City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025
Report #:2507-4950
TITLE
Recommendation from Rail Committee for City Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Initial Review of Conceptual Design Alternatives and Elimination of Alternatives from Further Consideration; CEQA Status - Not a Project as Defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)
RECOMMENDATION
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project for grade separated bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings.
The Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Alternative A be advanced with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing of Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Avenue.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in portions of the City south of Oregon Expressway. This Project will identify locations and develop 15% conceptual designs for up to two new grade-separated crossings.
This Staff Report presents eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and an Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) that compares those alternatives for community review and feedback. The eight alternatives include the following:
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
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review and provide feedback on these alternatives and the analysis of these alternatives. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will also be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been selected. This review could include a Council action to eliminate one or more alternatives from further consideration. Based on the analysis of alternatives and initial feedback gathered from the community, the Rail Committee and staff recommend the Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and remove all other alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council advance Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing at El Dorado Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Avenue. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities for direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods.
This Project aligns with the City’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan and 2025 Safe Streets for All Action Plan. The Project has also been undertaken in consultation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update, San Antonio Road Area Plan, and Cubberley Community Center Master Plan. This Project will improve active transportation to and from the neighborhoods that will receive new housing growth and amenities, enhancing safety and comfort for people in these areas.
If more than two Alternatives are advanced at this stage, staff will return to City Council in early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred conceptual design alternatives to pursue grants and advance to engineering design. Following the selection of up to two alternatives, a public draft report with a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives will be shared for community feedback in fall 2026, and a final report will be shared in spring 2027 for community review and Council review and potential adoption. The public draft report may be provided at an earlier time if a single alternative is advanced at this stage.
BACKGROUND
In July 2012, Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP) 1 to guide investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and programs in the City. The 2012 1 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Adopted July 2012; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportation- plan_adopted-july-2012.pdf
BPTP identified the 1.3-mile distance between the California Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Tunnel and Meadow Drive as the longest stretch of track barrier in Palo Alto and recommended a grade- separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between Margarita Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue.
On January 22, 2013, Council approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (2013)3 which identified a need for additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings, particularly in the southern portion of the City. This need was reiterated in November 2017, when Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan 4. The Comprehensive Plan includes Program T1.19.3 to "increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway."
On June 19, 2023, Council authorized staff to undertake the BPTP Update 5. On June 2, 2025, Council reviewed, provided input, and expressed general support for the plan’s draft framework and many projects. 6 On June 2, 2025, Council also adopted the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan7 which includes, “Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings Along the Caltrain Corridor” as one of many strategies to help eliminate transportation fatalities and serious injuries by 2035.
On April 15, 2024, Council also adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element 8, which provided a framework for accommodating 6,086 new housing units by 2031 to meet State requirements.
Maintaining quality of life while accommodating growth, reinforces the need for convenient and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that address everyday trips and free up roadway capacity.
In addition to City plans, in 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted the Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) which identified the Caltrain tracks in southern Palo Alto as a key barrier to bicycle movement in the County. The VTA CBP identified crossing locations between Oregon Expressway and Meadow Drive as Priority Across Barrier Connections (ABC) due to the long distance between crossings of major barriers and inadequate roadway crossings; and 3 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, Approved January 22, 2013; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development- projects/parc-130122-final-report.pdf
4 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, Adopted November 13, 2017, Amended December 19, 2022; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensive- plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf 5 City Council, June 19, 2023; Consent Calendar Item #34; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1170 6 City Council, June 2, 2025; Study Session Item #3;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16122 7 City of Palo Alto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, Adopted June 2, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/ss4a-safety-action-plan/palo-alto- safety-action-plan_final_june_2025.pdf
8 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted April 15, 2024, Certified August 20, 2024; https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf identified San Antonio Road across the Caltrain corridor as an Unconstructed On-Street Cross County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC) and Priority CCBC.15
On September 9, 2024, Council approved a professional services contract (C25191297) with Kittelson & Associates to provide professional services to support concept design for pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto.16 The project scope, which is being undertaken collaboratively with City staff, includes:
Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions; Community Outreach and Engagement;
Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria; Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives;
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives;
Identification of two Locally Preferred Locations and Concepts; 15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives for new Grade-Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings, plus context-sensitive pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that link to the existing or planned transportation networks; Development of an Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy; and Securing funding for future project phases, including preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design, and construction.
On November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee reviewed the project update including eight shortlisted alternatives and a staff recommendation to eliminate Alternatives D, E and F from further consideration. Rail Committee unanimously supported a motion to recommend to Council that Alternative A be advanced as the single preferred alternative with all other alternatives eliminated from further consideration. As part of this motion, Rail Committee also recommended advancing Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing across Alma Street, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under both Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue. Rail Committee members also requested that the project team explore different project parameters (such as 8% grade and lower internal clearances) to reduce ramp length and property impacts.
ANALYSIS
The following tasks have been undertaken so far:
Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions
Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria 15 Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan, May 2018; https://www.vta.org/projects/santa-clara-countywide-bike-plan- update-2018 pp. 32, 27, 61.
16 City Council, September 9, 2024; Consent Calendar Item #7; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14393 Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Community Outreach and Engagement Plan and associated efforts are described in the section on Stakeholder Engagement below. Efforts related to design priorities and evaluation criteria, preliminary conceptual alternatives and initial assessment of conceptual alternatives are described below.
Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design priorities and evaluation criteria provide metrics to guide the development, assessment, and comparison of preliminary design alternatives. Based on Council approved plans, such as the Comprehensive Plan, 2012 BPTP, and Rail Corridor Study, the Project team prepared draft design priorities and evaluation criteria for community feedback during the first phase of engagement.
The Project team has provided a memorandum on Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria, which considers and incorporates community feedback and is available on the project webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings).19
Updated design priorities include:
Improve Mobility: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding networks, provide access to critical destinations, serve the most users, and accommodate current and future transportation needs.
Enhance User Experience: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most vulnerable populations,20 and create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access and utilize.
Maximize Ease of Construction: Minimize potential for disruption during construction and complexity of design, while ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs are feasible to implement given reasonably expected project funding. Enhance Visual Appeal: Ensure that newly constructed facilities enhance the sense of community by incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures. Minimize Community Impacts: Limit potential impacts on existing neighborhoods, including the amount of space needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are minimally affected) and impacts on the environment.
19 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum, July 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped- railroad-crossings/spa-bike-ped-connectivity_updated-design-priorities-and-evaluation-criteria_2025-07-23.pdf 20 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health, social, or economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic, political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with disabilities, low- income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1, with updated criteria and descriptions shown in bold text.
Table 1: Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5-, 10-, and 15-minutes of each crossing location. Information will be presented as an isochrone map of walk and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as schools and parks.2
Demand# Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will account for future population growth and land use development.
Improve
Mobility
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate people walking and biking, including people with mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.
Crossing length# Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.
Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade required for the tunnel/bridge structure.
Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This analysis considers the existing network and the types of improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide comfortable on-street connections to and through the new crossing.
Enhance User
Experience
Personal security Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing, number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing opportunities for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of relocations required.
Construction cost# Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including cost of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to provide low-stress on-street connections.
Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level of coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade Separation Project expected during the construction period.
Maximize Ease
of
Construction
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and maintenance (e.g., flooding, landscaping).
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green infrastructure.
Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious areas, creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and existing parkland.
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and approach facilities.
Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation, vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.
Notes:
1 Criteria marked with an “#” are quantitative and a specific value will be presented. Criteria without a “#” are qualitative and will be scored using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. 2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.
Bold text indicates language that has been added or updated.
Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The Project team identified eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) to achieve the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved direction:
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel: Alternative A would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between El Dorado Avenue and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and dual ramps and stairways extending along the landscaping strip between the railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. A ramp would be constructed through an existing surface parking lot, connecting to existing bike facilities on Park Boulevard.
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel: Alternative B would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Margarita Avenue. The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue.
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative C would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and a stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between the railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. The tunnel would connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue potentially using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs.
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel: Alternative D would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative E would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a signalized T-intersection. A ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the west side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.
F. Ely Pl Tunnel: Alternative F would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Ely Place and Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive. An enhanced pedestrian crosswalk, such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, would be installed at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and ramp would extend in the north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel: Alternative G would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto and Del Medio Avenue in Mountain View. The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back another 90 degrees to connect into Mountain View. Further coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain View.
H.San Antonio Bridge Enhancements: Alternative H would install a center-running two-way separated bike lane along San Antonio Road from Nita Avenue in Palo Alto to Mountain View. Protected bike lanes would be installed on San Antonio Avenue and the existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street would be widened and improved to enhance the existing connection for people walking and biking along San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue.
Further coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain View.
Please note that these alternatives are high-level, preliminary concepts. Each of the above alternatives has right-of-way implications that would also need to be addressed once the list is narrowed down. Importantly, no decision has been made by the City to acquire any property for this project.23
23 Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit to the acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives presented in this analysis. Before that decision can be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by the City.
Additionally, each of the above alternatives would also be contingent upon the City obtaining relevant permits or permissions from other involved agencies such as Caltrain, the City of Mountain View, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water.
Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives. Figure 2 shows the basic concept designs of all eight Conceptual Design Alternatives on a single page for ease of comparison. See Attachment A for a full set of concept designs with supporting imagery for all Conceptual Design Alternatives.
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Figure 2: Overview of All Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives The identification of the above conceptual alternatives included development of a comprehensive list of potential alternatives and an initial screening process. Over 25 potential design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments) and facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. As with all transportation projects, the identification of alternatives for this Project involved consideration and balancing of diverse and sometimes competing needs in the allocation of public right-of-way and resources. The initial screening criteria aligned with Project goals and design priorities and aimed to systematically identify less feasible or reasonable alternatives. There were three primary reasons why an alternative was eliminated from further consideration:
1. The alternative did not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities;
2. The alternative was determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical, environmental and/or economic standpoint; or
3. The alternative substantially duplicated another alternative and offered little advantage to similar alternative(s).
Transportation projects are inherently complex. Each of the eight alternatives included above were developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide (August 2024), Caltrain Design Criteria (January 2024), Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures (January 2024), American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
While specific requirements and guidance were used to ensure that the alternatives were all technically feasible, the alternatives are still fluid and subject to refinement. For example, ramp alignments, grades, tunnel heights and tunnel widths could be altered to address design or property concerns. Design variations are described in more detail in the Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B). Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been selected.
Refinement and selection of designs will also involve collaboration with multiple agencies with authority and interest in this Project, including the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) (owner and operator of Caltrain), City of Mountain View, County of Santa Clara, Valley Water, Caltrans, and others. The City will need to continue to work with these agencies as we advance through the design process to secure permits and meet their needs.
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) evaluates and scores each of the eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives using the design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignments with community values, and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
The Project team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options and the corresponding community connections. An overview of the assessment for each alternative is presented below. Error! Reference source not found. 2 presents a summary of the results from the alternatives evaluation used to assess the degree to which the alternative aligns with each of the selected evaluation criteria. Additional information is presented in the Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B).
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
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
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility and would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternatives D and E would provide the lowest reduction in travel times for crossings.
Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G, and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users due to their close proximity to crossings at Charleston and Meadow, longer distance to schools, and wayfinding challenges in the Circles and Alma/San Antonio neighborhoods.
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10-foot wide two-way separated bike lane compared to the 20-foot wide tunnel and 12-foot wide ramps currently assumed for other alternatives.
Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the distance to cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing length but would require some out-of-direction travel along the crossing alignment, while Alternative B would have the longest crossing length but would provide the most direct connections to the existing bike network.25
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to crossing elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a 7% slope. Pedestrian access under Alternative H includes enhanced connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian and bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection across Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices, Alternative B would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance because of the shorter and more direct tunnels. Alternative F and G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less active areas.
Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead lighting in the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the greatest potential impact, requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside of the proposed tunnel limits.
Construction Cost. Due to their longer tunnels under Alma Street as well as the railroad tracks, Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while Alternative H is anticipated to have the lowest construction cost.
Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are expected to be outside 25 Crossing and ramp dimensions are based on Caltrain‘s Corridor Crossing Delivery Guide, which requires a minimum 5‘ of cover (from the bottom of railroad ties to top of structure) if a minimally invasive construction method such as box jacking or tunneling is utilized. The dimensions also assume a 12‘ tunnel height. Minimum pedestrian and bicycle vertical clearance is 10’.
proposed construction limits for the Rail Grade Separation projects. Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have shorter construction durations and start times but require additional coordination with the City of Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall durations.
Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D are anticipated to have the highest operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H is expected to have the lowest operations and maintenance costs.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F are expected to have the least potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.
Environmental Impacts. Alternative H is expected to have a minimal impact on the environment as it would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks, drainage, sensitive habitats, wetlands or parkland.
Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G, and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the fewest number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel.
Alternatives B and C are estimated to impact two parcels.
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to increase vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other alternatives.
Stakeholder Input
As outlined under Stakeholder Engagement, community members provided diverse input on the eight initial alternatives under consideration. This feedback is summarized below:
Strong preference for Alternatives A, B, and H (and interest in Alternative G) that minimize right-of-way impacts (especially to private homes), provide direct connections to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street to avoid added delay and safety issues at new signals, and have higher bicycle and pedestrian demand projections. Alternative A: Favored for location and limited property impacts. Stakeholders encouraged extending the tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue to achieve a grade-separated crossing.
Alternative B: Favored for a grade-separated Alma Street crossing. Stakeholders flagged trade-offs due to property acquisitions (Park Blvd) and circulation impacts near Loma Verde Avenue to be addressed.
Alternative G: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing near San Antonio Road. Stakeholders noted additional coordination with Mountain View would be needed.
Alternative H: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing along San Antonio Road. Stakeholders suggested refinements to address comfort concerns with center-running bikeways and improve connections (e.g., Mackay–Nita, Briarwood tunnel, path to Mayfield).
Alternatives D/E/F: Generally, not favored due to lower projected demands (e.g., limited opportunity for mode shift) given close proximity to existing at-grade crossings (and planned grade separations), lack of direct connections through adjoining neighborhoods, and technical challenges associated with overlapping construction areas for rail grade separation.
In addition to above preferences, several stakeholders suggested refinements to concept designs that would apply to all alternatives:
oReduce tunnel heights and depths to shorten ramps, minimize property and circulation impacts, and increase visibility.
oConsider locating ramps/tunnels within the landscaped strip on the east side of Alma instead of the street centerline where feasible.
oPrioritize user comfort and safety elements for pathways that include gentler ramp grades (compared to California Avenue undercrossing), wider two-way facilities with separated space for bicyclists and pedestrians, more direct alignments, and strong lighting to support day/night visibility. oConsider trade-offs with different slopes and ramps lengths as well as whether to cross Alma Street at-grade (via new signalized intersection) or below-grade (via tunnel).
Deliberation Options
Two pathways below describe possible Council direction related to this Project.
Deliberation Option 1: At this point, Council could review and provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. In early 2026, staff would then return to Council with a request to select up to two preferred conceptual design alternatives to advance to 15% design.
Deliberation Option 2: At this point, Council could review and provide input on all eight alternatives including a Council action on options to be eliminated from further consideration.
Initially, staff had recommended eliminating Alternatives D, E and F from further consideration due to the likely lower levels of ridership, close proximity to existing crossings, more challenging wayfinding on the west side and lower levels of community support. Following Rail Committee deliberations on November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee and staff recommend that Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from further consideration. Furthermore, Rail Committee and staff recommend that two variants be advanced for Alternative A: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing across Alma Street at El Dorado and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities for direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods. Prioritization of Alternative A and elimination of all other alternatives would allow the project team to focus more attention on refinement of the remaining alternatives and would provide some clarity and relief to potentially affected property owners.
Next Steps
Preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis are being shared with the community for review and feedback in Phase 2 of engagement. Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will result in the refinement and Council selection of two preferred alternatives that will be carried forward for 15 percent design (conceptual design) in early 2026.
A public draft report with a funding and implementation plan for the preferred alternative(s) will be shared for community feedback in fall 2026, and a final report will be shared in spring 2027 for community review and Council review and potential adoption. This timeline may be shortened if a single alternative is advanced at this stage.
After identification and completion of conceptual design, Staff will pursue subsequent phases as directed by Council including:
Securing Caltrain Service Agreement to advance the project Seeking grants and funding
Undertaking preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (Caltrain) Completing final design (Caltrain)
Obtaining other inter-agency agreements and permits
Securing right of way, acquisition or easements
Completing construction (Caltrain)
Transitioning completed project facilities to Palo Alto This Project involves Caltrain, and the City will need to align with Caltrain’s corridor crossings strategy and Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide. 27 The City expects that Caltrain will lead efforts for preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and construction.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
On September 9, 2024, Council approved the professional services contract (C25191297) with Kittelson & Associates for a not-to-exceed amount of $499,491 for the Project for a term of two-years. Sufficient funding for anticipated expenses related to the project scope outlined in the Background section of this memorandum was appropriated as part of the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project (PL- 04010) in the Capital Improvement Fund. Additional costs beyond completion of the 15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives will be identified as part of the scope of the contract with Kittelson & Associates, and staff will return to Council for appropriation of funding for future phases of the project, including full design and construction. 27 https://www.caltrain.com/caltrain-corridor-crossings-delivery-guide
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement for this Project includes four phases:
Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) – Underway
Phase 3 Community Engagement: Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) Phase 4 Community Engagement: Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed The first phase of engagement29 included the following elements. Project Webpage ( paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) with updates on meetings, events and Project materials.
Project Fact Sheet shared with community members during in-person meetings and events.
Small Group Discussions held virtually from November through December 2024 including representatives of the City Schools Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Caltrain, Palo Alto Unified School District, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), and Stanford University. Participants also shared a list of criteria and priorities for evaluating alternatives and emphasized the need for easy, well-lit, accessible, safe crossings that are suitable for all ages and reduce the long distances between crossings today. Participants also encouraged the team to consider a network perspective addressing how to get to/from crossing points. Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 2, 2025 and attended by approximately 50 community members. Community members prioritized crossings that improved mobility and emphasized their general support for the project and interest in fast completion. A crossing around Matadero Creek (El Dorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue) was the most popular location amongst attendees, followed by locations between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Online Survey was made available on the Project webpage from April 1, 2025, to May 22, 2025. The City promoted the survey during in-person events, Weekly City Manager Updates, PaloAltoConnect Blog, social media posts, UpLift Local eNewsletter, and emails to Neighborhood Associations in south Palo Alto, public and private schools, Stanford University, and community stakeholders in Mountain View. The survey gathered more 29 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary Report, July 29, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad- crossings/spa_bike-ped-connectivity_phase-1-engagement-report_final_7.29.25.pdf than 700 responses, offering insight into typical travel patterns and preferences regarding new bike and pedestrian rail crossings.
Pop-Up Events at California Ave Third Thursday (April 17, 2025), Earth Day Festival (April 27, 2025), and Bike to Work Day (May 15, 2025).
Mailers sent to more than 1,500 business, community organization and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
Emails to Principals, PTA Team Presidents, and Traffic Safety Representatives (TSRs) of all public schools in the southern portion of the City, as well as private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in south Palo Alto, in addition to several public and private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in Mountain View to inform them about the Project, share ways to provide feedback, promote the online survey, and ask community partners to spread the word to their networks by via a communications toolkit.
Presentations at meetings with the PABAC, 31 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC),32 Rail Committee,33 City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTCS),34 and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)35 in May 2025. In addition, Alternative H was discussed at a joint meeting of PABAC and Mountain View Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 28, 2024.
Additional Collaboration included interagency discussions as reflected in unscheduled matching funds for the San Antonio Class IV Bikeway (US-15) in the City of Mountain View Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28.
Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) – Underway Phase 2 community engagement is currently in progress. During Phase 2, City staff are presenting the initial eight alternatives and completed alternatives analysis for review and feedback.
Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will be considered in the selection and refinement of two preferred alternatives to be carried forward for 15 percent conceptual design.
A summary of Phase 2 outreach and engagement activities is provided below:
Project Webpage (as in Phase 1)
Project Fact Sheet (as in Phase 1)
31 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, May 6, 2025; Discussion Item #7.a.; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings- 2025/2025-05-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf
32 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16526 33 Rail Committee, May 20, 2025; Study Session Item #2; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17205 34 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, May 22, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Office- of-Transportation/May-2025-CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 35 Parks and Recreation Commission, May 27, 2025; Business Items Item #5; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16896 Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on September 9, 2025, and attended by nearly 40 community members. Community members provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Alternative B (Loma Verde Ave Tunnel), Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel), and Alternative H (San Antonio Bridge Enhancements) were the most popular conceptual designs amongst attendees.
Participants expressed support for alternatives that limit right-of-way impacts, provide more direct routes, connect to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street, and are located further away from existing or planned grade separated rail crossings. Several participants also suggested changes to assumed tunnel dimensions such as reducing the height of the tunnel to shorten ramps.
Online Survey available on the Project webpage from August 15, 2025, through October 12, 2025. The City promoted the survey as in Phase 1. The survey gathered nearly 500 responses. Respondents provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Key findings included:
oAlternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) was the favorite alternative amongst respondents, followed by Alternative B (Loma Verde Ave Tunnel), then Alternative H (San Antonio Bridge Enhancements).
oAlternative E (Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal) was the least favorite alternative amongst respondents, while Alternative F (Ely Pl Tunnel) ranked second to last.
oRespondents generally supported alternatives that minimize impacts to residential properties and that grade-separate Alma Street, due to concerns about delays to motor vehicle travel and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Alma Street at new signalized intersections. oRespondents expressed a desire for high-quality pathways (e.g., wide, direct/straight, open, well-lit, separate space for cyclists and pedestrians) where cyclists would not need to dismount.
oRespondents suggested Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) would be even more desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street.
oSeveral respondents recommended the City consider enhancing the existing grade-separated rail crossing at California Avenue rather than building a new crossing nearby.
Pop-Up Events at Bike Palo Alto (October 5, 2025), California Ave Third Thursday (October 16, 2025), and other community-wide events through early 2026. Mailers sent to around 1,200 business, community organizations and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
Emails (as in Phase 1).
Presentations at meetings with the PTC 41, CSTSC42, PABAC43, and Rail Committee44. A synthesis received during each meeting is presented in the Attachment C. Upcoming meetings with PABAC, PTC, Rail Committee, and Council are tentatively scheduled in Quarter 4 in 2025 and Quarter 1 in 2026.
Phase 3 Community Engagement Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) The Public Draft Report will include a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives that will be shared for feedback as part of Phase 3 of engagement in fall 2026.
Phase 4 Community Engagement Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) The Final Report will be shared in spring 2027 in Phase 4 for community review and Council review and potential adoption.
Given the Rail Committee’s recommendation, staff have been in initial conversations with a representative of Vance Brown Builders, which is the property management company representing the owners of the office development at 3101 Park Boulevard on the west side of the Caltrain tracks. Staff briefed them on the project status and informed them of Council’s discussion of this item on December 1, 2025. Staff also invited them for further discussion prior to this December 1, 2025 meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action item is not a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). CEQA will be conducted according to state law should the city proceed on an actual project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Conceptual Design Alternatives
Attachment B: Alternatives Analysis
Attachment C: Phase 2 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
41 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 10, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16582 42 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, October 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events- Directory/Office-of-Transportation/CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 43 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, November 4, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-Walking/Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Advisory- Committee-PABAC
44 Rail Committee, November 18, 2025; Action Item #1;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17255