicycle counts and conducting surveys to understand
bicycle use (Program T1.16.1); encouraging
participation in local walking and biking events
(Program T1.16.4); providing facilities that encourage
walking and biking (Policy T-1.19); and prioritizing
investments for enhanced pedestrian access and
bicycle use within Palo Alto (Program T1.19.2).3
Furthermore, the policies align with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Active
Transportation Plan4 and City’s Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Program.

The common themes from the review of documents
surrounding the needs and challenges include:
• Limited access to commercial areas
• Insufficient bike parking
• Safety concerns at crossings and high-traffic areas
• Environmental risks
• Funding uncertainty
• Bicycle theft, and
• Poor infrastructure maintenance
3 City of Palo Alto. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. (2014) Accessed from https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-
Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/2030-
Comprehensive-Plan
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Regional Active Transportation Plan. (2023) Accessed from https://mtc.ca.gov/ planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestrian-micromobility/ regional-active-transportation-plan

1. Introduction 36

1.6.1 RELATIONSHIP TO
CITY’S ONGOING EFFORTS
At the time of the 2026 BPTP development, the City
of Palo Alto was advancing several related planning
efforts, including:
• Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan
• 2023-2031 Housing Element
• San Antonio Road Area Plan
• Downtown Housing Plan
• South Palo Alto Connectivity Project
• Quarry Road Transit Connection at El Camino Park
• Car-Free Streets: California Avenue and Ramona
Street
• El Camino Real Pavement, Rehabilitation, and
Bikeways
• Cubberley Community Center Project
The BPTP team engaged with staff and consultants
leading these initiatives to ensure coordination
and consistency across planning efforts.

Recommendations from projects that were further
along in their development, such as the SS4A Safety
Action Plan and the 2023–2031 Housing Element,
were incorporated into the BPTP as appropriate. The
Safety Action Plan prioritizes addressing risks for
pedestrians on major downtown streets, pedestrians
on arterials at night, youth bicyclists, broadside
collisions between bicyclists and vehicles, and bicycle crossings on high-stress streets. The Housing Element
highlights that improvements to walking and biking
infrastructure can reduce household transportation
costs and enhance residents’ quality of life. It also
promotes strategies such as Pedestrian-Transit
Oriented Development (PTOD) and mixed-use land
development to foster more walkable and bikeable
communities. Other efforts, including the San Antonio
Road Area Plan and the South Palo Alto Connectivity
Project, were still in progress at the time of 2026 BPTP development. The 2026 BPTP recognizes that the
outcomes of these ongoing projects will continue to
inform and influence the recommendations presented
in this plan.

The following active transportation projects were
recommended as a part of the plans reviewed:
• Across barrier connections across the City (Adobe
Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing (completed),
Caltrain/Alma Barrier Crossing at Matadero
Creek (ongoing via the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity Project), etc.)
• Trails and Shared Use Pathway projects
(Embarcadero Road / Rinconada Park Sidepath,
Adobe Creek Reach Trail (completed) etc.)
• Bicycle boulevard projects (Castilleja-Park-Wilkie
Bicycle Boulevard, Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Update, etc.)
• Intersection spot improvements (El Camino Real
Intersection Through-Markings (completed),
Charleston Road at Middlefield Road Bicycle
Through-Lanes (completed), etc.)
• Infrastructure Programs (Bicycle Parking Corral /
Rack Installation Program (on-going), Pedestrian
Countdown Signals & Crossings Program (on-
going), etc.)
• System rehabilitation and Maintenance
(Castilleja Street-Park Boulevard, Lytton Avenue
(completed), etc.)
• Design, Feasibility, and Planning (Middlefield Road
“Complete Street” Plan Line Study, Embarcadero
Road Plan Line Study (completed), etc.)
• Non-Infrastructure - Education Encouragement
(Citywide Traffic Counts and Data Collection, Bike
Palo Alto! / Palo Alto Sunday Streets (on-going)
etc.)
• Freeway interchange improvements (I-280/Page
Mill Interim Improvements (completed))
• Planned Bicycle Bridge/Undercrossing (Stanford
Avenue /Seale Avenue, San Francisquito Creek
Trail (Bay Trail Crossing Complete), Adobe Creek
Bridge (complete))
37 1.7 Public Outreach Summary
The development of the 2026 BPTP was guided by an extensive, four-phase community engagement process: 1) Visioning; 2) Needs & Concerns; 3) Recommended Projects and Programs; and 4) Plan Adoption. The community engagement effort included a combination of digital outreach and in-person events. Events were promoted on the City’s website, social media channels, “Transportation Connect” mailing list, tabling and community events, Uplift local newsletter, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings.

Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement

1. Introduction 38
Key Themes from Phase 1:
• Safety is the top priority, particularly for students traveling to and from school. • Strong demand for separated or wider bike lanes and safer street crossings. • Need for a seamless network that crosses major barriers (e.g., highways, rail). • Direct connections to schools, transit hubs, and key community destinations. • Integration of e-bikes and other micromobility options. • Emphasis on high-quality design, including comfort, aesthetics, wayfinding, and shade. • Education, outreach, and ongoing community input are essential.

PHASE 1:

VISIONING
The initial phase focused on establishing a shared
vision through a variety of public engagement
activities. A variety of methods were used to engage
the public, including an interactive map, public survey (developed and distributed in partnership with the
Safe Streets for All Action Plan team), a series of
seven committee and working group meetings, an
in-person pop-up event at Bike Palo Alto, and a virtual community visioning workshop. Appendix B: Phase
1 – Visioning Community Engagement Summary
summarizes Phase 1 community engagement efforts.

The interactive map received nearly 1,000 unique
comments, with 54 percent citing safety concerns
and 29 percent requesting new infrastructure. Many
comments emphasized the need to close connectivity
gaps in the bicycle network, improve safety,
expand bike lanes for greater comfort, and provide
infrastructure near schools.

Engagement with committees and a staff working
group surfaced several key themes: (1) safety,
especially for students; (2) demand for high-quality
walking and biking infrastructure; (3) the need for
across-barrier connections over obstacles like U.S.
101 and Caltrain; (4) interest in transformative
technologies (e.g., e-bikes, sensors); and (5) alignment of transportation planning with future growth areas
such as San Antonio Road.

At the Bike Palo Alto event, residents echoed the
importance of separated bikeway and identified
El Camino Real as a major barrier. The visioning
workshop led to the development of a vision
statement and the objectives presented in Chapter 2.

Image 3: Virtual Visioning Workshop held on January
31, 2024
Image 4: Bike Palo Alto Event held on October 1, 2023

39 PHASE 2:

NEEDS & CONCERNS
The second phase of engagement included a series of
committee and working group meetings and a week-
long series of events and workshops that included a
bicycle network development workshop, a community
walking tour, and a community cycle tour. Appendix C:

Phase 2 – Needs & Concerns Community Engagement
Summary summarizes Phase 2 community
engagement efforts.

The Bikeway Network Development workshop guided
participants to identify key destinations, connect
destinations through a schematic “Star” network, and
apply the schematic network to the street grid. The
resulting networks highlighted the need for crossing
across railway tracks and opportunities to improve
facilities on major roads such as Middlefield Road, El
Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road.

The community walking tour, hosted in partnership
with Avenidas (a senior activity center), explored
University Avenue and the Palo Alto Caltrain Station
area. Feedback from the tour contributed to the
development of the Pedestrian Design Guidelines.

The community bike tour, organized with the Silicon
Valley Bicycle Coalition, involved 24 community
members and covered a range of existing bicycle
facility types over a seven-mile bike ride. Participants emphasized the need for smoother transitions
between street types, stronger connectivity, and
infrastructure that supports riders of all ages and
abilities.

Image 5: Bicycle Network Development Workshop
Image 6: Community Walking Tour
Key Themes from Phase 2:
• Strengthen the existing network by addressing critical gaps. • Prioritize improvements along key corridors, including San Antonio Road, Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, and El Camino Real.
• Enhance sidewalk continuity, wayfinding, and placemaking in pedestrian-oriented areas such as University Avenue and California Avenue.
• Improve transitions between different types of bicycle facilities to create a smoother, more consistent experience.

1. Introduction 40
PHASE 3:

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
This phase sought feedback on draft project and program concepts through focus group meetings (3), committee meetings (3), commission meetings (2), a public workshop, tabling and public events, online interactive map feedback and electronic feedback submissions. Appendix D: Phase 3 – Recommended Project & Programs Community Engagement Summary summarizes Phase 3 community engagement efforts.

Discussions with focus groups, commission and committee members highlighted concerns about the cost and return on investment on bikeways on “Big Streets.” There appeared to be consensus on the need for micromobility supporting infrastructure, pedestrian-oriented streets, implementation of bike boulevards, Quick- Build projects, wayfinding, and, most importantly, safety enhancements.

A joint workshop for the 2026 BPTP and South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity5 project was held at the Mitchell Park Community Center. Key takeaways included strong support for expanding the pedestrian toolbox with features such as pedestrian beacons, pedestrian-only zones, raised crossings, wider sidewalks, permanent wayfinding, and improved bike parking. Feedback on separated bikeway was mixed.

In addition to in-person events, an online interactive map and feedback form were made available on the project website. The map tool collected over 400 public comments, with 40 percent expressing support for improvements along corridors like Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue, Quarry Road, Charleston Road, and Oregon Expressway. Some (13%) raised concerns about specific treatments, while 24 percent opposed certain proposals, particularly where they could impact vehicle traffic—such as on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road, and Embarcadero Road. Several commenters suggested leveraging creek corridors for non-motorized transportation.

The feedback form received over 100 responses, which largely supported making Palo Alto more bike- and pedestrian-friendly but also raised concerns about the safety and practicality of certain proposed projects, particularly those involving busy arterial roads and parking removal. 5 City of Palo Alto. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Accessed from www.paloalto.gov/bikepedcrossings Key Themes from Phase 3:
• Mixed reactions to “Big Streets” projects while they provide direct connections, many questioned their overall return on investment.
• Strong call for a clearer prioritization framework that accounts for real-world constraints. • Desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations.
• Emphasis on improving overall network connectivity and cohesion. • Support for non-infrastructure strategies such as education, policy tools, funding mechanisms, and planning for emerging mobility modes.
41 PHASE 4:

PLAN ADOPTION
The final phase involved presenting the draft 2026 BPTP Update to committees, commissions and Council for review and adoption.

2. Existing Facilities 42

2. EXISTING FACILITIES
43 This chapter provides an overview of walking and biking in Palo Alto and presents relevant demographic data, existing walking and biking infrastructure, the High Injury Bicycle and Pedestrian Network, and the results of the bicycle level of traffic stress analysis. This inventory and analysis of existing conditions sets the stage for identifying pedestrian and bicycle needs and informs the prioritization process and network recommendations.

A pedestrian is someone traveling on foot along sidewalks, crosswalks, or pathways. This also includes individuals using assistive devices such as canes, walkers, or wheelchairs. A bicyclist is a person riding a bicycle, which may include pedal-powered bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes) with pedal-assist or throttle features, and adaptive bicycles such as hand-cycles or tricycles. Shared micromobility refers to the use of small, low-speed vehicles like bicycles and scooters that are available for public rental on a short-term basis.

2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Facilities that support people walking include sidewalks, shared-use paths, and trails, as well as crossing facilities such as curb ramps and marked crosswalks. Amenities such as street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, pedestrian-oriented wayfinding, shade, benches, water fountains, and landscaping also serve to support and create an environment that is convenient and inviting for people walking.

Sidewalk on Hamilton Avenue.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Marked crosswalks and curb ramps at University
Avenue and Ramona Street.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2. Existing Facilities 44
Sidewalk shade on University Avenue.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Pedestrian-oriented wayfinding signage on Hamilton
Avenue.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Sidewalks are generally provided throughout Palo Alto on its arterial and residential streets, providing walking connectivity to destinations such as schools, parks, retail, and transit. However, there are some gaps in the sidewalk network, including around key walking destinations such as rail and bus rapid transit stops. For example, the presence of sidewalk gaps along Palo Alto Avenue (near Palo Alto Transit Station) and along San Antonio Road (near San Antonio Transit Station) affect the directness and convenience of walking to and from high quality transit service. In addition, some neighborhoods may lack complete sidewalk networks on their residential streets, such as those within proximity of San Antonio Transit Station.

Marked crosswalks are provided at signalized and unsignalized intersections in the City. However, there are locations where consistent marked crosswalks are lacking. For example, at-grade arterials and expressways which bisect the City can have marked crosswalks that are limited and distant from one another. In addition, some signalized intersections do not provide marked crosswalks at all four legs, requiring pedestrians to undertake a three-stage crossing; for example, this condition occurs in proximity of Palo Alto Transit Station. Some signalized intersections also lack pedestrian crossing signals especially in key commercial areas like Downtown Palo Alto.

The unsignalized intersections of side streets at arterial streets often lack marked crosswalks in any direction; for example, this condition is present near California Avenue Transit Station along streets such as Page Mill Road, California Avenue, and El Camino Real.
45 2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Facilities that support people bicycling include bike lanes, bike boulevards, separated bikeway, shared-use paths, and trails, as well as crossing facilities such as protected intersections and conflict zone markings. Amenities such as bicycle parking, bicycle-oriented wayfinding, and bicycle signals also serve to support and create an environment that is convenient and inviting for people bicycling.

The City of Palo Alto has been a pioneer in developing bicycle facilities, having implemented the first Bicycle Boulevard in the United States on Bryant Street in the 1970s. The corridor is named in honor of Ellen Fletcher, a longtime councilwoman and former Palo Alto Vice-Mayor who helped transform the City into a nationally recognized bike-friendly community through her persistent advocacy.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I, II, III, and IV, as illustrated in Image 7. In addition to these statewide classifications, the City of Palo Alto uses further sub- classifications: Class IIa – standard bike lanes, Class IIb – buffered bike lanes, Class IIIa – bike routes, and Class IIIb – bike boulevards.

Image 7: Types of Bicycle Facilities
Source: Caltrans, Toward an Active California, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2017.

Note: A pedestrian or bicycle facility is any infrastructure designed to support, enhance, and encourage bicycle use by improving the safety and convenience for pedestrians or bicyclists.

2. Existing Facilities 46
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025
FACILITY TYPE 2012 2025
Class I Multi-Use Path 13.9 11.7
Class II Bike Lane 33.2 34.6
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.3
Class III Shared Lane 8.0 12.6
Class III Bicycle Boulevard 4.2 7.1
Class IV Separated Bikeway* 4.3
TOTAL 59.3 73.5
Source: 2012 BPTP
Note: Includes the recently constructed El Camino Real separated bikeway. 2012 lane mile data is sourced from the 2012 BPTP; 2025 lane mileage is calculated using the 2025 roadway centerline file. The Class I length has not decreased between 2012 and 2025—differences are due only to the calculation method.

Figure 3 illustrates the existing bikeway network in Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions. In 2012, the City had

59.3 miles of bikeways. Since then, approximately 14 miles have been added, bringing the total to 73.5 miles as of 2025. Notably, there were no Class II buffered or Class IV separated bikeway in 2012; today, the City boasts

3.3 miles of buffered bike lanes and 4.3 miles of separated bikeways. Table 4 includes comparison between 2012 bicycle network mileage with existing network in 2025.

2.2.1 EXISTING DOWNTOWN BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES
In December 2024, a team conducted a comprehensive inventory of bicycle parking facilities along University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, and Lytton Avenue between Middlefield Road and the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain Station. Figure 4 shows the distribution of bicycle parking locations within this area. The team identified a total of 142 locations, providing capacity for up to 679 bicycles in a variety of rack types, including inverted U – circular, inverted U - rectangle, series inverted U, elevated racks, wave racks, and lockers.

High utilization was observed at many locations, particularly near University Avenue and the Caltrain Station.

Most bike parking is conveniently located on or near sidewalks. However, some individuals were observed securing bicycles to sign poles or trees, likely for convenience or due to limited availability. The detailed observation and analysis from the bicycle parking survey is presented in Appendix E: Bicycle Parking Data Collection Summary.

47 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Library
Community Center
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
48 ∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
H om er Ave
F orest Ave
E verett AveCowp er St
Waverl ey St
B ryan t St
E m erson St
Al m a St
Web ster St
Palo Alto
Caltrain
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
E AST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Elevated
Inverted U
Wave
Locker
Other
Study Area
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
Commercial Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 500 1,000
Feet
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location
49 2.3 Walking and Biking Activity
Existing walking and biking activity data was analyzed, including travel characteristics such as the purpose of the trip, trip duration, time of day, origin and destination, and traveler demographics. This information is used to identify improvements that would lead to the highest return on investment.

The 2026 BPTP utilizes surveys, counts, and location-based data from Replica to understand the existing walking and biking activity. The Spring 2023 data from Replica was included as part of this analysis for bicycle and pedestrian trips originating within two miles of city limits.

Additional details are provided in Appendix F: Future Activity Levels and Benefits Analysis Memorandum.

Replica (Big-Data provider) uses a comprehensive modeling technique that simulates the movements of residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles based on a synthetic population. This synthetic population is statistically representative of our community and constructed from a blend of mobile location data, consumer/resident data, built environment data, economic activity data, and, when available, bike and pedestrian counts. 1
Replica uses cell phone telemetry data to determine the relative popularity of points of interest.

However, it’s important to note that this data isn’t utilized to determine the mode of transportation for a trip. This is because the GPS-derived speed of a device lacks the precision necessary to differentiate between modes such as bus trips and biking trips. Instead, the determination of a trip’s mode is based on factors such as the proximity between the origin and destination, the availability of roadways suitable for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as household and commute characteristics. These variables collectively influence the mode choice.

Replica’s methodology allows us to explore mobility patterns with a granularity previously unattainable, offering detailed insights into how, when, and why different population segments navigate our City. Such detailed modeling can uncover latent needs and opportunities for infrastructure improvements that might not be evident from traditional data sources alone. 1 For more information on Replica methodology, visit: https://documentation.replicahq.com/docs/seasonal-mobility-model- methodology-summary-places

2. Existing Facilities 50
Walking Activity
Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of walking trips were associated with shopping (31%), work (9%), and restaurant (9%) related trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanic and Latino travelers represent 20% of the total walking trips. With about 15% of the population, people aged 18-34 made almost 37% of the total walk trips. The peak time for pedestrian trips occurs between 3 and 5 p.m. Most walking trips are under 5 minutes with a mean of 11 minutes and median of 7 minutes. Most walking trips (56%) are under 0.5-mile, and 96% of trips are under two miles. Major destinations include Stanford University with other walking hubs in downtown, Barron Park, and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park.

Biking Activity
Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of biking trips was associated with schools and colleges (17%), followed by shopping (11%) and work (8%) trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanics and Latinos represent 20% of the total bike trips. With about 15% of the population, people aged 18-34 made almost 45% of the total bike trips. The highest percentage of trips in the morning occurs at 7 a.m., constituting around 11% of the overall bike trips. Over 59% of trips take place between 12 noon and 9 p.m., with the peak time observed at 3 p.m., representing 13% of the total bike trips. The average bike trip is 14.2 minutes, and the median travel time is 10 minutes. The average bike trip length is 2.5 miles, and 56% of trips are less than two miles in length, 23% are between 2 and 4 miles, and 20% are over two miles.

Walking and Biking in Numbers
To assess existing walking and biking activity at key locations, 12-hour bicycle and pedestrian counts were conducted from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at 32 locations citywide on both a weekday and a weekend in May 2024. The highest pedestrian activity was recorded along University Avenue on both days, followed by Embarcadero Road and California Avenue. Pedestrian volumes were relatively consistent across the morning, midday, and evening peak periods, with slightly higher activity observed during the morning peak. Bicycle activity was highest along Bryant Street, particularly near Churchill Avenue. On weekdays, bicycle volumes peaked in the morning, while weekend activity was more evenly distributed throughout the day.

2.3.2 POTENTIAL AND FUTURE ACTIVITY
Approximately 49% of all vehicle trips are less than two miles (10-minute biking distance), presenting an opportunity for a potential transition to walking and biking. With a diverse land use mix and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, there is a possibility to encourage a mode shift towards active transportation.

Furthermore, the City is exploring the option of shared micromobility options, and the rising popularity of e-bikes could further assist the City in achieving its climate action goals of reducing transportation-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 65% below 1990 levels.

Figure 5 shows the latent demand score for walking and biking. The latent demand score is a measure of the relative amount of walking or biking activity that would be expected on each roadway segment based on proximity to key destinations and the quality of the existing pedestrian or bicycle facility.

The highest demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities is around the Downtown Caltrain Station and California Avenue Caltrain Station. This map was developed based on the key destinations and their relative usage. The other locations with the highest demand include areas near Mitchell Park and JLS Middle School stretching west of El Camino Real along Arastradero Road. Investing in bicycle infrastructure improvements along these roadways would be most beneficial in serving the major activity generators. 51 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Low Demand
High Demand
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 5: Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements

2. Existing Facilities 52

2.4 Barriers to Walking and Biking
Barriers to safely and comfortably walking and biking in Palo Alto can take many forms, such as:
• Linear barriers, including freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines that lack comfortable crossings. • Gaps in pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalk markings, and signals, or the street network itself (e.g., disconnected cul-de-sacs).

Major barriers in Palo Alto were analyzed to determine where people may need to take detours and increase the length of their walking and biking trips. This assessment is summarized below, with additional details provided in Appendix G: Major Barriers Analysis Memorandum.

Linear barriers in Palo Alto consist of the following, as illustrated in Figure 6:
• Freeways and highways – Major roadway barriers such as the Bayshore Freeway (US 101), which provides limited crossing opportunities at bicycle and pedestrian bridge at Adobe Creek and Embarcadero, spaced-out ramp locations, as well as expressways such as the Oregon Expressway which do not provide marked crossing opportunities at several side-street intersections.
• Water bodies – Channels such as Adobe Creek or Matadero Canal cannot be crossed by an easily accessible street or pedestrian bridge.
• Rail lines – Freight and passenger rail lines often provide few and distant crossing opportunities for all modes, significantly increasing the distance of walking trips.

Freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines were analyzed to answer the following questions:

How far does someone need to walk to cross a barrier at an available crossing location? Is there a lack of available crossings at a barrier that requires someone to travel a significant distance around that barrier?

53 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Rail Barrier
Freeway/Highway
Barrier
Waterway Barrier
High Traffic
Roadway Barrier
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike
Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial
Center
Community Center
Library
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 6: Linear Barriers

2. Existing Facilities 54
Note that the linear barriers assessment specifically focuses on freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines, and does not assess major streets which can be stressful for walking and bicycling and serve as barriers. This assessment found that a number of linear barriers affect the convenience of walking and bicycling in Palo Alto:
• A lack of consistently available crossing opportunities across Highway 101 results in noticeable detours for walking trips. The most significant gap in crossing opportunities occurs between the two walking and bicycling bridges over the highway, limiting access to the Adobe Creek Loop Trail. • People walking and bicycling may need to divert and increase their trip lengths to pass around Adobe Creek, especially to the south. This highest level of diversions occur in the area between the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path and the Foothill Expressway, where the creek runs between the Alta Mesa Memorial Park to the west and residences to the east.
• Crossing Matadero Canal may require detours that approximately double the walking or bicycling trip distance, which can be increased due to the presence of the rail line. • There are multiple areas along the rail line where substantial walking and bicycling diversions are required for crossing. These include the approximately 0.65-mile gap between the Churchill Avenue and California Avenue crossings and the approximately 1.3-mile gap between the California Avenue and Meadow Drive crossings in south Palo Alto.

Barriers to transit access consisting of gaps in pedestrian facilities and street network connectivity were assessed in the areas surrounding the City’s rail stations and high-frequency bus stops, as shown in Figure 7. Gaps in safe and convenient walking access to high-quality transit vary throughout the City:
• Near the Palo Alto Station, Palo Alto Transit Center, and El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road bus stops, barriers to transit access consist of channelized turn lanes, crossing locations with missing marked crosswalks, and sidewalk gaps, including longer segments where a sidewalk is only provided on one side of the street.
• Near the California Avenue Station and El Camino Real/California Avenue bus stops, barriers to transit access include missing crosswalks, sidewalks (south side of the California Avenue Caltrain Station parking lot), and a channelized turn-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. • Near the San Antonio Station and El Camino Real/Charleston Road bus stops, barriers to transit access primarily consists of a lack of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods and along a portion of San Antonio Road.

55 ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
M itchell
Park
H oover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta M esa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Wal ter H ays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo V erde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
H oover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Matadero Creek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U __`101 §¨¦
280
∙þ82
E AST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Caltrain Station
®¯U Rapid Bus Stop
Rail Station Half-Mile Buffer
Rapid Bus Stop Quarter-Mile Buffer
Railroad
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, VTA, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 7: Transit Barrier Study Areas

2. Existing Facilities 56

2.5 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 with LTS 1 indicating low stress facility and LTS 4 indicating a high stress facility, as shown in Image 6.

Image 8: Relationship between LTS and Comfort
The segment analysis considers roadway functional classification, vehicle volume, posted or prevailing vehicle speeds, number of vehicle lanes, the presence of on-street parking, and vehicle parking and bicycle lane widths.

Figure 8 shows the LTS results from segment analysis. Streets with the highest stress levels or least comfortable conditions for bicyclists are typically those with narrow bike lanes (less than 5.5 feet), higher speeds (over 35 mph), multiple travel lanes, and adjacent on-street parking. Based on these criteria, the most stressful segments were identified along Alma Street between Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road, Oregon Expressway between the US 101 ramps and El Camino Real, San Antonio Road between Casey Avenue (Mountain View) and Alma Street, and Foothill Expressway between Page Mill Road and the eastern city limit.

The crossing analysis considers the right-turn lane configuration and length, bike lane approach, vehicle turning speeds, and the presence of a median refuge. Among the 1,233 intersections, 139 are signalized and are assigned LTS 1 as traffic signals do not create a barrier and provide a protected way across. The remaining low stress intersections are typically located on residential streets characterized by low speeds and minimal vehicular activity. Notably, the corridors with the highest stress levels, including El Camino Real, Alma Street, San Antonio Road, and Oregon Expressway, are associated with the majority of high stress intersections. Figure 9 shows the LTS results from the crossing analysis. Detailed LTS methodology and evaluation summary is presented in Appendix H: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Memorandum.

LTS 1
California Avenue in front
Greene Middle School
LTS 2
Hanover Street
near Page Mill Road
LTS 3
Meadow Drive
near Wilkie Way
LTS 4
San Antonio Road
near Leghorn Streets
57 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
Note: Split lines are only used for roadways
with different conditions per direction (for
example: bike lane in only one direction or
parking only on one side), otherwise all roads
are shown with only a centerline.

As of 9/1/2025
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results
58 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 9: Intersection LTS Results
59 2.6 Collision Analysis
Analyzing pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions helps understand the location, severity, circumstances, and timing of collisions affecting people walking and biking. Recent collision data from 2018 to 2022 was analyzed to help determine the streets and types of improvements that should be prioritized to make it safer for people walking and biking. This assessment is summarized below, with additional details provided in Appendix I:

Collision and Safety Analysis Memorandum.

Table 3 presents an overview of the five-year collision data. For the five years under review, a total of 104 pedestrian and 257 bicycle collisions were reported in the City of Palo Alto, with three collisions involving both pedestrians and bicyclists. Around 12%, or 12, of the pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality (3 collisions) or severe injury (9 collisions). Around 5%, or 13, of the bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality (one collision) or severe injury (12 collisions). These collisions are organized by year and by severity in Figure 10 and Figure 11; they are mapped by severity in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

2. Existing Facilities 60
Key pedestrian and bicycle collision trends are summarized below:
• Severity: Collisions involving people walking or biking were more likely to result in an injury or a fatality compared to motor vehicle collisions. Approximately 12% of pedestrian collisions and 5% of bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• Temporal Trends: The number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions has been decreasing over the most recent five-year period (2018-2022) likeley reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on traffic patterns. • Bicycle Collision Types: The most commonly-cited collision types for bicyclist-involved collisions were broadside collisions (61%) followed by sideswipe collisions (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions specifically, the most common collision types were broadside collisions (54%), followed by head-on and hit object collisions (15% each).
• Pedestrian Collision Factors: The most commonly-cited primary collision factors (PCFs) for pedestrian- involved collisions were pedestrian right of way (51%) followed by pedestrian violation and improper turning (13% each).2 For fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions specifically, the most common PCFs were pedestrian violation at (42%), improper turning (25%), and pedestrian right of way at (17%). • Bicycle Collision Factors: The most commonly-cited PCFs for bicycle-involved collisions were improper turning (21%), automobile right of way (19%), and riding on the wrong side of the road (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions specifically, the most common PCFs were improper turning and traffic signals and signs (23% each).3
An analysis of the collision data and Palo Alto’s roadway network was conducted to identify a set of bicycle and pedestrian high-injury streets, together called a High-Injury Network (HIN). For the 2026 BPTP , the Bicycle HIN is defined as the top 10 roadway segments with the highest concentration of bicycle collisions, weighted by severity. Similarly, the Pedestrian HIN is defined as the roadway segments with the highest concentration of pedestrian collisions. Note, the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan also identifies an HIN which accounts for collisions involving all travel modes, including collisions involving motor vehicles only. The bicycle and pedestrian HIN constitutes the worst-performing street segments based on both the frequency and the severity of collisions involving people walking and biking. The bicycle HIN and pedestrian HIN are shown in Figure 14.

Bicycle HIN Includes Pedestrian HIN Includes
• Wilton Ave between Park Blvd and El Camino Real • High St between Lytton Ave and Channing Ave • W Meadow Dr between Alma St and El Camino Way • Quarry Rd between El Camino Real & Vineyard Ln • Alma St between Meadow Dr and El Verano Ave • El Dorado Ave between Alma St & Cowper St • Gailen Ave between Bibbits Dr and Grove Ave • South Ct between Oregon Expy & Matadero Creek • Quarry Rd between El Camino Real and Welch Rd • Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St • Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St • California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St • Melville Ave between Channing Ave & Embarcadero Rd • Waverly St between Lytton Ave and Churchill Ave • California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St • Charleston Rd between Alma St & San Antonio Rd • Charleston Rd between Alma St and Embarcadero Rd • University Ave between Alma St & Woodland Ave • E Meadow Dr between Fabian Way and Alma St • Loma Verde Ave between Alma St & Bayshore Rd 2 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violation – Occurs when a driver fails to yield to a pedestrian who has the legal right-of-way, such as at a marked or unmarked crosswalk (CVC §21950).

Pedestrian Violation – Refers to instances where a pedestrian fails to follow traffic laws, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk (CVC §§21954, 21955).

Improper Turning – Describes a collision caused by a motorist making a left or right turn that violates traffic regulations, such as turning from the wrong lane or failing to yield appropriately (CVC §§22100–22101). 3 Traffic Signals and Signs - describes a party disobeying a traffic control device, such as a traffic signal or roadside sign (CVC §§38280- 38302).
61 Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022)

PARTIES INVOLVED FATAL SEVERE
INJURY

MODERATE
INJURY
MINOR
INJURY

REPORTED
TOTAL
Pedestrian 3 (2.9%) 9 (8.7%) 49 (47.1%) 43 (41.3%) 104
Bicyclist 1 (0.4%) 12 (4.7%) 175 (68.1%) 69 (26.8%) 257 Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 Source: TIMS data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 62 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022) 63 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022)
64 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Bicycle High Injury Network
Pedestrian High Injury Network
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network
65 2.7 Shared Micromobility and E-bikes
Electrification of the transportation system has expanded in various ways with the development of electric bicycles (e-bikes) (which now out-sell electric cars in the USA) and e-scooters. The widespread use of internet- connected mobile phones has also allowed shared mobility to take off with bike, e-bike, and e-scooter sharing systems being implemented in cities around the world. A summary of shared micromobility and e-bikes is presented in this section and additional information is presented in Appendix J: E-Bikes and Shared Micromobility Memorandum.

Electric Bicycles: The State of California Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) defines e-bikes as “a bicycle
equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric
motor of less than 750 watts.” California Vehicle Code
§ 312.5 preempts cities from regulating e-bike traffic
provisions unless the legislature specifically authorizes it.4 Within this definition, the DMV has established
three classes of e-bikes.
• Class 1: A low-speed, pedal-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a motor which provides
assistance only when the rider is pedaling and
ceases to provide assistance when a speed of 20
mph is reached.
• Class 2: A low-speed, throttle-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a motor used exclusively to
propel the bicycle and not capable of providing
assistance when a speed of 20 mph is reached.
• Class 3: A low-speed, pedal-assisted electric
bicycle equipped with a speedometer, and a
motor which provides assistance only when the
rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance
when a speed of 28 mph is reached.
4 California Vehicle Code. Defining electric bicycle classes and standards. Accessed from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle- code/veh-sect-312-5/
E-bikes enable people to travel further by bicycle
and can contribute to increased mode shifts and
decongestion if they are replacing trips that would
otherwise be made by personal automobile. Studies
show that e-bike riders travel further and cycle more
often with one study from 2020 finding that after
purchasing an e-bike, riders increased their total
bicycle usage from 1.3 miles to 5.7 miles per day and
that their share of all trips made by bike increased
from 17% to 49%.

Although the advantages of e-bikes far outweigh the
disadvantages, there are some challenges that must
be addressed. E-bikes can allow users to travel at
relatively high speeds, which may present a safety risk to e-bike users and other active transportation users
(pedestrians, traditional cyclists) around them when
there is a great speed differential. Additionally, while e-bikes are not drastically different than traditional
bicycles, safely and effectively accommodating them
in the transportation system requires wider facilities
and additional separation to enable faster riders to
overtake slower ones. Facility recommendations and
design guidance developed for this BPTP Update
consider potential increases in bike volumes and
greater speed differential related to increases in
e-bike usage.

2. Existing Facilities 66
Shared Micromobility: The United States Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) defines micromobility as “any small, low-
speed, human- or electric-powered transportation
device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist
bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other
small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances.” Generally,
micromobility vehicles (or devices) are expected to
operate in the same road space as bicycles, using bike
lanes and paths if available, otherwise sharing the
roadway with motorists. While there is no California
statewide law specifically permitting or prohibiting
riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, the State DMV does
not allow motorized scooters to be used on sidewalks
and does not allow them to exceed 15 mph. In Palo
Alto, riding on sidewalks in the Cal Ave and Downtown
Business Districts is prohibited.5 E-scooter users under the age of 18 must wear a helmet and users must
have a valid driver’s license.

Over the past decade, a variety of shared
micromobility systems have emerged with the most
common being shared e-scooters and e-bike share
systems. While e-bikes and e-scooters are the most
common form of micromobility, some niche forms
are emerging including e-cargo bikes, mopeds, and
neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), although these
forms of mobility are yet to become widespread.

Advancements in technology have allowed many
systems to now use a hybrid docked and dockless
system based on geofencing. Municipalities and
operators can now designate specific zones for
parking shared micromobility vehicles, reducing the
need for docking infrastructure while still allowing the municipality control over where vehicles can park.
5 City of Palo Alto. Bicyclist FAQs: Sharing the Road. Accessed from https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/ safe-routes-to-schools/sharing-
the-road_-bicyclist-faqs-1.pdf
California’s New Daylighting Law (AB 413) makes it
illegal to park a vehicle within 20 feet of a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) regardless of whether the
curb is painted red. This applies only to the direction of travel when you are approaching a crosswalk. This
provides an opportunity for the City to allow parking
of bicycles and shared micromobility.6
The City of Palo Alto adopted a one-year bicycle and
electric scooter sharing pilot program in March 2018
(City Manager Report #8546) and developed permit
guidelines for vendors to operate within the City of
Palo Alto. The City Council extended pilot program
in 2019 (Resolution #9822), in 2020 (Resolution
#9882), and in 2021 (Resolution #9914). The pilot
program implementation was initially delayed due to
staff resources and delayed further as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot program expired on
September 30, 2022, and other shared micromobility
partnerships have not been secured since the 37-bike
system run by Motivate was discontinued.

The City of Palo Alto began the Shared Micromobility
Feasibility Study in December 2024 to determine a
program structure that would best serve the City’s
goals for mobility, environmental sustainability,
and fiscal solvency. The recommendations from the
Feasibility Study will inform the design of a new pilot program. As a part of the study, the City is exploring opportunities to collaborate with neighboring
jurisdictions for a regional shared micromobility
system, including joining the Bay Wheels partnership
with MTC and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). In early
2026, City staff will present recommendations to City
Council for a pilot program to be initiated in summer
of 2026.
6 California Bicycle Coalition. Nine Uses for Daylighting Space.

Accessed from https://www.calbike.org/nine-uses-for-daylighting- space/

67 3. Recommendations 68

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

69 The vision for the BPTB Update includes creating a safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian network that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities. To build on the strengths of the existing bikeway network, the recommended bikeway network is structured around two tiers: The Low-Stress Bicycle Network and the Complete Vision Bicycle Network.

Low-Stress Bicycle Network
The Low-Stress Bicycle Network forms the foundation
for citywide bicycle connectivity, expanding on existing low-stress routes between neighborhoods. Built
primarily around Bicycle Boulevards, this network uses
traffic-calmed local streets to provide safe, comfortable routes through residential areas. It also includes key
connections to adjacent cities and destinations. Major
streets with separated bikeways are included on the
Low-Stress Bicycle Network only where the street
network is disconnected and major roadways are
the only way to/through a neighborhood. The City’s
near-term investments will focus on the Low-Stress
Network, closing gaps in the existing network and
providing greater access to transit and schools within
the next ten years.

Complete Vision Bicycle Network
The Complete Vision Bicycle Network represents
the long-term vision for a fully connected, all-ages-
and-abilities bikeway system. It expands the Low-
Stress Network by adding separated bikeways on
major streets, filling critical gaps and enabling direct connections to destinations. Implementation of this
network involves more significant changes to street
design, delivering transformative improvements in
safety, access, and mobility. This network includes new railroad crossings and connections to those longer-
term crossings.

This chapter describes the network corridor criteria, project identification and prioritization process, and pedestrian districts and recommendations.

3. Recommendations 70

3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria
To guide bicycle network development, the following development approach and network corridor criteria were applied. The approach includes primary network development criteria which was further supplemented with secondary criteria for network refinement. The detailed network corridor criteria and development approach is provided in Appendix K: Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach.

3.1.1 PRIMARY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
The network is built on the 2012 BPTP and refined with recent planning efforts in Palo Alto and the region including MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan; VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and SRTS suggested route maps. The first round of network development synthesized these plans into a bikeway network where these plans align and agree, as well as identifying street segments and routes with less planning consensus. The primary network development criteria are presented in Table 4.

Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria

ATTRIBUTE SOURCE CRITERIA RATIONALE
2012 Plan
Network
Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Route included in the 2012
plan network Foundation of the plan update.

Existing Bicycle
Facility
2024 Existing Bicycle
Facilities map
Route exists today as a formal
bicycle facility
Existing routes have value by
virtue of their presence and
current use.

Palo Alto
Bicycle Map Palo Alto Bicycle Map Route included in the City published user map.

User map published by the City of
Palo Alto, identifying bike friendly
routes today.

High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
2024 High Injury
Network for Bicyclists
Route identified as a high
injury network street in the
2024 BPTP Collision and
Safety Analysis
Route is a potential safety hazard
today, may be enhanced to
become an important or improved
network link.
2016 Bike
Boulevard
Improvements
Project
City of Palo Alto
Bike Boulevards
Improvements Project
Route included in Bike
Boulevard Improvement
Project
Detailed planning of future bicycle
boulevard implementation offers
a more recent vetting of viable
routes.

Network
Development
Workshop
2024 Network
Development Workshop
Outcomes
Route identified on the
2024 Network Development
Workshops
Network development workshops
identified key destinations and
potential direct routes between
them.

Regional Active
Transportation
Plans
MTC Regional Active
Transportation Plan; VTA
Bicycle Superhighway
Implementation Plan
Route identified as a part of
the regional AT network or
Bicycle Superhighway Plan
Regionally significant connection
between communities.

Safe Routes to
School SRTS route maps Route identified on a SRTS
suggested route map
Important connection to schools
as a priority destination
Source: Mobycon, 2025
71 3.1.2 SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR NETWORK REFINEMENT
Where multiple route options exist, secondary criteria were used to support route selection and refinement.

When selecting between alternative routes the following was considered:
• More direct route to community destinations, as identified in the Community Destinations map. • Traffic stress conditions as identified in the LTS Analysis to identify routes with more favorable existing conditions.
• Direct alignment with high demand flows as identified in the Activity Analysis map of bicycle Origins and Destinations.
• Routes that overcome barriers identified in the Major Barriers Analysis.

3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network and
Facilities

3.2.1 BICYCLE NETWORK
Figure 15 shows the updated bikeway network and bicycle friendly zones developed using the network corridor criteria explained in the previous section. The map extends outside the City limits to illustrate the potential regional connections. It presents the complete vision of the bicycle network, including both the existing facilities and the low-stress network.

Bicycle-Friendly Zones are cohesive areas with concentrations of destinations, commercial activity, and pedestrian activity. These areas should see area-wide investment in bicycle-friendly amenities such as signal timing and traffic calming. A bicycle friendly zone is an area where cycling is convenient, comfortable, and direct on all of the streets within a designated area and is the preferred method of transportation. The commercial areas around University Avenue and California Avenue are the two proposed zones in the BPTP Update. All streets within these districts should have elements of traffic calming so that bicyclists and other micromobility users can conveniently and comfortably share the space. Additionally, signage should be included to indicate to people that they are in a bicycle-friendly zone.

72 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY

Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes prioritize motor vehicles over
people riding bicycles and feature minimal signage
and striping. In the 2026 BPTP , the Class III Bike Route is not proposed. Instead, bike boulevards or advisory
bike lanes are proposed to prioritize bicycling and
include traffic calming features to promote the use of
facility by users of all ages and abilities. Existing bike routes such as Cowper Street or Oregon Avenue (see
Image 9) that are already part of the bike network
will be upgraded to either bike boulevards or advisory
bike lanes. For routes located on higher-traffic or
higher-speed streets, context-appropriate facilities are proposed based on traffic and geometric conditions.

Sharrows
In the 1990s, sharrows were introduced as an
innovative, quick solution for creating safer cycling
infrastructure. Sharrows are pavement markings
that indicate bicycles and motor vehicles can
share the same travel lane, encouraging drivers to
accommodate bicyclists and guiding cyclists to the
safest lane position. While sharrows became widely
popular across the U.S., experience has shown that
they are not the ideal solution for safety. For bicyclists and vehicles to safely share a lane, traffic volumes
and speeds must be low—criteria often unmet on
roads where sharrows are used today, leading to
unsafe conditions. As a result, in 2026 BPTP , sharrows are not proposed as a bicycle facility. Roads in the
bike network with existing sharrows (Image 10) will
be upgraded to more convenient and comfortable
infrastructure, such as bike boulevards or dedicated
bike lanes.

Image 9: Existing Bike Route on Oregon Avenue
Image 10: Existing Sharrow Pavement Marking
Enhanced Bikeway Option: Floating Bicycle
Lanes or Restricted Hours Bicycle Lanes
In the 2012 BPTP , enhanced bikeway options such
as a floating bicycle lane or restricted hours were
proposed and implemented to accommodate cycling
and parking needs. Since then, they have been found
to be ineffective due to non-compliance and lack
of enforcement. These enhanced bikeway options
are not included in the 2026 BPTP. Existing floating
bicycle lanes or restricted hours bicycle lanes are
upgraded to other bicycle facilities.

Image 11: Existing Restricted Hours Bicycle Lane

3. Recommendations 74
The 2026 BPTP proposes the six bicycle facility types illustrated and described in Image 12 and Image 13.

Image 12: Updated Bicycle Facility Types
Image 13: Bicycle Facility Types

TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class I Shared Use Path
A shared use path is a physically separated path from vehicles that can be used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. They should be implemented on high volume collectors and arterial roads where speeds and volumes are high. They can also be implemented through parks and recreational areas. The City of Palo Alto has an extensive existing shared use pathway network that is used for both recreational and non-recreational use as they are low-stress routes that are attractive, comfortable, and for people of all ages and abilities.

Considerations: Shared use paths must be designed with care at intersection crossings, to promote visibility and proper yielding behavior. At high user volumes, increased width or user-separated zones should be considered.

Challenges: Major challenges in planning and designing a shared use path include limited right-of-way and gaps in the trail network that hinder connections to key destinations. Environmental considerations, such as potential impacts to habitat areas or heritage trees, also pose constraints. In addition, trail maintenance can be difficult when responsibilities are shared across multiple agencies.

Class IIa Bicycle Lanes
A bicycle lane is a dedicated lane for bicycles that is visually separated from the motor vehicle lane through pavement markings. As they are only visually separated, bike lanes should only be implemented on low-to-moderate collector roads where the speeds are less than or equal to 30 mph. Repurposing the public space for dedicated bicycle facility. Bike lanes should be at a minimum of 5 feet but preferably 6 feet when space allows.

Considerations: Existing bike lanes that are 4 feet should be updated when possible.

Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts with right-turning vehicles.
75 TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes
A buffered bicycle lane is similar to a painted bicycle lane, but it has an extra painted buffer to create more space between bicyclists and motorists. A buffered bike lane should be implemented on collector roads with low to moderate volumes, around 4,000-6,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

Considerations: Parking lane or travel lane reconfiguration may be necessary to create space for buffered bike lanes.

Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts with right-turning vehicles.

Class IIIa Advisory Bike Lanes
An Advisory Bike Lanes or Edge Lane Road is a treatment where people riding bicycles and motor vehicles share the road space.

These should only be used on local streets or on collectors with low volumes and speeds. With low traffic volumes drivers can negotiate the reduced space, then the travel area can then be reduced to 1 lane for two-way travel, and advisory bike lanes can be painted on either side.

Considerations: Advisory bike lanes are an experimental and emerging facility type. Outreach and education should be conducted before any installation to promote user awareness and project success.

Challenges: Major challenge with advisory bike lanes is that they are suitable only for roadways with low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds.

3. Recommendations 76

TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevards
A bicycle boulevard is a low-stress shared roadway, where bicycles are prioritized and share the roadway with motor vehicle traffic.

A bicycle boulevard should be implemented on a local street or a collector where speeds are low, and volumes are typically less than or equal to 2,000 vpd. A bicycle boulevard is recognizable based on the wayfinding and traffic calming elements. Gateway treatments should be implemented along major roadway entrances to indicate to drivers that they are entering a bicycle boulevard and to slow their speeds. Stop signs should be oriented to favor bicycle travel. Traffic filters should also be installed along the route to manage traffic access and keep motor vehicle volumes low. Design exceptions should be considered for situations such as Suggested School Walking and Rolling SRTS System Route Maps.

Considerations: For bicycle boulevards to provide a low-stress experience, traffic volumes and speeds must be intentionally managed and monitored over time.

Challenges: Major challenge with advisory bike lanes is that they are suitable only for roadways with low traffic volumes. In addition, design bike boulevard crossing at major streets can be challenging.

Class IV Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway, also referred to as a Protected Bike Lane, is a dedicated facility for bicycles that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Separated bikeways should be implemented above 6,000 vpd, or when motor vehicles are travelling above 30 mph, and it is unsafe for them to mix and share the same space.

Separated Bikeway travel area width should be 5 feet to 7 feet with an additional 2- to 3-foot or larger buffer depending on the available road space.

Considerations: Care should be taken at intersections to improve the visibility and slow the speed of turning drivers. Maintenance of separated bikeway spaces is important to maintain their usability.

Challenges: Major challenges in designing bicycle lanes include limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections, and conflicts with right-turning vehicles.

Source: Mobycon, 2025
77 3.2.3 BICYCLE FACILITIES SELECTION APPROACH
A simplified facility selection approach to the different types of bicycle facilities was chosen for the updated bikeway network presented in 4.2.1. The approach is informed by the Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic1, the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide2, and the NACTO All Ages & Abilities Bikeways guidance3. The bicycle facility selection approach (Image 14) first looked at road classification (local, collector, and arterial). Then traffic volumes followed by posted speeds were examined. Given the limited availability of traffic volumes, the network criteria relied on community input, and on-ground knowledge from the in-person working session in April 2024.4 This approach was applied to each segment of the bikeway network and the facilities were selected based on the approach but also considered in the greater network and whether they met the 2026 BPTP vision and objectives. 1 CROW. “CROW Manual Updates Bike Lane Width Recommendations” CROW, 2023. 2 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: FHWA-SA-18-077. U.S.

Department of Transportation, 2018.
3 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). “Choosing the Age and Ability of Bicycle Facility.” NACTO, n.d., 4 BPTP Team conducted a series of site visit in April 2024 to understand the roadway context. This is further described in the community engagement section.

Image 14: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach
Source: Mobycon, 2025

3. Recommendations 78

3.2.4 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK
Figure 16 shows the Complete Vision Bicycle Network map. The Complete Vision Network represents the long- term vision for a fully connected, all-ages-and-abilities bikeway system. This map also includes existing bicycle facilities that are not being upgraded to illustrate the full network once fully implemented. The Complete Vision Network includes some lower-priority projects that may be reevaluated as the City grows. In the near term, the focus will be on developing the low-stress bicycle network, as described in the following section.

Low-Stress Bicycle Network
Figure 17 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the foundation for citywide bicycle connectivity, focused on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term.

It builds upon the City’s existing network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of shared-use paths and neighborhood-based Bicycle Boulevards, to rapidly expand access with minimal disruption and promote broad community support.

This approach prioritizes calm, residential routes that are already preferred by many community members, rather than rely on separated bikeway on busy arterial streets. Through public engagement, Bicycle Boulevards were identified as the most comfortable and familiar type of bikeway, offering a practical path forward with fewer trade-offs in terms of cost, complexity, and impacts to vehicle traffic or parking.

The Low-Stress Network emphasizes continuity and citywide coverage. While most of the network is routed along local streets, Class IV protected bike lanes are included in strategic locations—specifically on high-traffic gateway corridors where no safe, parallel alternative exists and where regional connectivity demands it.

Additionally, short segments of separated bikeways may be used to close key gaps between Bicycle Boulevards, enhancing network cohesion.

The goal is to create a citywide bikeway system that is connected, calmed, and protected, delivering meaningful benefits to people biking now while laying the groundwork for a more complete network in the future. By focusing on what works well today, the Low-Stress Network allows the city to move quickly and cost-effectively toward a safer, more accessible future for active transportation.

The 2026 BPTP proposed a total of 94 bicycle projects, representing 62 miles of upgraded and new bicycle facilities, as shown in Table 5. A total of 63 projects, representing 37 miles of upgraded and new bicycle facilities is proposed as part of the Low-Stress Network. Additionally, 33 Crossing Projects, 5 Studies, and 5 Special Projects are recommended. A list of projects that make up the Complete Vision Network is included in Appendix L: List of Projects.

Table 7: Summary of Proposed Bicycle Projects (Complete Vision: Bicycle Network)

PROJECT TYPE

COMPLETE VISION NETWORK LOW-STRESS NETWORK
Number of
Proposed Projects Length (Miles) Number of
Proposed Projects Length (Miles)
Shared Use Path (Class I) 14 7.95 7 1.27
Bicycle Lane (Class IIa) 11 3.78 9 3.38
Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class IIb) 10 5.93 9 5.09
Advisory Bike Lane (Class IIIa) 2 0.30 2 0.30
Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIb) 25 21.00 24 19.86
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 32 22.80 12 7.50
Total 94 62.29 63 37.39
79 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Class IIIc - Slow Street
Class Ib - Community Street
Caltrain Station
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing Improvements
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or Underpass
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Figure 16: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Complete Vision Bicycle Network 80 Figure 17: Recommended Bicycle Facility Map – Low-Stress Bicycle Network !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n Anto
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Proposed
Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Proposed Bike Blvd Crossing
Proposed Intersection
Improvement
Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge or
Underpass
Caltrain Station
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
City of Palo Alto
81 3.3 Recommended Bicycle Support Facilities
This section includes a description of bicycle support facilities such as signs and bicycle parking.

3.3.1 BICYCLE PARKING
Easy access to secure parking makes bicycling a more attractive option. People are more likely to ride if they know they’ll find a safe place to lock up their bike near their destination. Lack of parking often leads to uncertainty or inconvenience, discouraging trips by bike. Bicycle parking is generally categorized into short-term and long-term installations. These two kinds of parking serve different needs, and the starting point for most bike parking projects is recognizing whether the installation should serve short-term users, long-term users, or both.

If users typically park for two hours or longer, they are likely to value security and shelter above the convenience and ease that should characterize short-term parking.5 Image 15 shows common short-term bicycle parking options that are currently available in the City.
5 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015 Image 15: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term
Source: Kittelson, 2025
Inverted U - Circular
Elevated
Inverted U - Rectangle
Wave
Series Inverted U
81 3. Recommendations 82
Short-term bike parking should be visible from and close to the entrance it serves—50’ or less is a good benchmark. When installing sidewalk racks, maintain the pedestrian through zone. Racks should be placed in line with existing sidewalk obstructions to maintain a clear line of travel for all sidewalk users. Image 16 shows guidance on placement and spacing requirements for bicycle racks. Additionally, the City could explore opportunities to install high security smart racks such as integrated electronic locking swingarms.6 Long-term parking is designed to meet the needs of
employees, residents, public transit users, and others
with a need to park for several hours and leave their
bicycles unmonitored. Appropriate locations for long-
term parking vary with context. Long-term parking
facilities should anticipate the presence of a variety
of bicycles and accessories, including—depending on
context—recumbents, trailers, children’s bikes, long-
tails, and others. To accommodate trailers and long
bikes, a portion of the racks should be on the ground
and should have an additional 36” of in-line clearance.

As a part of 2026 BPTP , the City has included the
following policy and programs to ensure ample
availability of bicycle parking.
• Bike Parking Inventory & Usage Monitoring
Program: Conduct an inventory and monitor
usage of bike parking at City properties and City
right-of-way (such as sidewalks) and continue
to provide sufficient supply. Ensure the City’s
bike parking program provides facilities that are
publicly accessible and available for use by all
members of the public, helping achieve a mode
shift and corresponding lower motor vehicle
emissions and traffic congestion.
• Bike Parking Requirements For New
Development: Regularly review the City’s
minimum short- and long-term bike parking
requirements for new development projects and
update requirements to reflect changes in parking
demand. Update and maintain the City’s list of
approved bike parking designs to accommodate a
variety of bicycle types such as e-bikes and cargo
bikes.

Additionally, the City has been working with advocacy
groups to reach out to local businesses or groups
to help support and promote installation of bicycle
parking.
6 BART. High Security Bike Racks. Accessed from https://www.bart.gov/guide/bikes/parking Image 16: Placement and Spacing Requirements
Source: APBP Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015
Locker
83 3.3.2 WAYFINDING SIGNS
Wayfinding involves the use of signs, maps, and other visual cues to help people navigate through an area.

Effective wayfinding systems improve accessibility and user experience. Image 16 illustrates the comprehensive bicycle wayfinding sign system family, incorporating both fundamental and enhanced wayfinding components.

Image 17 shows the existing signs in Palo Alto that assist bicyclists in wayfinding.

Image 17: Types of Wayfinding Signs
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025

3. Recommendations 84
Image 18: Existing Signs in Palo Alto
Source: City of Palo Alto, Kittelson and Mobycon, 2025
Bicycle Boulevard Sample
Signage
Temporary Wayfinding Signs
Sign regulating direction
Bicycle Boulevard Sign at Bryant
Street and Forest Avenue
Sign at Caltrain Station
Sign regulating parking and bike
lanes
Downtown Pedestrian
Wayfinding Signs
Bicycle Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding Sign assisting with
confirmation and navigation
85 The 2026 BPTP includes a program to develop a non-motorized wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities with key local and regional destinations such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations.

Additionally, the wayfinding facilities will be implemented as part of the bicycle and pedestrian projects.

3.3.3 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program represents a local community partnership between the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Palo Alto Council of PTAC. The partnership mission is to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often.

Educating Student Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Palo Alto’s history as a bicycle-friendly town is about more than its flat terrain and many bicycle facilities, it’s about shared community values. Since the 1960s, transportation staff, the Palo Alto Police Department and the school district have met regularly to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often.

In 2025, SRTS partners recognized the thirty-year anniversary of the Palo Alto School District (PAUSD), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and City of Palo Alto-supported Safe Routes to School (SRTS) education program.

Educational efforts, in tandem with engineering and encouragement programming, are foundational to helping families enjoy safe, active, healthy, sustainable school commutes in Palo Alto. Beyond Education, Encouragement and Engineering, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity considerations guide partnership outcomes and considerations. Key 30-year achievements include:

1. National Recognition - Compared with national walk/bike school commute percentages of 11 percent, more than 53 percent of Palo Alto students walk and bike to school. Since 2016, students have completed approximately 17 million walk/bike school commutes, reducing risk for families who walk and bike and improving access for families who must drive.

2. Lifelong Safety Skills - Over 23,000 students in the Palo Alto Unified School District now receive 560 minutes, (nine hours) of in-school transportation safety education between grades K-6 compared with 45 minutes of third grade education in 1991. Palo Alto’s Bicycle Life Skills program, including Bicycle Rodeo events, have helped thousands of families gain confidence and learn important road-sharing safety skills. Palo Alto is one of the few communities to offer such robust safety education programming. In 2025, transportation safety education was expanded to middle and high schools, and the City is constructing the Bay Area’s first bicycle safety education traffic garden to enhance offsite programming to even more students throughout Palo Alto and the surrounding community.

3. Car Trip Reductions - A 76-mile network of dedicated school commute bicycle lanes, boulevards and shared-use pathways, bicycle rack and facilities upgrades at all PAUSD campuses and the subsequent 2016 development of twenty Walk and Roll Suggested School Route to help families navigate this network has helped prevent the carbon emissions equivalent of more than 3,500 gasoline-powered cars annually, eliminating roughly 3,824,000 car trips from local roadways between 1994 and 2025.

4. Parent Involvement - During the past three decades, more than 450 parent volunteers have stepped up to serve as PTA-appointed Transportation Safety Representatives at each PAUSD school. Parents are essential to validating SRTS Partner projects and programming and setting community expectations. PTA Transportation Safety Events like biannual Walk and Roll to School days and 3rd-grade bicycle skills rodeos engage more than 2,000 parents and students annually, significantly Since 1994, the Palo Alto PTA has been at the forefront of hosting monthly City School Transportation Safety Committee meetings, demonstrating that SRTS is more than a program, it’s a community value.

3. Recommendations 86
Safe Routes to School Policies
In the face of changing transportation habits, SRTS policies ensure families have a voice in shaping Palo Alto’s local transportation landscape. SRTS is directly referenced in four City Comprehensive Plan 2030 Programs and Policies. In 2021, the PAUSD Board of Education-approved a dedicated SRTS policy. SRTS is also cited in the 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). In 2025, unanimous support from the PAUSD Board of Education, City Council and Palo Alto Parent Council of PTAs (PTAC) led to the renewal of an updated SRTS Partnership Agreement, rededicating Palo Alto to the SRTS Partnership’s mission, goals and objectives. The 2026 BPTP builds off these efforts by prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to schools, and by recognizing the foundational nature of this work within the Office of Transportation.

Moving Toward the Future of Safe Routes to School
Between 2017 and 2022, a City School Transportation Safety Committee-approved Palo Alto a Five-Year Action Plan. Core objectives are paraphrased below:

1. Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies

2. Provide SRTS education programs, materials and communications

3. Expand and enhance events and encouragement programs and materials

4. Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes

5. Engineer routes to school to develop a more safe and efficient network for families

6. Increase awareness & engagement between City Departments and the community

7. Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources Five-Year Plan yearly strategic objectives yielded a mean completion rate of 72 percent, while Five-Year Work Plan ongoing objectives yielded a 100 percent completion rate. Several emergent trends, including a post- pandemic contraction of parent involvement, transit service reductions, restricted school access and the adoption of new transportation modes suggest that a second SRTS Five-Year Action Planning process may help support 2026 BPTP implementation, in addition to helping reverse net losses in post-pandemic active school commute mode share at the secondary level.

TRAFFIC GARDEN/ PALO ALTO BIKE SAFETY PARK
The City installed a Traffic Garden at the Ventura Community Center. The course, roughly the size of two basketball courts, serves as a hands-on classroom for young cyclists to learn road safety and cycling skills.

87 For three decades, the SRTS Partnership has shaped Palo Alto’s identity as a leader in student bicycling and walking. Its achievements, millions of active commutes, improved infrastructure, and parent engagement, demonstrate the power of collaboration. While pandemic-related disruptions and emerging mobility trends present new challenges, the Partnership’s history of resilience and innovation provides a strong foundation for Palo Alto to continue supporting safe, healthy, and sustainable school commutes for the next generation.

The 2026 BPTP further supports SRTS program by enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to schools.

Additionally, it includes the following programs:
• “Enhance and sustain the City/PAUSD/PTA/Youth community partnership to reduce risk to students enroute to and from school, and encourage more families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often. Grow and strengthen community-wide support through the SRTS 6 E’s (Education, Encouragement, Engineering, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity) model for safe, active, healthy, sustainable, school commutes. Safe Routes to School Action Plan Updates: Revisit incomplete 2019 Safe Routes to School 5-Year Action Plan yearly strategic objectives and determine whether to move forward to complete those goals.”

3.4 Pedestrian District Guidelines and Toolbox
This section identifies priority pedestrian areas within Palo Alto and presents a toolbox of potential pedestrian- oriented treatments for use within these areas. These guidelines build upon existing foundational planning, bring in new ideas and innovations, and address changes and developments since the prior plan was adopted in 2012.

3.4.1 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT

TOOLBOX
The pedestrian district toolbox includes a range of
selected treatments aimed at improving pedestrian
safety and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The
elements range from infrastructure improvements,
such as raised crossings or curb extensions that
improve yielding rates, to aesthetic changes, such as
benches or public art, that can elevate the walking
experience. Together, these elements will meet
universal needs for safety and accessibility and create conditions where walking is comfortable and an
enjoyable experience for all.

Implementing pedestrian-oriented enhancements
help in advancing the plan objectives of supporting
a City that is Safe and Inclusive, Connected and
Accessible, and Comfortable and Enjoyable.

Image 18 lists pedestrian toolbox enhancements.

Detailed information about these tools and their
recommended application in the three pedestrian
districts and two priority areas is available in
Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.

3.4.2 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTS
Priority pedestrian areas are key to creating a
walkable, accessible, and enjoyable City. They offer
areas where walking is prioritized to allow people
of all ages and abilities to get around without
competing with vehicles. Within these areas, slower
vehicle movement is encouraged, and opportunities
are provided for people to pause and enjoy their
surroundings. Walking should be the preferred mode
of choice for all trips within these areas with wider
sidewalks that support high volumes of pedestrian
activity through building a well-connected pedestrian
network.

Figure 18 maps three pedestrian districts and three
priority areas which are focus areas for pedestrian
recommendations. These areas were identified
based on prior planning efforts, including the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the Palo Alto Economic
Development Strategies Plan, as well as community
input and on-the-ground knowledge from the in-
person working session held in April 2024.7
7 BPTP Team conducted a series of site visit in April 2024 to understand the roadway context. This is further described in the community engagement section.

3. Recommendations 88
Image 19: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements

89 Univ ersity
A v enue
District
Calif ornia
A v enue
District
El Camino Real
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
M idtown
District
Embarcadero
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
San Antonio
Road Area
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
M i d d l efi el d R d
Al m a St
B ryan t St
H am i l ton Ave
U n i versi ty Ave
Lytton Ave
Ad d i son Ave
N ewel l R d
Ch an n i n g Ave
San d H i l l R d
Cowp er St
E m b arcad ero R d
L ou i s R d
O reg on E xpy
Cal i forn i a Ave
Cal i forn i a Ave
P ag e M i l l R d
Col orad o Ave
L om a Verd e Ave
M ead ow D r
E l D orad o Ave
Ch arl eston R d
F ab i an Wy
San Antonio Rd
B aysh ore R d
G reer R d
E l Cam i n o R eal
L os R ob l es Ave
Wi l ki e Wy
Arastrad ero R dF ooth i l l E xpy
H an over St
H i l l vi ew Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stan ford Ave
R oss R d
M atad ero Ave
M ayb el l Ave
H om er Ave
Col orad o Ave
E l Cam i n o R eal
M i l l er Ave
Cen tral E xpy
M i d d l efiel d Rd
Ki n g sl ey Ave
E AST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STAN F O R D

UNIV ERS IT Y
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNT A IN
VI EW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA

V ALLEY
F
Recommended Pedestrian District
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 18: Recommended Pedestrian District Location
These pedestrian districts and priority areas include:

Pedestrian Districts:
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.

Image 20: University Avenue Pedestrian District
Pedestrian District Recommendations
University Avenue Pedestrian District
Downtown Palo Alto’s historic main street and original civic/commercial core; today it functions as the City’s primary regional and commercial center and the “front door” many visitors remember. 91 • Add midblock raised crossings (Hamilton Ave) and update existing midblock crossing (Forest Ave) to prioritize pedestrians.
• Install bike/micromobility corrals at key destinations (Caltrain lot at Alma Street, Palo Alto Transit Center, Lytton Plaza) and anchor district wayfinding at University & Alma and the Homer Tunnel, coordinated with the MTC pilot.8
• Advance special projects: raised side-street crossings on University (Univ_A); permanent pedestrianized Ramona Street (Univ_B); alleyway activation (Univ_C); University & Alma interchange reconfiguration (Univ_D)(continuous/wider sidewalks, gateway, wayfinding); and improvements to the Transit Center/ University undercrossing.
8 The MTC Regional Mapping & Wayfinding Project, https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/transit-regional-network-management/regional- mapping-wayfinding
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.

Image 21: California Avenue Pedestrian District
California Avenue Pedestrian District
A pedestrian activity center with compact blocks, back alleys, and active ground-floor commercial uses; recognized in City policy as a Multi-Neighborhood/Community-Serving center. • Use on-street flex zones for placemaking and add street treewells on Park Blvd, Ash St, and Birch St. • Provide wayfinding at El Camino Real/California Ave and the Caltrain station; add street art at key approaches.

Midtown Pedestrian District
A mid-century neighborhood shopping area that has grown into a vital, neighborhood-serving hub; identified in recent plans as a neighborhood serving place for everyday needs.

Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.

Image 22: Midtown Pedestrian District
93 • Apply gateway treatments at Middlefield (Moreno Ave to the west; Matadero Canal to the east), plus bike corrals, street furniture, and wayfinding.
• Advance special projects: a Midtown master street plan (Mid_1); a Middlefield Rd road diet (Mid_2) (raised intersections, continuous/wider sidewalks, pedestrian signals, flex zones, street furniture, treewells); a Sutter Ave mid-block crossing with ped signals (Mid_3); temporary parking-lot activation (Mid_4); and a central plaza parkway (Mid_5).

Commercial Center Recommendations
El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
A linear, citywide commercial corridor with a diverse mix of shops, restaurants, and services serving both residents and visitors.
• Treat the corridor as a multimodal main street: add raised crossings on unsignalized side streets and provide street furniture to improve waiting areas.
• Enhance Corridor walkability, bike lanes, and streetscape upgrades are underway as part of ongoing revitalization by caltarans in coordination with the City.

Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center (Edgewood Plaza) A neighborhood hub anchored by the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center, known for its mid-century modern character and a mix of groceries, cafés, and local businesses—remaining a vibrant, accessible destination for nearby residents.
• Provide bike parking corrals and wayfinding to local businesses and trail connections (notably the US-101/St.

Francis Dr link), to support short local walking and biking trips.

San Antonio Road Area
A STET district to be guided by the same framework as other pedestrian districts—prioritizing walking, slower movement, and a connected sidewalk network—using the plan’s toolbox (e.g., raised crossings, wider sidewalks,

3. Recommendations 94
bike corrals, gateway/wayfinding) as sites redevelop.
• As sites redevelop, apply the plan’s pedestrian toolbox to create a walk-first environment: raised crossings/ raised intersections, curb extensions/reduced curb radii, continuous and wider sidewalks, bike corrals, and flexible curb zones.
• Coordination with the City’s San Antonio Road Area Plan

95 3.5 Policies and
Programs
As part of developing the Plan, the City identified
policies, programs, and practices to improve
conditions for walking and biking in Palo Alto. City
staff from multiple departments participated in
discussions to assess how the City is implementing
existing policies, programs, and practices and ranked
the highest priorities for inclusion in the Plan. This
section presents the 2026 BPTP’s recommended
programs and policies. It provides recommended
strategies and actions to support walking and biking
in Palo Alto as well as best practices that the City can undertake in developing programs to encourage active
transportation.

The recommendations are organized under the 2026
BPTP’s five objectives, identified previously in section

1.4.2 Objectives:
• Comfortable and Enjoyable
• Community-Led and Cooperative
• Safe and Inclusive
• Connected and Accessible
• Integrated and Collaborative
Recommended strategies are summarized below and
presented in more detail in Appendix N: Policy and
Program Recommendations.

Comfortable and Enjoyable
• Active Transportation Design Policy and
Standards: Adopt a policy to develop or adopt
design standards and specifications based on
recent research and modern best practice for
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly street
design and green stormwater infrastructure.
• Older Adult Mobility Program: Support older
adult mobility options, including a Trishaw Pilot
via Cycling Without Age, to provide access to
statistically low-risk transit, possibly operated by
trained student and/or older adult volunteers
along low volume residential streets.
• Bike Parking Inventory & Usage Monitoring
Program: Conduct an inventory and monitor
usage of bike parking at City properties and City
right-of-way (such as sidewalks) and continue to
provide sufficient supply. Establish a program for
members of the public to request site inspections
and evaluation for installation of bicycle racks
or parking corrals. Ensure the City’s bike parking
program provides facilities that are publicly
accessible and available for use by all members
of the public, helping achieve a mode shift and
corresponding lower motor vehicle emissions and
traffic congestion.
• Bike Parking Requirements For New
Development: Regularly review the City’s
minimum short- and long-term bike parking
requirements for new development projects and
update requirements to reflect changes in parking
demand. Update and maintain the City’s list of
approved bike parking designs to accommodate a
variety of bicycle types such as e-bikes and cargo
bikes.
• Walk- & Bike-Friendly Development: Consider
prioritizing or requiring certification that
encourages bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
developments, such as Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) or Fitwel
certification. Encourage developments that limit
vehicle parking.
• Wayfinding Plan: Develop a non-motorized
wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and pedestrian
facilities with key local and regional destinations
such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations.

Evaluate cut-throughs, short connections, ramp
access, and ADA compliance. Continue to expand
wayfinding facilities as the bicycle and pedestrian
networks are implemented and in coordination
with Caltrans. Develop a Wayfinding Signage
Program specific to El Camino Real to help cyclists
connect to the local bicycle network.
• Bike Racks on Buses: Work with Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and coordinate

3. Recommendations 96
with their Wheels on the Bus Pilot Program,
to monitor the use of bike racks on buses and
determine if demand is being accommodated.
• TDM Program: Promote and expand the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program and continue to support implementation
of TDM programs in an effort to increase the share
of trips made by walking and biking and advance
the City’s sustainability, climate action, vehicle
miles traveled and carbon reduction goals. Pursue
full participation of Palo Alto employers in the
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
and pursue expanding the TMA from Downtown
to California Avenue and other areas of the City
when appropriate.
• Crossing Guards: Periodically evaluate school
crossing guard locations and warrants to
determine their appropriateness and evaluate
opportunities for new locations. As part of the
evaluations, consider factors such as the needs of
younger bicyclists who may cross while walking,
and incorporate collision and location data
to assist in identifying opportunities for pilot
locations that could increase the walk to school
mode share.
• Development Review Updates: Development
review and roadway design will be evaluated by
metrics that focus on safety risk, user comfort,
and access for all users including pedestrians
and bicyclists such as kinetic energy risk, level of
traffic stress, and travel time by mode. Clearly
communicate to help residents understand why
proactive enhancements to support low-stress
network buildout may be needed.

Community-Led and Cooperative
• Bicycle Lending Library: Partner with the Palo
Alto library and local community partners that has
space, capacity and expertise to create a bicycle
lending library that enables residents to check
out different types of bicycles, supplies, including
trailers, and educational materials, including
bike blenders, bike trivia wheels, safety vests for
events, helmets and more; consult with agencies
that have implemented similar programs such
as the City of Oakland and San Mateo County
Libraries.
• TDM Pilot Program for City Employees:

Conduct a City of Palo Alto TDM pilot to improve
facilities and encourage employee use of active
transportation vehicles, given the high percentage
of City vehicles that are used for <2 mile single
occupant trips around town. Determine how best
to pilot and incentivize trips to focus on both the
right tool for the trip relative to the distance.

Formally incorporate a variety of bicycle types and
trailers into the City vehicle fleet for employees
to use. Provide access to different types of bikes/
trailers and access to an improved storage facility,
conduct regular rides and safety trainings, ensure
bicycles are regularly maintained and that there
are risk management and anti-theft provisions to
ensure safety and security.
• Long-Term Education Program: Create a long-
term education program to change the travel
habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and
workers by informing them about transportation
alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with
the PAUSD and with other public and private
interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce
and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and
implement this program.
• Bike Education Program: Partner with groups to
advertise and carry out bike safety and education
classes in the City, including classes oriented
towards children, older adults, and non-English
speakers.
• Employee Education Program: Encourage and
fund the participation of employees working on
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in professional
organizations and conferences in order stay up-
to-date on the state of the practice and successes
in other cities. Provide resources and support for
employees to further their education, develop
new skills, and keep up with changing patterns
and transportation technologies.
• Interactive Map Tool: Update the City's website to
enhance its static bicycle facility and Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) Walk & Roll Suggested Route
maps with interactive mapping applications when
these are viable. Work with PAUSD, PATMA, and
other partners to share this resource.
97 • Community Rides Program: Partner with
organizations to lead all ages and abilities bicycle
rides throughout the calendar year, including rides
that utilize recently-implemented projects.
• Valet Parking Program for Events: Collaborate
with the Community Services Department to
partner with and budget for organizations to
provide bike parking and/or bike valet services at
City-sponsored or other large events.
• Street Closures - Open Streets: Prioritize street
closures on areas located on the High Injury
Network (identified in the Safety Action Plan),
where high bicycle and pedestrian activity is
expected, and where there is community support.
• Street Closures - School Streets Pilot: Implement
a Street Closure - School Streets Pilot Program
that can be used to gather data and outcomes
that could then be applied to other schools.

Community input will be used to identify locations
for the pilot. School streets implement timed
closures that prevent vehicles from entering the
specified school zone. Restrictions are in place for
approximately 15 to 90 minutes during drop-off
and pick-up times and is enforced using signage
and physical barrier(s). During this time, only
pedestrians and cyclists can enter the School
Street zone, aside from exempt vehicles (e.g.
residents living in the zone).
• Active Transportation Incentives Program:

Encourage or require PATMA to provide additional
bicycle/scooter incentives citywide.
• Safe Routes to School: Enhance and sustain the
City/PAUSD/PTA/Youth community partnership
to reduce risk to students enroute to and from
school, and encourage more families to choose
healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to
driving solo more often. Grow and strengthen
community-wide support through the SRTS 6
E's (Education, Encouragement, Engineering,
Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity) model
for safe, active, healthy, sustainable, school
commutes. Aim to:
• Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices
and policies and gather best practices.
• Provide, expand, and enhance school and
community-based SRTS education programs
and materials.
• Promote and encourage use of the new traffic
garden at the Ventura Community Center to
increase bike education.
• Expand and enhance encouragement
programs to communicate the value of SRTS.
• Gather data to assess and improve outcomes.
• Engineer routes to develop a more safe and
efficient network.
• Deepen awareness and engagement with City
staff, Council, and community representatives
to advance and institutionalize SRTS.
• Commit an equitable distribution of resources
to encourage broad community participation.
• Maintain a Secondary School SRTS
Coordinator to develop a youth SRTS program
for grades 6-12
• Safe Routes to School Action Plan Updates:

Update the 2019 Safe Routes to School 5-Year
Action Plan, relaunch the process to establish
strategic objectives and define a five-year action

3. Recommendations 98
plan to advance safe routes to school.
• Community Partnerships Program: Consider
establishing or working with existing advocacy
groups to reach out to local businesses or groups
to help support and promote walking and bicycle-
related projects and to maximize public-private
funding opportunities.
• Bike and Pedestrian Count Program: Establish
regular citywide bicycle and pedestrian counts
at key corridors, intersections, destinations, and
require that intersection traffic counts collected
for development projects' transportation studies
include bicyclist and pedestrian volumes. Utilize
the counts collected in 2024 to establish a
baseline for select locations. Enhance bicycle
count efforts and collect more data to guide
decisions by installing permanent automatic
counters along key bikeways in representative
locations. Using bike counters with displays along
popular routes can encourage people to bike
more often.
• Performance Reporting Program: Collect data and
conduct analysis as part of periodic status reports
detailing the City's performance in relation to
metrics recommended in this plan.
• Community Feedback Program: Expand survey
efforts such as the Palo Alto Community Survey
and the Performance Reports and National Citizen
surveys to collect information related to walking
and bicycling facility quality, Plan implementation,
and programs.

Safe and Inclusive
• Institutionalize Safety: Via the 2025 Safety
Action Plan, the City has committed to reducing
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on the
City's roadways. Institutionalize safety into all
aspects of policies, planning, program, design,
implementation, and maintenance.
• Safe Routes to Work, Shopping, Downtown,
Community Services, and Parks: Where the Walk
and Roll Map Suggested School Routes overlap
with the HIN, prioritize speed management and
pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially at
intersections.
• Review Protocols for Updating Suggested Walk
and Roll Maps: Develop protocols to review the
City's walk and roll suggested routes to school to
proactively determine if traffic controls or other
engineering modifications may be needed to
improve student safety.
• Speed Management Program: Implement a
proactive speed management program following
the FHWA Safe System Speed Management
Framework to guide location specific interventions
in all focus areas. Lower speed limits and design
speeds on streets within the bike network and
without separated bikeways to 25 mph or lower.
• Systemic Uncontrolled Crosswalk Placement/
Enhancement Program: Develop a systemic
uncontrolled crosswalk placement/enhancement
program for pedestrian safety and accessibility,
and proactively design proposed crossings to
provide bicyclists and pedestrians with context-
appropriate facilities such as marked crossings,
bike boxes, bike signal heads, bike detection, and
leading bicycle intervals (LBIs)/leading pedestrian
intervals (LPIs), audible and/or countdown signals,
accessible push buttons, and curb ramps.
• Update Traffic Calming Program: Systemically
identify speed management needs and
opportunities (such as speed humps and
neighborhood traffic circle) and prioritize into
a yearly implementation program based on
kinetic energy risk, equity, proximity to schools,
community input, and similar factors. Most
funds should be programmed proactively,
but some can be reserved for quick response
discretionary purposes. Implement speed
management strategies to moderate vehicle
speeds to a contextually appropriate target speed.

It is recommended that that the Traffic Control
Maintainer II position in Public Works (eliminated
during the pandemic) be restored, so City staff can
respond more quickly to add, maintain, or repair
roadway safety infrastructure such as delineators,
bollards, signage, guardrails, crash attenuators,
faded striping and curb paints, and other features.
99 • Near-Miss Reporting Program: Utilize SafeTREC
Street Story mapping portal (https://streetstory.
berkeley.edu/city/palo-alto) to enable and
encourage residents to provide information on
near-misses and other safety information that
would otherwise not be included in regularly-
reported safety reports and statistics.
• The City's Office of Transportation Traffic
Engineering Team: Add or reallocate staff to
administer quick-build or traffic safety programs,
including coordination, evaluation, planning, and
engineering.
• Prioritize Maintenance of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities: Incorporate and prioritize bicycle and
pedestrian facility maintenance needs into the
City's transportation maintenance program
standards and funding.
• Prioritize Bikeways in the Repaving Program:

Prioritize repaving of existing bikeways as part of
the repaving program.
• Incorporate Pedestrian Improvements Into
Repaving Program: Change the approach to
the repaving program to include pedestrian
improvements including sidewalk widening and
curb extensions. This would require additional
funding and a change in City processes for
completing road and sidewalk repairs or
installations.

Connected and Accessible
• Better Bikeways: Incorporate best design
practices and guidance, such as those outlined in
the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, when
designing and implementing walking, biking, and
rolling facilities to create a network that meets
the needs of users of all ages and abilities; this
includes guidance on recommended facility
widths and low-stress intersection treatments.

Design and implement safer roads to facilitate
travel by vulnerable users through appropriate
walking and biking facilities in the context of
adjacent vehicle facilities, speeds, and volumes,
including sufficient width and horizontal
separation. Implement strategies to provide better
bike crossings of major streets, such as diverters,
daylighting, dedicated signals and phasing,
pavement markings, and protected intersections.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Capital
Improvement Program: Establish dedicated
funding for implementation of projects identified
in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update and Pedestrian District Guidelines.
• Station Access Program: Coordinate with Caltrain
to deliver local station area access improvements
that meet universal design principles such as curb
ramps, tactile and audio crossing cues, improved
sidewalks, slower traffic speeds, shorter crossing
distances, and increased crossing time. Partner
with Caltrain to encourage plans for low-stress
active transportation facilities to Caltrain stations
and coordinate to ensure that grade separation
projects adjacent to stations reflect multi-modal
access needs.
• Signal Modification Program: Incorporate the
crossing needs of bicyclists and pedestrians and
encourage safe driver behavior when reviewing
and adjusting signal timing at City traffic signals.
• Bicycle Detection Pilot Project: Implement
innovative "blue light" (or other) bicycle detection
indicators and signs at complex bicycle crossings.

Consider adding "Bicycle Detected" signal heads
to recommended bike routes intersecting with
arterials.
• Update CIP Funding to Prioritize Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access and Route: Allocate funding
and prioritize implementation of bicycle and
pedestrian projects as part of the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
• Identify Funding Opportunities: Continue to
monitor federal, state, and regional funding
opportunities to augment local funds to
implement recommended walking, biking, and
rolling improvements.
• Maintain Dedicated Funding Source: Maintain
(and increase as available) the existing dedicated
funding for BPTP implementation in the City's CIP .

3. Recommendations 100
• Quick-Build Program: Implement quick-build
pilot/trial projects of the Plan's walking and
bicycling infrastructure recommendations.
• First-/Last-Mile Connection to Caltrain Stations:

Implement bikeways with connections to Caltrain
stations to promote access.
• Existing Trail Access Improvements Project:

Enhance on-street intersections along the existing
trail network, key existing bridge/overpass
approaches, and school route shared use paths,
to improve ADA access, bikeway connectivity,
and convenience for all users. Priority upgrades
include: modifying or replacing substandard safety
corrals with bollards and associated striping/
signage; installing accessible curb ramps and
regrading poor transitions; pedestrian-scaled
lighting; installing high visibility crosswalks at key
locations; and landscaping maintenance/removal.
• Safe Routes for Private Schools: At the request
of private schools with dedicated staff available
to support Safe Routes to School program
development, and as resources are available,
provide guidance to private schools regarding Safe
Routes programming and developing Walk and
Roll suggested route maps to reduce vehicle trips.

Integrated and Collaborative
• Update Municipal Code to Revise Walking,
Biking, and Rolling Guidance: Review the City's
municipal code and ordinances to remove
language that can discourage walking, biking, and
rolling (such requirements to cross at crosswalks
and at a right angle, to report secondhand bike
purchases to the police department, and for
skateboarders to wear reflective devices while
riding between sunset and sunrise). Update
code to align with State guidelines and create
consistent language (e.g., for bike access on
bridges, over and underpasses).
• Regional Network: Continue to consult with other
agencies on bicycle and pedestrian improvement
projects that abut or intersect jurisdictional
boundaries to ensure consistency in facilities,
including Cities (East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Los
Altos, and Mountain View), Counties (Santa Clara

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Membership Structure & Term Limits
• Establish staggered term limits (e.g.,
3-year terms, renewable once) to ensure
fresh perspectives while maintaining
continuity.

Representation Balance
• Limit the number of representatives from
the same organization or stakeholder
group to avoid overrepresentation.
• Ensure a balance of residents, business
representatives, and institutional partners
(e.g., major employers).

Demographic Representation
• Update membership criteria to reflect
the community’s demographics, with
attention to age, gender, race/ethnicity,
and income diversity.
• Establish specific seats for
underrepresented groups, such as youth,
seniors, people with disabilities, and
residents of underserved communities.

Duties & Responsibilities
• Revise duties to align with the 2026 BPTP
Vision and Objectives and current needs
• Expand the committee’s role to include
reviewing performance measures
Transparency & Accountability
• Require annual reports summarizing
recommendations, progress, and
community input.
• Create clear conflict of interest guidelines
for members representing organizations
with potential project interests.
101
and San Mateo), Caltrans, and Caltrain. Partner with VTA and adjacent jurisdictions to develop a connected network prioritizing access while minimizing distance between regional access points. • PABAC Structure: Work with the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to evaluate existing role and structure, discuss membership and the potential to include members and/or liaisons from local non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, transportation management associations, City committees, and other groups, and propose changes that increase efficiency and effectiveness of the committee. • Effective Regulation and Education on Electric Bikes for Youth Safety: Advocate for comprehensive statewide regulations and safety initiatives to ensure the responsible use of electric-bikes bicycles, electric scooters, and other electric mobility devices, particularly by youth. Prioritize youth safety through effective regulation and education. For example, mandatory safety courses, stricter age restrictions and helmet laws, public awareness campaigns, and investment in bicycle infrastructure to create safer riding environments. • Electric Bicycle Engagement Strategy: Work with the Palo Alto Police Department to develop strategies to encourage the safe use of e-bikes on public roads.
• Discouraging Driver Speeding: Work with the Palo Alto Police Department and other partners when implementing and publicizing engineering, education, and enforcement efforts discouraging vehicle speeding in the city, particularly near schools and high-injury locations. • Transit Integration: Some bikeway and crossing recommendations are on routes and at intersections currently served by various transit. The City will coordinate with transit providers to provide comfortable and convenient bike lanes, paths, and crossings to and from transit stations and to provide bike parking at transit hubs with clearly marked routes to people navigate to transit easily. • Caltrans Coordination: Work with Caltrans to streamline permitting and integrate connected bikeways into Caltrans projects; improve bikeway design approaching and crossing Caltrans facilities. • Implementation Updates: Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that new or upgraded facilities are reflected in each agencies’ respective bikeway maps and applications. • Green Street Principles: Incorporate stormwater management into bicycle and pedestrian planning by applying the design strategies outlined in the NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide. Green infrastructure elements should be integrated into street design to manage stormwater, improve sustainability, and extend the life cycle of transportation infrastructure. Stormwater management plans should be overlaid with recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements to identify opportunities for co-investment and multi- benefit projects.

4. Implementation and Funding 102

4. IMPLEMENTATION

AND FUNDING

103
This chapter provides an overview of the project delivery process, project prioritization process, project cost estimates, and identifies funding sources to advance implementation.

4.1 Project Delivery Process
This 2026 BPTP adopts a long-range vision for Palo Alto’s pedestrian and bicycle networks. With implementation of the Complete Vision Network recommendations, every resident in Palo Alto would have access to low-stress, comfortable bikeways that connect to major destinations throughout the City, along with connected sidewalks and frequent and appropriate crossing locations and designs. The recommendations included in 2026 BPTP could require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, public engagement, and engineering design before they can be implemented. Some portions of these networks will be implemented under near- term (less than 10 years), while other recommendations are expected to be advanced beyond that timeframe.

Implementation of the proposed network and programs may occur in phases over time and would be dependent on available resources.

When considering when and how to implement
these projects, the City incorporates design
requirements, including maintaining access for people
with disabilities, maintaining access for emergency
responders, preserving access for utilities and
maintenance, and meeting stormwater requirements,
among other considerations. As projects advance to
design, studies that consider the inclusion of bikeways or other right-of-way reallocations will be evaluated
and potential trade-offs, such as repurposing of
parking or travel lanes will be reviewed. The project
development process generally consists of:
• Project development, scoping, funding. As the
first phase in the development of projects, the
City conducts meetings with key stakeholders
to define the scope of the project and identify
funding opportunities.
• Concept design. Concept design includes
identification of a preferred alternative for
approval by City Council. This stage typically
includes collecting traffic, safety, parking, and
operations data and analyzing the data to
understand existing conditions, and potential
concept design alternatives. Key studies would
be conducted to understand the project benefits
and impacts. Community engagement would
be conducted as part of this effort to identify a
preferred design.
• Detailed engineering design. After designs are
approved by City Council, detailed engineering
will be conducted to answer remaining technical
questions, develop accurate cost estimates,
finalize the funding plan, and solicit construction
bids.
• Construction. Following award of the construction
contract, the project will be built with notification
to affected residents, property owners, and
businesses.

Certain long-term projects may be advanced through
quick-build interim improvements, allowing the City to
deliver early benefits while funding, design, and other challenges are being resolved. Quick-build strategies—
such as paint-and-post treatments, curb extensions,
or temporary traffic calming measures—can provide
immediate safety and mobility enhancements
at relatively low cost. In addition, quick-build
implementation offers an opportunity to test design
concepts, gather real-time performance data, and
evaluate community feedback. This phased approach
enables the City to strengthen community buy-in,
refine project elements, and build momentum toward
full implementation.

Project Initiation & Scoping
Concept Design Engineering
Construction

4. Implementation and Funding 104

4.2 Project Prioritization
Prioritization Framework
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term list of improvements. This 2026 BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over the next ten years. An initial prioritization was conducted to develop scores for each roadway segment in Palo Alto based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity.

Table 7 presents proposed prioritization factors and evaluation criteria. The project prioritization included two stages of evaluation. The initial evaluation quantitively prioritizes projects based on the safety and connectivity factors. The second stage (supplemental evaluation) involved the consideration of three feasibility-oriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support. (Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation and those that are on the Low-Stress Network are considered for near-term implementation.) Additional information is presented in Appendix O: Project Prioritization.

Table 8: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Note: * Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.

Additionally, the list of near term implementation projects was revised based on the feedback from the community and the City Council to prioritize the high-comfort, low-stress, tree-lined streets to encourage the interested but concerned users.

4. Implementation and Funding
105
Near-Term Implementation
The 2026 BPTP focuses staff resources to make incremental progress on the highest priority locations shown in Table 9 (not a ranked list), representing a total of 12 miles of enhancements on the network. The estimated cost of implementing all 16 projects is $12.8 million. Initially, projects scoring above 70 under the evaluation criteria were considered for near-term implementation; however, based on guidance from City staff, City Council, and community feedback, the list was refined. The remaining 78 bicycle projects would be considered for long-term implementation.

Table 9: Near-Term Bicycle Projects

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION COST

ESTIMATE
SUP_1
Quarry Road
Transit Connection
Project
Construct an extended trail from the intersection with El Camino Real to the Palo Alto transit center and Mitchell Lane. $599,250.00 SB_11a
Middlefield Road
Separated Bikeway
Connection to
Menlo Park
Construct a new separated bikeway from Menlo Park to
Everett Ave to allow for intercity connectivity. $202,745.00 SB_12 Homer Avenue
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to a buffered or separated
bikeway on north side and Extend the protected bike lane on south side on Homer Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant Street.
$402,095.20
SB_18
East/West
Meadow Drive
Separated Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to separated bikeway on West Meadow Drive from El Camino Way to Alma street and
continue onto East Meadow Drive from Alma Street to Fabian Way. Consider raised crossings to slow traffic and create safer crossings for students. (Coordinate with the Middlefield Protected Bike Lane project for safe intersection crossings.) $3,002,134.80
SB_20 San Antonio Road
Separated Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway along San Antonio
Avenue frontage street from Alma Street to E. Bayshore
Road. Request new developers to reconstruct street
according to new design. Coordinate with the City's San Antonio Area Plan planning efforts and with surrounding towns to create smooth transition between cities.
$4,220,679.40
SB_23 Fabian Way
Separated Bikeway
Coordinate with the existing South Palo Alto Bikeways
Demonstration Project as part of the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan. Upgrade painted bike lane to buffered and/or separated bikeway along Fabian Way from East Meadow Drive until
Charleston Road to separate road users and create a more low-stress route for school commutes. Lane reconfiguration needed.
$1,044,655.40
BLVD_2
Bryant Street
Bike Boulevard
Downtown Access
Project
Install traffic diverters, speed bumps, traffic circles, or other similar interventions on Bryant Boulevard between Embarcadero Road and downtown. Include a turn restriction from Embarcadero Road going northbound onto Bryant
Boulevard.
$459,337.80
BLVD_15 Cowper Street
Bike Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route to a bike boulevard on Cowper
Street from Coleridge Avenue until East Meadow Drive.

Install raised crossings at Hoover Park. Implement traffic calming elements and wayfinding along route and gateway treatments at intersections.
$1,170,582.00

4. Implementation and Funding 106

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION COST

ESTIMATE
BLVD_24 Park Boulevard
Bike Boulevard
Construct a new bike boulevard along Park Boulevard from Castilleja Avenue to Lambert Avenue, transforming the
current bike lanes into a slow, calm shared roadway bicycle boulevard environment. Use modal filters to lower traffic volumes.
$1,204,620.20
BBL_4 El Camino Way
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade El Camino Way to a buffered bike lane from Los
Robles Avenue to Maybell Avenue. Parking removal needed.

Intersection improvement and wayfinding at the intersection with West Meadow Drive to connect to the separated
bikeway and Wilkie Way bike boulevard. Coordinate with
major intersection improvement at El Camino Real and
Maybell Avenue intersection and new bike boulevard.

Alternatively, consider one-way traffic on El Camino Way to retain parking and accommodate buffered bike lanes.
$86,486.40
BBL_7
Cambridge
Avenue Buffered
Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Cambridge Avenue and Yale Street from Park Avenue to California Avenue, crossing El Camino Real. This is an alternate route for use when California Ave is occupied with community events.
$102,995.20
BBL_8 California Avenue
Buffered Bike Lane
Upgrade painted bike lane to a buffered bike lane on
California Avenue from El Camino Real to Hanover Street.

Parking reconfiguration needed to create space for buffered bike lanes. Coordinate with the El Camino Separated Bikeway project and the Hanover Street Buffered Bike Lane project to create smooth intersection crossings.
$107,811.20
BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo
Buffered Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Amaranta Avenue and
Clemo Avenue from Los Robles Avenue to Arastradero
Road. Consider design details appropriate for a more rural neighborhood context. Coordinate with Arastradero Road
Separated Bikeway to create a safe intersection crossing. $103,331.20
BL_5
Stanford Avenue
Bike Lane
connection to
Hanover
Upgrade bike route and sharrows to painted bike lane on Stanford Avenue from Harvard Street to Dartmouth Street.

Connect to existing bike lanes on Stanford Avenue and new Bike Boulevard on Hanover Street. Coordination is needed with the Stanford University and Escondido Elementary
School. Consider a study of impacts of no left turns on to Escondido Road and Hanover Street.
$11,688.90
BL_6 California Avenue
Bike Lane
Painted a bike lane on California Avenue from the Caltrain station to Birch Street. Coordinate with California Avenue Streetscape project. Consider reorientation of parking stalls to create more space for bicycling.
$39,381.30
CS_1 California Avenue
Community Street
Community Street design on California Avenue from Birch Street to El Camino Real to align with the California Avenue Streetscape project.
$28,143.60
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Note: The costs include only construction expenses; additional funding may be required for planning and engineering assessments. 107

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Construct an undercrossing of Caltrain and Alma street at Seale Ave
CROSSING_09
Matadero Creek
Highway 101 Seasonal
Undercrossing
Convert the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road along Matadero Creek under Highway 101 to a seasonal public trail with reconfiguration of the approaches and addition of lighting, railings and signage. Constructing the new undercrossing and other improvements will help
implement the Matadero Creek Trail/Midtown Connector
project.1
CROSSING_10 Southern Palo Alto Bike/
Ped Crossing
Construct a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Caltrain/Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between El Dorado and Loma Verde Avenues.

This project closes a 1.3 mile gap between existing crossings at California Avenue and Meadow Street, greatly improving east- west connectivity in conjunction with other improvements.2 BLVD_
CROSSING_01
Chaucer Street crossing
of University Avenue
Configure the approaches of Chaucer street with bike boxes to prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

BLVD_
CROSSING_02
Carlson Streer Crossing
of E Charleston Rd
Configure the approaches of Carlson Street with bike boxes to prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

BLVD_
CROSSING_03
Wilkie Way Crossing of
West Charleston Road
Configure the approaches of Wilkie Way with bike boxes to prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

BLVD_
CROSSING_04
Cowper Street Crossing
of East Meadow Drive
Construct jogged connection from Mitchell Park Path to
Cowper Street Integrate with East Meadow street bikeway upgrades.

BLVD_
CROSSING_05
Seale Avenue Bike
Boulevard Crossing of
Middlefield Road
Construct a low-stress crossing of Middlefield Road to
encourage yielding to bicyclists on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

Consider a full intersection median to filter out auto traffic on Seale Ave.

BLVD_
CROSSING_07
Greer Road Crossing of
Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of Green Road with bike boxes to prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

BLVD_
CROSSING_08
St. Francis Drive crossing
of Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of St Francis Drive with bike boxes to prioritize people riding bicycles on this Bicycle Boulevard route.

BLVD_
CROSSING_10
Bryant St crossing of E
Meadow Dr
Enhance the crossing of East Meadow Dr with a median island, flashing beacon or hybrid beacon.

BLVD_
CROSSING_11
Nelson Dr crossing of E
Charleston Rd
Enhance the crossing of East Charleston with a bike box and crossing markings for clear connection between the pathway and bike boulevard.
1 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled “Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101: https:// www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian 2 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled, “South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation”: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian In addition to the recommended bicycle network projects, the following 22 intersection and crossing projects should be considered for near-term enhancements. Of these, nine projects are on either bicycle or pedestrian HIN. Figure 19 shows the 38 near-term bicycles, intersection and crossing projects.

Table 10: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects

4. Implementation and Funding 108

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
INTERSECTION_01
Page Mill Road
and Hanover
Street Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection.

INTERSECTION_02
West Meadow
Drive and El Camino
Way Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection.

INTERSECTION_03
Quarry Road and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection at Quarry Road and El Camino Real as part of the Quarry Road Transit Connection project.

INTERSECTION_05
California Avenue and El
Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Widen and improve the existing sidewalk undercrossing along University Avenue at the Palo Alto Transit Center. This project will improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit and between downtown Palo Alto and one of Stanford University's main entrance, and should include lighting, wayfinding and public art enhancements. Include areas beyond the transit center and undercrossing too, like the Quarry Road Connection.

INTERSECTION_06 Park to Serra Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected intersection to support circulation between Park Avenue, Serra Avenue bike lanes, El Camino Real and the Serra Avenue pathway.

INTERSECTION_07
E Charleston Road
and San Antonio Road
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El
Camino Real
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_10
Embarcadero Road and
El Camino Real Protected
Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_11
Quarry Road and
Arboretum Road
Protected Intersection
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and
Middlefield Road
Construct protected intersection design features to improve safety and comfort of this intersection in coordination with future bikeway upgrade projects
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Projects that are not identified for near-term implementation may be advanced as opportunities arise through existing infrastructure programs, as well as new developments, or other funding mechanisms. The comprehensive list of projects is presented in Appendix L and includes 138 total projects: 94 bicycle projects, 33 crossing and intersection projects, 3 special projects, and 5 recommended studies. 109
Table 11: Other Priority Projects

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION
Study_02 Embarcadero Road
Corridor Study
Following the recommendations of the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan, conduct a corridor study to understand potential safety countermeasures for use on Embarcadero Road. This will determine the feasibility of the full corridor Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway project.

Study_04
Bryant Blvd & E
Meadow Crossing
Feasibility Study
Assess the feasibility of a traffic signal or other crossing treatment to facilitate crossings of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. This Study would be coordinated with SB_18
Study_05
Cal Ave Station
Gap Closure
project
Explore ways to connect Cal Avenue Station over Oregon Expwy to Page Mill Road, over the Page Mill Rd Bridge or via a new connection along the railroad.

SpecProj_01
Hamilton Ave
Pedestrian Signal
Heads
Install pedestrian signal heads on Hamilton Ave in downtown.

SpecProj_03 Ellen Fletcher Bike
Blvd Project
Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd. Project: Work with the Palo Alto Art Center and local volunteers to assign a historic designation to the Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard as the first in the US. Explore collaboration with Palo Alto History Museum. Provide an interactive art installation/digital signage at the El Carmelo/Bryant Bridge that identifies the number of daily cyclists and provides useful education and encouragement messages. Examples are in Fremont. Consider synching with apps like Strava for additional feedback.

110
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

4. Implementation and Funding 112

4.3 Cost Estimates
To develop planning-level cost estimates, a sample of recent bicycle projects in Palo Alto provided by the City was reviewed to determine unit costs (cost per mile) for each facility type. These estimates are based on the assumption that corridors include an average of 12 intersections per mile and that contingency costs range from 20% to 40%, depending on the complexity of the facility. Standard assumptions were applied to estimate costs for elements such as mobilization, traffic control, engineering, and construction management. The estimates do not include costs related to right-of-way acquisition, grading or retaining walls, utility relocation, landscaping, striping removal, or lighting, except in the case of Class I Shared Use Paths.

Table 11 summarizes the planning-level costs for the recommended bicycle projects. For bike boulevards and separated bikeway, it is assumed that half of the projects will fall into the high-cost category and the other half into the low-cost category. Based on these assumptions, the total cost to implement the 94 bicycle projects included in the 2026 BPTP is estimated at approximately $78 million.

Table 12: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Projects

TYPE OF FACILITY COST PER MILE LENGTH (MILE) COST
Class I Shared Use Path $4,700,000 7.95 $37,365,000
Class IIa Bike Lanes $141,000 3.78 $532,800
Class IIb Buffered Bike Lanes $224,000 5.93 $1,329,400 Class IIIa Advisory Bike Lanes $419,000 0.30 $124,400 Class IIIb Bike Boulevard (Low Cost) $466,000 10.77 $5,017,900 Class IIIb Bike Boulevard (High Cost) $720,000 10.77 $7,753,000 Class IV Separated Bikeway (Low Cost) $358,000 11.40 $4,080,500 Class IV Separated Bikeway (High Cost) $1,886,000 11.40 $21,496,900 Total (High Cost) 62.29 $77,699,900
Costs for intersection and crossing improvements are not included in the 2026 BPTP , as they vary widely by project and cannot be accurately estimated at the planning stage. The costs could be estimated using the previous bid documents and Caltrans Contract Cost Database.1 1 Caltrans. Contract Cost Database. Accessed from https://d8data.dot.ca.gov/contractcost/index.php 113

4.4 Funding Sources
Bicycle and pedestrian projects can be funded through a range of local, regional, state, and federal sources. To enhance its competitiveness for these funds, the City of Palo Alto should ensure its projects align with the core goals of the funding programs—typically centered on equity, safety, sustainability, and connectivity. Besides dedicated funding sources, some bicycle and pedestrian projects can be implemented by integrating project elements into streets scheduled for repaving through the City’s five-year paving plan.

Certain grants such as Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) require a project to reduce motor vehicle emissions or traffic congestion to be eligible for funding.2 All near-term implementation projects identified in the 2026 BPTP meet this criterion, as they were prioritized for their ability to improve access to transit and encourage mode shift. Similarly, the Active Transportation Program (ATP) requires applicants to show public health, safety, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits, as well as evidence of strong community engagement.3 The near-term projects satisfy these requirements, having received broad community support while advancing health, safety, and sustainability outcomes.

Project readiness is another key factor; projects that have completed environmental clearance, secured right- of-way, and are close to being shovel-ready are often prioritized. In addition, strong support from key agency partners such as VTA, Caltrans, schools, nonprofit organizations, and neighboring jurisdictions can significantly strengthen a project’s application. The list of funding sources is included in Appendix P: List of Funding Sources. 2 Bay Area Air District. TFCA Regional Fund. Accessed from https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and-incentives/funding-sources/regional- fund
3 California Transportation Commission. Active Transportation Program. Accessed from https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active- transportation-program

5. Conclusion

5. CONCLUSION

115
Safe
and
Inclusive
Connected
and
Accessible
Community-
Led and
Cooperative
Comfortable
and
Enjoyable
Integrated
and
Collaborative
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term investment in infrastructure, programs, and policies to support the Plan’s vision and objectives. Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health throughout Palo Alto.

The 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update promotes and encourages active and sustainable transportation in Palo Alto and establishes the City’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving conditions for walking, biking, and rolling. The vision is a universally accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes walking and biking for people of all ages and abilities. The Plan’s performance measures allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the five objectives:

Palo Alto City CouncilDecember 1, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
December 1, 2025