Dear City Council, As citizens of Menlo Park, we are thrilled that you are considering Concept 3 undercrossing. The Concept 3 tunnel location and configuration are fine and should move forward in order to keep up with the aggressive schedule. The paths leading to and from the tunnel on both sides have some shortcomings which could be addressed so that the tunnel is effective as possible. First, on the east side of the tunnel along Alma, the paths do not provide a direct connection to Burgess Park. We expect that a large number of tunnel trips will be to and from Burgess including the pool, fields and courts, rec centers, city hall and the library. The proposal as is requires awkward diversions to reach the park itself. The attached pdf shows one possible solution on page 2. On the east side, the pedestrian stairs remain as is but the bike path is modified with a switchback so that it meets the top of the stairs and the raised crosswalk across Alma. This creates a single, well-defined point of entry/exit similar to the design used in the Homer tunnel in Palo Alto. Our proposal eliminates the northward bike ramp as well as the west sidewalk connecting to Burgess Dr which results in a simpler, less expensive design. Second, the west side path proposal does not include an explicit plan for access to Big 5. The Big 5 connection is important to the overall effectiveness of the tunnel. It should not be left for later definition because its location and configuration could impact the property acquisition discussions. We recommend using one the west side bike ramps for Big 5 access rather than having it connect to the tunnel. Best, Bill Kirsch Jonathan Weiner application/pdf attachment: Middle_Undercrossing_4_1.pdf
