BREAKING NEWS:Trump in Palo Alto foothills for fundraiser


Study: Build a new Newell Road Bridge that's twice as wide

Recommendation comes after years of contention over various options

The bridge on Newell Road connecting Palo Alto and East Palo Alto poses a flooding hazard since it restricts flow of San Francisquito Creek to a smaller volume than may occur in a 100-year flood. Photo by Sinead Chang.

The Newell Road Bridge is old, narrow and, according to the state Department of Transportation, "functionally obsolete."

Drivers who approach the bridge have to slow to a crawl so that they can see and avoid oncoming vehicles. And with just 18 feet of width curb-to-curb, well below the modern standard, the bridge cannot comfortably accommodate two cars passing each other.

"Right now, it's a very dangerous place," East Palo Alto Councilman Ruben Abrica told the Weekly. "Any time you spend there, especially in the morning and afternoon, it's just dangerous, and it needs to be made safer for the flow of traffic and pedestrians."

Built in 1911, the 42-foot-long bridge spans two cities and two counties. On the Santa Clara County side, it leads to Palo Alto's Crescent Park neighborhood, which is marked by generous single-family lots with spacious lawns. On the San Mateo County side, it leads to the Woodland Park area in East Palo Alto, a collection of high- and medium-density apartment buildings that house more than 6,000 residents, greater than a fifth of the city's entire population.

For drivers, part of the problem is the crookedness of Newell Road, which intersects Woodland Avenue just north of the bridge and requires East Palo Alto-bound drivers to turn left followed by an immediate right to stay on Newell. It also doesn't help that drivers approaching the bridge have to go up a 7% grade, which reduces their ability to see drivers or bicyclists in front of them. A newly released environmental-impact report (EIR) for a proposed replacement bridge faults the existing structure for "poor drivability for vehicular traffic due to substandard sight distances and vertical profile."

It was the bridge's narrowness that prompted Caltrans to designate it "functionally obsolete" in April 2011, making it eligible for federal funding and jump-starting the current effort to replace it. That effort received a boost this month with the release of a long-awaited analysis for the project, a 404-page document that aims to reconcile competing views about the bridge's future and pave the way for construction to begin next year.

Going with the flow

For officials from Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and for residents who live near San Francisquito Creek, which the bridge crosses, the project carries a sense of urgency. The replacement of the Newell Road Bridge isn't just a way to improve traffic flow; it's also a critical component of the regional effort to improve flood control around the creek. Newell Road Bridge is one of two bridges — along with the Pope-Chaucer Bridge — that is currently on tap to be replaced. And while the Pope-Chaucer is the far more flood-prone of the two spans, its long-anticipated replacement can't occur until Newell Road Bridge is completed. That's because replacing Pope-Chaucer first would increase water flow downstream, raising the risk of flooding in the Newell Road area.

According to the environmental analysis, the Newell Road Bridge can currently accommodate 6,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) of creek flow, making it more than adequate for the existing flow of 5,400 cfs. It is not, however, sufficient to handle the future natural creek flow of 7,500 cfs.

"If upstream improvements are completed, flows exceeding 6,600 cfs would not be able to pass under the existing bridge," the EIR states. "This would result in flooding upstream of the Newell Road Bridge."

For that reason, Thomas Rindfleisch and many of his neighbors in Crescent Park eagerly look forward to the replacement of the bridges. Rindfleisch's home was flooded during the famous February 1998 storm, when water breached the banks at Pope-Chaucer. These days, he runs the email list for his neighborhood association and the topic of flood control is a perennial concern, he told the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday.

"Every winter there is an incredible fear: Is the next rainstorm going to be the one that overflows the creek?" Rindfleisch said. "It's because of Pope-Chaucer. We cannot replace Pope-Chaucer until the Newell Road Bridge is fixed."

Xenia Hammer also argued for the urgency of replacing Newell Bridge. The alternative proposed in the EIR, she said, represents "a reasonable compromise" given all the community input that the city gathered during its public process.

The Planning and Transportation Commission concurred and voted 6-1 on Wednesday night to endorse the environmental analysis and its recommendation: the replacement of the 22-foot-wide Newell bridge with one that is 44 feet wide. The new bridge would also have 5-foot-wide sidewalks and "sharrow" markings, designating it as a shared path for drivers and bicyclists. The project would also raise portions of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue by about 4 feet to make it easier for drivers to see oncoming traffic. It would also eliminate existing flood walls to allow more visibility near the creek itself, said Michel Jeremias, senior engineer at Palo Alto's Public Works Department.

While some details remain divisive, including the lack of actual bike lanes, the new recommendation represents a truce after years of heated debate stretching back to 2013. Over the course of several public hearings, which stretched from 2013 to 2015, city officials discovered that when it comes to the future bridge, residents have very strong — and widely divergent — opinions.

A new direction

The greatest difficulties that Palo Alto and East Palo Alto leaders had to wrestle with during the environmental review process concerned project's priorities: If the Newell span is taken down, what should the replacement bridge accomplish? And what unintended problems might be created through the changes?

Some on the East Palo Alto side of the San Francisquito Creek supported realigning Newell Road to eliminate the existing "blind turns." Wendy Smith, of East Palo Alto, said at a 2015 public meeting that she favored a "full alignment" of Newell Road, which was one of the options that Palo Alto presented. The priority, she said, should be "not continuing to have sight lines that are around corners and don't give you a clear view of who's coming."

Those on the Palo Alto side countered that widening the bridge and realigning Newell would encourage drivers to speed through their neighborhood. Crescent Park residents came out hard against the proposed realignment. Some suggested either keeping the existing bridge, replacing it with a bridge exclusively for bicyclists and pedestrians or simply removing the bridge and not replacing it at all.

Doug Kelly, a resident of Edgewood Drive, represented the view of many in his neighborhood when he said at a 2015 public meeting in East Palo Alto that he likes the "blind nature" of the existing bridge, calling it a "natural break to traffic."

"You're suicidal if you do anything but a crawl over that bridge, and that's a good thing in my mind," Kelly said.

Even those who favor stronger connections between the communities acknowledge that the bridge's biggest weakness — its narrow width — is also an asset. Trish Mulvey, a longtime proponent of improving flood control around Pope-Chaucer and Newell Road, called it the "single-best traffic calming device in the city." Despite — or perhaps because of — the uncomfortable alignment, there have been almost no accidents in the area, she said.

"It really makes me stop very carefully and look very carefully and go slow," Mulvey said. "I think people recognize that, and that's why there don't seem to be accidents."

Yet she also acknowledged that the bridge simply can't stay the way it is. The East Palo Alto area northwest of the bridge continues to grow and evolve, and the Newell Road Bridge is a critical route for residents, including bicyclists, she said.

"When you look at the number of people who live in that part of East Palo Alto and who need to use that bridge — and there is significant bike and pedestrian use of that bridge — I do think it's pretty dangerous from that standpoint," she said.

The new environmental-impact report, which has been endorsed by staff from both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, seeks to reconcile the different viewpoints. Gone from consideration are some of the more controversial proposals that were brought up during the public-outreach process, including the removal of the bridge without replacing it and the replacement of the bridge with a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. And while the document considers two alternatives that would straighten Newell Road (a "full" and a "partial" realignment of the street) and an option that would create a one-lane, bi-directional bridge with a traffic signal, it does not recommend advancing these options.

Instead, it recommends as its "preferred alternative" a more conservative plan: widening the bridge and not altering Newell in any way. Though it falls short of the type of realignment some in East Palo Alto were hoping to see, the recommended alternative appears to be something most public officials can live with.

R. Allen Fisk, an East Palo Alto planning commissioner who lives close to the creek, said he favored some realignment and rejected the notion that traffic would significantly increase if Newell Road were modified.

Fisk pointed to the stop signs that had recently been installed in Crescent Park, including on Hamilton Avenue, and to the fact that the roads around Woodland Avenue and University Avenue are already clogged during peak commuting times. This makes the prospect of growing traffic volumes unlikely, he said.

"During the busy commute times, especially in the afternoon, the whole Crescent Park neighborhood is locked into their homes," Fisk said. "They can't get out because of all the cars that are lined up on those crescent-shaped streets, heading to University Avenue. At the same time, traffic is backing up from the Newell Road Bridge all the way up to University Avenue and Woodland Avenue."

Fisk noted that even though the EIR does not recommend the Newell realignment option that he favors, the one it does recommend — a widened bridge — would largely accomplish the same objective.

"Given the fact that the bridge will be so much wider than the current bridge, whether it's fully aligned or partially aligned, it doesn't really matter," Fisk said.

He does have one recommendation for the new bridge design: Shift the location of the bridge so that a larger portion of it would be on the East Palo Alto side, which would also prevent the removal of a California buckeye tree. According to the analysis, 12 trees around the bridge would be cut down.

While the city councils in the two cities have not yet discussed the proposed alternative, Abrica told the Weekly said he is comfortable with the proposed solution. He said he had strongly opposed a full realignment of Newell Road near the bridge, saying it would create a "mini-highway" in the area. And while Abrica said a partial realignment (which the EIR does not recommend) may improve drivers' visibility on the bridge, he noted that the recommended plan has other measures for making conditions safer, as well as new space for sidewalks and bicyclists.

Abrica, who serves on the board of directors at the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, also emphasized the importance of moving the Newell project along so that the creek authority can proceed with its upstream work, including the replacement of Pope-Chaucer Bridge.

"Whatever happens, the responsible thing would be to not do anything upstream unless something is done on Newell Road. ... The timing is critical, and it's important for us to get this done," Abrica said.

A commission weighs in

Perhaps the biggest sign that the bridge project is now gaining momentum is the change in tone of public discussions. Unlike during the 2015 meetings, the commission's deliberation Wednesday on the new environmental analysis was swift, calm and generally amiable, with only three public speakers and no opposition to replacing or widening the bridge.

The only disagreement was over the proposed amenities for bicyclists. Robert Neff, a longtime advocate for improved bicycling facilities, called the environmental analysis "grossly inadequate" because it fails to consider bike lanes for the bridge. Instead, by proposing wider lanes with "sharrow" markings, it recommends an alternative that would encourage cars to speed and that would worsen conditions for bicyclists. The sharrows "do not change the level of traffic stress and make no significant difference," Neff said.

Commission Chair William Riggs concurred and argued the city should have been more thorough in evaluating bike and pedestrian use of the bridge. He favored making the bridge a one-lane span with traffic signals regulating traffic in both directions. The proposed alignment, he said, will create conflicts between drivers and bicyclists.

"I know it's important from a watershed standpoint, but I'm not sure that the artificial acceleration of the timeline justifies what can be a unique and more safe treatment from a multi-modal standpoint," Riggs said just after casting the lone dissenting vote.

Commissioner Michael Alcheck also suggested a modification: Widen the Newell Road Bridge but install traffic signals to slow down cars. The existing bridge's narrowness is effectively a "speed bump," Alcheck said, and widening it will have the effect of speeding cars along.

"It will likely encourage faster passage over the bridge," Alcheck said.

But he ultimately agreed with the majority of the commission, which backed the preferred alternative in the environmental analysis. Commissioner Asher Waldfogel observed that the project has taken "a long time to germinate" and urged moving it forward. Commissioner Doria Summa agreed.

"I do think this is a very good compromise for a project that involves multiple cities and multiple agencies," Summa said. "I want to see it go forward as soon as possible."

Once the EIR is approved, the city will draw up construction plans and obtain environmental permits with the various regulatory agencies. The city will also apply for federal funding, which is expected to cover about 88.5% of the estimated $8.5 million construction cost. If things go as planned, construction could begin as early as summer 2020, Jeremias said.

The Wednesday hearing was the first of four scheduled public hearings on the Newell Road Bridge project. Upcoming meetings will take place on June 18 (7 p.m. at the Palo Alto Art Center, 1313 Newell Road), June 19 (7:30 p.m. in the East Palo Alto Council Chambers, 2415 University Ave.) and on July 18 (8:30 a.m., Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.).


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


30 people like this
Posted by Let's Get it Built
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 12:37 am


I live right near the bridge on the Palo Alto side and fully support replacing it with the proposed modern structure. Doing so will help with our huge regional flooding problems and make things better for pedestrians, bikes, and cars using the bridge.

The proposal approved by the Planning Commission majority is fine. I've looked through the traffic study and agree that widening the roadway, adding sidewalks, and fixing the sight lines won't increase traffic in any significant way. Most of the trees that block southbound Woodland and eastbound Newell cars from seeing each other until they're in the intersection are eucalyptus (non-native) and can be replaced. Fixing the sight lines will help bikes and pedestrians too. The argument that keeping it narrow makes it safer just doesn't wash.

The short bridge is already protected by stop signs at both the Edgewood and Woodland intersections. Traffic signals are NOT needed! Let's get it built.

35 people like this
Posted by ?
a resident of Duveneck School
on Jun 14, 2019 at 4:10 am

Wait, why can’t they just remove the bridge? 3000 cars use it daily, which backs up Embarcadero Rd. because they trigger the Newell Rd light at all hours. Drivers should be on arteries like Embarcadero instead of driving through residential areas, especially a road with many student bicyclists to Duveneck and Greene.

[Portion removed.]

20 people like this
Posted by CP Resident
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 6:44 am

^^^ I too would like to see the bridge removed for the reasons cited above.

Widening and/or deepening the creek for flood control is OK though.

18 people like this
Posted by Norman Beamer
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 7:45 am

Fixing the bridge to eliminate the blockage of the creek is an urgent need. No more delay is acceptable. The preferred option should be approved. Concerns about traffic are totally bogus. If you want speed bumps, put them on the roads just before and after the bridge.

22 people like this
Posted by Norman Beamer
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 7:48 am

To those who want the bridge removed: Forget it. Totally unacceptable -- that option has been categorically eliminated. For one thing, East Palo Alto would veto it.

4 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 14, 2019 at 7:52 am

[Post removed.]

19 people like this
Posted by Tim
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 14, 2019 at 9:55 am

Get rid of the bridge!

19 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 11:24 am

The size of the bridge is one issue.

Another issue is the layout of the intersection.

There is no good way to make this an acceptable intersection without it being huge.
There is not, nor should there be enough traffic in that area to justify it either.

They mostly need to rationalize the "bridge-intersection system".

The thing that has always bothered me is that leaving this up to people
to stop and allow others through does not work in this bridge for some
reason. So people, if they think they can go charge across the bridge as
if they are in a military operation. If the person ahead of someone like this
goes, they jump in behind them so the person waiting on the other side
cannot go.

When a large SUV or truck goes across there is only room for one vehicle
anyway, so just set it up for one car at a time, or cars from one directions
at a time regulated by a stop-light.

It's also hell for bicyclists or pedestrians at times.

I think the most appropiriate, fittting and smallest scale option would be
to have a light on all four sides of the intersection, and one about 20
feet back into Palo Alto from the bridge and to allow one lane of controlled
traffic to cross the bridge at a time in a synchronized manner.

This would discourage massive traffic increases, make the intersections
safer. Cameras could be installed if there are too many scofflaws and
they could be ticketed. Finally, everyone else could drive across that
bridge with less anxiety and chance of an accident.

Maybe even pedestrians could get a timeslice to cross so they do not
have to risk their lives every time they want to cross.

It would also cost less to do this. It just makes more sense to me.

8 people like this
Posted by Fairmeadoe
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 14, 2019 at 1:05 pm

The small bridge is a natural break that makes people think twice about driving into that community, and that is basically what people in the Palo Alto side want (so nothing will be done).

I would offer just add large mirrors so people can safely see the traffic on both sides before crossing.

13 people like this
Posted by YSK
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 14, 2019 at 1:56 pm

Leave the bridge. It's fine. It definitely slows people down better than any other part of the city. The last thing we need is for Newell road to become another speeding thoroughfare a.

11 people like this
Posted by YP
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 3:22 pm

YP is a registered user.

I agree with a couple of the posts above. There maybe many reasons to replace the bridge such as flood control but safety is NOT one of them. Counter intuitive but the narrow bridge forces people to be cautious, a wider bridge will result in faster traffic and more accidents I guarantee it.

14 people like this
Posted by Charlie Brigante
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 5:07 pm

This bridge has no sidewalks so it has always been extremely dangerous for pedestrians!

4 people like this
Posted by Robert Neff
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 14, 2019 at 10:38 pm

Robert Neff is a registered user.

Yes, sidewalks, finally, on both sides.

The bridge width under consideration is the minimum that CalTrans will fund. Grants from CalTrans and the Water District cover the building costs.

The EIR scope did not require any evaluation of usability for bicyclists (other than -- "It is a road, and bicyclists can ride on the road".) With the new bike/ped bridge over 101 linked to this Newell bridge, I think decision makers need some analysis for bicycle suitability, especially where bikes will have to mix into rush hour traffic. What will that be like with these design choices?

7 people like this
Posted by Old Timer With A New Perspective
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 15, 2019 at 12:36 am

Before you vote my post down, consider the future for a moment.
University Ave is already gridlocked most of the day from the moment you exit 101.
How about making Newell Road another entrance route to Palo Alto and Stanford?
Begin it at 101 (or spur it off the current exit), and cut right across that small section of EPA, the creek, and run it up to Embarcadero - past the Library & Art Center (our old City Hall), and end at the new fire station on the corner of Embarcadero.
I saw them do this to Oregon when I was child - to make easier access to the Stanford Research Park and HP.
This involved moving some houses, but it WAS done. And today we have Oregon Expressway.
I know all of this may seem frightening, but things change.

Take a look at the layout of Newell Road on Google maps to understand what I am talking about.
Web Link

18 people like this
Posted by Marrol
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 15, 2019 at 12:37 am

Personally I've always advocated to remove the bridge entirely. First of all both the Palo Alto and EPA communities would benefit from the flood control this would provide.

Widening the bridge and providing greater access to commute drivers is unreasonable. We should not create an environmental traffic condition that would undoubtedly result in heavier traffic flow, especially through largely residential areas. Newell Road is not designed or equipped to serve as a commute arterial.

With the bridge removed and not replaced it would also insulate residential areas on both sides from unreasonable traffic increases. That traffic would be likely routed to the University and Embarcadero Road corridors which are much better equipped and designed to handle those conditions.

I see the bridge providing much greater convenience to residents of EPA and commuters who live outside the area. The benefit to Palo Alto residents far less. Removing the bridge would provide Palo Alto residents living in the adjoining Crescent Park the benefit of ending the residential permit parking program. No bridge, no people living outside of the city and county using their city streets for overflow parking, no need for the permits.

It makes sense on so many levels, with the added collective benefit of saving tax payer dollars on building a new bridge. Take the thing down and end the conversation.

15 people like this
Posted by ?
a resident of Duveneck School
on Jun 15, 2019 at 11:39 am

So they are going to make the bridge wider for more cars to travel on Newell? How many drivers who use the bridge are Palo Alto residents? Why does the Palo Alto City Council help everyone else except their residents? Extra traffic in a residential area will impact both residents and students. Newell /Embarcadero is a huge crossing for elementary and middle school students. Extra cars turning on red lights can be fatal. And no, Norman Beamer, speed bumps will not make Newell safer. Also, cannot just install speed bumps anywhere, there are rules.

On Thursday, in two separate incidents, pedestrians were attacked by teens on the Palo Alto/EPA pedestrian bridge: Web Link

17 people like this
Posted by Tuasosopo
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 15, 2019 at 5:49 pm

The Newell Road Bridge is a convenient gateway for some EPA residents to enter Palo Alto, especially those living along Woodland Avenue.

It also provides ease of acess for residents along Woodland Avenue who are forced to park their vehicles in Palo Alto due to the parking congestion.

A wider bridge with walkways will alleviate many of the these inconveniences and Palo Altans should consider doing their best to be a good neighbor.

8 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 15, 2019 at 10:22 pm

> who are forced to park their vehicles in Palo Alto due to the parking congestion.

Force to, eh?

Parking in this part of EPA should not be something Palo Alto has to solve or work
out for EPA. EPA has shown in several ways they are quite capable or solving problems
and moving forward when they want to, I don't see why they can't put their heads
together and solve the parking problem or push the apartment complexes in that
area to solve their parking issues.

I would not be unhappy to see the bridge removed, but I do think it is reasonable to
keep this point open to Palo Alto, but I don't think it should be expanded, hence my
comment above.

11 people like this
Posted by Woodland Avenue Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 16, 2019 at 1:14 pm

Unfortunately many of the apartments along Woodland Avenue do not provide adequate parking for multi-car residents/room mates. Fortunately, the adjacent PA neighborhood just across the Newell Road Bridge provides a viable area.

The bridge will be needed for some Woodland residents to be able get to their cars during the course of a day. Without the bridge, parking will become problematic.

13 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 2:02 pm

> Without the bridge, parking will become problematic.

Parking is problematic now .... but, it should be problematic only for East Palo Alto, not for the people on adjacent streets who did not buy their houses to provide parking for apartment owners to cheap to solve their own problems. If people insist on parking across the bridge, it's another point in favor of demolishing the bridge.

10 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 16, 2019 at 2:59 pm

I think we should tear down the bridge and erect tolls at all entrances to Palo Alto. It's clear from all the rhetoric in these discussions that Palo Alto considers itself an island unto itself. So let's make it a physical reality.

Let's charge everyone a fee (including residents) to enter or leave Palo Alto. Then we can see how well Palo Alto survives as a self contained community that never wants to cooperate or coordinate with it's neighbors.


6 people like this
Posted by GoodNeighbors
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 4:36 pm

[Portion removed.]

I support @OldTimerWithNewPerspective's post of viewing Newell Road from 101 to Embarcadero as a new cross road to Channing Ave (@Google Maps) with wide enough lanes like Channing Ave (with bike lanes on both sides) Yes, there are schools on Channing Ave also with no accident history.

Instead of worrying about more traffic, appreciate your help in decongesting Univ, Embarcadero and Oregon arteries. Helping out local people that suffer on a DAILY basis with LONG hours of manual work and LONG hours of traffic, while you soak in your expensive bathtub in your $10M mansion. Be part of solving US, California and Bay Area wide inequality problems by starting locally, being good neighbors, and becoming YIMBY as opposed to NIMBY.

9 people like this
Posted by Alternative 2
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 16, 2019 at 5:17 pm

Alternative 2 keeps the current bridge alignment, which is a natural inhibitor to cars speeding. The side walks and two lanes dramatically improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles and cars, coupled with improved sight lines entering the bridge. It's the smallest alternative that Caltrain will pay for 85% of the project. Also, since East Palo Alto is joint owner of the bridge with Palo Alto, they, rightly, will not agree to remove the bridge so its not an option.

For those Palo Altans who were not here in 1998, about 400 hundred houses had over the floor flooding (which requires a remodel and not being able to live in your house for 9 months). Channing Ave was a river during the flood. This project is required before the Pope Chaucer bridge can be replaced, which will significantly increase flood protection for Palo Altans.

For these reasons, I strongly support Alternative 2.

11 people like this
Posted by Truth Teller
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 17, 2019 at 9:15 pm

I am a Resident of East Palo Alto since 1955.

It appears that (as usual) This matter is already decided upon.
And what I say here doesn't make a bit of difference. So therefore I'll say it anyway. (with candid truth).

The Powers that BE want the expansion so the people that have influence will be able to drive their expensive Cars FREELY, avoiding University Avenue. A quick Exit.
(I guaranteed to you that very FEW, E. Palo Altoians are driving Tesla's) across that Newell Bridge.
They also slipped in a Tesla Charging station in the Ravenswood Shopping Ctr.

No More Arteries driving in and taking any more E Palo Alto land, just to expand Newell Bridge.
Build and expand the Artery down
Embarcadero Rd, just like they did Oregon Expwy. (by the way) they dumped all of those homes that they took from Oregon Expwy and placed them in EPA, off of Pulgas. Beach St. down to Runnymede.
Pulgas Avenue is where the Traffic is creating a Artery barreling through EPA.
They enjoy (dumping) problems into EPA. The reason the OLD Romic Chemical Plant stayed there from
the 1950's and the current Owner still hasn't clean the mess up.

The E Palo Altoians that want the Newell Bridge expansion, want this only to accommodate their Own Selfish Habits.
They are the same Ones that advocated for The Walk over Bridge that is crossing over 101.
That action, cost over $15 Million Dollars. That action is serving a very small population. And the Cyclist that travel from
Palo Alto & Stanford, that cross the Newell Bridge, to get to the Wilderness. All of This could have been built further down 101 in the Palo Alto Wilderness territory.

Someone up there said that E Palo Alto would Vote something down? Hardly.
Abrica has an Agenda and he caters to HIS Constituents that WALK.
This has changed the character of the Neighborhood. These same Selfish people claim that they are Forced to PARK in PAlO ALTO. (give me a break). We don't care for you parking all your Cars inside E Palo Alto either!
The People that are parking on Palo Alto Streets, have FORCED the Residents in obtaining Parking Permits in The Crescent Park Area ONLY.
The parking congestion is caused by Households in EPA, that aren't monitored for overcrowding.
What gives anyone the right, in trying to change the Palo Alto Neighborhood & visa versa?
Those People paid for Their Neighborhood NOT to be littered with your Cars parked in front of Their Homes. (likewise in EPA). The same demographic in Menlo Park are overcrowding parking in EPA.
Palo Alto once talked about closing the Bridge off because of crime. Now they want to WIDEN it?
I say CLOSE it altogether then.

The influence is coming from those that don't want to Travel down CLOGGED University Avenue.

I would like to see the Bridge either REMOVED or It can stay the same and Widen for practical measures and that is Flooding ONLY!

9 people like this
Posted by Shortcut to where?
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 18, 2019 at 9:40 am

I don't think that Newell bridge is a short cut from University Ave to anywhere. Much faster just to get off 101 at Embarcadero. I do think Newell is useful for EPA resides to go to and from their neighborhood.

3 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2019 at 9:02 pm

Why not add sidewalks and make it a true one-way bridge with traffic lights to control the flow direction. This works in many places, e.g. various coastal and coast-range mountain roads where washouts narrow the road to one lane. A true two-lane bridge will just increase traffic. There is too much traffic on Newell already.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 5,372 views

Troubling safety issues in our fair city
By Diana Diamond | 16 comments | 1,614 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,502 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 1,425 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,251 views


Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info