Esther Jeong, a traffic engineer with Sunnyvale’s Transportation and Traffic Division, introduced a progress update on the East Channel Trail Study on Nov. 20, saying city staff and consultants would seek commissioner feedback on on‑street alternatives, crossing tiers and potential alignments.

Alta Planning and Design project manager Jeff Knowles told the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission the proposed trail would run about 5.5 miles along the Santa Clara Valley Water District East Channel maintenance road from the San Francisco Bay Trail in the north to Homestead Road at the Cupertino border. The project originated in the city’s 2020 active‑transportation plan and has attracted funding for study from VTA Measure B and private donations, he said.

Why it matters: staff and consultants said the alignment would provide a continuous north–south spine connecting transit and eight schools, but the corridor contains multiple barriers — including Caltrain tracks, State Route 237, U.S. 101 and private parcels where the channel runs underground — that will require structures, tunnels or lengthy on‑street detours.

What the study found and proposes: the team reported Phase 1 engagement (April–June 2025) included roughly 1,600 engagements and more than 1,100 responses to the first survey. Six in 10 respondents lived within three blocks of the corridor. Top reported benefits were safer travel, better access to local destinations and commuting by bike; top concerns were crossing safety and trail safety near encampments and litter. Consultants said the preferred alignment places the trail on Valley Water’s maintenance road where feasible and uses bridges or tunnels to overcome major obstacles, while short‑term on‑street alternatives and traffic‑calming measures would be evaluated as interim options.

Design tradeoffs: presenters described a three‑tier crossing strategy: Tier 1 neighborhood crossings using high‑visibility elements and raised crosswalks; Tier 2 collector streets using HAWK signals or similar devices; and Tier 3 busy arterials relying on signal coordination or full pedestrian signals. Consultants also reviewed surface options — asphalt versus crushed aggregate — noting asphalt has higher upfront cost but longer life and less frequent maintenance; crushed aggregate is cheaper upfront but needs more frequent upkeep.

Commissioner questions focused on alignment choices, private‑property constraints, tunnel flooding risk, ramp and bridge elevations and whether crossing treatments should be prioritized for early openings. Consultants said Valley Water’s own flood‑resilience work informed the analysis and that tunnels would require sump pumps and regular maintenance to remain usable in storms. They also said no construction funding has been identified and that a phasing and cost estimate will be part of Phase 3; final design and construction would need City Council direction and future funding.

Public comment and local feedback: one remote commenter, Charlene Liu, urged protected intersections, asphalt or similarly smooth surfaces rather than crushed gravel, and said she preferred bridges over at‑grade crossings for safety even if bridges cost more.

Next steps: staff said they will continue community outreach while closing the study’s second survey (survey open through Nov. 21) and will refine a preferred alignment, conceptual design and a phased implementation strategy to present in the coming months. The study’s Phase 3 will include conceptual designs and planning‑level costs; any construction would require separate council approval and funding.

Ending: the commission’s detailed questions reflected the project’s complexity: staff and consultants emphasized that the study is developing options and phasing strategies, not seeking construction authorization. A draft conceptual design and cost estimates are scheduled in the next phase for review prior to any council direction or funding requests.