Palo Alto studies expanded bike-and-ped network; staff asks council to weigh trade-offs on arterials, quick-builds

City staff presented an update to Palo Alto's Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan to the City Council on June 2, asking council for direction on a prioritization framework and project lists that would guide deployments of bike boulevards, buffered lanes, protected (separated) lanes and shared-use paths across the city.

The study session matters because the city's 2012 bike-and-ped plan is being replaced with a vision that seeks an “all ages and abilities” network, while the new recommendations raise trade-offs about parking loss, traffic reconfiguration on major arterial streets and near-term quick-build investments. Staff said it will use council feedback this summer to draft a plan and return in the fall/winter for further review and public comment.

Staff described the draft network and the screening method at the meeting. Ria Khutabharat Lo, the city's newly appointed chief transportation official, told the council, "Transportation is a great passion of mine," and said she looks forward to advancing safety, climate and equitable-access goals through the update. Project manager Ozzie Arce summarized the technical approach: the team began with the 2012 network, layered community input and used an initial quantitative evaluation (safety and connectivity metrics) followed by a supplemental qualitative evaluation (cost, readiness and project support) to narrow 25 proposed projects into an implementable list. Consultant Amanda Leahy (Kittelson & Associates) described the facility-selection rules that match facility type to street context and traffic speed.

Staff said the full project package includes a mix of facility types: bike boulevards on low-volume streets, buffered (class 2) bike lanes, separated/protected (class 4) bikeways on higher-volume corridors and off-street shared-use paths. The team reported outreach numbers: roughly 60 attendees at a community workshop, more than 400 interactive-map comments and over 100 online comment-box entries. The packet displayed a ranked “top 10” implementable-project list while noting the full network is the plan’s long-range vision.

Public comment emphasized two persistent debates: whether to add protected lanes on major arterials (notably segments of Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road) versus prioritizing quieter neighborhood bike boulevards and whether staff should pursue quick-build, lower-cost interventions first. Jim Fruchterman, speaking for the Middlefield Road Residents Association, said neighborhoods support the plan’s goals but urged the council to remove several Middlefield protected-bike proposals and asked the council "please don't make it worse." Rob Steinberg urged the council to "designate traffic calming and safety on the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard between Embarcadero and Forest as a top priority" and to start interventions quickly. Ken Kershner asked the council to study protected lanes and road reconfiguration on Middlefield and pointed to comparable street redesigns in other cities.

Other commenters voiced a mix of support for expanded separated facilities and concerns about parking loss, curb-cut conflicts, enforcement (especially for higher-speed e-bikes) and the need for clearer, quicker fixes such as daylighting at crosswalks, painted red-curb zones and raised crosswalks. Pay attention to staff and Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) input: the PTC asked for a systems approach rather than isolated projects, for clearer definitions of "bike boulevard," and for dedicated funding and staffing for quick-build pilot work.

Council members pressed on several themes during discussion. Council member Lythcott Haines recounted seeing teens using the recently installed El Camino bike lanes — "these things are amazing" — as an argument that visible, higher-quality facilities can change travel behavior. Multiple members (including Vice Mayor Venker and Council member Burt) expressed skepticism about placing protected facilities on arterials where parallel low-stress routes exist; others said select arterials with few good parallels (for example San Antonio in growth areas) may be appropriate for higher-investment treatments. Staff noted that the Middlefield corridor, as presented in the packet, did not rise into the ranked project list (attachment D) at this time, but that the network map remains a long-range vision that can be advanced segment-by-segment.

On implementation, staff emphasized that the prioritization framework would remain flexible: projects that score lower can still be advanced if funding appears or if the council elevates them. Staff said they have started identifying "quick-build" candidates (lower-cost, testable changes) and recommended building a toolkit and dedicated funding to allow rapid, iterative safety improvements beyond multi-year capital projects.

What’s next: staff will take council feedback this summer while drafting the formal plan, with a target to return in the fall/winter with a draft for public review and environmental analysis where required. The Office of Transportation also signaled continued coordination with other city plans (housing element, Safe Streets for All, area plans) and with Caltrans on state-controlled corridors.

Votes at a glance (formal actions at this meeting): the council approved the consent calendar items 4–11 (roll call; unanimous), entered and later exited a closed session on existing litigation and a property matter (motion carried by roll call; unanimous), and earlier in the meeting completed multiple rounds of electronic balloting to fill Architectural Review Board vacancies (final appointments announced). Staff confirmed no reportable action from closed session.

The study session drew a long public record and a wide range of technical and neighborhood concerns; the council asked staff to return with a draft plan that better identifies quick-build funding, clarifies the Middlefield recommendations, and refines the project-prioritization metrics.

Ending: The council did not take a final policy vote on the BPTP update at the June 2 meeting; staff will refine recommendations and an implementable project list over the summer and bring a draft plan back for formal review later in the year.