Why isn't Roble being evaluated as an alternative street crossing of el camino? It is wide and less busy than both middle and cambridge. It links downtown and city center. Negotiations would be required with the owners of the parking lots. And bikes could head either over to ravenswood at grade or burgess from over-or under- crossing after crossing el camino. Middle between university and the train tracks is exremely hazardous. It is foolish and dangerous to have that be the primary east-west path.

This article needs to include that stanford has written to the city that there are additional factors to be considered about an overcrossing. I sure hope that 40-some attendees at the workshop aren't viewed as making the decisions for our entire community. The meeting was scheduled at dinner time on a school night. Hardly alluring to families.

Roble isn't being considered because, there isn't a need for it there. Ravenswood a few hundred yards away. The idea is to have a crossing that is 1/2 between Ravenswood and Alma. The tracks at Roble are also at grade, so people would be crossing track level. once again the idea is to have go under the tracks, so people aren't crossing the tracks. and yes the middle ecr interchange will need to be upgraded. of course no one thought of that when then rebuilt the safeway.

Are there any studies on whether there's more crime committed in tunnels compared to bridges? Unfortunately, with our growing city, we have to consider the safety of tunnels.

A bridge must cost less ? And we have beautiful outdoor weather. I would feel better if my kid was riding his bike over a bridge to Burgess than in a tunnel. Why be in a dark tunnel ? Especially at night.

There should be gorgeous Western Hills views from a bridge, and maybe South & Bay views. I'm sold.

There's a great bike bridge over HWY 280 from Canada Rd. Woodside to Belmont with awesome views.

A bridge is not practical in this situation

1) it would need to be high enough to clear the already raised tracks and 20 foot tall trains
2) the ramps would need to be very long taking up too much space
3) need for an elevator for handicap access
4) safety - a person would be very vulnerable 30-40 feet in the air. who knows who might be waiting at the top?
5) it's be an eyesore

pedestrian bridges add distance to the pedestrian/bicyclist’s route. Because of the need to get up above the trains (aat least 20 feet above the tracks), straight or spiral ramps are typically used that can be several hundred feet long depending upon the surrounding terrain.

why a tunnel
1) tracks are already raised
2) tunnel would be a street level or just a step or two down (see tunnel at homer ave in palo alto)
3) it would be well lit and the entire tunnel would be visible from either entrance, no place for bad guys to hide
4) no need for long access ramps, elevator or tons of steps

Thank you. Very well explained.

A Middle - Alma bike tunnel will make sense ONLY IF (1) there are bike lanes on Middle between University and El Camino AND (2) safe ways for bicyclists to pass the entrances to the busy Safeway Plaza and Shell Station. The width of this section of Middle is only 39 feet, a space that supports three 9-foot wide vehicle lanes and a 10-foot wide, two-way buffered bike lane (or cycle track) on the south side. The implications: two westbound and one eastbound vehicle lanes and NO right turn lane. However, the loss of the existing right turn lane would incent motorists to bypass the EL Camino intersection by traveling south on University and thru the Allied Arts neighborhood so this behavior would need to be mitigated, e.g., no left turns from University onto Cambridge and parallel streets between 7 and 9 am. It appears a Roble-based crossing makes the most sense: a simple much less expensive project that provides convenient access to Alma and Ravenswood from Middle and University. The City would need to negotiate the placement of bike lanes across the back of the private parking lot behind the Schwab building and add bike lanes behind Cornerstone on land that the City owns. The effected parking spaces are rarely used.

Roble make zero sense. it is too close to Ravenswood and thus not a mid point. nor is it near the proposed tunnel. The intersection at ECR and Roble is less than ideal as there are multiple driveways on a busy narrow street, just like on middle.

IMO the best option would be to add bike lanes to middle and maybe cambridge. On middle, there are currently 2 lanes and a right turn lane. please explain why you suggest getting rid of the right turn lane in favor of another west bound lane that currently does not exist nor is needed?

Why can't the intersection look like this, one west bound lane, one east bound lane, bike lane and right turn lane? That would be the proper place for the bike lane at the intersection, (see middlefield and willow) Bikes going straight or left NEED to be on the left side of right turning vehicles not the right. No need to get rid of the right turn lane, nor would it make sense.

Did menlo park do a horrible job at traffic planning when they rebuilt the safeway? yes, that whole intersection needs to be revisited.

MPer: Lacking a Menlo-Ravenswood bike corridor (the BEST central solution), a Roble bike route is the only way for bicyclists who use Middle or originate in Allied Arts to conveniently cross El Camino south of Santa Cruz, and yes it IS a central point for crossing ECR - look at a map. Roble has little vehicle traffic (I use it several times a week) , it's a wide street that allows vehicles to pass bicyclists, and it is stress-free.Plus, NO street parking would be lost and the cost would be low. Simply negotiate access to the private parking lot behind 800 ECR (the city owns the land behind 1000 ECR), add signage and street markings.

Yes, a Middle crossing is a good solution BUT ONLY if there are three vehicle lanes and a two-way bike lane at the south side of the intersection with ECR. However, the problem is not simple as motorists currently BEHAVE as if there are two virtual WESTBOUND vehicle lanes in front of the entrance to the Safeway Plaza. Concern: what will happen to northbound ECR traffic after it makes left turns onto Middle and discovers a single 9 foot wide vehicle lane on the approach to the plaza?

Also, I expect a Middle-Alma Tunnel is more than 5 years away, if ever? A Roble solution is less costly and doable now!

When i bike within menlo park, i want to go downtown or to the library and Burgess facilities. Those are "central" in our town.
Hendrickson's concerns and suggestions make sense.

...a Roble bike route is the only way for bicyclists who use Middle or originate in Allied Arts to conveniently cross El Camino south of Santa Cruz, and yes it IS a central point for crossing ECR - look at a map.

here's what the map says

>> Ravenswood to Palo Alto = 7 tenths of a mile
>> Ravenswood to Middle = 3 tenths of a mile
>> Ravenswood to Roble = 1 tenth of a mile

>>Middle is, in fact, very near the mid point between Ravenswood and the Creek. Roble is not even close to the midpoint. Coming from PA one would need to cover 86% of the total distance to get to the menlo vs 57% for Middle.


Roble has little vehicle traffic (I use it several times a week) , it's a wide street that allows vehicles to pass bicyclists, and it is stress-free.

>> Roble is much narrower than Middle, it is hard for two cars to pass each other. If there is a truck one vehicle needs to pull over to let the other pass.

Plus, NO street parking would be lost and the cost would be low.

>> Parking would also need to be eliminated on one side of the street to allow for two vehicle lanes and a bike lane. Currently there us barely enough room for parking on both sides and two traffic lanes and I drive it every day at rush hour.

Simply negotiate access to the private parking lot behind 800 ECR (the city owns the land behind 1000 ECR), add signage and street markings.

>> The entrance to the private parking lot is narrow and has a row of trees down the middle, making even narrower than Roble on the other side of ECR. Why would the owners want to do this when it can be done down the street? Is the idea to have a bike path to ravenswood or to have an at grade crossing thru the parking lot? still if the owners did want to add a bike path thru their property, it would solve anything for pedestrians, nor would it address the current problem of not having a midpoint crossing. Also nothing is simple when negotiating with commercial property owners.

Yes, a Middle crossing is a good solution BUT ONLY if there are three vehicle lanes and a two-way bike lane at the south side of the intersection with ECR.

>>this can easily be done. see ECR and Valparaiso intersection. The city needs to get out there and paint some lines.


However, the problem is not simple as motorists currently BEHAVE as if there are two virtual WESTBOUND vehicle lanes in front of the entrance to the Safeway Plaza.

>>This hasn't been my experience at all and I drive thus everyday at rush hour. Once again the city city could easily solve this by painting lane lines


Concern: what will happen to northbound ECR traffic after it makes left turns onto Middle and discovers a single 9 foot wide vehicle lane on the approach to the plaza?

>> doesn't seem to be that huge issue and I drive it every day at rush hour. Traffic may slow to allow people to turn right into safeway. No biggie

Also, I expect a Middle-Alma Tunnel is more than 5 years away, if ever? A Roble solution is less costly and doable now!

>> Adding another at grade crossing and a bike path through a parking lot a few hundred feet from Ravenswood misses the point of the entire project -- A grade separated pedestrian / bike crossing near the mid point between Ravenswood and the creek. A tunnel at Middle would also allow easier access to the new plaza, Safeway and business south of menlo/ravenswood for people from the Willows and Linefield Oaks areas. It's not just about people from allied arts accessing the library and gym on bikes. The "Roble" solution also offers nothing for pedestrians.