November 19, 2025
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITYPHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SYNTHESIS OF STANDING MEETINGS Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Meeting (September 10, 2025) Requested clarification on the relationship between the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project and noted that the analysis assumes Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would be grade separated for all travel modes (vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians) in the future. Expressed opposition to design alternatives that require adding a new signalized intersection on Alma Street due to increases in motor vehicle travel delay and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Alma Street. However, it was noted that additional traffic signals and reduced lane widths on Alma Street may reduce vehicle speeds. Clarified that weekday bicycle and pedestrian trip demand for Alternatives B and C would likely be different due to added travel times waiting at a traffic signal at Alma Street. Expressed concern with design alternatives that require private homes and recommended the Alternatives Analysis made the number of homes impacted by each alternative clearer. Supported crossing locations with the highest bicycle and pedestrian demand projections. Generally, unsupportive of additional bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road (Alternatives D and E) due to Rail Grade Separation Project, low demand projections (Alternatives D, E, and F), and in-direct roadways that would connect to/from the future tunnel. Most supported Alternative B, followed by Alternatives A, C, G, and H. City/School Transportation Safety Committee (10/23/2025) Requested clarification on the meaning of “right-of-way impacts”, number of bicycle and pedestrian crossings that would be built because of this effort, and relationship to the Rail Grade Separation Project. Provided general feedback on the tunnel designs that would apply to all alternatives. o Suggested ramp grades are less than the ramps at California Avenue and are designed to accommodate larger bikes and discourage bike speeding. o Emphasized that tunnel lighting is very important at night as well as during the day as visibility can be limited when quickly transitioning from dark to light on a bright/sunny day.
November 19, 2025
o Noted that tunnel width is very important to accommodate two-way travel and suggested that future tunnels are wider than those at California Avenue. o Expressed concern with situations where students would cross traffic to access tunnels due to potential safety risks. o Encouraged City to consider way to avoid at-grade crossings of Alma Street and clarified that Alma Street at the Homer tunnel (which includes an at-grade crossing of Alma Street via a signalized intersection) has a speed limit of 25 mph and is in a more urban/downtown setting where vehicles travel at slower speeds. Recommended placement of existing/future crossings be evenly spaced out and aligned with school routes to increase accessibility for users. Suggested City also considers enhancements at the existing California Avenue crossing. Generally supportive of Alternative B due to location and grade-separated crossing of Alma Street. However, noted there would be significant trade-offs as this design would require 2-4 private lots. Generally supportive of Alternative A due to limited property impacts (would not impact existing buildings) and encouraged City to consider refinements that would extend the tunnel to El Dorado and provide a grade-separated crossing of Alma Street. Interested in exploring Alternatives G and H to support east-west bicycle and pedestrian connectivity due to future, high-density housing along San Antonio Road. However, noted that Alternative H does not provide family-friendly rail crossings for students. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (11/4/2025) Requested clarification on the relationship and potential construction sequencing of the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project, as well as number of crossings currently being considered in relation to their geographic distribution. Expressed opposition to design alternatives that require adding a new signalized intersection on Alma Street due to increases in pedestrian and bicycle travel times waiting to cross Alma Street. Supportive of Alternative B due to location and grade-separated crossing of Alma Street, however, noted significant trade-offs due to private property acquisitions on Park Boulevard and circulation disruptions to adjacent properties on Loma Verde Avenue. Supportive of Alternative A due to limited property impacts and suggested modifying design to extend tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue. Supportive of Alternative G due to location and proximity to San Antonio Caltrain Station, connection with Del Medio and San Antonio Shopping Center in Mountain View. Generally supportive of Alternative H due to enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access to the San Antonio Caltrain Station but noted center-running bikeway on San Antonio Road would be intimidating for many people (especially at signalized intersections on either end). Suggested refinements to Alternative H included improvements at San Antonio Road/Mackay Drive intersection for better bicycle and pedestrian access to Nita Avenue, November 19, 2025
and use of the tunnel underneath San Antonio Road near Briarwood Way and a multi-use path connecting to Mayfield Avenue. Generally unsupportive of Alternatives D, E, and F due to low demand projections. Provided feedback that would apply to several alternatives: o Recommended reduced tunnel heights and depths to reduce ramp lengths and property impacts. o Suggested additional exploration of ramps/tunnels that use the landscaped planted area on the eastside of Alma Street rather than tunneling down the middle of the street due to adjacent property impacts and circulation disruptions. Noted Alternative D as favorable design due to grade-separated crossing under Alma Street and use of landscaped strip on Alma Street. o Reinforced that this will be a major infrastructure project and will be used for a long time, so it should be forward-thinking. o Encouraged enhanced pathway designs to more bicycle-oriented that can accommodate two-way travel. Rail Committee (11/18/2025) Requested clarification on the relationship and interplay between the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project and the Rail Grade Separation Project and the sequencing of construction of these projects. Requested clarification on the meaning of “parcel impacts”, including what is the worst and best case for these alternatives. Commented that there may be Caltrain right-of-way impacts for alternatives proposing a ramp between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. Provided feedback that Alternatives G and H primarily serve Mountain View and would require close collaboration and partnership with Mountain View. Suggested eliminating D, E, and F from further consideration due to trade-offs. Requested confirmation that it would be possible to mix and match design elements of the alternatives, for example modifying Alternative A to include a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. Commented that as concepts are advanced, trade-offs with slopes and ramp lengths as well as whether to cross Alma Street at-grade (via new signalized intersection) or below-grade (via tunnel) should be explored. Noted that the committee looked forward to feedback from Stanford University, Stanford Research Park, and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Discussed challenges with the exploration of steeper ramps with tighter switchbacks to reduce impacts to parcels and improbability of finding two willing property sellers at Alternatives B and C. Supportive of Alternative A due to location near Matadero Creek, connections to El Dorado Avenue (as a lower volume street and future bicycle boulevard), Bryant Street, El Carmelo Elementary School, Hoover Park, NVCAP and Stanford Research Park, limited property impacts, higher bicycle and pedestrian use and opportunities for mode shift.
November 19, 2025
Unanimously passed a motion to recommend to Council Alternative A as the preferred alternative and remove all other alternatives from further consideration, and advance Alternative A as Alternative A1 and create a new Alternative A2 at El Dorado Avenue that would include a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks.