City Council December 1, 2025 Meeting www.PaloAlto.gov
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED
CONNECTIVITY
INITIAL REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES AND ELIMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Charlie Coles,
Senior Transportation Planner
RECOMMENDATION
2 Rail Committee and Staff recommend the City Council review eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis Option 1: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. Staff will return to Council in early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred alternatives.
Option 2: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives and select one or more alternatives to eliminate from further consideration. Rail Committee and Staff recommend Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and advance two variants:
• Alternative A1 with a signalized crossings across Alma St at El Dorado Ave. • Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma St and Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Ave.
Project Study Area
3 Project Background
4 1
Project Timeline
WE ARE HERE
Review Existing
Conditions
Early 2025
Evaluate
Alternatives
Summer 2025
Prepare Public
Draft Report
Summer 2026
Apply for Grant
Funding
Spring 2027
Establish Design
Priorities
Spring 2025
Feedback on
Alternatives
Fall 2025 – Early 2026
Review Draft
Public Report
Fall 2026
Council Adopt
Final Report
Spring 2027
Project
Process
Community
Engagement
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
5 1
Transportation Projects Are Complex
6 • Early stages of high-profile project
• Multiple stakeholders and agencies
• Complex engineering challenges
• Right-of-way implications
• Considerable flexibility in designs (including locations) • A lot more community engagement and technical design
work to come
Conceptual Design Alternative Locations
7 A
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with
Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements
B/C
H
G
F
D/E
1 Preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives
8 Design concepts shown are preliminary and
intended for discussion purposes only. All
concepts are flexible and subject to
refinement. Additional community
engagement and technical design work will
be needed once locations and basic design
concepts have been decided.
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel w Alma Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel w
Alma Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
1 Initial Assessment of
Conceptual Alternatives
9 • High (black) score
indicates stronger
alignment with
community values
• Results are one of
several considerations in
the process of selecting
alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with
Alma St Signal
F. Ely Place Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Phase 2 Community Engagement (Fall 2025 – Early 2026)
Tools and Activities
• 200+ Fact sheets
• 1,200+ Mailers
• ~40 Community workshop
participants
• ~500 Online survey
responses
• 2 Pop-up events
• 10 Presentations at PABAC,
CSTSC, PTC, RC, CC
10 Community Workshop, Mitchell Park Community Center, Sept. 9, 2025 Next Steps (Tentative Dates)
Review and shortlist of up to two alternatives*
• Jan. 6, 2026: PABAC
• Jan. 14, 2026: Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC)
• Jan. 20, 2026: Rail Committee
• Mar. 2, 2026: City Council
*If more than two alternatives are advanced at this
stage
Project webpage
www.PaloAlto.gov/
BikePedCrossings
11 1
Phase 2 Stakeholder Input Summary (Received To-Date)
12 • Support for Alternatives A, B, and H (and Alternative G) to minimize property impacts, provide direct routes, grade-separate Alma St, connect to existing bike network, and maximize bike/ped use.
• Alternative A: Favored for limited property impacts. Encouraged extending tunnel for full grade-separated Alma St crossing (El Dorado)
• Alternative B: Favored for a grade-separated Alma St crossing. Tradeoffs: property (Park Blvd) and circulation impacts (Loma Verde Ave)
• Alternative G: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing near San Antonio Rd. Tradeoffs: Requires Mountain View concurrence.
• Alternative H: Interest tied to station access and future housing along San Antonio Rd.
Tradeoffs: Requires MV concurrence, concerns about grade and comfort of center-running bikeways. Encouraged other improvements (e.g., Mackay–Nita, Briarwood tunnel, path to Mayfield).
1 Phase 2 Stakeholder Input Summary (Received To-Date)
13 • Alternatives D/E/F: Unsupported due to lower projected demands (proximity to existing crossings), lack of direct connections, and technical construction challenges.
• Suggested refinements to all undercrossing alternatives:
• Minimize tunnel internal height and structural clearance to increase visibility, shorten ramps, minimize property impacts.
• Locate ramps within landscaped strip on east side of Alma St. • Prioritize user comfort and safety for pathways (e.g., gentler ramp grade, wider two-way facilities, direct alignments, strong lighting). • Explore grade-separated and at-grade crossings across Alma St.
RECOMMENDATION
14 Rail Committee and Staff recommend the City Council review eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis Option 1: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. Staff will return to Council in early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred alternatives.
Option 2: Provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives and select one or more alternatives to eliminate from further consideration. Rail Committee and Staff recommend Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and advance two variants:
• Alternative A1 with a signalized crossings across Alma St at El Dorado Ave. • Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma St and Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Ave.
Additional Resources
www.paloalto.gov
1 Alternative A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel (Draft)
16 1
Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel (Draft)
17 1
Alternative C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal (Draft) 18 1
Alternative D. Lindero Dr Tunnel (Draft)
19 1
Alternative E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal (Draft) 20 1
Alternative F. Ely Pl Tunnel (Draft)
21 1
Alternative G. Ferne Ave Tunnel (Draft)
22 1
Alternative H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements (Draft)
23 Phase 1 Community Engagement (Spring 2025)
Tools and Activities
• 200+ Fact Sheets
• 1,500+ Mailers
• 8 Small Group Discussions
• ~50 Community Workshop
Participants
• 700+ Online Survey Responses
• 3 Pop-Up Events
• 6 Presentations at Standing
Meetings
Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park
Community Center on April 2, 2025
24 What We Heard (Phase 1)
25 Online Survey
• Strong support for implementing
new bike and pedestrian rail
crossings in south Palo Alto
• Nearly half of respondents agreed
that Improve Mobility should be the
top design priority for new crossings,
followed by Enhance the User
Experience.
• Between Meadow Dr and
Charleston Rd, Near San Antonio
Rd, Near Colorado Ave and Page
Mill Rd, and Around Matadero
Creek were the top priority locations
for a new bike/ped crossing
Workshop
• Accessing entertainment,
recreation, shopping, and dining
were primary reasons for crossing
the tracks.
• Improve Mobility as the top design
priority for a new crossing followed
by Enhance the User Experience and
Maximizing Ease of Construction.
• Near Matadero Creek (El Dorado
Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue), was
the most popular new rail crossing
location followed by Between
Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road.
What We Heard (Phase 1)
26 Standing Meetings
Prioritization of Specific Rail Crossing Locations
• Support for crossings at Matadero Creek/Loma Verde Ave and San Antonio Rd due to potential to serve new development and existing gap closure.
• Crossing locations should relieve existing crossings and planned construction for rail grade separation.
Focus on Future Demand and Network Connectivity
• Plan for future population growth, new housing, and job access.
• Need connections to new housing developments, schools, parks, and employment centers.
• Need better connections via e-bike routes and to areas like Barron Park and Arastradero Rd.
Design and Accessibility Considerations
• Requested clarity on crossing types.
• Focus on universal accessibility, safety (including mental health) and user experience.
• Concerns with flood risk, parkland disruption, constructability, traffic impacts, parking, and property acquisitions.
Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics
• Transparency in how criteria will be applied.
• Suggested metrics: trip time savings, user experience, distance to existing crossings, visibility, connectivity improvements, future demand projections, and school
enrollment areas.
Transparency and Community Engagement
• Concerns about data accuracy.
• Clearer explanation of decision-making process, and
integration with broader City policies like Vision Zero. • Desire to understand potential bike/pedestrian destinations and activities.
Policy Alignment and Community Impact
• Accelerating decision-making to access funding opportunities, particularly from Measure B.
• Priority outcomes: feasibility, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and convenience for users.
What We Heard (Phase 1)
27 Parks and Recreation Commission
• Expressed constructability, feasibility, and cost-
effectiveness as priorities.
• Expressed general support of draft design priorities
and evaluation criteria.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Requested to consider construction duration and user
experience within and on approaches to the crossing.
• Noted advantages of Location B around Matadero
Creek related to existing connections and distance
between crossings.
City/School Transportation Commission
• Expressed concerns about potential increases in
bicycle volumes on narrow streets with on-street
parking.
• Expressed support for Location B around Matadero
Creek given distance between existing crossings.
Planning and Transportation Commission
• Recommended evaluation criteria consider benefits to
interpersonal relationships, personal security, and
mental wellbeing.
• Suggested focusing on shifting trips that are more
likely to be made by walking or biking.
Rail Committee
• Suggested evaluation criteria consider how a new rail crossing would increase access to new
areas/geographies.
• Expressed urgency and would like to see this project
move forward as soon as possible.
Phase 2 Community Engagement (Fall 2025 – Early 2026)
Tools and Activities
• 200+ Fact Sheet
• 1,200+ Mailers
• ~40 Community Workshop
Participants
• ~500 Online Survey Responses
• 2 Pop-Up Events (more planned)
• 10 Presentations at PABAC, CSTSC,
PTC, RC, CC
28 Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park
Community Center on September 9, 2025
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
29 Online Survey
• Most support: Alternative A, Alternative
B, then Alternative H.
• Least support: Alternative E and
Alternative F.
• Strong preference for alternatives that
minimize property impacts and grade-
separate Alma Street.
• Desire for high-quality pathways that
include better lighting, separated space
for bikes and pedestrians, and more
direct alignments.
• Alternative A would be even more
desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street
to improve safety/comfort.
• Alternative H shows meaningful support
and a relatively high share of last-place
rankings, signaling a need for design
refinement.
• Some requested enhancing existing
California Avenue undercrossing.
Workshop
• Favorite alternatives: Alternative B,
Alternative A, and Alternative H.
• Support for alternatives that limit right-
of-way impacts, provide more direct
routes, connect to existing bike facilities,
grade-separate Alma Street, and located
further away from existing or planned
grade separated rail crossings.
• Suggested refinements to concept
designs included minimizing tunnel
height to increase visibility, shorten
access ramps and minimize property
impacts.
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
30 Provides Me with Access to My Destinations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
31 Safe and Comfortable to Use as a Pedestrian, Wheelchair User, or Cyclist 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
32 Worth the Anticipated Community Investment in Time and Money 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
33 Visually Appealing at this Location
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
34 Makes It Easier to Bike or Walk at this Location, which Outweighs the Impacts on Existing Neighborhoods
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Disagree Agree
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2 Survey Results)
35 Level of Support for Each Alternative
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A. El Dorado Ave
Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave
Tunnel with Alma St
Signal
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel
with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio
Bridge
Enhancements
Strongly Against Somewhat Against Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
36 Planning and Transportation Commission
• Generally favored Alternative B, followed by
Alternative A, Alternative C, Alternative G, and
Alternative H.
• Concerned with alternatives that grade-separate Alma
Street due to added motor vehicle travel delay and
safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Alma Street at new signalized intersections.
• Concerned with alternatives with right-of-way
impacts, particularly those impacting private homes.
• Supported locations with the highest bicycle and
pedestrian demand projections.
• Generally, unsupportive of locations between Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road.
City/School Transportation Safety Committee
• Emphasized importance of ramp grades, lighting, and
facility widths in designs and noted potential for
safety issues due to crossing vehicle traffic to access tunnels.
• Generally supportive of Alternative B due to location and grade-separated crossing of Alma Street, however,
noted significant trade-offs due to private property
acquisitions.
• Generally supportive of Alternative A due to limited
property impacts and suggested modifying design to
extend tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue.
• Suggested exploring Alternative G and Alternative H
further to support future housing along San Antonio
Road and need for family/student-friendly crossing.
• Recommended City enhance existing California
Avenue crossing.
What We Are Hearing (Phase 2)
37 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
• Concerned with alternatives introducing new
signalized intersections on Alma Street due to added
bicycle/pedestrian delay.
• Supportive of Alternative A due to limited property
impacts; recommend extending the tunnel under Alma
Street to El Dorado Avenue.
• Supportive of Alternative B based on grade-separated
crossing of Alma Street; noted trade-offs from private
property acquisitions on Park Boulevard and
circulation impacts to adjacent properties on Loma
Verde Avenue.
• Supportive of Alternative G for strong station-area
access and regional connections near San Antonio
Caltrain Station, Del Medio, and the San Antonio
Shopping Center.
• Supportive of Alternative H with refinements; center- running bikeway on San Antonio Road may be
intimidating—suggest improvements at San Antonio
Rd/Mackay Dr for access to Nita Ave, leveraging the
tunnel near Briarwood Way, and adding a multi-use
path connection to Mayfield Ave.
• Generally unsupportive of Alternatives D, E, and F
based on low projected demand.
• Recommended minimizing right-of-way and circulation
impacts by reducing tunnel depths/heights to shorten
ramps and by locating ramps/tunnels within the
landscaped strip on the east side of Alma Street.