From: Peggy Yao
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Suggestions on SB_18
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 12:53:04 AM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.11.27 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.04.03 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.05.42 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.32.35 AM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor, vice Mayor, and City Council members,
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break!
I am a 20-year resident in Palo Alto. I am writing to share my thoughts and suggestions on SB_18. This proposal plans to convert the painted bike lane into a separated bikeway along West/East Meadow from El Camino Way all the way to Fabian Way. My suggestion is specific about the E Meadow Drive portion from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir (the red line on the map below).
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
First of all, I love biking, and I do care about bikers' safety. My kids bike to schools, and biking to the Bayland reserve across 101 is our family's classic weekend activity.
However, developing the separated bikeway along East Meadow Drive from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir is NOT necessary, however, it will cause a lot of problems to the residents there and Ramos Park visitors.
1. Why unnecessary?
Because this stretch of E Meadow Dr is wide with wide bike lanes, especially the portion from Grove Ave to Louis Rd -- there is a dedicated bike lane outside of the parking lane.
Please see the map below. So the space for bikes is very generous. Moreover, this stretch of E Meadow Dr also has much lower traffic than the other side of Middlefield. Whenever my family bikes to this stretch, I am not nervous at all because it feels really safe.
2. If building a separated bikeway, what problems will be caused to the residents and Ramos park visitors?
- This stretch of E Meadow is a pure resident area. Many residents have garages and front doors on the E Meadow Dr. Not sure how those residents can get in/out, or how their gardeners and service people can park their service vehicles close enough to the house to conduct the service, if the lane in front of their houses is blocked. - Ramos Park (located along E Meadow Dr, between Ross Rd and Louis Rd) is a park purely relying on street parking. It's getting a lot busier than before after the restrooms are built. It's also a park for soccer classes during weekdays and soccer games during weekends. With the separated bikeway installed, the park visitors will lose many parking spots near the park. Not sure flooding the visitor parking into surrounding residential areas will be a welcome change.
3. The project will be costly. Saving some money by reducing the scope for some portions will make better use of taxpayers' money.
Because it's unnecessary and it will cause many problems, I'd like to propose NOT to build the separated bikeway along E Meadow Dr from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir, at least not from Grove Ave to Louis Rd.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Peggy
From: Shujie Jiao
To: Council, City
Cc: Xiaofan Lin
Subject: Concerns About the Proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A) Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 10:35:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council and Transportation Staff,
I am a homeowner living on the corner of El Dorado Avenue and Waverley Street, very close to the proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A). I strongly support safe biking and walking throughout Palo Alto, and I appreciate the City’s efforts to improve cross- town connectivity. However, after reviewing the preliminary concepts, I have significant concerns about the suitability of the El Dorado alignment for a major bike/pedestrian tunnel.
I respectfully ask the City to remove Alternative A (El Dorado) from the preferred options or, at minimum, to conduct deeper analysis of its impacts on our narrow residential street. ⸻
1. El Dorado is a Narrow, Quiet Residential Street Not
Designed for High-Volume Through Traffic
The City anticipates up to 2,500 daily bike/ped trips using a new crossing. Channeling that volume down El Dorado would fundamentally change the character of the block. Today, it is a calm street primarily used by local residents. Turning it into a busy connector corridor raises quality-of-life concerns for all of us living here.
⸻
2. The New Alma/El Dorado Traffic Signal May Cause
Queuing in Front of Our Homes
The proposal includes a new traffic signal at Alma & El Dorado. Given the narrow width of El Dorado and the proximity to Waverley, I am deeply concerned that:
• Car queues will back up past Waverley, directly in front of my house.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
• We will experience increased idling, noise, and exhaust from stopped cars. • The street geometry is simply not designed to store long queues.
I respectfully request that the City release its traffic modeling, queue-length projections, and assumptions for this signalized intersection so residents can fully understand the operational impacts.
⸻
3. Safety Concerns When Backing Out of Driveways on a
Narrow Street
As someone who uses my driveway daily, I am worried about the increased risks of:
• Backing into fast-moving groups of cyclists,
• Limited sight distances on a narrow street, and
• The lack of space to safely pause and check for bikes and pedestrians.
This problem would be much less severe on a wider street or one already functioning as a designated Bike Boulevard.
⸻
4. Privacy, Noise, and Neighborhood Character Impacts
The tunnel will attract constant foot and bike traffic throughout the day, including early mornings, evenings, and weekends. While I fully support active transportation for our community, having hundreds or thousands of people pass directly in front of our windows every day creates genuine concerns about:
• Privacy
• Lighting and nighttime activity
• Noise from groups of riders
• General changes to how our block feels and functions
This is very different from adding a painted bike lane—it transforms the street into a major cross-town portal.
⸻
5. Construction Disruptions Will Be Significant
The City estimates ~18 months of construction for tunnel options. Living so close to the project area, my household would be heavily affected by:
• Construction noise and vibration
• Dust and air quality issues
• Truck traffic and staging
• Potential nighttime or weekend work
• Temporary street closures or detours
As someone with health sensitivities, prolonged dust and construction emissions are a major concern.
⸻
6. Better-Suited Alternatives Exist
I strongly support improved bicycle and pedestrian connections across the railroad. However, other alignments—including Loma Verde or San Antonio Road—provide more direct connections, occur on wider streets, and reduce neighborhood impacts.
These alternatives appear to achieve the same transportation and safety goals without placing disproportionate burdens on a small, narrow, fully residential block. ⸻
Request
I respectfully ask the City to:
1. Remove the El Dorado tunnel (Alternative A) from the preferred list, OR provide a clear, transparent analysis demonstrating that:
• queues will not spill into Waverley,
• driveway safety will be protected,
• property and privacy impacts are minimized, and
• construction impacts are properly mitigated.
2. Consider placing a major cross-town bicycle/pedestrian facility on a wider, better- suited corridor that can safely and comfortably handle higher volumes.
Thank you very much for your time and for considering the viewpoint of the residents who live directly along the proposed alignment. I appreciate the City’s commitment to sustainable transportation, and I hope we can find a solution that improves connectivity while preserving the safety, livability, and character of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Shujie Jiao and Xiaofan Lin
El Dorado Ave & Waverley St Resident
Palo Alto, CA
From: Ryan Ma
To: Council, City
Subject: Comment on South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Oppose Alternative A as Sole Preferred Option Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:18:33 PM
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council,
I am a South Palo Alto resident and a strong supporter of safer bicycle and pedestrian connections. We live near El Dorado Avenue, our children walk and bike to El Carmelo along this street every day, and I drive to work from El Dorado to Alma Street daily. Based on these firsthand experiences and observations, I am convinced that Alternative A is not a good option for this community, and I am writing to oppose designating Alternative A as the sole preferred alternative and eliminating all others at this time.
First, El Dorado Avenue is already a key school route. Many El Carmelo Elementary students currently walk and bike along El Dorado to school. The City’s own safety materials identify a fatal pedestrian collision at El Dorado and South Court and place this segment on the pedestrian High Injury Network. Using El Dorado as the primary access to a new tunnel will funnel even more riders and cut-through traffic onto a narrow street heavily used by children during school hours, increasing conflict and risk rather than reducing it.
Second, El Dorado is a narrow local street, and the Alma / El Dorado area already experiences congestion and documented collisions. On-street parking and turning movements create regular bottlenecks today. Police collision reports show crashes at Alma / El Dorado, including unsafe-speed and bike-involved incidents. Adding a high-volume tunnel entrance here will push more traffic and turning movements into an intersection and corridor that are already struggling.
Third, moving to a single option now would deviate from the City’s published Phase 2 process for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project, which calls for advancing two This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
alternatives to 15% conceptual design for evaluation and community input before selecting a single preferred alternative. Narrowing to one option before comparable 15% designs and impact analyses are available prematurely constrains both Council’s and the community’s choices.
I respectfully request that Council:
1. decline to adopt Alternative A as the sole preferred alternative; and
2. direct staff to advance at least one additional alternative to 15% conceptual design so that the final choice can be based on a fair comparison of safety, traffic, cost, and neighborhood impacts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ryan
2801 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Glanckopf, Annette
Subject: El Dorado Bike/Tunnel
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:03:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council:
Prior to, or during, your December 1st meeting agenda to choose a bike/rail crossing on Alma Street, please look much more deeply and thoroughly, before selecting El Dorado Avenue
to locate an Alma bike underpass, as has been suggested by council members Burt, Lauing, and Lythcott-Haims
We went out ourselves to measure the width of El Dorado at 27 feet curb-to-curb, noting that the
street currently has no marked lanes for bikes, and has parking on both sides of the street, including cars and trucks.
Many cars, particularly near rental properties without adequate parking, use El Dorado to park on both sides of the street,
choking passage by allowing only one car to pass at a time. The proposal would congest flow further, especially by adding
the (presumably necessary) bike lanes to protect the children going to El Carmelo School.
Further choking would follow by adding safety bike lanes, El Dorado would have to change to a one-way
street to accommodate both bike lanes and street parking on that 27 foot width.
Parking might also have to be further restricted.
We were also curious about the other options the council has under consideration, and went out to see Loma Verde Avenue,
which passes directly by El Carmelo School to Alma Street, and measured that street's width.
In contrast to El Dorado's width of 27 feet, Loma Verde's measured street width- curb to curb- is 40 feet, and bike
lanes and parking spaces already safely exist there on Loma Verde.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The difference in curb-to-curb street width, in comparing El Dorado and Loma Verde, is 13 feet, and Loma Verde
has already in place generous bike lanes and parking for safe travel by children and adults. Locating the Alma bike tunnel to connect to
Loma Verde (and directly to El Carmelo School) rather than El Dorado would presumably would be safer, and cheaper.
Council members should pause and look more deeply into the choice of location, perhaps even getting out
and seeing for things physically for themselves, in order to do due diligence and make a more nuanced decision
on the location of this important project. This decision needs to be based on sound facts and reasoning, not rushed through.
Once made, it will permanently lock in permanently a traffic-and-bike-safety pattern (or unsafe pattern)
for decades to come.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Glendening
Kerry A. Glendening
El Dorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Annette Glanckopf
To: Council, City
Subject: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity - NO on Alternative A Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:37:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: Annette Glanckopf
Topic: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity
I recently wrote expressing letters I have gotten from Midtown with concerns about selecting Alternative A, El Dorado, for the Bike/Ped Crossing.
Now I write as a nearby resident to El Dorado. This is a bad choice, and I strongly suggest one of the Loma Verde alternatives. Although selfishly, a traffic light at El Dorado and Alma would allow many of us, including me, to avoid the treacherous turn south on Alma from El Dorado; I still do not support Alternative A.
I do not support Alternative A for the following reasons. <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Proximity to the Cal Ave Crossing <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. El Dorado is a very narrow street with resident parking. <!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Speeding and cut through traffic on this narrow El Dorado is commonplace. Putting the crossing here will increase danger to bicyclists.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Residents, apartment dwellers, who live on Alma park on El Dorado. The low income property at the corner also uses El Dorado for parking multiple cars.
5. <!--[endif]-->But my main concern is that there are a number of cul de sacs that back onto El Dorado with El Dorado as their only access. They include Emerson, Ramona, Bryant, South Court. This street design is unique in Palo Alto. Traffic in rush hour or school hours can be significant. Frustration with access to El Dorado is bound to cause accidents. It is not just the cul de sacs who use El Dorado. The north side of the cul de sacs also use it. The other access to Alma is Colorado, and a left turn south onto to Alma is mission impossible (a death wish).
6. Consider the city environmental concern about additional car trips. Alternative A will force drivers to take a circuitous route
In conclusion, I strongly support Alternative B or C for the crossing.
Respectively submitted,
Annette Glanckopf
From: Robert Neff
To: Council, City
Subject: Support Rail Committee"s Recommendation for South PA Connectivity Item 18 Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 12:32:57 AM
Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council,
Re: Dec. 1: Item 18: Recommendation from Rail Committee for City Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity:
I strongly support the course of action recommended by the Rail Committee on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity program. I think staff and consultants have pulled together a large menu of project possibilities, and the Rail Committee has done an excellent job discerning what will be beneficial, and what may be possible. I think the recommended crossing at El Dorado will be beneficial to those wanting a better, more direct way to cross the tracks here in Midtown.
Choosing to focus on just 2 possibilities at one location should save us money, and speed up the process to making such a crossing a reality.
So I encourage you to support he Rail Committee recommendation, and move the overall project along more quickly.
Thank you for your service to our city.
-- Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments Date: Saturday, November 29, 2025 6:53:50 PM
Attachments: South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here (attached pdf) are comments I submitted to city staff re: South Palo Connectivity Concept Options.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments
11/4/2025
What Questions or Feedback does PABAC have on the eight Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis?
Question: Will PABAC meeting and written comments on this go to City Council? Alternative A: El Dorado Tunnel- Though I like the Park BB landing side of this Xing (and that it takes no homes), I don’t like that it requires people on foot and on bikes to cross Alma at-grade. It looks to me like El Dorado may be too narrow to tunnel here. Am I right about that? If we can tunnel under Alma at this location and not take homes, Alt. A might rise to the top of my list.
One of my top two choices is Alternative B- Loma Verde Tunnel which provides needed connectivity for growing Ventura and Charleston Meadow and growing neighborhoods in the southwest quadrant west of ECR to get to midtown and southeast quadrant services and bike routes. That said, please see my comments on Alternative A which might be my preferred location if the city can also grade-separate Alma at El Dorado. (Such an option wasn’t shown.) Alt. B will provide a safe, completely grade-separated Xing of both Alma and the Caltrain tracks for southeast quadrant PAUSD students who attend Paly HS to get to/from school and other bicyclists in the southeast quadrant to get to Park BB both directions. This will eliminate the need to cross Oregon Expressway at-grade to get to Paly from southeast quadrant. It also will provide a new, safe, bike/ped Xing for work commuters coming in from Bay trails and from in-town to SRP and Stanford.
I hope we will do all we can to minimize impacts on homes.
Alternative C--Loma Verde with Alma Signal- I don’t like the at-grade Alma Xing component of this concept. Auto traffic impacts on Alma will only increase as the city grows in south PA. Alma operates like an expressway for motorists. Let’s please acknowledge the safety implications of that, and grade separate the Alma Xing.
Alternative D & E: Lindero Place—Though I still like this option, and I like how few homes it impacts, it is a lower priority now that we know SARAP kids will not be attending PAUSD schools.
We need to spend this grade sep money on addressing SARAP needs as early as possible.
Alternative F- Ely Place –Remove from options. Poorly connected to well-used existing bike routes on the east side of the tracks. Kids in these areas are assigned to Fairmeadow, Palo Verde, JLS and Gunn. This route would only connect well to Gunn for them, and it doesn’t mitigate high- density SARAP bike/ped demand as well as Ferne might.
Alternative G: Ferne Avenue might be an option that could help with SARAP needs. It might rise to my second choice, depending on answers to some questions.— It adds an at-grade crossing of Alma that is pretty close to the signalized intersections at San Antonio Avenue/Alma and Mayfield Ave/Alma. The signals would have to be very carefully timed to discourage speeding between signals and light running (like what used to happen between Middlefield and Nelson Drive). I’d prefer a grade-separated crossing of Alma in this concept, especially with increased auto traffic that will be coming to Alma with high-density growth that is underway in MV and Palo Alto in this area.
This concept connects neatly to Del Medio and Miller to Wilkie and Park BB. Also, it connects to Fayette/San Antonio Road and into San Antonio Shopping Center and a signalized intersection to access ECR regional bike lanes.
Question: Would choosing Alternative G preclude making improvements to San Antonio Caltrain Station connections?
Questions: Alternative G also connects to existing Los Altos school routes from Palo Alto.
Does the city know what school sites SARAP kids will be assigned to? Can we find out? It seems like future school routes for new Palo Alto residents should be considered as we consider where bike/ped grade seps should be.
We need to improve connections to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and to help future residents of the SARAP Area get to/from shopping, work, schools. I don’t yet see a great option in the set for all of these purposes. Ferne is ok—though it requires some out-of-direction travel from SARAP (Its advantages are that it connects to quieter, level streets. I haven’t checked the travel time on a bike yet.)
Future Palo Alto residents of the SARAP area will have to cross city boundaries a lot to get to everything, including public schools (Some of the new housing may be assigned to MV/LA school districts, but they will be residents of Palo Alto.) We need to work with MV and/or LA now to make sure excellent bike/ped options are prepared for people of all ages and abilities before they move in.
Existing pathways in the train station at Mayfield and San Antonio Avenue are too narrow for bikes/peds to pass each other safely and easily today. Handlebar-grabbing fencing in the Caltrain station area exacerbates this problem, requiring bicyclists to dismount, even today. The existing underpass facilities at the train station have sharp turns and stairs and difficult narrow spaces (big problems when schlepping kids and/or groceries).
Question: Where can we find studies of cumulative traffic impacts of planned growth in MV and PA in this area? How do we plan functional street systems without such studies? Will the SARAP process provide cumulative/aggregate impacts analysis of traffic impacts of growth in this area of MV and Palo Alto? Both cities need this analysis. If it’s true that this work hasn’t been done (surprising, given that the Housing Element was so significantly changed and what’s happening in MV and 101 interchanges), staff and Council will be flying blind in transportation planning for huge increases in density—more than the 955 units and other development on Charleston-Arastradero that got a Nexus Study that enabled a Transportation Impact Fee that helped fund mitigations.
Alternative H: Proposed protected bike lane concept over the overpass looks good on a map, and probably will be cheap to implement, but likely will be an awful bike facility—a long climb surrounded by four lanes of fast auto/truck traffic. This is a facility for strong and fearless riders who are fit enough to ride uphill for a stretch without swerving, are confident taking a lane at multi- lane intersections to get on/off the facility. This facility is not for kids, or less experienced, less fit adults on bikes. This overpass was designed for cars and trucks, not bikes.
I disagree with the Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives ranking of demand for this option. I recognize that high density growth naturally will lead to greater demand at this location, but I think the design will discourage most riders who might want to bike. I know the intersections at both ends of the overpass facility very well. This is a poor design concept for the full range of people who bike, especially given the increased auto traffic volumes that are coming to San Antonio Road.
Questions:
1. What is the grade of this ramp?
2. What is the length of the ramp climb for bicyclists?
3. Is City of Mountain View, which controls the west side of this crossing, willing to collaborate on this concept? What other jurisdictions might have a role in decision-making? (Caltrain? VTA?)
4. What’s the plan to help less skilled, confident bicyclists safe and comfortable making turns on and off this facility?
We need this information to evaluate this concept.
Charlie, I appreciate your thorough, thoughtful work and how carefully you answer questions. It’s evident that you are doing your best to explore and offer a solid set of options to consider. Thank you.
From: David Vespe
To: Council, City
Subject: Feedback on Rail Committee Recommendations (2025-12-01 meeting, agenda item 18) Date: Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:28:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I'm a Midtown resident, and I don't like the proposal to build a Caltrain underpass at El Dorado.
My family and I live near El Dorado and currently use the underpass at California Ave, which is already close by and works well for us. Adding another underpass would not help us get anywhere, could negatively impact traffic flow or increase traffic in our neighborhood, and would be a significant waste of money.
So I'd prefer not to see this project move forward.
Thank you.
David Vespe
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Tim Oey
To: Council, City
Subject: Yes El Dorado underpass under Caltrain & Alma with a straight passage! Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:56:08 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Honorable City Council,
I bike a lot all over Palo Alto.
My wife is disabled and I ride with her on a special tandem that accommodates her disability. I also ride by myself pulling bicycle trailers. Neither our tandem nor my bike with bicycle trailers can pass through the California Ave tunnel due to the sharp chicane turns in the middle. It is very difficult or impossible to ride our tandem through bicycle passages with sharp turns and I also often get stuck trying to navigate these with my bicycle trailers.
My wife and I highly prefer a straight and wide path under the train tracks and under Alma so we can get from Park Ave to the Ellen Fletcher Bike Boulevard without having to zigzag.
Some other Palo Alto bike facilities that are essentially impossible for us to use are the Homer Ave under crossing and the narrow Embarcadero Crossing over 101 near Oregon Expressway due to narrowness and sharp turns.
We greatly appreciate the new Adobe Creek Bridge -- it is wide with gentle curves that we can easily navigate.
Here is a picture of my wife on our tandem:
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Here is one of a disabled local friend of mine with her father:
Here is one of my bicycle with trailer:
Front loading Bakfiets cargo bikes are also very popular:
All these bikes and bikes with trailers have a wide turning radius of around 10' sometimes more -- narrower than a car but much wider than a standard bike.
A straight passage is strongly preferred but if there is a turn and it can handle a 10' turning radius, that would be ok too.
Would it be possible to redo the California tunnel so it is much wider? It is straight at least.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Tim Oey
From: Reid Kleckner
To: Council, City
Cc: Palo Alto SVBC local
Subject: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Plan Feedback
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:24:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable councilmembers,
I'm very excited by the prospect of a bike/ped undercrossing at El Dorado! I answered the survey, and this was one of my preferred alternatives.
I wanted to inquire about the possibility of extending the tunnel under Alma, placing the pedestrian staircases in the grass median along Alma, and extending the 7% ramp along El Dorado, either in the parking strip or in the center, and eliminating left turns at that intersection. I attached an inexpertly created visual for reference. Drawing it out suggests that driveway modifications make this difficult, but perhaps there's some opportunity for creativity.
All bike/ped traffic is coming from or going to the Northeast side of Alma, so extending the tunnel would make it much more useful. The two long 180' hairpin ramp switchbacks plus the need to cross at street level make this route much less attractive when compared to the Cal Ave crossing which avoids the need to cross Alama at street level.
Additionally, given the rate of collisions around Alma / Oregon / Colorado (citation needed, but the substation gate has been repaired multiple times now), it seems clear to me that one day those intersections will need traffic lights. If there's a light at Colorado, that would provide safe, low-stress access to turn left onto Alma for drivers in north Midtown. If the bike/ped tunnel crosses Alma, there's not much remaining need for a traffic light at El Dorado.
Thanks for your consideration,
Reid
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Liz Cowie
To: Council, City
Subject: El Dorado Ave proposed bike tunnel under Alma - thank you Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:46:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi City Council members,
I am happy to hear that you are considering the proposal for a bike/pedestrian tunnel under Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. I live at 189 El Dorado, about a block and a half from Alma, and think this is an excellent idea. We’d use it a lot.
The tunnel is also welcome as a way to divert bike traffic away from the Cal Ave tunnel, which is not ideally set up for cyclists. Fewer bikes would mean greater safety for Cal Ave tunnel pedestrians.
NOTE: I’d love to see the tunnel go under Alma Street - for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Having a traffic light at Alma and El Dorado might sound OK but we all know that cars go really fast on Alma, and it would not be surprising if they failed to stop for the light.
Extending the tunnel under Alma Street is the sensible and safer move.
Thanks for listening, and for considering this proposal.
Liz Cowie
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Sue Allen
To: Council, City
Subject: Bike/Train grade separation plans
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 12:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I just saw the recommendation for the undercrossing at El Dorado.
Once again those of us in South Palo Alto get short-changed. There is already an underpass at California Ave! Why put one just a few blocks south? How about something down south near Charleston or Meadow for all the students riding bikes to/from Gunn High School each day? They are not going to ride all the way north to El Dorado to get under the tracks. Students going to Green Middle School already have a straight-shot at California Ave, and those going to Paly also have a fairly close underpass to go that direction.
By far the largest contingent of bicyclists in Palo Alto is students.
Let's look at making it convenient for them, please!
Thank you,
Sue Allen
Grove Ave, Palo Alto
From: Annette Glanckopf
To: Council, City
Subject: El Dorado crossing.
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:01:10 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
The Midtown Residents Association is starting to get concerned comments and pleas re the installation of a pedestrian/bike crossing at El Dorado. All of the emails I have received claim
1) it is the wrong location since it is less than .5 mile from the Cal Ave Undercrossing 2) the street is very narrow with many cars parking on both sides, Esp the low income housing project at corner. Construction of a mega house is planned for that first block near Alma. One comment
"When we think of the traffic congestion we already have on El Dorado, I can’t imagine how an increase in bikes and pedestrians is going to work. Already there’s congestion just with parking because the street is so narrow. Will bike lanes be installed?"..
3) tenants from Alma Street are parking on Emerson and El Dorado. 4) this route will encourage more traffic and speeding.
I think this location is the worst location, even though I would welcome a traffic light.
It also will encourage bikes along Alma, so dangerous. Speeding is already horrible on Bryant now esp in rush hour,
Please reconsider the location.
Annette Glanckopf
2747 Bryant
650-321-8933