From: Beth Guislin
To: Council, City
Subject: 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:54:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please do not approve the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in its entirety. In a recent reconfiguration of Middlefield from University to the northern city border, city staff concluded Middlefield was not wide enough to include bike lanes.
Beth Guislin
Resident, Middlefield Rd
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Alan Wachtel
To: Council, City
Subject: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Approval (Jun 15 meeting, Agenda Item 24) Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 8:54:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Members of the Council:
I'm writing to you as a
long-time member of the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
The updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) that will be presented for your approval at this meeting reflects the enormous time and effort that have gone into it. It has many good points, and staff and consultants deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts, but there also areas where room remains for significant improvement.
At its May 7 meeting, by a vote of 12-0, with one abstention, PABAC approved a series of policy and programmatic amendments and project-specific modifications to the BPTP. These changes have been set out in Attachment B to your agenda. Of eight proposals, city staff agrees with four and recommends against four. I urge you instead to adopt all eight of PABAC's carefully considered proposals and to direct staff accordingly to incorporate them into the final BPTP. Here, I'll draw your attention particularly to changes b and c.
Change b, Bicycle Friendly Street Design
The draft plan's
proposals for bicycle infrastructure are limited almost exclusively to designated bikeways. But even the most optimistic scenario, in which the Complete Vision Network is fully built out at some distant future date, would provide bikeways on only about half of City streets. Yet cyclists will still have a significant need to travel on most of the remaining non-bikeway streets, because their origins and destinations cannot always lie on designated bikeways. As long ago as 1978, Caltrans's "Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California" found that "Probably the most important effort that could be undertaken to enhance bicycle travel would be improved maintenance and upgrading of existing roads that are used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated."
PABAC therefore recommended that the plan include a directive for the City to affirm that all City streets--not only designated bikeways--should
be bike friendly streets to the extent
possible, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.5, which already states, "When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users." Staff maintains that the City's Complete Streets Policy addresses this concern, but the BPTP fails to even mention the Complete Streets Policy or to cite Policy T-3.5, focusing instead almost entirely This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
on the subset of designated bikeways. This is a very significant omission.
Furthermore, a policy of improving non-bikeway streets, as well as adding bikeways, could be carried out proactively, not only when constructing or modifying roadways.
This approach
would help to make the City more bicycle-friendly everywhere, in both the short and long term, efficiently and at relatively little cost. The Council should accept PABAC's recommendation.
Change c, Class IV and Class I Implementation Guidance
The plan's emphasis on Class IV separated bikeways and Class I multi-use paths should be replaced by a more balanced approach. While Class I and Class IV bikeways can be valuable facilities that many bicyclists perceive as safer and more comfortable, they can also present design issues that should be considered carefully before deciding to install them. In particular, these facilities can complicate turning conflicts at intersections and driveways, which are the most common cause of bike-car collisions. Such conflicts have already become more acute with the increasing popularity of higher-speed e-bikes.
In addition, these bikeways are more
expensive and use more right-of-way than other alternatives.
Car-bike collisions between intersections, on the other hand, which separated facilities might arguably help to protect against, are already relatively infrequent (as the BPTP itself shows).
PABAC has discussed these questions several times at great length, but neither the BPTP nor staff reports have chosen to reflect the complexity of this issue. PABAC, though, concluded for its part that "The City should implement Class IV separated bikeways and Class I multi- use paths adjacent to roadways with caution. Evaluation must prioritize mitigating potential turning conflicts at driveways/intersections (especially for e-bikes) and ensuring facilities do not introduce new hazards that cannot be reasonably mitigated." This is a careful and measured approach that continues to afford all options due consideration.
Staff's response is that "The City’s commitment to a Safe Systems Approach as well as best practices and use of context-sensitive designs will address this concern." But the Safe Systems Approach and context-sensitive design, unfortunately, do not always accord these concerns sufficient attention. And even if you were to contend, for the sake of argument, that they do, that would at most render this recommendation superfluous, not contradictory. There is no downside, and there could be substantial benefit, for the Council to adopt PABAC's sensible recommendation.
Respectfully,
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
From: Amie Ashton
To: Council, City
Subject: Bike Plan - Cal Ave (or alternative) Bike Route Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 11:44:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker and Honorable City Council,
I write in support of the 2026 Bicycle and Transportation Plan! I am so happy to see this at the finish line after years of work.
Like many residents, I was excited to see staff's recommendation for improvements to Cal Avenue to make it exciting, interesting, and fun for all users of the space. We were disappointed to hear the much-reviewed "slow bike" concept, which best balanced the needs of our entire community, was eliminated from consideration at Council's June 1 meeting based on perceived dangers from a few bad e-moto-drivers (note: e-moto drivers represent a small percentage of total "bike" traffic on Cal Ave and injuries are not reflected in the city data provided over the last 2 years to PABAC).
We ask you to reconsider your decision as there is no alternative safe route that can be
easily/quickly implemented.
Please reinstate staff's proposed California Avenue plan, consistent with the bike route in the Bicycle and Transportation Plan. The slow-bike lane pavement treatments, signage, separation, and connections proposed by staff are appropriate and create a safe experience for the community of Cal Ave users. Cal Ave connects directly to the train station, Alma bike/ped underpass, and the Park Bike Blvd; it is essential to keep it open for bikes and safe for peds. Further, many students use Cal Ave as a way to get to Green Middle School, Walter Hays Elementary, and
Paly. Neighborhoods like Southgate and
College Terrace are located far from their designated schools and Cal Ave is part of a safe routes strategy.
If implementing staff's plan is not possible:
Immediately plan infrastructure improvements to Cambridge (or other alternative route) before closing bicycle access to Cal Ave. Note however, this is not easily done.
Alternative primary routes have already been exhaustively considered and disregarded due to disconnection, lack of access to destinations and shopping, and needed removal of parking. Additionally, Cambridge Ave has many driveways and entrances to parking lots, which are accident points. Sherman Ave and Grant Ave are not direct connections. Alos, relegating bikes to another street will decrease foot traffic from people on bikes who stop at Cal Ave businesses.
We cannot move forward with prohibitions or half-solutions that put more road users in danger. Let’s make Cal Ave safe for everyone, consistent with staff's June 1 recommended improvements, or immediate study infrastructure improvements for an alternative route.
This will be great for our community and consistent with our stated values that bikes are welcome in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your service to all of us!
Amie Ashton
From: Robert Neff
To: Council, City
Subject: Endorse approval of new Bike-Ped Transportation Plan - Item 24 June 15.
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 8:41:14 AM
June 13, 2026,
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to endorse approval of the 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), item 24 on the June 15 agenda.
The BPTP brings a needed update to network planning in Palo Alto, especially in quantifying the goal of a low-stress bicycle network.
The final version of the plan
incorporates strong suggestions made to the draft plan
from Council, PTC, and PABAC to
align near term projects with that overarching goal.
(The idea of quantifying the level of
discomfort, or “traffic-stress” in bicycle trips, and evaluating all components of a trip is actually new in bike network planning since the development of the earlier 2012 BPTP.) There are many proposed programs and projects in the plan.
All are needed. – I look
forward to protected bike lanes on Meadow, a new undercrossing near El Dorado, upgrading Cowper to a bike boulevard, including a signalized crossing at Embarcadero, and development of the Bryant/Meadow intersection for better safety at high traffic times.
The addition of E-bike strategy is timely.
The staff report mentions the PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee) Reform activity coming to council in fall, 2026.
As a member of PABAC, I participated in the input
to staff from PABAC on June 4, but I want to emphasize that this reform will need City Council attention to determine the best way to guide Active Transportation (and perhaps all Transportation) programs and projects with city staff.
I think our current structure with
Council guiding staff, PTC reporting to Council, and PABAC reporting to staff is not optimal, but that is a discussion for another time.
Please approve this plan on June 15.
Thank you for your work for our city of Palo Alto.
Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde
Palo Alto
Member of PABAC
From: Paul B Goldstein
To: Council, City
Subject: Item 24, June 15 Meeting, 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 9:52:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable members of the City Council,
I urge you to approve the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. This is a good plan and represents a lot of hard work and public input. I would like to commend the staff of the Transportation Department, and in particular, Ozzy Arce, for their dedication and responsiveness to public comment. As a long-term resident of Palo Alto and long-time member of PABAC, I have seen this plan mature and improve throughout its development.
I have one specific comment:
Many of the near-term projects call for separated bicycle lanes. I urge you to proceed with caution. Although these projects seem attractive, the intended benefits can often be achieved using other, time-tested and much cheaper approaches. Separated bike lanes use a lot of right-of-way and present special safety problems at intersections and driveways.
I look forward to this plan's approval and to seeing Palo Alto become an even better place to walk and bicycle.
Respectfully,
Paul Goldstein
Emerson Street
From: Art Liberman
To: Council, City
Subject: The BPTP lacks Wayfaring Signs on Bicycle Boulevards Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 7:51:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
I am an avid cyclist and a member of PABAC. However, I write this note only for myself.
The vote of PABAC to support the BPTP update was not unanimous. I abstained because the plan was missing an important element, ‘Wayfinding
’ signs identifying Bicycle
Boulevards. In the absence of a Wayfinding signage on Bicycle Boulevards, I could not in good conscience give my support to the 2026 BPTP Update.
The 2026 BPTP plan is structured around low stress neighborhood streets and specifically around Bicycle Boulevards. The reason is to enhance the safety of cyclists and increase the number of cyclists. I strongly support this approach. However, the current 2026 BPTP update does not include a plan for creating and placing ‘ Wayfinding’
signs along Bicycle Boulevards to identify them. The summary for a recommended plan for Wayfinding, CE-1.9 [on page 102 of the 2026 BPTP] does not mention placing Wayfinding
signs on Bicycle Boulevards.
The plan states the importance of Wayfinding signage multiple times. The following makes this very clear: “A bicycle boulevard is recognizable based on the Wayfinding traffic calming treatments such as detached sidewalks and curb extensions. ” [ BPTP
Plan, page: 48 ] Seeing “Wayfinding” signage is how a cyclist and motorists, would know whether a street where cyclists are riding is a bicycle boulevard. This is i mportant
for the safety of the cyclists. Many more cyclists and motorists would know if they are on a bicycle boulevard if they saw a Wayfinding sign with that information, rather than by accessing a 130-page pdf document.
The need for Wayfinding
sign has been mentioned numerous times by members of
PABAC. Another member of PABAC said that "if Wayfinding signage is listed as a separate program in the BPTP, it will not get done or not get done properly." The new BPTP provides us with an opportunity to create Palo Alto Wayfinding signs and place them on bicycle boulevards NOW rather than “developing a Wayfinding signage program.”
Wayfinding is mentioned each time Transportation officials asked the community for feedback at workshops and focus groups. The following is from the BPTP plan:
1. Under Phase 1: [BPTP, page 38] Visioning Community Engagement. The plan states under ' Key Themes from Phase 1': “Emphasis on high -quality design, including comfort, aesthetics, Wayfinding and shade.”
2. Under Phase 2: [BPTP, page 39] 'Needs and Concerns Community Engagement.' The plan states under Key Themes from Phase 2: “Enhance sidewalk continuity, Wayfinding
and placemaking”
3. Under Phase 3: [BPTP, page 40] 'Recommended Projects & Programs.' The plan states, under Key Themes from Phase 3, that followed the workshop at the Mitchell Park Community Center: “Support was strong for safety improvements, pedestrian features, bike boulevards, quick-builds, and Wayfinding"
I asked Ozzy Arce, the Office of Transportation official who has worked most closely with Kittelson consultants in creating the 2026 BPTP Update, about the Wayfinding signage.
In response, he said that Wayfinding would be a separate program. This means that it would: a) need to be proposed and approved, b) be assigned its own engineering manpower, and c) would require more community outreach, more studies, more meetings, and more fundng.
If you adopt the 2026 BPTP, please require Transportation to place Wayfinding signs on
Bicycle Boulevards.
I thank the Council members for their service to the citizens of Palo Alto.
Arthur Liberman