Most of San Mateo’s top bike lane projects could remove parking or a lane of vehicle travel, leaving the city with a delicate balance to strike between mitigating traffic congestion and cyclist safety.
The tension is indicative of many Peninsula cities' unique growing pains as they face pressure to accelerate development while minimizing congestion, along with cyclist and pedestrian collisions. Between 2024 and 2025, there were 129 pedestrian and cyclist collisions combined throughout San Mateo, according to recent data gathered by the city from the Transportation Injury Mapping System. In January, a pedestrian was killed crossing the street at El Camino Real and 17th Avenue, and in March, a serious pedestrian collision occurred at the North Delaware Street and State Street intersection.
Many city leaders and advocates are hopeful that injuries and fatalities will decrease as the city invests in non-vehicle infrastructure like protected bike lanes, better traffic calming measures and pedestrian-friendly intersection signaling.
But most of the top priority bike projects could require the removal of either a lane of traffic or parking spaces, which may lead to more tense disagreements over whether vehicle or bike infrastructure should hold more weight.
“The majority of the road requires some reassessment of the right-of-way, and when you combine those together in a city of our nature, it does make for tough decisions whether we need to reduce a vehicle lane or remove parking,” Senior Engineer Jay Yu said during a recent City Council meeting.
Recommended for you
Some of the planned high-priority bike lane projects are on Peninsula Avenue — between San Mateo Drive and Humboldt Avenue — and 20th Avenue, between Alameda de las Pulgas and El Camino Real.
City leaders are desperate to avoid a repeat of the divisive Humboldt bike lane project, when the North Central neighborhood lost 200 parking spaces to make space for protected bike lanes. The bike lanes have remained controversial over the last several years, with extensive, ongoing council meetings and neighborhood outreach.
Last year, resident complaints also led the city to reverse course on its planned removal of a lane of traffic on Delaware Street, and another project along 19th Avenue and Fashion Island Boulevard also generated pushback. Now, city leaders are acutely aware they must tread carefully on projects that may necessitate a loss of parking or traffic lane
The city has already completed about 22% of its high- and medium-high priority bike improvements, including improved infrastructure on South B Street and South Grant Street.
“We learned a lot in Humboldt … we had a lot of lessons learned,” Yu said, adding that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution and that “we’re really just learning from the past projects to optimize future ones.”
There are no "Auto-Needs" - these are all "Auto-Industry-Wants".
Let's always remember, we are paying for driving with the "Addiction or Sinner's Tax" - the same tax we pay for drinking, smoking, or gambling. We always need to look who is making sane points or who seems a little on withdrawal.
The lessons learned with the Humboldt Bike Lanes was that people wanted them and liked them very much.
It was politicians like Amo Lee, Diane Papan, Rob Newsom, or Nicole Fernandez that were scheming to get them removed. YIMBY Lee and Papan even colluded with the Baywood NIMBY crowd. Now that is clearly a sign of addiction.
Hilarious. What is most telling is the accompanying photo which shows bike riders using the sidewalk instead of a dedicated bicycle lane. Folks, it is known that our so-called leaders will continue to waste our money to install discriminatory bike lanes with no supporting data. The photo says it all. Why impose lane diets discriminating against drivers when cyclists won’t use them? BTW, of the 129 collisions, how many were the fault of the pedestrian or cyclist? And out of how many potential interactions? Millions? Tens of millions?
TBot, here I thought you are ALL about protecting the biological woman from the biological male? Biological females need to be separated from violent biological men.
Biological females don't like to be killed by testerone-infused drivers of 6,000lbs vehicles with 500hp. The biological woman and the biological child needs Class 4 "Protected Bike Lanes" - the one biological Democrats like Papan, Speier, Becker or Mullins never granted them.
You think you’re clever but your attempt at comparing 6,000 pound vehicles to 200 pound perverted men pretending to be women is at best silly. 6,000 pound vehicles are not transitioning into 1,000 pound smart (dumb) cars.
eGerd – TBot here. Well, we know you’re not ALL about protection biological women from biological males. Regardless, I didn’t realize biological females were banned from driving 6,000lbs vehicles with 500hp or any vehicles of any weight or horsepower. Have Democrats instituted more discrimination against biological females? I can’t say I’d be surprised. Perhaps, eGerd, you can tell us out of the 129 collisions, how many were the fault of biological male vs. female drivers and how many were the fault of biological male vs. female pedestrians or cyclists? BTW, hat tip to CA Is Burning for the transitioning car remark. Bazinga!
You are correct, we also MUST protect the biological female, the biological male, the biological child, and everyone in between also from a female driving a 6,000lbs monster truck.
Thinking about it, maybe the monster truck is the real problem? And protected bike lanes are the only real solution?
And maybe if there were more protected bike lanes in San Mateo, no one would have to ride the sidewalk anymore, which btw. is legal in California.
Anyways, I'm glad we agree that protected bike lanes are a MUST for all genders and we can be very PRIDE of our findings and our compromise.
The bike lanes are Class II; they are not protected. Protected bike lanes, which are safer for kids who bike, require more room and would have required removal of parking on both sides of the streets. This is a compromise that doesn't get reported, however.
I'll echo Joe Bob's comment that National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) standards called for Class IV separated bike lanes on N Humboldt St, given vehicle volume and speeds. That would have required street parking to be removed on both sides of the street, so the city compromised by removing parking only on one side and installing Class III bike lanes instead. As Joe Bob noted this compromise is rarely mentioned.
Agreed, so much of our existing infrastructure is already full of compromises. We constantly compromise on quality bike infrastructure and then act surprised that it is under utilized.
The compromise is rarely mentioned most likely because it was a terrible decision. Humboldt is a truck thoroughfare, where cars often travel much faster than the posted speed limit. It’s simply dangerous for anyone to be riding in those bike lanes and that’s why they are rarely used. We need thoughtful leadership on this going forward, speaking up against the mistakes made by being beholden to special interests and doing the right thing for residents. Rob Newsom has asked the hard questions and dispelled the misinformation put forth by special interests. We need his leadership, so reelect Rob for District 3 this fall to ensure true representation for residents.
San Mateo should be making transportation decisions based on objective data, measurable results, and the needs of the entire community — not pressure from a small but vocal advocacy group.
The Humboldt bike lane experiment removed significant parking and altered resident’s daily lives, and years later very little bike usage.
Before proposing additional bike lane projects that remove more parking, reduce traffic capacity, and spend millions of taxpayer dollars, the City should publicly release verifiable utilization data demonstrating actual demand and community benefit.
Bike lane advocates have long argued that additional bike infrastructure will dramatically increase ridership.
Yet years after installation, many corridors remain lightly used or not at all. At the same time, many more cyclists feel safe enough to ride on streets and routes that best fit their destinations, regardless of whether a designated bike lane exists. This says the Humboldt St. bike lane experiment was a failure as it did not increase safety, nor increase utilization, and the cost impacts to residents and the community continue.
San Mateo faces numerous competing priorities: aging roads, public safety needs, traffic congestion, infrastructure maintenance, parks, and essential city services.
Before spending millions more on additional bike lane projects and removing more parking and vehicle capacity, the City should first prove the existing bike lane experiments are delivering substantial utilization, measurable safety improvements, and clear community-wide benefits.
Good public policy starts with evidence, not assumptions. Show the data. Show the results. Then let the public decide whether more bike lanes are truly the best use of limited taxpayer resources.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(12) comments
There are no "Auto-Needs" - these are all "Auto-Industry-Wants".
Let's always remember, we are paying for driving with the "Addiction or Sinner's Tax" - the same tax we pay for drinking, smoking, or gambling. We always need to look who is making sane points or who seems a little on withdrawal.
The lessons learned with the Humboldt Bike Lanes was that people wanted them and liked them very much.
It was politicians like Amo Lee, Diane Papan, Rob Newsom, or Nicole Fernandez that were scheming to get them removed. YIMBY Lee and Papan even colluded with the Baywood NIMBY crowd. Now that is clearly a sign of addiction.
Hilarious. What is most telling is the accompanying photo which shows bike riders using the sidewalk instead of a dedicated bicycle lane. Folks, it is known that our so-called leaders will continue to waste our money to install discriminatory bike lanes with no supporting data. The photo says it all. Why impose lane diets discriminating against drivers when cyclists won’t use them? BTW, of the 129 collisions, how many were the fault of the pedestrian or cyclist? And out of how many potential interactions? Millions? Tens of millions?
TBot, here I thought you are ALL about protecting the biological woman from the biological male? Biological females need to be separated from violent biological men.
Biological females don't like to be killed by testerone-infused drivers of 6,000lbs vehicles with 500hp. The biological woman and the biological child needs Class 4 "Protected Bike Lanes" - the one biological Democrats like Papan, Speier, Becker or Mullins never granted them.
You think you’re clever but your attempt at comparing 6,000 pound vehicles to 200 pound perverted men pretending to be women is at best silly. 6,000 pound vehicles are not transitioning into 1,000 pound smart (dumb) cars.
eGerd – TBot here. Well, we know you’re not ALL about protection biological women from biological males. Regardless, I didn’t realize biological females were banned from driving 6,000lbs vehicles with 500hp or any vehicles of any weight or horsepower. Have Democrats instituted more discrimination against biological females? I can’t say I’d be surprised. Perhaps, eGerd, you can tell us out of the 129 collisions, how many were the fault of biological male vs. female drivers and how many were the fault of biological male vs. female pedestrians or cyclists? BTW, hat tip to CA Is Burning for the transitioning car remark. Bazinga!
You are correct, we also MUST protect the biological female, the biological male, the biological child, and everyone in between also from a female driving a 6,000lbs monster truck.
Thinking about it, maybe the monster truck is the real problem? And protected bike lanes are the only real solution?
And maybe if there were more protected bike lanes in San Mateo, no one would have to ride the sidewalk anymore, which btw. is legal in California.
Anyways, I'm glad we agree that protected bike lanes are a MUST for all genders and we can be very PRIDE of our findings and our compromise.
The bike lanes are Class II; they are not protected. Protected bike lanes, which are safer for kids who bike, require more room and would have required removal of parking on both sides of the streets. This is a compromise that doesn't get reported, however.
(Humboldt bike lanes)
I'll echo Joe Bob's comment that National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) standards called for Class IV separated bike lanes on N Humboldt St, given vehicle volume and speeds. That would have required street parking to be removed on both sides of the street, so the city compromised by removing parking only on one side and installing Class III bike lanes instead. As Joe Bob noted this compromise is rarely mentioned.
Agreed, so much of our existing infrastructure is already full of compromises. We constantly compromise on quality bike infrastructure and then act surprised that it is under utilized.
The compromise is rarely mentioned most likely because it was a terrible decision. Humboldt is a truck thoroughfare, where cars often travel much faster than the posted speed limit. It’s simply dangerous for anyone to be riding in those bike lanes and that’s why they are rarely used. We need thoughtful leadership on this going forward, speaking up against the mistakes made by being beholden to special interests and doing the right thing for residents. Rob Newsom has asked the hard questions and dispelled the misinformation put forth by special interests. We need his leadership, so reelect Rob for District 3 this fall to ensure true representation for residents.
San Mateo should be making transportation decisions based on objective data, measurable results, and the needs of the entire community — not pressure from a small but vocal advocacy group.
The Humboldt bike lane experiment removed significant parking and altered resident’s daily lives, and years later very little bike usage.
Before proposing additional bike lane projects that remove more parking, reduce traffic capacity, and spend millions of taxpayer dollars, the City should publicly release verifiable utilization data demonstrating actual demand and community benefit.
Bike lane advocates have long argued that additional bike infrastructure will dramatically increase ridership.
Yet years after installation, many corridors remain lightly used or not at all. At the same time, many more cyclists feel safe enough to ride on streets and routes that best fit their destinations, regardless of whether a designated bike lane exists. This says the Humboldt St. bike lane experiment was a failure as it did not increase safety, nor increase utilization, and the cost impacts to residents and the community continue.
San Mateo faces numerous competing priorities: aging roads, public safety needs, traffic congestion, infrastructure maintenance, parks, and essential city services.
Before spending millions more on additional bike lane projects and removing more parking and vehicle capacity, the City should first prove the existing bike lane experiments are delivering substantial utilization, measurable safety improvements, and clear community-wide benefits.
Good public policy starts with evidence, not assumptions. Show the data. Show the results. Then let the public decide whether more bike lanes are truly the best use of limited taxpayer resources.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.