Attachment A - Resolution Approving the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (including the Plan itself)

*NOT YET APPROVED*

1 160_20260601_ts24
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the City’s 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP)

R E C I T A L S
A. The City has an existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan from 2012 (“2012 BPTP”), which guides bicycle and pedestrian transportation planning.

B. The City desires to update the 2012 BPTP and has engaged in an intensive scope of work since 2023 to create the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (“2026 BPTP” or “Plan”). This includes extensive community engagement in each of the three phases of the Plan’s development.

C. As part of the City’s development of the 2026 BPTP, the City established the following vision statement: “We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities.

We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.” D. The 2026 BPTP serves as the City’s foundational blueprint for active transportation, guiding future planning for Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs), establishing clear frameworks to identify and prioritize high-impact infrastructure projects, and aligning local roadway designs with broader citywide safety and initiative goals.

E. The 2026 BPTP advances a Low-Stress Network approach by prioritizing 25 bicycle projects, 24 intersection/pedestrian crossing projects, 3 special projects, and 3 studies, totaling about 19 miles of improvements including school commute routes, transit access routes, and pedestrian districts.

F. The 2026 BPTP was reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission on November 12, 2025; and by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee on May 7, 2026.

G. The City has placed a public notice in a newspaper of circulation within Palo Alto giving notice of the public hearing as part of the City Council meeting on June 15, 2026 to receive public comment prior to the City Council’s consideration and decision to approve the 2026 BPTP.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the 2026 BPTP as attached in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
*NOT YET APPROVED*

2 160_20260601_ts24
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the 2026 BPTP is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.20(a)(1)(A) because it is an “active transportation plan, a pedestrian plan, or a bicycle transportation plan for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.” SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

__________________________ __________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager

__________________________
Chief Transportation Official

*NOT YET APPROVED*

3 160_20260601_ts24
Exhibit A
2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(see following pages)

April 2026
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Final
PENDING ADOPTION: This document is the final version being presented to the City Council, and is subject to formal approval.

Exhibit A
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS

2.EXISTING FACILITIES

AND CONDITIONS

2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 43

2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 45

2.3 Safe Routes to School Program 56

2.4 Walking and Biking Activity 58

2.5 Barriers to Walking and Biking 62

2.6 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 66

2.7 Collision Analysis 69

2.8 Shared Micromobility, E-Bikes, E-Cycles,
and E-Motos 75

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 Purpose and Vision 11

0.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 12

0.3 Community Engagement 15

0.4 Recommendations 16

0.5 Project Prioritization 22

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose 26

1.2 Plan Organization 26

1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking 27

1.4 Vision, Objectives, and Performance
Measures 28

1.5 Setting 31

1.6 Relationship to Other Documents 35

1.7 Public Outreach Summary 37

3.RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria 80

3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network and
Facilities 81

3.3 Pedestrian District Guidelines and Toolbox 92

3.4 Policies and Programs 101
2 Exhibit A

4. IMPLEMENTATION AND

FUNDING

4.1 Project Delivery Process 113

4.2 Project Prioritization 114

4.3 Cost Estimates 126

4.4 Funding Sources 126

5. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES
3 Exhibit A

LIST OF MAPS
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators 33
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops 34 Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map 50
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location 51
Figure 5: Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements 61 Figure 6: Linear Barriers 63
Figure 7: Transit Barrier Study Areas 65
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results 67
Figure 9: Intersection LTS Results 68
Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity 71 Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity 71 Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022) 72 Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022) 73 Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network 74 Figure 15: Recommended Bicycle Network 82
Figure 16: Complete Vision Bicycle Network 89
Figure 17: Low-Stress Bicycle Network 90
Figure 18: Pedestrian Districts and Pedestrian Priority Areas 94 Figure 19: Recommended Near-Term Projects 125

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Performance Measures 29
Table 2: Potential Performance Measures 30
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 32
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025 49
Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022) 71
Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria 80
Table 7: Summary of Recommend Bicycle Projects 85
Table 8: Project List 85
Table 9: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria 114 Table 10: Near-Term Bicycle Projects 115
Table 11: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects 120 Table 12: Other Priority Projects 124
4 Exhibit A
The 2026 BPTP is grant funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Transportation Development Act 3 program.

APPENDICES
Appendix A: List of Projects
Appendix B: Pedestrian District Guidelines
Appendix C: Policy and Program Recommendations

LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators 31
Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement 37
Image 3: Virtual Visioning Workshop held on January 31, 2024 38 Image 4: Bike Palo Alto Event held on October 1, 2023 38 Image 5: Bicycle Network Development Workshop 39
Image 6: Community Walking Tour 39
Image 7: Types of Bicycle Facilities 45
Image 8: Updated Bicycle Facility Types 46
Image 9: Bicycle Facility Types 46
Image 10: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term 52
Image 11: Placement and Spacing Requirements 53
Image 12: Types of Wayfinding Signs 54
Image 13: Existing Signs in Palo Alto 55
Image 14: Relationship between LTS and Comfort 66
Image 15: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach 83
Image 16: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements 93 Image 17: University Avenue Pedestrian District 95
Image 18: California Avenue Pedestrian District 96
Image 19: Midtown Pedestrian District 97
5 Exhibit A

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Palo Alto would like to express our gratitude to the residents, community leaders, community- based organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders who have helped shape the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. We appreciate your continued support and commitment to promoting Palo Alto as a healthy, safe, and vibrant community.
2026 City Council
Vicki Veenker, Mayor
Greer Stone, Vice Mayor
Ed Lauing
George Lu
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Keith Reckdahl
Patrick Burt
2026 Planning & Transportation Commission
Allen Akin, Chair
Bryna Chang, Vice Chair
Bart Hechtman
Carolyn Templeton
Forest Peterson
Kevin Ji
Todd James
2026 Parks and Recreation Commission
Nellis Freeman, Chair
Bing Wei, Vice Chair
Vadim Axelrod
Amanda Brown
Roger Smith
Shani Kleinhaus
Yudy Deng
City of Palo Alto Team
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, Former
Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
Ozzy Arce, Project Manager
Charlie Coles, Senior Transportation Planner
Katie Heuser, Senior Transportation Planner
Rose Mesterhazy, SRTS Senior Planner
Ana Lopez, Associate Transportation Planner
City/School Transportation Safety Committee
Lt. Ben Becchetti, PAPD
Lt. Kara Apple, PAPD
Lara Anthony, SRTS C/STSC PTAC Co-Chair
Rachel Vazquex-Reina, SRTS C/STSC PTAC Co-Chair
Leslie Crane, PAUSD
Mike Jacobs, PAUSD
Eric Holm, PAUSD
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bruce Arthur, Chair
Nicole Rodia, Vice Chair
Alan Wachtel
Art Liberman
Bill Zaumen
Boris Foelsch
Cedric de la Beaujardiere
Eric Nordman
Jane Rosten
Kathy Durham
Ken Joye
Paul Goldstein
Penny Ellson
Robert Neff
Steve Rock
Palo Alto Rail Committee
Consultant
Kittelson & Associates
Mobycon
6 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally left blank.
7 Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 8

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAA All Ag es and Abilities
AB Assembly Bill
BPTP Bicy cle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Caltrans Calif ornia Department of Transportation
CIP Capit al Improvement Projects
CSAP Compr ehensive Safety Action Plan
CSTSC City/School T ransportation Safety Committee
DIB Design In formation Bulletin
DP Dir ector’s Policy
E-Bike Electric Bik e
EPC E quity Priority Community
FHWA F ederal Highway Administration
HIN High-Injur y Network
IIJA In frastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITE Ins titute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Seriously Injur ed
LTS Le vel of Traffic Stress
8 Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 9
MPH Miles per Hour
MTC Me tropolitan Transportation Commission
NACTO Na tional Association of City Transportation Officials NRSS Na tional Roadway Safety Strategy
PABAC P edestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
PAPD Palo Alto Police Department
PAUSD P alo Alto Unified School District
PCF Primar y Collision Factor
PDO Pr operty Damage Only
PTA P arent-Teacher Association
PTAC Palo Alto Council of PTAs
PTC Planning and T ransportation Commission
SB Sena te Bill
SRTS Sa fe Routes to School
SS4A Sa fe Streets For All
US DOT Unit ed States Department of Transportation
VMT V ehicle Miles Traveled
VTA San ta Clara Valley Transportation Authority
9 Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 10

0. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
10 Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 11
The City of Palo Alto (City) last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) in 2012. An update to BPTP is necessary to maintain funding eligibility, respond to evolving community needs, account for recent trends in cycling and technology, and align with current planning and design standards. The City undertook a comprehensive effort to update the BPTP by analyzing the existing walking and bicycling conditions, engaging the community, and incorporating the best practices in multimodal transportation planning.

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

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

All Ages and Abilities facilities are a national best practice for designing walking and biking facilities that strive to serve everyone safely, comfortably, and equitably. All Ages and Abilities design practices account for differences among potential users in physical abilities, age, height, cycling abilities, perceived personal safety, and comfort in riding with traffic.

Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 12

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

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

Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 13
Figure EX 1 illustrates the existing bikeway network in Palo Alto and surrounding jurisdictions. In 2012, the City had

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

Table EX 1: Existing Bicycle Network in 2012 vs 2025
FACILITY 1 TYPE 2012 2025
Class I Multi-Use Path 13.9 11.7
Class II Bike Lane 33.2 34.6
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.3
Class III Shared Lane 8.0 12.6
Class III Bicycle Boulevard 4.2 7.1
Class IV Separated Bikeway* 4.3
TOTAL 59.3 73.5
1 A “facility” is a physical element of the transportation system that is designed to support safe, comfortable, and accessible travel by walking, biking, rolling, or using mobility devices.

Source: 2012 BPTP
Note: *Includes the Caltrans’ constructed El Camino Real Class IV separated bikeway. 2012 lane mile data is sourced from the 2012 BPTP; 2025 lane mileage is calculated using the 2025 roadway centerline file. The Class I length has not decreased between 2012 and 2025—differences are due only to the calculation method.

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Lucille M.

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

0. Executive Summary | 15

0.3 Community Engagement
The 2026 BPTP reflects input from a four-phase community engagement process combining online tools, in-person events, and meetings with the City Council, committees, commissions, and focus groups. The City promoted outreach through City channels, community partners, and local events.

PHASE 1:

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

PHASE 2:

NEEDS & CONCERNS
The City and community partners led walking and biking
tours and workshops where participants identified
priority corridors (El Camino Real, Middlefield Road,
Embarcadero Road, San Antonio Road, Alma Street),
and identified the need for a continuous low-stress
network and improved pedestrian environments on
streets like University Avenue and California Avenue.

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

PHASE 3:

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS &

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

PHASE 4:

PLAN ADOPTION
Staff presented the draft 2026 BPTP to PABAC, PTC,
and the City Council for review and adoption as a part
of the final phase of engagement. Feedback focused
on refining the project list and clarifying project
descriptions.

Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 16

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

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

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

0.4.1 RECOMMENDED

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

Bicycle friendly zone are cohesive areas with
concentrations of destinations, commercial activity,
and pedestrian activity. These areas should see area-
wide investment in bicycle-friendly amenities such
as bicycle parking, signal timing, and traffic calming.

A bicycle friendly zone is an area where cycling is
convenient, comfortable, and direct on all of the streets within a designated area and is the preferred method
of transportation.

0.4.2 LOW-STRESS BICYCLE

NETWORK
Figure EX 3 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network
map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the foundation
for citywide bicycle connectivity, focused on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term.

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

0.4.3 COMPLETE VISION

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

A total of 140 projects have been identified in the
2026 BPTP to achieve the Complete Vision Network.

These consist of 94 bikeway projects, 35 crossing and
intersection projects, 6 special projects, and 5 studies.

Exhibit A
17 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon ExpyCalifornia Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero Rd
Foothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Deer Creek
Rd
Porter Dr Laguna Ave
Hanover St
Cambridge Ave
Mon
trose Ave
Faber Pl
Coleridge Ave
Churchill Ave
Channing Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd
Vineyard Ln
Arboretum Rd Palo Rd
Pasteur Rd
Everett Ave
Guinda St
Chaucer St
St Francis Dr
Garland Dr
La Donna Ave
Barron Ave
Georgia Ave
Donald Dr
Amaranta Ave
Cesano Ct
James Rd
El
Camino
Way
Portage Ave
Ash St
Olive Ave
Duncan Pl
Nelson Dr
Mackay Dr
Amarillo AveClark Way
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

0. Executive Summary | 20

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

Priority pedestrian areas are key to creating a walkable, accessible, and enjoyable City. They offer areas where walking is prioritized to allow people of all ages and abilities to get around without competing with vehicles. Within these areas, slower vehicle movement is encouraged, and opportunities are provided for people to pause and enjoy their surroundings. Three pedestrian districts and three priority areas which are focus areas for pedestrian recommendations are included in the 2026 BPTP , as shown in Figure EX 5, include:

Pedestrian Districts
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area
Exhibit A
21 University
Avenue
District
California
Avenue
District
El Camino Real
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
Midtown
District
Embarcadero
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
San Antonio
Road Area
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Pedestrian Districts and Priority Areas
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 5: Pedestrian Districts and Pedestrian Priority Areas Exhibit A

0. Executive Summary | 22

0.5 Project Prioritization
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term implementation strategy. This 2026 BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over the next ten years. The initial prioritization process scored each roadway segment in Palo Alto based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity. Projects that scored higher than 70 points were advanced to supplemental evaluation along with a subset of additional projects selected for further review. The supplemental evaluation considered project readiness, project cost, and project support to determine the top priority projects for near-term implementation. Table EX 2 presents the prioritization factors and evaluation criteria used in the prioritization process.

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

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

A total of 25 bicycle projects
(covering approximately 19 miles
of the recommend network) and 24
intersection and crossing projects
have been identified to initiate in
the near-term (within 10 years).

These projects are illustrated in
Figure EX 6.

Cost Estimation:

The 2026 BPTP uses planning level
rough-order- of- magnitude cost
estimates to communicate relative
investment needs rather than
precise project budgets. Costs are
categorized on a simple $ to $$$
scale, reflecting low, medium, and
high anticipated costs based on
comparable projects, facility type,
and implementation complexity.

The cost for bikeway, intersection,
and crossing improvements varies
widely and cannot be accurately
estimated at this stage.

Funding Strategy:

Bicycle and pedestrian projects can
be funded through a range of local,
regional, state, and federal sources.

To enhance its competitiveness for
these funds, the City of Palo Alto
should ensure its projects align
with the core goals of the funding
programs—typically centered on
equity, safety, sustainability, and
connectivity.

Exhibit A
23 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Everett Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd Churchill Ave
Porter Dr
Olive Ave
Cambridge Ave
La Donna Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Recommended Near-Term Improvements
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Recommended Bike Blvd Crossing
Recommended Intersection
Improvement
Recommended Ped/Bike Bridge or
Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Railroad
Caltrain Stop
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure EX 6: Recommended Near-Term Projects
Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 24

1. INTRODUCTION
24 Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 25
Famous as the birthplace of Silicon Valley, the City of Palo Alto (City) is also a pioneer in active transportation, home to the nation’s first bicycle boulevard on Bryant
Street. With its relatively flat geography, mild climate, abundant green spaces, and vibrant, historic downtown,
the City offers an ideal setting for walking and bicycling.

Strong connections to Stanford University and regional
transit further enhance its appeal, helping Palo Alto
achieve some of the highest walking and biking rates
in the Bay Area and nation. Palo Alto’s is a Gold-rated Bicycle Friendly Community by the League as well.

The City last updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (BPTP) in 2012. That plan
established key planning, policy, and implementation
strategies to enhance the safety and appeal of
walking, biking, and rolling for both transportation and recreation. Since then, the share of residents driving
alone to work has decreased significantly from 64.4%
in 2012 to 51.65% in 2023. The Covid-19 pandemic also
brought major shifts in travel behavior, including a sharp rise in telecommuting. By 2023, 27.9% of Palo Alto
residents worked from home, nearly 2.5 times the rate
in 2019 (9.7%).
1 These changes, along with the growing
use of emerging mobility options such as e-bikes and
ridesharing, have prompted the City to initiate an
update to the BPTP to better respond to current trends
and future needs for walking and biking. Additionally,
the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) (2022) set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (the “80 x 30”
goal) and achieving carbon neutrality by 2030.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 26

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

To achieve this purpose, the 2026 BPTP investigates safety data to propose impactful recommendations, explores
the role of emerging transportation technologies such
as electric-bicycles and micro-mobility devices, and
establishes a long-term vision to make walking and
biking easier, safer, and more accessible for everyone.

This plan is also intended to support the City’s broader goals, including those in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,
the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, and the City’s Safety Action Plan.

1.2 Plan Organization
Who Can Use the Bike Lane?
All bicycles are allowed on the bikeway
network, including modified types such as
unicycles, cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, and
longtail bikes. All e-bikes, including those
with pedal-assist speeds up to 28 mph are
permittted on most bikeways, but are not
allowed on unpaved trails (See Palo Alto Open
Space and Park Rules and Regulations for more
information). Palo Alto’s approach to e-bike
regulation and policy continues to evolve as
the City responds to rapid adoption, emerging
safety concerns particularly with youth riders,
and the need to balance innovation with the
comfort and safety of all street and path users.

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4: Implementation and Funding
This chapter includes a prioritization framework
classifying the recommended projects into near- and
long-term categories. Additionally, it includes planning level rough order of magnitude generalized costs and
identifies potential funding sources.

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 27

1.3 Benefits and Barriers to Walking and Biking
Walking and biking offer significant public health,
environmental, and economic benefits that align with
the goals for sustainable transportation. The Caltrans’ Toward an Active California plan highlights how active
transportation improves physical and mental health,
reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports
equitable access to mobility. Additionally, walking
and biking reduce auto ownership costs, estimated
at $8,500 annually per car and save $830 million
in congestion, collision, and vehicle maintenance
costs for the state of California.
2 Furthermore, active
transportation enhances community character,
supports local businesses, and results in increased land values.

However, key barriers remain. State and national
reports emphasize challenges such as high-speed
traffic, incomplete or disconnected pedestrian
and bicycle networks, missing first- and last-mile
connections, and a lack of secure bicycle parking. In
Palo Alto, these issues are echoed by local feedback
that calls for safer crossings, better lighting, and more low-stress, separated bicycle facilities. Equity also
remains a concern, with a need to ensure access to
high-quality infrastructure for all ages and abilities. 2 Caltrans. Toward and Active California. 2017. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of- transportation-planning/complete-streets/toward-an-active-california-state-bicycle-pedestrian-plan What does “All Ages and Abilities (AAA)”
mean?
To truly encourage walking and biking, facilities
must be designed for everyone. All Ages and
Abilities facilities are a national best practice
for designing walking and biking facilities that
strive to serve everyone safely, comfortably,
and equitably. All Ages and Abilities design
practices account for differences among
potential users in physical abilities, age,
height, cycling abilities, perceived personal
safety, and comfort in riding with traffic. By
prioritizing comfort, traffic separation, and
equity, All Ages and Abilities design expands
the reach of walking and bicycling, enhances
mobility and independence, and makes active
transportation a safe and appealing choice for
all.

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 28

1.4 Vision, Objectives, and
Performance Measures
To guide the 2026 BPTP , the City gathered community input to help shape a vision statement, objectives, and performance measures to track progress toward these goals. This vision builds upon the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s vision to create a safe, beautiful city and a sustainable transportation system.

1.4.1 VISION STATEMENT
We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 29

1.4.2 OBJECTIVES
The following objectives guide the recommendations in the 2026 BPTP .

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

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

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

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

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

1.4.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 1 lists performance measures that were established during the 2026 BPTP development process to track progress toward achieving the Plan vision and objectives and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling in Palo Alto.

Table 1: Performance Measures

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

1. Introduction | 30
Table 2 outlines potential performance measures that could be introduced as the 2026 BPTP is implemented and as walking, biking, and rolling network grows, prompting the need to expand how the 2026 BPTP is tracked. Biannually (every 2 years), the City of Palo Alto can consult with the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to determine if the annual performance measures exhibit trends (compared to baseline conditions and year-over-year) that illustrate a clear path forward for allocating resources. If it is determined that additional direction is needed to invest in the network to achieve 2026 BPTP vision and goals, then performance measures such as the following could potentially be established. Developing these measures will require further research and a formalized methodology including identifying reliable data sources that could be tracked periodically.

Table 2: Potential Performance Measures

OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORTING PERIOD
Safe and Inclusive
Number of top pedestrian and bicycle KSI collision or
high injury network locations improved or studied Annual Percentage of existing affordable housing projects
within 1,000 feet of completed and connected all ages
and abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure (bikeways,
trails)
Annual
Connected and
Accessible
Miles of bikeway facilities (per each bikeway type and
total network) Annual
Share of transportation budget spent on walk/bike/roll
improvements Annual
Comfortable and
Enjoyable
Percentage of cycling infrastructure mileage that are
AAA routes or Level of Traffic Stress1 (LTS) 1/2 Annual Canopy coverage percentage of designated walking
and bicycling routes. Annual
Integrated and
Collaborative
Number of completed walking/bicycling projects that
improve cross-jurisdictional gateways Every 3 years
Percentage of transit stops and stations accessible on
AAA cycling routes. Every 3 years
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
Notes: 1Level of traffic stress (LTS) is an approach that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel when they bicycle close to traffic. It is further described in section 2.5.

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 31

1.5 Setting
Located between the open space preserves of the foothills and the tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, Palo Alto encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, nearly half of which is designated as parks, open space, and Baylands. With an established grid network of streets, vibrant business districts, a well-known park and trail system, and direct proximity to Stanford University, Palo Alto is an ideal place for walking and biking. Flat terrain, tree-lined streets, and a temperate climate also make Palo Alto a relatively easy place to bicycle. Palo Alto’s main transportation corridors are Interstate 280, Highway 101, Highway 84 (the Dumbarton Bridge), State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road. Within the City, commuter rail stations include the Palo Alto University Avenue stop (one of the most frequently used in the Caltrain system) and the California Avenue station. Bus service is primarily provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and limited service is provided by SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit District), Dumbarton Express, and Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle. Since 2012, the City of Palo Alto’s population has remained relatively consistent with around 66,000 residents, whereas the median household income has increased by 55 percent. Image 1 and Table 3 shows the key demographic indicators as obtained from 2023 U.S. Census ACS 1-Year estimates.

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

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 32
Table 3: Palo Alto Demographic Indicators

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

1.5.1 KEY DESTINATIONS
There are several key destinations, community amenities, and resources within a walkable distance of half a mile and a bikeable distance of two miles of many Palo Alto residents. In this context, key destinations include both residential origins and non-residential destinations. Key destinations include medical and education centers, grocery stores, childcare centers, pharmacies, parks, libraries, and transit stops. Additionally, there are areas within the City where residential densities are higher than average; some of these areas are reflected in the Mixed Use and Other High Intensity Uses categories on Figure 1.

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

Figure 2 illustrates the 10-minute walk and bike sheds (area that is accessible within 10-minutes of walking or biking based on the existing street network without consideration of available existing facility) for major transit stops, which include Caltrain stations and bus stops served by rapid bus service. These walk and bike shed areas represent the majority of populated areas within the City. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements on streets and sidewalks connecting to these stops are critical in providing safe and comfortable connections to transit.

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Rinconada
Park
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Walter Hays
Elementary
Duveneck
Elementary
Ohlone
Elementary
El Carmelo
Elementary
Palo Verde
Elementary
Addison
Elementary
Hoover
Elementary
Greendell
School
Juana
Briones
Elementary
Barron
Park
Elementary
Lucille M.

Nixon
Elementary
School
Escondido
Elementary
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Matadero Creek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
Stanford
Medical
Center
Lucile Packard
Children's
Hospital
VA Palo Alto
Medical Care
System
Stanford
Shopping Center
Downtown
Shopping Area
Town &
Country
Village
California Avenue
Shopping Area
Midtown
Shopping Center
Downtown
Library
Children's
Library
Rinconada
Library
Lucie Stern
Community
Center
Mitchell Park
Community
Center
Cubberley
Community
Center
Jewish
Community
Center
College
Terrace
Library
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Santa Clara
County
Superior
Court
Palo Alto
Transit Center
Stanford
Research
Park
East
Bayshore
San Antonio Road/
Bayshore Corridor
Alma
Village
Edgewood
Plaza
Palo Alto
Art Center
Charleston
Shopping
Center
Public Safety
Building
Ventura
Community Center
& Bicycle Safety
Park
!!TC
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
City of Palo Alto
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Employment District or Other High-Intensity Uses
School
Parks and Open Space
Community Center
Library
Medical Center
Shopping Center/Area
Employment Center
!!TC Transit Center
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 1: Existing Activity Generators
Note: Icon is in a
general area, not the
exact location.

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
10-Minute Walk Area
10-Minute Bike Area
Rapid Bus Stop
Caltrain Station
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 2: Walk and Bike Sheds for Major Transit Stops
Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 35

1.6 R elationship to Other Documents
The 2012 BPTP , along with a variety of local, regional, state and federal plans, legislation, and policy directives, provides guidance for the development and safe operation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The following section highlights relevant themes and findings from existing plans and policies.

Across various plans, there is strong alignment on
promoting sustainability, climate action, and increasing the rate of people walking and biking. Common vision
and goals include:
• Increasing biking and walking trips for all purposes
• Constructing and maintaining safe and accessible
streets for walking and biking and people of all
ages and abilities
• Developing a network of bikeways, pathways,
and traffic-calmed streets that connect various
business districts, residentials areas, open spaces
and parks
• Improving the aesthetics of walkways and bike
paths to attract more walking and biking trips
• Reducing the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Seeking to improve the quality of life, as well as
environmental quality, economic health, and social
equity
The 2030 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan introduces programs and policies such as collecting bicycle counts and conducting surveys to understand bicycle use
(Program T1.16.1); encouraging participation in local
walking and biking events (Program T1.16.4); providing
facilities that encourage walking and biking (Policy
T-1.19); and prioritizing investments for enhanced
pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto
(Program T1.19.2).
3 Furthermore, the policies align
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
(MTC) Regional Active Transportation Plan
4 and City’s
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program.
3 City of Palo Alto. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. (2014) Accessed from https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-
Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/2030-
Comprehensive-Plan
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Regional Active Transportation Plan. (2023) Accessed from https://mtc.ca.gov/ planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestrian-micromobility/ regional-active-transportation-plan
The City’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
sets an ambitious goal to reduce community-wide
GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, with
transportation identified as a major focus area. The
plan aims to cut transportation-related emissions
at least 65% below 1990 levels by accelerating EV
adoption, expanding public and private charging
infrastructure, electrifying municipal fleets, and
promoting e-bikes and other light electric vehicles.

It also targets a 12% reduction in total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by 2030 and seeks to increase active
transportation and transit mode share for local work
trips from 19% to 40% through bicycle and pedestrian
plan implementation, transit expansion, transportation
demand management (TDM), smart parking, and
supportive land use policies. Overall, the transportation strategy emphasizes feasibility, equity, electrification, and reducing single-occupancy vehicle travel while
aligning infrastructure and land use decisions with
long-term climate resilience.

The common themes from the review of documents
surrounding the needs and challenges include:
• Limited access to commercial areas
• Insufficient bike parking
• Safety concerns at crossings and high-traffic areas
• Environmental risks
• Funding uncertainty
• Bicycle theft, and
• Poor infrastructure maintenance
Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 36

1.6.1 RELATIONSHIP TO
CITY’S ONGOING EFFORTS
At the time of the 2026 BPTP development, the City
of Palo Alto was advancing several related planning
efforts, including:
• Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan
• 2023-2031 Housing Element
• San Antonio Road Area Plan
• Downtown Housing Plan
• South Palo Alto Connectivity Project
• Quarry Road Transit Connection at El Camino Park
• Car-Free Streets: California Avenue and Ramona
Street
• El Camino Real Pavement, Rehabilitation, and
Bikeways
• Cubberley Community Center Project
The BPTP team engaged with staff and consultants
leading these initiatives to ensure coordination and
consistency across planning efforts. Recommendations
from projects that were further along in their
development, such as the SS4A Safety Action Plan and
the 2023–2031 Housing Element, were incorporated
into the BPTP as appropriate. The Safety Action
Plan prioritizes addressing risks for pedestrians on
major downtown streets, pedestrians on arterials at
night, youth bicyclists, broadside collisions between
bicyclists and vehicles, and bicycle crossings on high- stress streets. The Housing Element highlights that
improvements to walking and biking infrastructure can
reduce household transportation costs and enhance
residents’ quality of life. It also promotes strategies such as Pedestrian-Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) and mixed-use land development to foster
more walkable and bikeable communities. Other
efforts, including the San Antonio Road Area Plan and
the South Palo Alto Connectivity Project, were still in progress at the time of 2026 BPTP development. The
2026 BPTP recognizes that the outcomes of these
ongoing projects will continue to inform and influence
the recommendations presented in this plan.

The following active transportation projects are
recommended as a part of the plans reviewed:
• Across barrier connections across the City (Adobe
Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing (completed),
Caltrain/Alma Barrier Crossing at Matadero
Creek (ongoing via the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity Project)
• Trails and Shared Use Pathway projects (including
Embarcadero Road / Rinconada Park Sidepath and
Adobe Creek Reach Trail (completed))
• Bicycle boulevard projects (including Castilleja-
Park-Wilkie Bicycle Boulevard and Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard Update)
• Intersection spot improvements (including El
Camino Real Intersection Through-Markings
(completed) and Charleston Road at Middlefield
Road Bicycle Through-Lanes (completed)
• Infrastructure Programs (including Bicycle Parking
Corral / Rack Installation Program (on-going)
and Pedestrian Countdown Signals & Crossings
Program (on-going))
• System rehabilitation and Maintenance (including
Castilleja Street-Park Boulevard and Lytton Avenue
(completed))
• Design, Feasibility, and Planning (including
Middlefield Road “Complete Street” Plan Line
Study and Embarcadero Road Plan Line Study
(completed))
• Non-Infrastructure - Education Encouragement
(including Citywide Traffic Counts and Data
Collection and Bike Palo Alto! / Palo Alto Sunday
Streets (on-going))
• Freeway interchange improvements (I-280/Page
Mill Interim Improvements (completed))
• Planned Bicycle Bridge/Undercrossing (Stanford
Avenue /Seale Avenue, San Francisquito Creek Trail
(Bay Trail Crossing Complete), Adobe Creek Bridge
(complete))
Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 37

1.7 Public Outr each Summary
The development of the 2026 BPTP was guided by an extensive, four-phase community engagement process: 1) Visioning; 2) Needs & Concerns; 3) Recommended Projects and Programs; and 4) Plan Adoption. The community engagement effort included a combination of digital outreach and in-person events. The City promoted events on the City’s website, social media channels, “Transportation Connect” mailing list, tabling and community events, Uplift local newsletter, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings.

Image 2: Four Phases of Engagement
Exhibit A

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

PHASE 1:

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

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

Key themes emerging from engagement with
committee and staff working groups surfaced several
key themes:
1) sa fety, especially for students;
2) demand for high-quality walking and biking
infrastructure;
3) the need for across-barrier connections over
obstacles like U.S. 101 and Caltrain;
4) in terest in transformative technologies (e.g.,
e-bikes, sensors); and
5) alignmen t of transportation planning with future
growth areas such as San Antonio Road.

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

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

1. Introduction | 39
PHASE 2:

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 40
PHASE 3:

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
This phase sought feedback on draft project and program concepts through focus group meetings (3), committee meetings (3), commission meetings (2), a public workshop, tabling and public events, online interactive map feedback and electronic feedback submissions.

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

The City held a joint workshop for the 2026 BPTP and South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity 5 project at the Mitchell
Park Community Center. Key takeaways included strong support for expanding the pedestrian toolbox with features such as pedestrian beacons, pedestrian-only zones, raised crossings, wider sidewalks, permanent wayfinding, and improved bike parking. Feedback on separated bikeways was mixed.

In addition to in-person events, the BPTP team prepared an online interactive map and feedback form. The map tool collected over 400 public comments, with 40 percent expressing support for improvements along corridors like Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue, Quarry Road, Charleston Road, and Oregon Expressway. Some (13%) raised concerns about specific treatments, while 24 percent opposed certain proposals, particularly where they could impact vehicle traffic—such as on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road, and Embarcadero Road. Several commenters suggested leveraging creek corridors for non-motorized transportation. The feedback form received over 100 responses, which largely supported making Palo Alto more bike- and pedestrian-friendly but also raised concerns about the safety and practicality of certain recommend projects, particularly those involving busy arterial roads and parking removal.
5 City of Palo Alto. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Accessed from www.paloalto.gov/bikepedcrossings Key Themes from Phase 3:
• Mixed reactions to “Big Streets” projects while they provide direct connections, many questioned their overall return on investment.
• Strong call for a clearer prioritization framework that accounts for real-world constraints. • Desire for more pedestrian-focused recommendations.
• Emphasis on improving overall network connectivity and cohesion. • Support for non-infrastructure strategies such as education, policy tools, funding mechanisms, and planning for emerging mobility modes.

Exhibit A

1. Introduction | 41
PHASE 4:

PLAN ADOPTION
Staff presented the draft 2026 BPTP to PABAC, PTC, and the City Council for review and adoption as a part of the final phase of engagement. Feedback focused on refining the project list and clarifying project descriptions.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 42

2. EXISTING FACILITIES

AND CONDITIONS
42 Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 43

2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Facilities1 that support people walking include sidewalks, shared-use paths, and trails, as well as crossing facilities such as curb ramps, high intensity activated crosswalk beacons, and marked and unmarked crosswalks. Amenities such as street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, pedestrian-oriented wayfinding, shade, benches, water fountains, and landscaping also serve to support and create an environment that is convenient and inviting for people walking. 1 A facility is a physical element of the transportation system that is designed to support safe, comfortable, and accessible travel by walking, biking, rolling, or using mobility devices.

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

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

Pedestrian crossing at El Camino Real.

Source: City of Palo Alto
Midblock crossing at City Hall
Source: City of Palo Alto
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 44
Crossing at Quarry Road.

Source: City of Palo Alto
Pedestrians crossing El Camino Real.

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

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

The unsignalized intersections of side streets at arterial streets often lack marked crosswalks in any direction; for example, this condition is present near California Avenue Transit Station along streets such as Page Mill Road, California Avenue, and El Camino Real.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 45

2.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Facilities that support people bicycling include bike lanes, bike boulevards, separated bikeways, shared-use paths, and trails, as well as crossing facilities such as protected intersections and conflict zone markings. Amenities such as bicycle parking, bicycle-oriented wayfinding, and bicycle signals also serve to support and create an environment that is convenient and inviting for people bicycling.

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

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

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

Note: A pedestrian or bicycle facility is any infrastructure designed to support, enhance, and encourage bicycle use by improving the safety and convenience for pedestrians or bicyclists. A “facility” is a physical element of the transportation system that is designed to support safe, comfortable, and accessible travel by walking, biking, rolling, or using mobility devices.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 46
The 2026 BPTP proposes the six bicycle facility types illustrated and described in Image 8 and Image 9.

Image 8: Updated Bicycle Facility Types
Image 9: Bicycle Facility Types

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges: Limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections and driveways, vehicle parking considerations, and conflicts with right- turning vehicles.

2.2.1 BICYCLE FACILITIES
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 47

TYPE OF FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes
A buffered bicycle lane is similar to a painted bicycle lane, but it has an extra painted buffer to create more space between bicyclists and motorists. A buffered bike lane should be implemented on collector roads with low to moderate volumes, around 4,000-6,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

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

Challenges: Limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections and driveways, vehicle parking considerations, and conflicts with right- turning vehicles.

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

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

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

Challenges: They are suitable only for roadways with low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds, and vehicle parking considerations.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 48

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

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

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

Challenges: They are suitable for roadways with low traffic volumes.

Additionally, designing safe and efficient crossings at major streets presents a significant challenge.

Note: Sharrows and other ground-stencils may be appropriate for bicycle boulevards as a way to identify them, and for wayfinding purposes.

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

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

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

Challenges: Limited right-of-way, safe crossings at intersections and driveways, vehicle parking considerations, and conflicts with right- turning vehicles.

Source: Mobycon, 2025
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 49

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

High utilization was observed at many locations, particularly near University Avenue and the Caltrain Station. Most bike parking is conveniently located on or near sidewalks. However, some individuals were observed securing bicycles to sign poles or trees, likely for convenience, limited availability, or because the type of bike parking provided is difficult to use.

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

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

59.3 miles of bikeways. Since then, approximately 14 miles have been added, bringing the total to 73.5 miles as of 2025. Notably, there were no Class II buffered or Class IV separated bikeway in 2012; today, the City has 3.3 miles of buffered bike lanes and 4.3 miles of separated bikeways. Table 4 includes comparison between 2012 bicycle network mileage with existing network in 2025.

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
!f Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Railroad
Caltrain Station
Library
Community Center
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
Exhibit A
51 ∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Homer Ave
Forest Ave
Everett AveCowper St
Waverley St
Bryant St
Emerson St
Alma St
Webster St
Palo Alto
Caltrain
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Elevated
Inverted U
Wave
Locker
Other
Study Area
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
Commercial Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 500 1,000
Feet
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Parking Location
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 52
Bicycle Parking
Easy access to secure parking makes bicycling a more attractive option. People are more likely to ride if they know they’ll find a safe place to lock up their bike near their destination. Lack of parking often leads to uncertainty or inconvenience, discouraging trips by bike. Bicycle parking is generally categorized into short-term and long-term installations. These two kinds of parking serve different needs, and the starting point for most bike parking projects is recognizing whether the installation should serve short-term users, long-term users, or both. If users typically park for two hours or longer, they are likely to value security and shelter above the convenience and ease that should characterize short-term parking.
1 Image 10 shows common short-term bicycle parking options that are currently available in the City.
1 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015 Image 10: Bicycle Parking Types - Short-Term
Source: Kittelson, 2025
Inverted U - Circular
Elevated
Inverted U - Rectangle
Wave Locker
Series Inverted U
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 53
Short-term parking shall be visible from and close to
the entrance it serves—50’ or less is a good benchmark.

When installing sidewalk racks, maintain the pedestrian through zone. Racks should be placed in line with
existing sidewalk obstructions to maintain a clear
line of travel for all sidewalk users. Image 11 shows
guidance on placement and spacing requirements
for bicycle racks. Additionally, the City could explore opportunities to install high security smart racks such as integrated electronic locking swingarms.
1 Long-term parking is designed to meet the needs of
employees, residents, public transit users, and others
with a need to park for several hours and leave their
bicycles unmonitored. Appropriate locations for long-
term parking vary with context. Long-term parking
facilities should anticipate the presence of a variety
of bicycles and accessories, including—depending on
context—recumbents, trailers, children’s bikes, long-
tails, and others. To accommodate trailers and long
bikes, a portion of the racks should be on the ground
and should have an additional 36” of in-line clearance.

The 2026 BPTP’s recommended policies and programs
for bicycle parking are described in Section 3.4, Policies and Programs.
1 BART. High Security Bike Racks. Accessed from https://www. bart.gov/guide/bikes/parking
Image 11: Placement and Spacing Requirements
Source: APBP Essentials of Bike Parking. 2015
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 54
Wayfinding Signs
Wayfinding involves the use of signs, maps, and other visual cues to help people navigate through an area. Effective wayfinding systems improve accessibility and user experience. Image 12 illustrates the comprehensive bicycle wayfinding sign system family, incorporating both fundamental and enhanced wayfinding components. Image 13 shows the existing signs in Palo Alto that assist bicyclists in wayfinding.

The 2026 BPTP includes a program to develop a non-motorized wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities with key local and regional destinations such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations. Additionally, the wayfinding facilities will be implemented as part of the bicycle and pedestrian projects.

The 2026 BPTP’s recommended policies and programs for wayfinding are described in Section 3.4, Policies and Programs.

Image 12: Types of Wayfinding Signs
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 55
Image 13: Existing Signs in Palo Alto
Source: City of Palo Alto, Kittelson and Mobycon, 2025
Bicycle Boulevard Sample
Signage
Temporary Wayfinding Signs
Sign regulating direction
Bicycle Boulevard Sign at Bryant
Street and Forest Avenue
Sign at Caltrain Station
Sign regulating parking and bike
lanes
Downtown Pedestrian
Wayfinding Signs
Bicycle Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding Sign assisting with
confirmation and navigation
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 56

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

Educating Student Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Palo Alto’s history as a bicycle-friendly town is about more than its flat terrain and many bicycle facilities, it’s about shared community values.

In 2025, SRTS partners recognized the thirty-year anniversary of the Palo Alto School District (PAUSD), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and City of Palo Alto-supported Safe Routes to School (SRTS) education program. Educational efforts, in tandem with engineering and encouragement programming, are foundational to helping families enjoy safe, active, healthy, sustainable school commutes in Palo Alto. Beyond Education, Encouragement and Engineering, Engagement, Evaluation, and Equity considerations guide partnership outcomes and considerations.

Key 30-year achievements include:

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

2. Lifelong Safety Skills - More than 23,000 students in the Palo Alto Unified School District have received 560 minutes, (nine hours) of in-school transportation safety education between grades K-6 compared with 45 minutes of third grade education in 1991. Palo Alto’s Bicycle Life Skills program, including Bicycle Rodeo events, have helped thousands of families gain confidence and learn important road-sharing safety skills.

Palo Alto is one of the few communities to offer such robust safety education programming. In 2025, the City constructed the Bay Area’s first bicycle safety education traffic garden at Ventura Community Center to enhance offsite programming to even more students throughout Palo Alto and the surrounding community.

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

4. Parent Involvement - During the past three decades, more than 450 parent volunteers have stepped up to serve as PTA-appointed Transportation Safety Representatives at each PAUSD school. Parents are essential to validating SRTS Partner projects and programming and setting community expectations. PTA Transportation Safety Events include the biannual Walk and Roll to School days and in-school, 3rd Grade Bicycle Life Skills lessons rodeos.

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

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 57
Moving Toward the Future of Safe Routes to School
Between 2017 and 2022, a City School Transportation Safety Committee-approved Palo Alto a Five-Year Action Plan. Core objectives are paraphrased below:

1. Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies

2. Provide SRTS education programs, materials and communications

3. Expand and enhance events and encouragement programs and materials

4. Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes

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

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

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

For three decades, the SRTS Partnership has shaped Palo Alto’s identity as a leader in student bicycling and walking.

Its achievements, millions of active commutes, improved infrastructure, and parent engagement, demonstrate the power of collaboration. While pandemic-related disruptions and emerging mobility trends present new challenges, the Partnership’s history of resilience and innovation provides a strong foundation for Palo Alto to continue supporting safe, healthy, and sustainable school commutes for the next generation.

THE PALO ALTO BICYCLE SAFETY PARK
In 2025, the City installed a Traffic Garden at the Ventura Community Center. The course, roughly the size of two basketball courts, is designed to serve as a hands-on classroom for young cyclists to learn road safety and cycling skills.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 58

2.4 Walking and Biking Activity
Existing walking and biking activity data was analyzed, including travel characteristics such as the purpose of the trip, trip duration, time of day, origin and destination, and traveler demographics. This information is used to identify improvements that would lead to the highest return on investment.

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

Replica (Big-Data provider) uses a comprehensive modeling technique that simulates the movements of residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles based on a synthetic population. This synthetic population is statistically representative of our community and constructed from a blend of mobile location data, consumer/resident data, built environment data, economic activity data, and, when available, bike and pedestrian counts.
2 Replica uses cell phone telemetry data to determine the relative popularity of points of interest. However, it’s important to note that this data isn’t utilized to determine the mode of transportation for a trip. This is because the GPS-derived speed of a device lacks the precision necessary to differentiate between modes such as bus trips and biking trips. Instead, the determination of a trip’s mode is based on factors such as the proximity between the origin and destination, the availability of roadways suitable for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as household and commute characteristics. These variables collectively influence the mode choice.

Replica’s methodology allows us to explore mobility patterns with a granularity previously unattainable, offering detailed insights into how, when, and why different population segments navigate our City. Such detailed modeling can uncover latent needs and opportunities for infrastructure improvements that might not be evident from traditional data sources alone. As with other mobile device–based datasets, Replica data may not fully represent all population groups, with potential underrepresentation of seniors, children, lower-income households, and individuals less likely to carry smartphones or enable location tracking. This would result in undercounts in areas such as around schools. 2 For more information on Replica methodology, visit: https://documentation.replicahq.com/docs/seasonal-mobility-model- methodology-summary-places
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 59
Walking Activity
Based on Replica data, the highest percentage of walking trips were associated with shopping (31%), work (9%), and restaurant (9%) related trips. With only 7% of the population, Hispanic and Latino travelers represent 20% of the total walking trips. With about 15% of the population, people aged 18-34 made almost 37% of the total walk trips. The peak time for pedestrian trips occurs between 3 and 5 p.m. Most walking trips (60%) are under 10 minutes with a mean of 11 minutes and median of 7 minutes. Most walking trips (56%) are under 0.5-mile, and 96% of trips are under two miles. Major destinations include Stanford University with other walking hubs in downtown, Barron Park, and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park.

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

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

Note: A trip is a movement by a person between places. A trip begins when a person leaves a place and ends when a person stops to do a non-travel activity in a place. For example: If a person walks from home to a cafe, sits down to drink a coffee, and then walks to work, two trips have occurred.

A person can use multiple modes within a single trip. For example: If a person walks to the bus stop and then takes the bus to work, this is a single trip with two trip segments. When a trip involves multiple modes, the trip is assigned a primary mode by using the following ranking: 1) Public transit, 2) Driving (private auto)/Auto passenger/Taxi/TNC, 3) Biking, 4) Walking.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 60

2.4.2 POTENTIAL AND FUTURE ACTIVITY
Approximately 49% of all vehicle trips are less than two miles (10-minute biking distance), presenting an opportunity for a potential transition to walking and biking. With a diverse land use mix and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, there is a possibility to encourage a mode shift towards active transportation. Furthermore, the City is exploring the option of shared micromobility options, and the rising popularity of e-bikes could further assist the City in achieving its climate action goals of reducing transportation-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 65% below 1990 levels.

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

The highest demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities is around the Downtown Caltrain Station and California Avenue Caltrain Station. This map was developed based on the key destinations and their relative usage. The other locations with the highest demand include areas near Mitchell Park and JLS Middle School stretching west of El Camino Real along Arastradero Road. Investing in bicycle infrastructure improvements along these roadways would be most beneficial in serving the major activity generators.

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

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

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 62

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

Major barriers in Palo Alto were analyzed to determine where people may need to take detours and increase the length of their walking and biking trips. This assessment is summarized below.

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

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

How far does someone need to walk to cross a barrier at an available crossing location? Is there a lack of available crossings at a barrier that requires someone to travel a significant distance around that barrier? Exhibit A
63 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

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

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 64
Note that the linear barriers assessment specifically focuses on freeways/highways, water bodies, and rail lines, and does not assess major streets which can be stressful for walking and bicycling and serve as barriers. This assessment found that a number of linear barriers affect the convenience of walking and bicycling in Palo Alto:
• A lack of consistently available crossing opportunities across Highway 101 results in noticeable detours for walking trips. The most significant gap in crossing opportunities occurs between the two walking and bicycling bridges over the highway, limiting access to the Adobe Creek Loop Trail. • People walking and bicycling may need to divert and increase their trip lengths to pass around Adobe Creek, especially to the south. This highest level of diversions occur in the area between the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path and the Foothill Expressway, where the creek runs between the Alta Mesa Memorial Park to the west and residences to the east.
• Crossing Matadero Canal may require detours that approximately double the walking or bicycling trip distance, which can be increased due to the presence of the rail line. • There are multiple areas along the rail line where substantial walking and bicycling diversions are required for crossing. These include the approximately 0.65-mile gap between the Churchill Avenue and California Avenue crossings and the approximately 1.3-mile gap between the California Avenue and Meadow Drive crossings in south Palo Alto.

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

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

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

Nixon
Elementary
School
Escondido
Elementary
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Matadero Creek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U
®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U ®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U®¯U __`101 §¨¦
280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

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

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 66

2.6 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 with LTS 1 indicating low stress facility and LTS 4 indicating a high stress facility, as shown in Image 14.

Image 14: Relationship between LTS and Comfort
The segment analysis considers roadway functional classification, vehicle volume, posted or prevailing vehicle speeds, number of vehicle lanes, the presence of on-street parking, and vehicle parking and bicycle lane widths.

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

The crossing analysis considers the right-turn lane configuration and length, bike lane approach, vehicle turning speeds, and the presence of a median refuge. Among the 1,233 intersections, 139 are signalized and are assigned LTS 1 as traffic signals do not create a barrier and provide a protected way across. The remaining low stress intersections are typically located on residential streets characterized by low speeds and minimal vehicular activity.

Notably, the corridors with the highest stress levels, including El Camino Real, Alma Street, San Antonio Road, and Oregon Expressway, are associated with the majority of high stress intersections. Figure 9 shows the LTS results from the crossing analysis.

LTS 1
California Avenue in front
Greene Middle School
LTS 2
Hanover Street
near Page Mill Road
LTS 3
Meadow Drive
near Wilkie Way
LTS 4
San Antonio Road
near Leghorn Streets
Exhibit A
67 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

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

As of 9/1/2025
Figure 8: Segment LTS Results
Exhibit A
68 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 69

2.7 Collision Analysis
Analyzing pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions helps understand the location, severity, circumstances, and timing of collisions affecting people walking and biking. The BPTP team analyzed recent collision data to help determine the streets and types of improvements that should be prioritized to make it safer for people walking and biking. This assessment is summarized in the following section.

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

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 70
Key pedestrian and bicycle collisions trends include:
• Severity: Collisions involving people walking or
biking were more likely to result in an injury or
a fatality compared to motor vehicle collisions.

Approximately 12% of pedestrian collisions and
5% of bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality or
severe injury.
• Temporal Trends: The number of pedestrian and
bicycle collisions has been decreasing over the
most recent five-year period (2018-2022) likely
reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on traffic patterns.
• Bicycle Collision Types: The most commonly-cited
collision types for bicyclist-involved collisions were
broadside collisions (61%) followed by sideswipe
collisions (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle
collisions specifically, the most common collision
types were broadside collisions (54%), followed by
head-on and hit object collisions (15% each).
• Pedestrian Collision Factors: The most commonly-
cited primary collision factors (PCFs) for
pedestrian-involved collisions were pedestrian
right of way (51%) followed by pedestrian
violation and improper turning (13% each).
3 For fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions
specifically, the most common PCFs were
pedestrian violation at (42%), improper turning
(25%), and pedestrian right of way at (17%).
• Bicycle Collision Factors: The most commonly-
cited PCFs for bicycle-involved collisions were
improper turning (21%), automobile right of
way (19%), and riding on the wrong side of the
road (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle
collisions specifically, the most common PCFs
were improper turning and traffic signals and
signs (23% each).
4 3 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violation – Occurs when a driver fails to yield to a pedestrian who has the legal right-of-way, such as at a marked or unmarked crosswalk (CVC §21950).

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

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

The BPTP team conducted an analysis of the collision
data and the City’s roadway network to identify a
set of bicycle and pedestrian high-injury streets,
together called a High-Injury Network (HIN).
5 For the
2026 BPTP , the Bicycle HIN is defined as the top 10
roadway segments with the highest concentration of
bicycle collisions, weighted by severity. Similarly, the Pedestrian HIN is defined as the roadway segments
with the highest concentration of pedestrian collisions.

Note, the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan also identifies
an HIN which accounts for collisions involving all travel modes, including collisions involving motor vehicles
only. The bicycle and pedestrian HIN constitutes the
worst-performing street segments based on both the
frequency and the severity of collisions involving people walking and biking. The bicycle HIN and pedestrian HIN
are shown in Figure 14.

Bicycle HIN Includes
• Wilton Ave between Park Blvd and El Camino Real
• W Meadow Dr between Alma St and El Camino
Way
• Alma St between Meadow Dr and El Verano Ave
• Gailen Ave between Bibbits Dr and Grove Ave
• Quarry Rd between El Camino Real and Welch Rd
• Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St
• Melville Ave between Channing Ave and
Embarcadero Rd
• California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St
• Charleston Rd between Alma St and San Antonio
Rd
• E Meadow Dr between Fabian Way and Alma St
Pedestrian HIN Includes
• High St between Lytton Ave and Channing Ave
• Quarry Rd between El Camino Real and Vineyard
Ln
• El Dorado Ave between Alma St and Cowper St
• South Ct between Oregon Expy and Matadero
Creek
• Hamilton Ave between Alma St and Guinda St
• California Ave between Park Blvd and Hanover St
• Waverly St between Lytton Ave and Churchill Ave
• Charleston Rd between Alma St and San Antonio
Rd
• University Ave between Alma St & Woodland Ave
• Loma Verde Ave between Alma St & Bayshore Rd
5 Palo Alto Safety Action Plan defines the high-injury network (HIN) as street segments with a high number of crashes, including KSI crashes and crashes involving vulnerable users (bicyclists, pedestrians, youth, and seniors) in the City.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 71
Table 5: Collision Data Summary (2018-2022)

PARTIES INVOLVED FATAL SEVERE
INJURY

MODERATE
INJURY
MINOR
INJURY

REPORTED
TOTAL
Pedestrian 3 (2.9%) 9 (8.7%) 49 (47.1%) 43 (41.3%) 104
Bicyclist 1 (0.4%) 12 (4.7%) 175 (68.1%) 69 (26.8%) 257 Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 Figure 10: Total Number of Pedestrian Collisions by Year and Severity Figure 11: Total Number of Bicycle Collisions by Year and Severity Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 Source: TIMS data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022 Exhibit A
72 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018 – 2022) Exhibit A
73 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injuries
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 13: Bicycle Collision by Severity (2018 – 2022)
Exhibit A
74 __`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Bicycle High Injury Network
Pedestrian High Injury Network
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson, TIMS 2018-2022 0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network
Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 75

2.8 Shared Micromobility, E-Bikes, E-Cycles, and
E-Motos
Electrification of the transport system has expanded in various ways with the development of electric bicycles (e-bikes) (which now out-sell electric cars in the USA) and e-scooters. The widespread use of internet-connected mobile phones has also allowed shared mobility to take off with bike, e-cycle, and e-scooter sharing systems being implemented in cities around the world. A summary of shared micromobility, e-bikes, and e-cycles is presented in this section.

Electric Bicycles, E-Cycles, and E-Motos: CVC 312.5
defines e-bikes as “a bicycle equipped with fully
operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750
watts.” California Vehicle Code CVC 21(a) preempts
cities from regulating e-bike traffic provisions unless the legislature specifically authorizes it.
6 Use of the
term ‘E-bikes’ specifically references California Vehicle Code § 1271-classified electric bicycles that do not
exceed 20 mph (Class 1 and 2) and pedal assist-bicycles that do not exceed 28 mph (Class 3).

In Palo Alto, transportation staff use the term ‘e-cycles’ to reference the broadest category of electrified one,
two and three-wheeled vehicles, including bicycles,
tricycles, scooters, one-wheels, mopeds, e-motos and
off-highway vehicles, regardless of wattage or legal
status.

The classification and regulation of electric cycles,
including e-bikes, is an emergent issue with ongoing
policy considerations happening at the state and local
level.
7 For example, Senate Bill 1271 introduced new
regulations for e-bikes in California, including Class 3 e-bikes are now required to be pedal assist-only with no throttle allowed, and all e-bikes must have functional
pedals.

E-motos are electric mopeds, electric motorcycles, and
electric dirt bikes that are much more powerful and
faster than electric bicycles. E-motos may have motors
with thousands of watts of power that far exceed the
750 watts allowed for a legal e-bike. They are equipped with throttles and can go in excess of 30 mph, some
achieving speeds of 65 mph. Unlike e-bikes, e-motos
are considered “motor-driven cycles” and are subject
to federal motor vehicle safety standards.
6 California Vehicle Code. Defining electric bicycle classes and standards. Accessed from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle- code/veh-sect-312-5/
7 Check the California Vehicle Code for current definitions and regulations related to e-bikes.

E-bikes and e-cycles enable people to travel further by bicycle and can contribute to increased mode shifts
and decongestion if they are replacing trips that would otherwise be made by personal automobile. Studies
have shown that e-bike riders travel further and cycle
more often with one study from 2020 finding that
after purchasing an e-bike, riders increased their total bicycle usage from 1.3 miles to 5.7 miles per day and
that their share of all trips made by bike increased from 17 percent to 49 percent.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 76
The advantages of e-bikes likely outweigh the disadvantages, especially when they replace motor vehicle trips.

However, there are some challenges that must be addressed. E-bikes can allow users to travel at relatively high speeds which may present a safety risk to e-bike users and other active transportation users (pedestrians, traditional cyclists) around them when there is a great speed differential. Additionally, while e-bikes are not drastically different than traditional bicycles, safely and effectively accommodating them in the transportation system may require wider facilities and additional separation to enable faster riders to overtake slower ones.

Facility recommendations and design guidance developed for this 2026 BPTP consider potential increases in bike volumes and greater speed differential related to increases in e-bike usage.

Furthermore, a number of manufacturers and retailers sell throttle-controlled, high-powered e-motos as e-bikes.

For decades, the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program has emphasized risk reduction as its primary goal and will continue promoting the use of conventional bicycles as the preferred onramp for helping students learn to share the road safely and responsibly. Policy recommendations developed for this BPTP consider effective regulation and education on E-bikes for all, and separate Electric Bicycle Engagement and Management Strategies to partner with local groups to ensure responsible use of personal electric mobility devices. 8 8 Data from Marin County shows that youth aged 10-15 have five times the serious injury rate on electric devices and based on counts at local Marin County middle schools.

Exhibit A

2. Existing Facilities and Conditions | 77
The City of Palo Alto adopted a one-year bicycle and
electric scooter sharing pilot program in March 2018
(CMR #8546) and developed permit guidelines for
vendors to operate within the City of Palo Alto. The City Council extended the pilot program in 2019 (Resolution
#9822), in 2020 (Resolution #9882), and in 2021
(Resolution #9914). The pilot program implementation
was initially delayed due to staff resources and delayed further as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot program expired on September 30, 2022, and other
shared micromobility partnerships have not been
secured since the 37-bike system run by Motivate was
discontinued.

The City of Palo Alto began the Shared Micromobility
Feasibility Study in December 2024 to determine a
program structure that would best serve the City’s goals for mobility, environmental sustainability, and fiscal
solvency. The recommendations from the Feasibility
Study will inform the design of a new pilot program.

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

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

Advancements in technology have allowed many
systems to now use a hybrid docked and dockless
system based on geofencing. Municipalities and
operators can now designate specific zones for parking
shared micromobility vehicles, reducing the need
for docking infrastructure while still allowing the
municipality control over where vehicles can park.

California’s New Daylighting Law (AB 413) makes it
illegal to park within 20 feet of the approach of any
marked or unmarked crosswalk, even if the approach
does not have any red curbs painted. This provides an
opportunity for the City to allow parking of bicycles
and shared micromobility.
10 9 City of Palo Alto. Bicyclist FAQs: Sharing the Road. Accessed from https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/ safe-routes-to-schools/sharing-the-road_-bicyclist-faqs-1.pdf 10 California Bicycle Coalition. Nine Uses for Daylighting Space.

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

3. Recommendations | 78

3. RECOMMENDATIONS
78 Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 79
The vision for the 2026 BPTP includes creating a safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian network that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities. To build on the strengths of the existing bikeway network, the recommended bikeway network is structured around two tiers: The Low-Stress Bicycle Network and the Complete Vision Bicycle Network.

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

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

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

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 80

3.1 Bicycle Network Corridor Criteria
To guide bicycle network development, the following development approach and network corridor criteria were applied. The approach includes primary network development criteria which was further supplemented with secondary criteria for network refinement.

3.1.1 PRIMARY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
The network is built on the 2012 BPTP and refined with recent planning efforts in Palo Alto and the region including MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan; VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and SRTS Suggested Walk & Roll Route Maps. The 2026 BPTP team synthesized recommendations from existing plans and projects to identify where there was agreement and where there was less planning consensus. The primary network development criteria are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Primary Network Development Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe Routes to
School
SRTS Suggested Walk &
Roll Route Maps
Route identified on SRTS
Suggested Walk & Roll Route
Maps
Important connection to schools
as a priority destination
Source: Mobycon, 2025
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 81

3.1.2 SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR NETWORK REFINEMENT
Where multiple route options exist, the 2026 BPTP team used secondary criteriawere used to support route selection and refinement. When selecting between alternative routes the following was considered:
• More direct routes to activity generators, as identified in the Existing Activity Generators map (see Figure 1). • Traffic stress conditions as identified in the LTS Analysis to identify routes with more favorable existing conditions.
• Direct alignment with high demand flows as identified in the Activity Analysis map of Bicycle Origins and Destinations.
• Routes that overcome barriers identified in the Major Barriers Analysis.

3.2 Recommended Bicycle Network and
Facilities

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

Bicycle-Friendly Zones are cohesive areas with concentrations of destinations, commercial activity, and pedestrian activity. These areas should see area-wide investment in bicycle-friendly amenities such as signal timing and traffic calming. A bicycle friendly zone is an area where cycling is convenient, comfortable, and direct on all of the streets within a designated area and is the preferred method of transportation.

The 2026 BPTP proposes three such zones: the commercial areas surrounding University Avenue and California Avenue, and the public-use area around Mitchell Park and Cubberley. All streets within these zones, particularly those identified on the bicycle network, should incorporate traffic-calming features to enable bicyclists and other micromobility users to safely and comfortably share the roadway. Wayfinding and zone-specific signage should also be provided to clearly indicate entry into a Bicycle-Friendly Zone.

Exhibit A
82 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon ExpyCalifornia Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero Rd
Foothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Deer Creek
Rd
Porter Dr Laguna Ave
Hanover St
Cambridge Ave
Mon
trose Ave
Faber Pl
Coleridge Ave
Churchill Ave
Channing Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd
Vineyard Ln
Arboretum Rd Palo Rd
Pasteur Rd
Everett Ave
Guinda St
Chaucer St
St Francis Dr
Garland Dr
La Donna Ave
Barron Ave
Georgia Ave
Donald Dr
Amaranta Ave
Cesano Ct
James Rd
El
Camino
Way
Portage Ave
Ash St
Olive Ave
Duncan Pl
Nelson Dr
Mackay Dr
Amarillo AveClark Way
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY

3. Recommendations | 83

3.2.2 BICYCLE FACILITIES SELECTION APPROACH
The 2026 BPTP team took a simplified facility selection approach to the different types of bicycle facilities was chosen for the updated bikeway network presented in 4.2.1. The approach is informed by the Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic
1, the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide 2, and the NACTO All Ages & Abilities Bikeways guidance3. The bicycle facility selection approach (Image 15) first looked at road classification (local, collector, and arterial). Then traffic volumes followed by posted speeds were examined. Given the limited availability of traffic volumes, the network criteria relied on community input, and on-ground knowledge from the in-person working session in April 2024.
4 The team applied this approach to each segment of the bikeway network and the facilities were selected based on the approach but also considered in the greater network and whether they met the 2026 BPTP vision and objectives.
1 CROW. “CROW Manual Updates Bike Lane Width Recommendations” CROW, 2023. 2 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: FHWA-SA-18-077. U.S.

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

Image 15: Bicycle Facility Selection Approach
Source: Mobycon, 2025
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 84

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

Low-Stress Bicycle Network
Figure 17 shows the Low-Stress Bicycle Network map. The Low-Stress Bicycle Network is the foundation for citywide bicycle connectivity, focused on delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term. It builds upon the City’s existing network of low-stress streets, primarily composed of shared-use paths and neighborhood-based Bicycle Boulevards, to rapidly expand access with minimal disruption and promote broad community support.

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

The Low-Stress Network emphasizes continuity and citywide coverage. While most of the network is routed along local streets, Class IV separated bikeway are included in strategic locations—specifically on high-traffic gateway corridors where no safe, parallel alternative exists and where regional connectivity demands it. Additionally, short segments of separated bikeways may be used to close key gaps between Bicycle Boulevards, enhancing network cohesion.

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

As shown in Table 7, 2026 BPTP Complete Vision Network includes a total of 94 bicycle projects, representing 61 miles of upgraded and new bicycle facilities. In addition, the 2026 BPTP includes 35 crossing projects, 6 special projects, and 5 studies. The Low Stress Network includes a total of 54 of the 94 bicycle projects, representing 30 miles of upgraded and new bicycle facilities. A total of 25 bicycle projects, representing almost 19 miles of upgraded and new facilities, are prioritized on the Near-Term Project List, along with 24 crossing projects, 3 special projects, and 3 studies. Table 8 provides the list of projects that make up the Complete Vision Network. Appendix A: List of Projects includes project descriptions and maps by bicycle facility type.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 85
Table 7: Summary of Recommend Bicycle Projects

PROJECT TYPE

COMPLETE VISION NETWORK LOW-STRESS NETWORK NEAR-TERM PROJECTS Number of
Recommend
Projects
Length
(Miles)
Number of
Recommend
Projects
Length
(Miles)
Number of
Recommend
Projects
Length
(Miles)
Shared Use Path (Class I) 14 8.2 6 1.0 2 0.6
Bicycle Lane (Class IIa) 12 4.1 9 3.4 2 0.4
Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class
IIb) 10 5.9 9 5.1 5 2.2
Advisory Bike Lane (Class IIIa) 2 0.3 2 0.3 0
Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIb) 24 19.7 17 12.3 7 8.3
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 32 22.9 11 7.8 9 7.3
Total 94 61.1 54 29.9 25 18.8

PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
ABL_1 Embarcadero Road Advisory Bike Lane at Harriet Mundy Marsh ABL_2 Geng Road Advisory Bike Lane
BBL_1 Homer/Channing/Guinda Avenue Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_2 Newell Road Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_3a Hanover Street to Bol Park Path Buffered Bike Lane BBL_3b Hanover Street Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_5 Embarcadero Road Buffered Bike Lane: East Bayshore to Baylands BBL_6 Loma Verde Avenue Buffered Bike Lane: Alma Street to Middlefield Road BBL_7 Cambridge Avenue Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane
BBL_9 Amaranta - Coulombe Buffered Bike Lane
BL_1 North California Avenue Bike Lane
BL_2 Channing Avenue Bike Lane
BL_3 Addison Avenue Bike Lane
BL_4 Portage - Olive - Ash Bike Boulevard
BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover
BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane
BL_7 Page Mill Road Bike Lane
BL_8 Loma Verde Bike Lane
BL_9 Colorado Ave Bike Lane
BL_10 East Bayshore Road Bike Lane-from San Francisquito Creek to Embarcadero Road BL_11 West Bayshore Road Bike Lane
Table 8: Project List
In addition to bikeway projects in the table, we are recommending 35 crossing projects, 6 special projects, and 5 studies. Of these non- bikeway projects, 24 crossing projects, 3 studies, and 3 special projects are priority projects.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 86

PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
BL_12 Arastradero Road
BLVD_1 Clark Way Bike Boulevard
BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project BLVD_3 Everett Avenue Bike Bike Boulevard
BLVD_4 Guinda Street Bike Boulevard
BLVD_5 Hamilton-Greer Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_6 Kingsley Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_7 Chaucer - Hamilton - Hale - Boyce Bike Boulevard BLVD_8 Greer Road Bike Boulevard
BLVD_9 La Donna - Barron - Josina - Bike Boulevard
BLVD_10 Saint Francis - Oregon Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_11 Faber Place Bike Boulevard
BLVD_12 Amarillo Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_13 Garland Drive Bike Boulevard
BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_15 Cowper Street Bike Boulevard
BLVD_16 Colorado Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_17 Stanford Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_18 Bryant - Nelson - Carlson - Mackay Bike Boulevard BLVD_19 Laguna - Los Robles Avenues Bike Boulevard
BLVD_20 Maybell - Donald - Georgia Bike Boulevard
BLVD_21 Hanover Street Bike Boulevard
BLVD_22 Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard
BLVD_23 Margarita Avenue Bike Boulevard
BLVD_24 Portage-Olive-Ash Bike Boulevard under NVCAP
BLVD_CROSSING_1 Chaucer Street crossing of University Avenue BLVD_CROSSING_2 Carlson Street Crossing of E Charleston Rd BLVD_CROSSING_3 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road BLVD_CROSSING_4 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive BLVD_CROSSING_5 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road BLVD_CROSSING_6 Faber Place Crossing at Embarcadero Road BLVD_CROSSING_7 Greer Road Crossing of Embarcadero Road BLVD_CROSSING_8 St Francis Drive crossing of Embarcadero Road BLVD_CROSSING_9 Cesano Ct Connection
BLVD_CROSSING_10 Bryant St crossing of E Meadow Dr
BLVD_CROSSING_11 Nelson Dr crossing of E Charleston Rd
BLVD_CROSSING_12 Cowper Street Crossing of Embarcadero Road CROSSING_1 Seale Avenue Bike/Ped Undercrossing for the Churchill Avenue Grade Separation CROSSING_2 Everett Avenue Tunnel
CROSSING_3 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 87

PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
CROSSING_4 New parallel tunnel for bicycles at California Avenue. Caltrain Station to Alma Street CROSSING_5 Palo Alto Transit Center/University Avenue Undercrossing CROSSING_6 Sutter Avenue crossing of Middlefield Road
CROSSING_7 Embarcadero Crossing to Renzel Trail over East Bayshore Road CROSSING_8 Hanover Street entrance to Bol Park Bike Path enhancement CROSSING_9 Matadero Creek Highway 101 Seasonal Undercrossing CROSSING_10 Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing CROSSING_11 Embarcadero Crossing Reconstruction
INTERSECTION_1 Page Mill Road and Hanover Street Intersection Improvement INTERSECTION_2 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement INTERSECTION_3 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection INTERSECTION_4 Greer Road and Oregon Expressway Intersection INTERSECTION_5 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection INTERSECTION_6 Park to Serra Protected Intersection
INTERSECTION_7 E Charleston Road and San Antonio Road Intersection INTERSECTION_8 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road
INTERSECTION_9 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real
INTERSECTION_10 Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection INTERSECTION_11 Quarry Road and Arboretum Road Protected Intersection INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road
SB_1 Deer Creek Road Separated Bikeway
SB_2 Arboretum Road Separated Bikeway
SB_3 Quarry Road Separated Bikeway
SB_4 El Camino Real Separated Bikeway
SB_5 Hillview Avenue Separated Bikeway
SB_6a Alma Street Separated Bikeway to Menlo Park
SB_6b Alma Street Separated Bikeway - North
SB_7 Lytton Avenue Separated Bikeway: Alma Street to Guinda Street SB_8 Foothill Expressway Separated Bikeway
SB_9 Hamilton Avenue Separated Bikeway: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street SB_10 University Avenue Separated Bikeway
SB_11a Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway Connection to Menlo Park SB_11b Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway Connection to Garland Drive SB_11c Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway
SB_11d Middlefield Road Separated Bikeway
SB_12 Homer Avenue Separated Bikeway
SB_13a Arastradero Road Separated Bikeway
SB_13b Arastradero Road Separated Bikeway
SB_14 Embarcadero Separated Bikeway: Middlefield Road to Newell Road SB_15 Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway: Greer Road to E. Bayshore Road Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 88

PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
SB_16 Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway: Full Corridor SB_17 East Bayshore Road Separated Bikeway: Embarcadero Road to Renzel Trail SB_18 East/West Meadow Drive Separated Bikeway
SB_19 Alma Street Separated Bikeway - South
SB_20a San Antonio Avenue Separated Bikeway
SB_20b San Antonio Road Separated Bikeway
SB_20c San Antonio Road Separated Bikeway into Mountain View SB_21a East Charleston Road Separated Bikeway: Industrial Avenue to Middlefield Road SB_21b East Charleston Road Separated Bikeway: Middlefield Road to Alma Street SB_22 West Charleston Road Separated Bikeway
SB_23 Fabian Way Separated Bikeway
SB_24 Churchill Ave Separated Bikeway
SUP_1 Quarry Road Transit Extension Project
SUP_2 Embarcadero Town & Country Shared Use Path
SUP_4 Page Mill Road Shared Use Path
SUP_5 Oregon Expressway Shared Use Path
SUP_6 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path
SUP_7 Barron Creek Shared Use Path
SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path
SUP_9 Cubberley Community Center Shared Use Path
SUP_10 Palo Alto Avenue Shared Use Path
SUP_11 Hansen Way Shared Use Path
SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection
SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Path Spur
SUP_15 El Camino Park - El Palo Alto Park Connection
SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads
SpecProj_2 Downtown Green Wave
SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project
SpecProj_4 Stanford Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Improvements: multiple locations Study_1 Southern Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Study and Implementation Project
Study_2 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study
Study_3 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path Feasibility Study Study_4 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Study_5 Cal Ave Station Gap Closure project
CS_1 California Avenue Community Street
SS_1 University Avenue Slow Street
Exhibit A
89 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Everett Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd Churchill Ave
Porter Dr
Olive Ave
Cambridge Ave
La Donna Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
To East Palo Alto
To Menlo Park
To Mountain
View
To Los Altos
Recommended Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path/Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Advisory Bike Lane
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
In an approved Plan from a
neighboring jurisdiction
Caltrain Station
!f Existing Ped/Bike Bridge
!s Existing Ped/Bike Underpass
Recommended Bike Blvd
Crossing Improvements
Recommended Intersection
Improvements
Recommended Ped/Bike
Bridge or Underpass
Trail
Bicycle-Friendly Zone
Recommended
Figure 16: Complete Vision Bicycle Network
Exhibit A
90 !f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!f
!s
!s
!s
!s
!s
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Everett Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd Churchill Ave
Porter Dr
Olive Ave
Cambridge Ave
La Donna Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

3. Recommendations | 91
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 92

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

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

Figure 18 maps three pedestrian districts and three
priority areas which are focus areas for pedestrian
recommendations. These areas were identified
based on prior planning efforts, including the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the Palo Alto Economic
Development Strategies Plan, as well as community
input and on-the-ground knowledge from the in-
person working session held in April 2024.
5 These pedestrian districts and priority areas include:

Pedestrian Districts:
• University Avenue Pedestrian District
• California Avenue Pedestrian District
• Midtown Pedestrian District
Pedestrian Priority Areas
• El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
• Embarcadero Neighborhood Commercial Center
• San Antonio Road Area
5 The BPTP Team conducted a series of site visit in April 2024 to understand the roadway context. This is further described in the community engagement section.

3.3.2 PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT

TOOLBOX
The pedestrian district toolbox includes a range of
selected treatments aimed at improving pedestrian
safety and enhancing the pedestrian experience. The
elements range from infrastructure improvements,
such as raised crossings or curb extensions that improve yielding rates, to aesthetic changes, such as benches
or public art, that can elevate the walking experience.

Together, these elements will meet universal needs for
safety and accessibility and create conditions where
walking is comfortable and an enjoyable experience
for all.

The pedestrian toolbox consists of 27 treatments
organized into seven categories: enhanced crossings,
street reconfiguration, aesthetic and functional
elements, activation and engagement, signal
adjustments, major intersection treatments, and green
infrastructure.

Implementing pedestrian-oriented enhancements
help in advancing the plan objectives of supporting
a City that is Safe and Inclusive, Connected and
Accessible, and Comfortable and Enjoyable. Image
16 lists pedestrian toolbox enhancements. Detailed
information about these tools and their recommended
application in the three pedestrian districts and two
priority areas is available in Appendix B: Pedestrian
District Guidelines.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 93
Image 16: Recommended Crossing and Intersection Improvements

19. In Street Treewells

18. Bike parking corrals

1. Mid-block crossings
Enhanced
Crossings
Street Design

2. Raised crossings 3. Raised intersections 4. Curb extensions

5. Wide sidewalks

10. Gateway Treatments

6. Shared streets 7. Reduced Curb Radii 8. Speed Hump
Aesthetic and
Functional
Elements

9. Pedestrian lighting 12. Wayfinding11. Decorative pavers

13. Alleyway activation
Activation and
Engagement
Flexible Street
Use

14. Street furniture 15. Shade sails 16. Street art or murals

17. On Street Flex Zones 20. Rising Bollards
Major
Intersection
Treatments

21. Pedestrian Signals 22. Signal Timing

23. Median island 24. Protected intersection
Green
Infrastructure

25. Bioswales 26. Rain Garden 27. Street Trees 28. Planting Strip Exhibit A
94 University
Avenue
District
California
Avenue
District
El Camino Real
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
Midtown
District
Embarcadero
Neighborhood
Commercial Center
San Antonio
Road Area
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
Pedestrian Districts and Priority Areas
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC, Kittelson
0 1 2
Miles
As of 9/1/2025
Figure 18: Pedestrian Districts and Pedestrian Priority Areas Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 95
Pedestrian District Recommendations
University Avenue Pedestrian District
Downtown Palo Alto’s historic main street and original civic/commercial core; today it functions as the City’s primary regional and commercial center and the “front door” many visitors remember. • Add midblock raised crossings (Hamilton Ave) and update existing midblock crossing (Forest Ave) to prioritize pedestrians.
• Install bike/micromobility corrals at key destinations (Caltrain lot at Alma Street, Palo Alto Transit Center, Lytton Plaza) and anchor district wayfinding at University & Alma and the Homer Tunnel, coordinated with the MTC pilot.
6 • Advance special projects: raised side-street crossings on University (Univ_A); permanent pedestrianized Ramona Street (Univ_B); alleyway activation (Univ_C); University & Alma interchange reconfiguration (Univ_D) (continuous/wider sidewalks, gateway, wayfinding); and improvements to the Transit Center/University undercrossing.
6 The MTC Regional Mapping & Wayfinding Project, https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/transit-regional-network-management/regional- mapping-wayfinding
Note: Numbers refer to the pedestrian toolbox elements recommended at these locations. Additional information about Pedestrian Toolbox Elements and Special Projects is provided in Appendix M: Pedestrian District Guidelines.

Image 17: University Avenue Pedestrian District
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 96
California Avenue Pedestrian District
A pedestrian activity center with compact blocks, back alleys, and active ground-floor commercial uses; recognized in City policy as a Multi-Neighborhood/Community-Serving center. • Use on-street flex zones for placemaking and add street treewells on Park Blvd, Ash St, and Birch St. • Provide wayfinding at El Camino Real/California Ave and the Caltrain station; add street art at key approaches.

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

Image 18: California Avenue Pedestrian District
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 97
Midtown Pedestrian District
A mid-century neighborhood shopping area that has grown into a vital, neighborhood-serving hub; identified in recent plans as a neighborhood serving place for everyday needs. • Apply gateway treatments at Middlefield (Moreno Ave to the west; Matadero Canal to the east), plus bike corrals, street furniture, and wayfinding.
• Advance special projects: a Midtown master street plan (Mid_1); a Middlefield Rd road diet (Mid_2) (raised intersections, continuous/wider sidewalks, pedestrian signals, flex zones, street furniture, treewells); a Sutter Ave mid-block crossing with ped signals (Mid_3); temporary parking-lot activation (Mid_4); and a central plaza parkway (Mid_5).

Image 19: Midtown Pedestrian District
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 98
Pedestrian Priority Area Recommendations
El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center
A linear, citywide commercial corridor with a diverse mix of shops, restaurants, and services serving both residents and visitors.
• Treat the corridor as a multimodal main street: add raised crossings on unsignalized side streets and provide street furniture to improve waiting areas.
• Enhance Corridor walkability, bike lanes, and streetscape upgrades are underway as part of ongoing revitalization by Caltrans, in coordination with the City.

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

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

San Antonio Road Area
A district to be guided by the same framework as other pedestrian districts—prioritizing walking, slower movement, and a connected sidewalk network—using the plan’s toolbox (e.g., raised crossings, wider sidewalks, bike corrals, gateway/wayfinding) as sites redevelop.
• As sites redevelop, apply the plan’s pedestrian toolbox to create a walk-first environment: raised crossings/ raised intersections, curb extensions/reduced curb radii, continuous and wider sidewalks, bike corrals, and flexible curb zones.
• Coordination with the City’s San Antonio Road Area Plan Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 99

PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT DESIGN ELEMENTS
To achieve the VMT-reduction and safety goals of Pedestrian Districts, future streetscape and development projects within these areas should incorporate the following urban design elements and principles:

Fine-Grained Pedestrian Network:
• Keep block lengths and crossing opportunities to 400’ or less, with paseos and high-visibility mid-block crossings where block lengths exceed 400’.

Continuous, Generous Sidewalks:
• Maintain wide, unobstructed pedestrian through-zones that comfortably accommodate side-by-side walking and meet or exceed PROWAG standards.

Shortened Crossing Distances:
• Utilize curb extensions (bulb-outs), pedestrian refuge islands, and tight curb radii of less than 15’ (if no bulb-out is provided) to reduce pedestrian exposure at intersections.

Active Street Frontages:
• Encourage visually engaging, ground-floor land uses with minimal building setbacks and human scaled elements (such as seating and public art) to create a welcoming and dynamic walking environment.

Continuous Shade Canopy:
• Prioritize street trees and landscaping that provide shade over the pedestrian right-of-way to improve thermal comfort.

Minimal Curb Cuts:
• Consolidate or eliminate driveway access points across sidewalks to reduce conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians.

Pedestrian-Scale Lighting:
• Install warm, dark-sky compliant, pedestrian-level lighting focused on the sidewalk and crosswalks to enhance visibility, safety, and comfort at night.

Source: Kevin Lynch (1984), Jan Gehl (1996), and Ria Hutabarat Lo (2009) Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 100
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 101

3.4 Policies and Programs
As part of developing the Plan, the City identified policies, programs, and practices to improve conditions for walking and biking in Palo Alto. City staff from multiple departments participated in discussions to assess how the City is implementing existing policies, programs, and practices and ranked the highest priorities for inclusion in the Plan.

This section presents the 2026 BPTP’s recommended programs and policies. It provides recommended strategies and actions to support walking and biking in Palo Alto as well as best practices that the City can undertake in developing programs to encourage active transportation. Some of the policies and programs will require additional resources such as staffing and budget to implement.

The recommendations are organized under the 2026 BPTP’s five objectives, identified previously in section 1.4.2 Objectives:
• Comfortable and Enjoyable
• Community-Led and Cooperative
• Safe and Inclusive
• Connected and Accessible
• Integrated and Collaborative
Recommended strategies are summarized below and presented in more detail in Appendix C: Policy and Program Recommendations.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 102
Comfortable and Enjoyable:

Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well- designed streetscapes.
• CE-1.1 Active Transportation Design Policy and
Standards: Develop or adopt design standards
and specifications based on recent research and
modern best practice for pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit friendly street design. (2030 Comprehensive
Plan Program T-1.19, Policy T-3.5.1)
• CE-1.2 Implement Pedestrian District Guidelines
and Toolbox: Implement recommendations and
guidance included in the Pedestrian District
Guidelines and Toolbox.
• CE-1.3 Vertical Curb Standard: Revisit the City’s
vertical curb standard to balance the removal of
barriers to active transportation and maintaining
separation for vulnerable modes.
• CE-1.4 Older Adult Mobility Program: Support
older adult mobility options, including a Trishaw*
Pilot via Cycling Without Age, to provide
access to statistically low-risk transit, possibly
operated by trained student and/or older adult
volunteers along low volume residential streets.
(2030 Comprehensive Plan Program T-5.12)
*Defined as a three-wheeled pedal-powered
machine,often featuring electric-assist motors,
with a pilot behind and a passenger seat up front.
• CE-1.5 Bike Parking Inventory & Usage Monitoring
Program: Conduct an inventory and monitor usage
of bike parking at City properties and public rights-
of-way (such as sidewalks) and continue to provide
sufficient supply. Establish a program for members
of the public and commercial properties to request
site inspections and evaluation for installation of
bicycle racks or parking corrals. Ensure the City’s
bike parking program provides facilities that are
publicly accessible and available for use by all
members of the public. (2030 Comprehensive
Plan Program T-5.12, Program T5.12.1, Program
T5.12.2, Program T5.12.3)
• CE-1.6 Bike Parking Requirements For New
Development: Update the City’s minimum short-
and long-term bike parking requirements for new
development projects to reflect changes in parking
demand. Update and maintain the City’s list of
approved bike parking designs to accommodate a
variety of bicycle types such as e-bikes and cargo
bikes. (2030 Comprehensive Plan Program T-1.17)
• CE-1.7 Bike Parking Design: The design of bike
parking facilities shall be consistent with the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
(APBP) Essentials of Bike Parking or Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Technical
Guidelines Chapter 10.
• CE-1.8 Walk & Bike Friendly Development:

Consider prioritizing or requiring certification
that encourages bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
developments, such as LEED-ND. Encourage
developments that limit vehicle parking.
• CE-1.9 Wayfinding Plan: Develop a non-motorized
wayfinding plan connecting bicycle and pedestrian
facilities with key local and regional destinations
such as schools, trails, parks, and rail stations.

Evaluate cut-throughs, short connections, ramp
access, and ADA compliance. Continue to expand
wayfinding facilities as the bicycle and pedestrian
networks are implemented, and in coordination
with Caltrans, develop a Wayfinding Signage
Program specific to El Camino Real to help cyclists
connect to the local bicycle network.
• CE-1.10 Bike Racks on Buses: Work with Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
coordinate with their Wheels on the Bus Pilot
Program, to monitor the use of bike racks on buses
and determine if demand is being accommodated.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 103
• CE-1.11 TDM Program: Promote and expand the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and continue to support implementation of TDM programs in an effort to increase the share of trips made by walking and biking and advance the City’s sustainability, climate action, vehicle miles traveled and carbon reduction goals. Pursue full participation of Palo Alto employers in the Transportation Management Association (TMA) and pursue expanding the TMA from Downtown to California Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate. (2030 Comprehensive Plan Program T-1.1)
• CE-1.12 Crossing Guards: Periodically evaluate school crossing guard locations and warrants to determine their appropriateness and evaluate opportunities for new locations. As part of the evaluations, consider factors such as the needs of younger bicyclists who may cross while walking, and incorporate collision and location data to assist in identifying opportunities for pilot locations that could increase the walk to school mode share. • CE-1.13 Development Review Updates: Evaluate development review and roadway design by metrics that focus on safety risk, user comfort, and access for all users including pedestrians and bicyclists (such as kinetic energy risk, level of traffic stress, and travel time by mode). Clearly communicate to help residents understand why proactive enhancements to support low-stress network buildout may be needed. (2030 Comprehensive Plan Program T-1.17)
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 104
Community-Led and Cooperative:

Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting active transportation, supported by education, programming, and infrastructure investments, in a way that cultivates learning for all network users of all ages . • CC-1.1 Bicycle Lending Library: Partner with the
Palo Alto library and community partners with
space, capacity, and expertise to create a bicycle
lending library that enables residents to check
out different types of bicycles, supplies, including
trailers, and educational materials, including bike
blenders, bike trivia wheels, safety vests for events,
helmets and more; consult with agencies that have
implemented similar programs such as the City of
Oakland and San Mateo County Libraries.
• CC-1.2 TDM Pilot Program for City Employees:

Conduct a City of Palo Alto TDM pilot to improve
facilities and encourage employee use of active
transportation vehicles to reduce risk, given the
high percentage of city vehicles that are used
for <2 mile single occupant trips around town.

Determine how best to pilot and incentivize trips
to focus on both the right tool for the trip relative
to the distance. Provide access to different types
of bikes/trailers to support a wide range of users,
access to an improved storage facility, conduct
regular rides and safety trainings, ensure bicycles
are regularly maintained and that there are risk
management and anti-theft provisions to ensure
safety and security. (2030 Comprehensive Plan
Program T-1.1)
• CC-1.3 Long-Term Education Program: Create
a long-term education program to change the
travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and
workers by informing them about transportation
alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with
the PAUSD and with other public and private
interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce
and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and
implement this program.
• CC-1.4 Bike Education Program: Partner with
groups to advertise and carry out bike safety and
education classes in the city, including classes
oriented towards children, older adults, and non-
English speakers. Include driver education to
encourage safer driving behavior, including in the
presence of bicycles.
• CC-1.5 Employee Education Program: Encourage
and fund the participation of employees working
on bicycle and pedestrian facilities in professional
organizations and conferences in order stay up-to-
date on the state of the practice and successes in
other cities. Provide resources and support for
employees to further their education, develop
new skills, and keep up with changing patterns and
transportation technologies.
• CC-1.6 Interactive Map Tool: Update the City’s
website to enhance its static bicycle facility and
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Suggested Walk & Roll
Route Maps with interactive mapping applications.

Work with PAUSD, PATMA, and other partners to
share this resource.
• CC-1.7 Community Rides Program: Partner with
organizations to lead all ages and abilities bicycle
rides throughout the calendar year, including rides
that utilize recently-implemented projects. (2030
Comprehensive Plan Program T1.16.4)
• CC-1.8 Valet Parking Program for Events:

Collaborate with Community Services Department
to partner with and budget for organizations to
provide bike parking and/or bike valet services at
City-sponsored or other large events.
• CC-1.9 Street Closures - Open Streets: Prioritize
street closures on areas located on the High Injury
Network (identified in the Safety Action Plan),
where high bicycle and pedestrian activity is
expected, and where there is community support.
(2030 Comprehensive Plan Program T1.16.2)
• CC-1.10 Street Closures - School Streets Pilot:

Implement a Street Closure - School Streets Pilot
Program that can be used to gather data and
outcomes that could then be applied to other
schools. Community input will be used to identify
locations for the pilot. School streets implement
timed closures that prevent vehicles from entering
the specified school zone. Restrictions are in place
for approximately 15 to 90 minutes during drop-
off and pick-up times and is enforced using signage
and physical barrier(s). During this time, only
pedestrians and cyclists can enter the School Street
zone, aside from exempt vehicles (e.g. residents
living in the zone).

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 105
• CC-1.11 Active Transportation Incentives Program:

Encourage PATMA to provide additional bicycle/
scooter incentives citywide.
• CC-1.12 Safe Routes to School: Enhance and sustain
the City/PAUSD/PTA/Youth community partnership
to reduce risk to students en route to and from
school, and encourage more families to choose
healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving
solo more often. Grow and strengthen community-
wide support through the SRTS 6 E’s (Education,
Encouragement, Engineering, Engagement,
Evaluation, and Equity) model for safe, active,
healthy, sustainable, school commutes. Aim to:
• Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices
and policies and gather best practices.
• Provide, expand, and enhance school and
community-based SRTS education programs
and materials.
• Promote and encourage use of the new traffic
garden at the Ventura Community Center to
enhance bike education.
• Expand and enhance encouragement programs
to communicate the value of SRTS.
• Gather data to assess and improve outcomes.
• Engineer routes to develop a more safe and
efficient network.
• Deepen awareness and engagement with City
staff, Council, and community representatives
to advance and institutionalize SRTS.
• Commit an equitable distribution of resources
to encourage broad community participation.
• Maintain a Secondary School SRTS Coordinator
to develop a youth SRTS program for grades
7-12
• CC-1.13 Safe Routes to School Action Plan
Updates: Review the Safe Routes to School 5-Year
Action Planning process or identify an alternative
process to support the development of future
program goals and objectives.
7 • CC-1.14 Community Partnerships Program:

Consider establishing or working with existing
advocacy groups to reach out to local businesses or
groups to help support and promote walking and
bicycle-related projects and to maximize public-
private funding opportunities such as development
of bicycle or walking maps, path maintenance, and
installation of bike parking facilities on private
property. Explore a private bike parking subsidy
program.
• CC-1.15 Bike and Pedestrian Count Program:

Establish regular citywide bicycle and pedestrian
counts at key corridors, intersections, destinations,
and require that intersection traffic counts
collected for development projects’ transportation
studies include bicyclist and pedestrian volumes.

Utilize the counts collected in 2024 to establish a
baseline for select locations. Enhance bicycle count
efforts and collect more data to guide decisions by
installing permanent automatic counters along
key bikeways in representative locations. Using
bike counters with displays along popular routes
can encourage people to bike more often. (2030
Comprehensive Plan Program T1.16.1)
• CC-1.17 Performance Reporting Program: Collect
data and conduct analysis as part of periodic status
reports detailing the City’s performance in relation
to metrics recommended in this plan.
• CC-1.18 Community Feedback Program: Expand
survey efforts such as the Palo Alto Community
Survey and the Performance Reports and National
Citizen surveys to collect information related
to walking and bicycling facility quality, Plan
implementation, and programs.
• CC-1.19 Encouraging Community Cycling:

Continue City collaboration with local partners
to support and explore community-led cycling
events, such as Bike Palo Alto!, and participate in
regional initiatives like Bike to Work Day (BTWD) to
promote active transportation and increase rider
confidence. (2030 Comprehensive Plan Program
T1.16.4)
7 Palo Alto Safe Routes to School 2019 5-Year Action Plan: https:// www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/safe- routes-to-schools/five-year-work-plan_updated_dec-2020.pdf Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 106
Safe and Inclusive:

Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability, and ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the community while reducing fatal and severe injury crashes . • SI-1.1 Institutionalize Safety: Via the 2025
Safety Action Plan, the City has committed to
reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on
the City’s roadways. Institutionalize safety into
all aspects of policies, planning, program, design,
implementation, and maintenance.
• SI-1.2 Safe Routes to Work, Shopping,
Downtown, Community Services,
and Parks: Where Walk and Roll Map Suggested
School Routes overlap with HIN, prioritize
speed management and pedestrian/bicycle
enhancements, especially at intersections:

FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA Improving
Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists,
DIB 94, FHWA Safe System Approach for Speed
Management. Establish non-HIN routes as primary
access routes where possible and prioritize
improvements on access routes with speeds over
25 mph: AB 43, countermeasure toolbox, DIB 94
• SI-1.3 Review Protocols for Updating Suggested
Walk and Roll Maps: Develop protocols to review
the city’s walk and roll suggested routes to school
to proactively determine if traffic controls or other
engineering modifications may be needed to
improve student safety while walking, biking, and
rolling to school.
• SI-1.4 Speed Management Program: Implement a
proactive speed management program following
the FHWA Safe System Speed Management
Framework to guide location specific interventions
in all focus areas. Lower speed limits and design
speeds on streets within the bike network and
without separated bikeways to 25 mph or lower.
• SI-1.5 Lower Speed Limits: Explore the mechanism
to implement a potential policy of 20 mph or lower
speed limits on all bike boulevards.
• SI-1.6 Systemic Uncontrolled Crosswalk
Placement/Enhancement Program: Develop
a systemic uncontrolled crosswalk placement/
enhancement program for ped safety and
accessibility: DIB 94, FHWA Safe System Roadway
Design Hierarchy, FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations.

Proactively design proposed crossings to provide
bicyclists and pedestrians with context-appropriate
facilities such as marked crossings, bike boxes, bike
signal heads, bike detection, and leading bicycle
intervals (LBIs)/leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs),
audible and/or countdown signals, accessible push
buttons, and curb ramps
• SI-1.7 Update Traffic Calming Program:

Systemically identify speed management needs
and opportunities (such as speed humps and
neighborhood traffic circle) and prioritize into
a yearly implementation program based on
kinetic energy risk, equity, proximity to schools,
community input, and similar factors. Most
funds should be programmed proactively,
but some can be reserved for quick response
discretionary purposes. Implement speed
management strategies to moderate vehicle
speeds to a contextually appropriate target
speed: AB 43, countermeasure toolbox, FHWA
Safe System Approach for Speed Management.

It is recommended that that the Traffic Control
Maintainer II position in Public Works (eliminated
during the pandemic) be restored, so City staff can
respond more quickly to add, maintain, or repair
roadway safety infrastructure such as delineators,
bollards, signage, guardrails, crash attenuators,
faded striping and curb paints, and other features.

When the City updates its Traffic Calming Policy,
the City should consider incorporating the Good
Streets approach within that effort.
• SI-1.8 Update Public Works Standard Drawings
and Specifications: Update Public Works Standard
Drawings and Specifications to align with Safe
System principles, including being consistent with
NCHRP 1036 and Caltrans DIB 94.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 107
• SI-1.9 Revisit Street Closure Policy: Revisit
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-4.1 (keeping all
neighborhood streets open as a general rule) to
consider the application of modal filters along bike
boulevards. The analysis required for this work
will be done as part of updating the traffic calming
program, and will be coordinated with the City
Planning & Development Services Department.
• SI-1.10 Review Comprehensive Plan Policies:

Review the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies
and identify those that may conflict with installing
certain bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure such
as modal filters. Develop a work plan to revisit
and potentially update the Comprehensive Plan
policies.
• SI-1.11 Near-Miss Reporting Program: Utilize
SafeTREC Street Story mapping portal (https://
streetstory.berkeley.edu/city/palo-alto) to enable
and encourage residents to provide information
on near-misses and other safety information that
would otherwise not be included in regularly-
reported safety reports and statistics.
• SI-1.12 The City’s Office of Transportation Traffic
Engineering Team: Add or reallocate staff to
administer quick build or traffic safety programs,
including coordination, evaluation, planning, and
engineering.
• SI-1.13 Prioritize Maintenance of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities: Incorporate and prioritize
bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance needs
into the City’s transportation maintance program
standards and funding. (2030 Comprehensive Plan
Program T1.16.2)
• SI-1.14 Prioritize Bikeways in the Repaving
Program: Prioritize repaving of new and existing
bikeways as part of the repaving program. (2030
Comprehensive Plan Program T1.19.1)
• SI-1.15 Bike Turnout Program: Seek to develop a
project to identify and install appropriate bicycle
turnouts for uphill reaches of two lane roads, such
as Page Mill Road.
• SI-1.16 Incorporate Pedestrian Improvements
Into Repaving Program: Change approach
to repaving program to include pedestrian
improvements including new sidewalks, sidewalk
widening, and curb extensions. This would require
additional funding and a change in City processes
for completing road and sidewalk repairs or
installations. (2030 Comprehensive Plan Program
T1.19.1, Program T1.19.2)
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 108
Connected and Accessible:

Featuring a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations, encouraging a shift away from driving and improving environmental health through lower vehicle miles traveled and reduced greenhouse gas emissions . • CA-1.1 Better Bikeways: Design and implement a
high-comfort “All Ages and Abilities” network by
utilizing modern best practices, such as NACTO
guidelines. This includes providing appropriate
facility widths, horizontal separation from vehicles,
and low-stress intersection treatments. Priority will
be given to safer crossings of major streets through
strategies such as dedicated signals, daylighting,
diverters or modal filters, pavement markings, and
protected intersections to accommodate the city’s
most vulnerable road users. (2030 Comprehensive
Plan Program T1-19, Policy T-3.5.1)
• CA-1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital
Improvement Program: Establish dedicated
funding for implementation of projects identified
in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update and Pedestrian District Guidelines
• CA-1.3 Station Access Program: Coordinate
with Caltrain to deliver local station area access
improvements that meet universal design
principles such as curb ramps, tactile and audio
crossing cues, improved sidewalks, slower traffic
speeds, shorter crossing distances, and increased
crossing time. Partner with Caltrain to encourage
plans for low-stress active transportation facilities
to Caltrain stations, and coordinate to ensure that
grade separation projects adjacent to stations
reflect multi-modal access needs.
• CA-1.4 Signal Modification Program: Incorporate
the crossing needs of bicyclists and pedestrians and
encourage safe driver behavior when reviewing
and adjusting signal timing at City traffic signals.

Consider adding “Bicycle Detected” signal heads
to recommended bike routes intersecting with
arterials.
• CA-1.5 Bicycle Detection Pilot Project: Implement
innovative “blue light” (or other) bicycle detection
indicators and signs at complex bicycle crossings.
• CA-1.6 Update CIP Funding to Prioritize Bicycle
and Pedestrian Access and Route: Allocate
funding and prioritize implementation of BPTP
projects as part of the City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). May include bike routes, streets on
HIN, equity considerations: BPTP , HIN, East Palo
Alto Walk and Roll Routes, Palo Alto Population
Below Poverty, Palo Alto Transit Corridors. Ensure
funding is allocated beyond signing/striping so
intersections are also addressed through these
projects: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA
Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and
Bicyclists. CIP Projects will align with Safe System
Approach: FHWA Safe System Roadway Design
Hierarchy, CIP Implementation Guidance.
• CA-1.7 Identify Funding Opportunities: Continue
to monitor federal, state, and regional funding
opportunities to augment local funds to implement
recommended walking, biking, and rolling
improvements.
• CA-1.8 Establish Dedicated Funding Source:

Establish dedicated funding for citywide walking
and bicycling facilities and supporting infrastructure
such as bike parking in the City’s CIP .
• CA-1.9 Quick-Build Program: Implement quick-
build pilot/trial projects of the Plan’s walking and
bicycling infrastructure recommendations.
• CA-1.10 First/Last mile connection to Caltrain
stations: Implement bikeways with connections to
Caltrain stations to promote access.
• CA-1.11 Existing Trail Access Improvements:

Enhance on-street intersections along the existing
trail network, key existing bridge/overpass
approaches, and school route shared use paths,
to improve ADA access, bikeway connectivity, and
convenience for all users. Priority upgrades include:
modifying or replacing substandard safety corrals
with bollards and associated striping/signage;
installing accessible curb ramps and regrading
poor transitions; pedestrian-scaled lighting;
installing high visibility crosswalks at key locations; and landscaping maintenance/
removal.
•
Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 109
• CA-1.12 Evaluate Existing Crosswalks: Evaluate
crosswalks on Arastradero Road near Arastradero
Preserve and bring infrastructure to current
standards, if needed.
• CA-1.13 Safe Routes for Private Schools: Continue
providing offerings for all community members,
such as the Palo Alto Biccyle Safety Park and online
resources, that can help private schools direct their
resources to support their local Safe Routes to
School engagement efforts. (2030 Comprehensive
Plan Program T1.16.3)
• CA-1.14 Sidewalk Gap Closure Program:

Implement a program to fill sidewalk and other
pedestrian facility gaps along key pedestrian
routes, such as along school commute routes,
transit access routes, across barriers, and around
other key destinations.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 110
Integrated and Collaborative:

Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
• IC-1.1 Update Municipal Code to Revise Walking,
Biking, and Rolling Guidance: Review the City’s
municipal code and ordinances to remove language
that can discourage walking, biking, and rolling
(such requirements to report secondhand bike
purchases to the police department). Update code
to align with State guidelines and create consistent
language (e.g., for bike access on bridges, over and
underpasses).
• IC-1.2 Regional Network: Continue to consult
with other agencies on bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects that abut or intersect
jurisdictional boundaries to ensure consistency in
facilities, in support of commute and recreational
users, including Cities (East Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View),
Counties (Santa Clara and San Mateo), Caltrans,
and Caltrain. Partner with Stanford University, VTA,
and adjacent jurisdictions to develop a connected
network prioritizing access while minimizing
distance between regional access points.
• IC-1.3 PABAC Structure: Work with the Palo
Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC) to evaluate existing role and structure,
discuss membership and the potential to include
members and/or liaisons from local non-profit
organizations, advocacy groups, transportation
management associations, City committees, and
other groups, and propose changes that increase
efficiency and effectiveness of the committee.
• IC-1.4 Effective Regulation and Education on
E-bikes: Advocate for comprehensive statewide
regulations and safety initiatives, including
mandatory safety courses, stricter age restrictions
and helmet laws, public awareness campaigns,
to ensure the responsible use of electric-bikes
bicycles, electric scooters, and other electric
mobility devices.
• IC-1.5 Electric Bicycle Engagement Strategy:

Partner with groups to advertise and carry out
standardized, best practice informed, League
Cycling Instructor (LCI)-led e-bike safety and
education classes in the city. Pending policy
changes at the state and local level, this may include
prioritizing classes oriented towards children,
youth older adults, and non-English speakers.
• IC-1.6 Electric Bicycle Management Strategy:

Work with PAUSD on strategies for electric bicycle
management at school sites, including potential
parking restrictions, to get ahead and develop
regulations where possible for the City (and not
preempted by the State). This is of particular
importance given research indicating that the rate
of e-bike crashes is nine times higher for youths
than for people over 20 years old. The City’s
Safe Routes to School program emphasizes risk
reduction as it’s primary goal by encouraging and
recommending parents purchase a conventional
pedal bicycle for their students to develop better
biking skills to become better cyclists as adults. For
decades, Palo Alto’s Safe Routes to School program
has emphasized risk reduction as its primary goal.

In a community like Palo Alto, where more than
forty percent of secondary students bicycle to
school, promoting e-cycle use may have serious
safety consequences other communities may not
experience. Palo Alto’s local SRTS program will
continue to strike a balance between education
and promotion by providing cursory e-cycle safety
information to PAUSD 5th and 6th grade students.
• IC-1.7 Discouraging Driver Speeding: Work with
Palo Alto Police Department and other partners
when implementing and publicizing engineering,
education, and enforcement efforts discouraging
vehicle speeding near schools and high-injury
locations in the city, particularly.

Exhibit A

3. Recommendations | 111
• IC-1.8 Caltrans Coordination: Work with Caltrans
to streamline permitting and integrate connected
bikeways into Caltrans projects. Improve bikeway
design approaching and crossing Caltrans facilities.
• IC-1.9 Implementation Updates: Work with other
jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that new or
upgraded facilities are reflected in each agencies’
respective bikeway maps and applications.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 112

4. IMPLEMENTATION

AND FUNDING
112
Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 113
This chapter provides an overview of the project delivery process, project prioritization process, project cost estimates, and identifies funding sources to advance implementation.

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

When considering when and how to implement these
projects, the City incorporates design requirements,
including maintaining access for people with disabilities, maintaining access for emergency responders,
preserving access for utilities and maintenance, and
meeting stormwater requirements, among other
considerations. As projects advance to design, studies
that consider the inclusion of bikeways or other right- of-way reallocations will be evaluated and potential
trade-offs, such as repurposing of parking or travel
lanes will be reviewed. The project development
process generally consists of:
• Project development, scoping, funding. As the first
phase in the development of projects, the City
conducts meetings with key stakeholders to define
the scope of the project and identify funding
opportunities.
• Concept design. Concept design includes
identification of a preferred alternative for approval
by City Council. This stage typically includes
collecting traffic, safety, parking, and operations
data and analyzing the data to understand
existing conditions, and potential concept design
alternatives. Key studies would be conducted
to understand the project benefits and impacts.

Community engagement would be conducted as
part of this effort to identify a preferred design.
• Detailed engineering design. After designs are
approved by City Council, detailed engineering
will be conducted to answer remaining technical
questions, develop accurate cost estimates, finalize
the funding plan, and solicit construction bids.
• Construction. Following award of the construction
contract, the project will be built with notification
to affected residents, property owners, and
businesses.

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

Project Initiation & Scoping
Concept Design Engineering
Construction
Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 114

4.2 Project Prioritization
Prioritization Framework
Project prioritization helps direct the City’s resources and develop a near-term list of improvements. This 2026 BPTP prioritizes intersections and bikeway corridors, studies, and special projects, for implementation over the next ten years. An initial prioritization was conducted to develop scores for each roadway segment in Palo Alto based on quantitative criteria to assess the level of alignment with the objectives of safety and connectivity. Projects that scored higher than 70 points were advanced to supplemental evaluation along with a subset of additional projects selected for further review. The supplemental evaluation considered project readiness, project cost, and project support to determine the top priority projects for near-term implementation.

Table 9 presents recommend prioritization factors and evaluation criteria. The project prioritization included two stages of evaluation. The initial evaluation quantitively prioritizes projects based on the safety and connectivity factors. The second stage (supplemental evaluation) involved the consideration of three feasibility-oriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support. (Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation and those that are on the Low- Stress Network are considered for near-term implementation.) Table 9: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria

PRIORITIZATION FACTOR CRITERIA
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Recommended SRTS Suggested Walk & Roll
Route Maps
Connectivity Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost and Funding
High, Medium and LowProject Readiness
Project Support
Note: * Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.

Additionally, the list of near term implementation projects was revised based on the feedback from the community and the City Council to prioritize the high-comfort, low-stress, tree-lined streets to encourage the interested but concerned users. Appendix A has the complete list of projects that includes the prioritization scores and the initial and supplemental evaluations.

Near-Term Implementation
The 2026 BPTP focuses staff resources to make incremental progress on the highest priority locations shown in Table 10 (not a ranked list), representing 25 priority bicycle projects for a total of 19 miles of enhancements on the network. Initially, projects scoring above 70 under the evaluation criteria were considered for near-term implementation; however, based on guidance from City staff, City Council, and community feedback, the list was refined. The remaining bicycle projects would be considered for long-term implementation. Figure 19 shows the near-term bikeway projects.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 115
Table 10: Near-Term Bicycle Projects

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
SUP_1
Quarry
Road Transit
Connection
Project
Construct extension and upgrade existing
trail from the intersection with El Camino
Real to the Palo Alto Transit Center and
Mitchell Lane as part of the Quarry Road
Transit Connection Project.
$$
High level of project
readiness and strong
community support,
improves access to
transit.

SUP_14
Bol Park Path
- Chimalus
Path Spur
Continue to work with the community to
explore the feasibility of a Chimalus Path
connection from the Bol Park Path to El
Camino Real.
$$$
High level of
community interest,
provides low-stress
route to multiple
destinations.

SB_11a
Middlefield
Road
Separated
Bikeway
Connection
to Menlo
Park
Construct a new separated bikeway from
Menlo Park to Everett Ave to allow for
intercity connectivity.
$$$
Addresses a high-
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional connection.

SB_11c
Middlefield
Road
Separated
Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway from
California Avenue to Loma Verde Drive. $$$
Addresses a high
stress street, high
injury corridor
and provides a key
regional connection.

SB_12
Homer
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to a buffered
or separated bikeway on north side and
Extend the separated bikeway on south
side on Homer Avenue from Alma Street to
Bryant Street.
$$$
Closes key gap in
the network and
enhances access to
Homer Tunnel.

SB_18
East/West
Meadow
Drive
Separated
Bikeway
Upgrade a painted bike lane to separated
bikeway on West Meadow Drive from El
Camino Way to Alma street and continue
onto East Meadow Drive from Alma Street
to Fabian Way. Consider raised crossings
to slow traffic and create safer crossings
for students. Coordinate with Study_4: E.

Meadow & Bryant St. Crossing Feasibility
Study.
$$$
Addresses a high-
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional connection.

SB_19
Alma Street
Separated
Bikeway -
South
Construct a new one-way separated
bikeway on each side of the road Alma
Street from East East Charleston Road to
San Antionio Road to connect with Central
Expresssway in Mountain View. Lane
reconfiguration needed to create space for
separated bikeway with quick-build or civil
reconstruction to create raised cycle track
in long term.
$$$
Addresses a high-
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional connection
and connection to
San Antonio Caltrain
Station. Opportunity
to advance planning
and design through
the San Antonio
Road Area Plan.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 116

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
SB_20a
San Antonio
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway along
San Antonio Avenue frontage street from
Alma Street to Middlefield Road.
$$$
Addresses a high
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional Connection.

Opportunity to
advance planning
and design through
the San Antonio
Road Area Plan.

SB_20b
San Antonio
Road
Separated
Bikeway
Construct a new separated bikeway along
San Antonio Road from Middlefield Road
to East Bayshore Road. Request new
developers to reconstruct street according
to new design. Coordinate with the City’s
San Antonio Area Planning efforts and
with surrounding towns to create smooth
transition between cities.
$$$
Addresses a high
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional Connection.

Opportunity to
advance planning
and design through
the San Antonio
Road Area Plan.

SB_20c
San Antonio
Road
Separated
Bikeway into
Mountain
View
Construct a new separated bikeway along
San Antonio Road from Mountainview,
along the overcrossing to Middlefield Road.
$$$
Addresses a high
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional Connection.

Opportunity to
advance planning
and design through
the San Antonio
Road Area Plan.

SB_23
Fabian Way
Separated
Bikeway
Coordinate with the existing South Palo
Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project as
part of the Palo Alto Safety Action Plan.

Upgrade painted bike lane to buffered and/
or separated bikeway along Fabian Way
from East Meadow Drive until Charleston
Road to separate road users and create
a more low-stress route for school
commutes. Lane reconfiguration needed.
$$$
Addresses a high-
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides a key
regional connection.

Opportunity to
advance planning
and design through
the San Antonio
Road Area Plan.

BLVD_2
Bryant
Street Bike
Boulevard
Downtown
Access
Project
Install traffic diverters, speed bumps,
traffic circles, or other similar interventions
on Bryant Boulevard between Embarcadero
Road and downtown. Include consideration
of a turn restriction from Embarcadero
Road going northbound onto Bryant
Boulevard.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 117

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
BLVD_15
Cowper
Street Bike
Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route to a bike boulevard
on Cowper Street from Addison Avenue
until East Meadow Drive. Install raised
crossings at Hoover Park. Implement
traffic calming elements and wayfinding
along route and gateway treatments at
intersections. Coordinate with BLVD_
CROSSING_12 at Cowper/Embarcadero.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BLVD_16
Colorado
Avenue Bike
Boulevard
Implement a new bike boulevard on
Colorado Avenue from Bryant Street until
Middlefield Road. Coordinate with Cowper
Street Bike Boulevard project (BLVD_15).

Implement traffic calming elements and
wayfinding along route and gateway
treatments at intersections.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BLVD_18
Bryant -
Nelson
- Carlson -
Mackay Bike
Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route to a bike boulevard
on a circuitous route from on Bryant
Street and connecting streets from East
Meadow Drive along Nelson Drive and
Mackay Road to San Antonio Road with an
improved crossing at San Antonio Road/
Mackay Road-Nita Avenue. Implement
traffic calming elements and wayfinding
along route and gateway treatments
at intersections. This project will be
coordinated wtih the Cubberley Master
Plan and San Antonio Road Area Plan.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BLVD_20
Maybell
- Donald -
Georgia Bike
Boulevard
Upgrade a bike route and construct a new
bike boulevard along Maybell Avenue
from El Camino Real to Arastradero
Road via Donald Drive and Georgia Ave.

Implement traffic calming elements along
route to slow down traffic and implement
wayfinding signs along route indicating
locations such as the Gunn High School
Bike Path. Consider gateway treatments at
the Arastradero Road entrances. Connect
with the Arastradero Road Separated
Bikeway project.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network and
implements a Safe
Routes to School
priority project.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 118

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
BLVD_22
Park
Boulevard
Bike
Boulevard
Create a bike boulevard on Park Boulevard
(Castilleja) from Churchill Avenue to E
Charleston Road and continuing onto
Maclane Street, Wilkie Way and Miller
Avenue to Mountain View, with a spur to El
Camino Real via Monroe Drive and Cesano
Street, and a connection to El Camino Way
buffered bike lane via James Road. Maintain
existing bike lanes on Park Boulevard
between Castilleja/Peers Park and Page Mill
Road, yet implement separated bikeways
(Class IV) on the segment between Page
Mill Road and Lambert Avenue, per the
adopted 2024 North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan (NVCAP). Implement traffic
calming elements along the route including
speed humps or bumps and pinch points.

Consider modal filter or other intersection
treatment at the West Meadow Drive and
West Charleston crossings. Coordinate with
Wilkie Way Crossing with West Charleston
Road Bike Boulevard Crossing Project (BLVD_
CROSSING_3). Incorporate landscaping and
green infrastructure features such as tree
wells and plantings in bulbouts.
$$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BLVD_24
Portage
- Olive -
Ash Bike
Boulevard
under
NVCAP
Proposed bike boulevards on Portage
Avenue, Olive Avenue, and Ash Street per
the adopted 2024 North Ventura Corridor
Area Plan.
$$
Adds new
connection and
coordinates
with planned
development.

BBL_2
Newell Road
Buffered
Bike Lane
Upgrade painted bike lane to a
buffered bike lane on Newell Road from
Embarcadero Road to Channing Avenue.

Requires parking removal to create more
comfortable conditions. Coordinate with
the Embarcadero Road separated bikeway
project to create a safe intersection crossing.
$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BBL_4
El Camino
Way
Buffered
Bike Lane
Upgrade El Camino Way to a buffered
bike lane from Los Robles Avenue to
Maybell Avenue. Parking removal needed.

Intersection improvement and wayfinding at
the intersection with West Meadow Drive to
connect to the separated bikeway and Wilkie
Way bike boulevard. Coordinate with major
intersection improvement at El Camino
Real and Maybell Avenue intersection and
new bike boulevard. Alternatively, consider
one-way traffic on El Camino Way to retain
parking and accommodate buffered bike
lanes.
$
Upgrades a key
route parallel to
El Camino Real to
provide a low stress
connection.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 119

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
BBL_7
Cambridge
Avenue
Buffered
Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Cambridge
Avenue and Yale Street from Park Boulevard
to California Avenue, crossing El Camino
Real. This is an alternate route for use when
California Ave is occupied with community
events.
$
Provides low stress
connection and
alternate route
for through traffic
during community
events.

BBL_8
California
Avenue
Buffered
Bike Lane
Upgrade painted bike lane to a buffered
bike lane on California Avenue from El
Camino Real to Hanover Street. Parking
reconfiguration needed to create space for
buffered bike lanes. Coordinate with the El
Camino Separated Bikeway project and the
Hanover Street Buffered Bike Lane project
to create smooth intersection crossings.
$
Upgrades priority
corridor and
coordinates with
adjacent projects to
maximize benefits of
investment.

BBL_9
Amaranta -
Coulombe
Buffered
Bike Lane
Stripe a buffered bike lane on Amaranta
Avenue and Coulombe Avenue from Los
Robles Avenue to Arastradero Road. Consider
design details appropriate for a more rural
neighborhood context. Coordinate with
Arastradero Road Separated Bikeway
to create a safe intersection crossing
and consider installing bike boxes and
treatments to support bicyclists turning to/
from Arastradero Road.
$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BL_5
Stanford
Avenue
Bike Lane
connection
to Hanover
Upgrade bike route and sharrows to painted
bike lane on Stanford Avenue from Harvard
Street to Dartmouth Street. Connect to
existing bike lanes on Stanford Avenue
and new Bike Boulevard on Hanover
Street. Coordination needed with Stanford
University and Escondido Elementary
School. Consider a study of impacts of no
left turns on to Escondido Road and Hanover
Street.
$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the low
stress network.

BL_6
California
Avenue Bike
Lane
Paint a bike lane on California Avenue
from the Caltrain station to Birch Street.

Coordinate with California Avenue
Streetscape project. Consider reorientation
of parking stalls to create more space for
bicycling.
$
Upgrades priority
corridor on the
low stress network
and provides key
connection to
Caltrain Station.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2025
Note: The planning level rough order of magnitude costs have been estimated and generalized costs, are presented as follows:
$Less than $500,000
$$$500,001-$1,500,000
$$$More than $1,500,000
Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 120
In addition to the recommended bicycle network projects, the following 24 intersection and crossing projects should be considered for near-term implementation and are listed in Table 11. Table 12 lists additional priority projects, including special initiatives such as the Hamilton Avenue Pedestrian Signal Heads and the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard Project, which are intended to encourage walking and cycling. It also includes three studies that will further evaluate feasibility and identify specific improvements through more detailed analysis. Of these, nine projects are on either the bicycle or pedestrian HIN. Figure 19 shows the near-term intersection and crossing projects.

Table 11: Priority Intersection and Crossing Projects

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
CROSSING_1
Seale Avenue Bike/
Ped Undercrossing
for the Churchill
Avenue Grade
Separation
Initiate the design
process to construct an
undercrossing of Caltrain
and Alma Street at Seale
Avenue or similar as part
of and in advance of the
Churchill Grade Separation.
$$$
Supports the
Caltrain Grade
Separation project.

CROSSING_9
Matadero
Creek Highway
101 Seasonal
Undercrossing
"Convert the existing Santa
Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) maintenance road
along Matadero Creek
under Highway 101 to a
seasonal public trail with
reconfiguration of the
approaches and addition
of lighting, railings and
signage. Constructing
the new undercrossing
and other improvements
will help implement the
Matadero Creek Trail/
Midtown Connector
project.
1 $$$
Implements the
Matadero Creek
Trail/Midtown
Connector, a
community
supported priority
project.

CROSSING_10
Midtown Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Construct a new bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossing
of Caltrain/Alma Street in
the vicinity of El Dorado
Avenue and enhance
neighborhood approaches,
per Council direction. This
project implements the
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped
Connectivity Project and
closes a 1.3 mile gap in the
City's bicycle and pedestrian
network by providing a new
east-west connection under
the Caltrain tracks between
California Avenue and
Meadow Drive.
$$$
Close a 1.3 mile
gap in the network
and provide a new
low-stress crossing
under the Caltrain
tracks. Provides
connections to
schools and other
key destinations.
1 This project is on VTA’s Measure B Bike/Ped Candidate Project List, titled “Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101: https://www. vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b#accordion-bicycle---pedestrian Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 121

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
BLVD_
CROSSING_1
Chaucer Street
crossing of University
Avenue
Configure the approaches
of Chaucer street with bike
boxes to prioritize people
riding bicycles on this
Bicycle Boulevard route.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_2
Carlson Circle
Crossing of E
Charleston Rd
Configure the approaches
of Carlson Circle with bike
boxes to prioritize people
riding bicycles on this
Bicycle Boulevard route.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_3
Wilkie Way Crossing
of West Charleston
Road
Coordinate with Wilkie
Way Crossing with West
Charleston Road Bike
Boulevard Crossing Project
(BLVD_CROSSING_3).
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_4
Cowper Street
Crossing of East
Meadow Drive
Construct jogged
connection from Mitchell
Park Path to Cowper Street
Integrate with East Meadow
Street bikeway upgrades.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_5
Seale Avenue Bike
Boulevard Crossing of
Middlefield Road
Construct a low-stress
crossing of Middlefield
Road to encourage yielding
to bicyclists on this Bicycle
Boulevard route. Consider
a full intersection median
to filter out auto traffic on
Seale Ave.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_7
Greer Road Crossing
of Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of
Greer Road with bike boxes
to prioritize people riding
bicycles on this Bicycle
Boulevard route.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_8
St. Francis Drive
crossing of
Embarcadero Road
Configure the approaches of
St. Francis Drive with bike
boxes to prioritize people
riding bicycles on this
Bicycle Boulevard route.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

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

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 122

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
BLVD_
CROSSING_11
Nelson Dr crossing of
E Charleston Rd
Enhance the crossing of East
Chareleson with a bike box
and crossing markings for
clear connection between
the pathway and bike
boulevard.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

BLVD_
CROSSING_12
Cowper Street
Crossing of
Embarcadero Road
Construct a low-stress
crossing of Embarcadero
Road at Cowper Street
to allow bicycles to cross
through. Drivers would
be allowed to make right
turns onto Cowper Street
from Embarcadero but
would not be able to turn
left or cross through onto
Cowper Street. Consider
signalization.
$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_1
Page Mill Road
and Hanover
Street Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection.

Consider implementing No
Turn on Red restrictions.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_2
West Meadow
Drive and El Camino
Way Intersection
Improvement
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_3
Quarry Road
and El Camino
Real Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected
intersection at Quarry Road
and El Camino Real as part
of the Quarry Road Transit
Connection project.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_5
California Avenue
and El Camino
Real Protected
Intersection
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection.

Coordinate with regional
transit agencies to
install additional transit
improvements.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 123

PROJECT

NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
INTERSECTION_6
Park to Serra
Protected
Intersection
Construct a protected
intersection to support
circulation between Park
Avenue, Serra Avenue bike
lanes, El Camino Real, the
Serra Avenue pathway, and
the Stanford Perimeter
Trail. Project will require
coordination with Stanford
University and Caltrans.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_7
E Charleston Road
and San Antonio
Road Intersection
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_8 E Charleston Road
and Middlefield Road
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_9 Maybell Avenue and
El Camino Real
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_10
Embarcadero Road
and El Camino
Real Protected
Intersection
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_11
Quarry Road
and Arboretum
Road Protected
Intersection
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road
and Middlefield Road
Construct protected
intersection design features
to improve safety and
comfort of this intersection
in coordination with future
bikeway upgrade projects.
$$$ Addresses a high-
stress crossing.

Exhibit A

4. Implementation and Funding | 124
Table 12: Other Priority Projects

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT

NAME DESCRIPTION GENERALIZED

COST JUSTIFICATION
CS_1
California
Avenue
Community
Street
Community Street design on California
Avenue from Birch Street to El Camino
Real to align with the California Avenue
Streetscape project.
$
Implements
community street
design on a priority
corridor.

Study_2
Embarcadero
Road Corridor
Study
Following the recommendations of the
Palo Alto Safety Action Plan, conduct a
corridor study to understand potential
safety countermeasures for use on
Embarcadero Road. This will determine
the feasibility of the full corridor
Embarcadero Road Separated Bikeway
project.
$
Addresses a high-
stress street and
high injury corridor
and provides
a key regional
connection.

Study_4
Bryant Blvd
& E Meadow
Crossing
Feasibility
Study
Assess the feasibility of a traffic
signal or other crossing treatment to
facilitate crossings of the Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard. This study would
be coordinated with SB_18 and BLVD_
CROSSING_10.
$
Addresses a high
stress crossing of a
primary bike route.

Study_5
Cal Ave Station
Gap Closure
project
Explore ways to connect Cal Avenue
Station over Oregon Expwy to Page
Mill Road, over the Page Mill Rd Bridge
or via a new connection along the
railroad.
$$
Closes key gap in
the network and
enhances access to
California Avenue
Caltrain Station.

SpecProj_1
Hamilton Ave
Pedestrian
Signal Heads
Install pedestrian signal heads on
Hamilton Ave in downtown. $$$
Implements
pedestrian
improvements in
an area of high
activity.

SpecProj_3
Ellen Fletcher
Bike Blvd
Project
Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd. Project: Work
with the Palo Alto Art Center and
local volunteers to assign a historic
designation to the Fletcher Bicycle
Boulevard as the first in the US. Explore
collaboration with Palo Alto History
Museum. Provide an interactive
art installation/digital signage at
the El Carmelo/Bryant Bridge that
identifies the number of daily cyclists
and provides useful education and
encouragement messages. Examples
are in Fremont. Consider synching
with apps like Strava for additional
feedback.
$
Celebrates
the work and
accomplishments
of an important
historic figure.

SpecProj_4
Stanford
Avenue
Pedestrian
Crossing
Improvements:
multiple
locations
Construct pedestrian crossing and
traffic calming improvements along
Stanford Avenue between El Camino
Real and Bowdoin Street. Treatments
may include curb extensions, raised
crossings, median islands, leading
pedestrian intervals, and other
elements to support safer crossings.
$$
Addresses high-
stress crossings and
improves access to
key destinations.

Exhibit A
125
__`101
§¨¦
280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
Sa
n An
to
nio R
d
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero RdFoothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero
Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
Central Expy
Middlefield Rd
Kingsley Ave Seale Ave
Moreno Ave
Park Blvd
Arastradero Rd
Everett Ave
Boyce Ave
Welch Rd Churchill Ave
Porter Dr
Olive Ave
Cambridge Ave
La Donna Ave
EAST

PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS

PALO ALTO

4. Implementation and Funding | 126

4.3 Cost Estimates
Generalized cost estimates for bicycle facilities are
presented using a simple **$ to $$$** scale to
communicate relative order-of-magnitude costs rather
than precise estimates. This approach reflects the early planning nature of these concepts and acknowledges
that final costs can vary widely based on corridor
conditions, right-of-way constraints, drainage, utilities, materials, and the extent of supporting infrastructure.

Lower-cost ($) projects typically involve striping,
signage, while mid-range ($$) projects may include
traffic calming elements, and some signal and curb
modifications. Higher-cost ($$$) projects generally
require substantial capital investment, such as curb
relocation, concrete barriers, drainage improvements,
or full roadway and signal reconstruction. This cost
framework is intended to support comparison and
prioritization, with more detailed cost estimates
developed as projects advance through design.

4.4 Funding Sources
Bicycle and pedestrian projects can be funded through
a range of local, regional, state, and federal sources. To enhance its competitiveness for these funds, the City
of Palo Alto should ensure its projects align with the
core goals of the funding programs—typically centered
on equity, safety, sustainability, and connectivity.

Besides dedicated funding sources, some bicycle and
pedestrian projects can be implemented by integrating
project elements into streets scheduled for repaving
through the City’s five-year paving plan.

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

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

4. Implementation and Funding | 127
Exhibit A

5. Conclusion | 128

5. CONCLUSION
128
Exhibit A

5. Conclusion | 129
Safe
and
Inclusive
Connected
and
Accessible
Community-
Led and
Cooperative
Comfortable
and
Enjoyable
Integrated
and
Collaborative
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term investment in infrastructure, programs, and policies to support the Plan’s vision and objectives. Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health throughout Palo Alto.

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

Exhibit A
Exhibit A

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 15, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
June 15, 2026