In response to resounding opposition from some residents, San Mateo has revised its Delaware Street bike lane project so it does not eliminate a vehicle travel lane and potentially worsen congestion.
The city has had plans to upgrade the bike lanes along Delaware Street that would provide more protection and better delineation, but the original proposal would have eliminated one lane of vehicle travel between Bermuda Drive to Saratoga Drive, with dedicated turn lanes opening up after Saratoga Drive.
But many residents who live in the area said it would worsen traffic congestion, especially during school pick-up and drop-off times, and when rideshare and delivery vehicles temporarily park, which already tend to block the existing bike lanes. San Mateo County Event Center CEO Dana Stoehr has also previously said she was concerned about how the project would impede the flow of traffic around the center, especially during large events.
According to a staff report, rather than moving forward on the original project “where substantial public opposition remained,” the city decided to preserve the second southbound travel lane. In doing so, all lanes, including vehicle and bike, would be narrowed, and there would also be eight less parking spaces compared to the original proposal.
“Even if bicycle ridership were multiplied 500 times, and car usage only goes up by 5% it’s still a concern to be removing lanes, so I think we’ve done a good job of finding a solution,” Mayor Rob Newsom said. “As our community continues to grow it’s important that we plan for this growth and that our projects look for and find compromise at every turn.”
The project highlights a broader issue with which the city is contending — improving bike lane infrastructure while balancing the needs of nearby residents who park and drive their cars in the area. Earlier this year, the City Council voted to start the process of removing bike lanes on one street in the North Central neighborhood — funded by a $1.5 million federal grant that the city will probably have to repay in part — after residents complained about the subsequent loss of parking spaces and voicing concern their input wasn’t included prior to its implementation.
Initially, Councilmember Nicole Fernandez was “concerned about how this would affect surrounding residents and the lack of engagement with the Event Center,” but she said the revised plans are an ideal compromise.
“I know no group is 100% happy with the second design, and I understand those concerns , but … this is a start to the conversation,” she said. “Hopefully there will be more happy residents than unhappy residents.”
The City Council supported the updated design at its meeting Sept. 2.
(7) comments
It's time to have the tough talk about our council members and their addiction, because let's face it that is what this is really all about.
For the last 100 years, the US government sees fossil fuel and driving in the category of "Substance Abuse" and "Behavioral Addiction".
It's treated the same as tobacco, alcohol, weed, gambling, or tanning beds (you never heard of "tanorexia"?) and looking at statistics, the negative health outcomes are even worse than each one of those.
The arguments this council makes about 'emergency response times' and 'compromise' are wimpy at best and look corrupt at their worst. It's also very easy to recognize the lie.
We only have to look at them to realize that their votes are based on their own 'addiction to convenience'. They are violating plenty of city's forward looking plans because they can't wean themselves off their own substance and behavioral abuse issues.
But worse, they are sacrificing the current and future safety and health of many children that need to be out and about so they don't end up where these council members are today.
eGerd – TBot here. So you’re admitting what many have realized all this time - that driving is convenient. Soon, you’ll admit driving is efficient, too. Not only because lugging 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water isn’t convenient or efficient via cycling. And do you really think insulting the ones making decisions will magically cause them to agree with your pet issue? We saw how well that worked during the last election cycle. Perhaps if bicyclists starting paying cycling license fees or road tolls or additional fees to contribute to the changes you want for your pet issue, folks may be more empathetic to the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the very, very, many. Meanwhile, you may want to sit down before you read the article today about the life science building in San Carlos. I quote, “The parking garage is proposed at 65 feet tall, providing 694 parking spaces.”
I'm glad we went from "Driving is a NEED" to "Driving is a CONVENIENCE" ... actually it really is a luxury. Anyone who thinks otherwise there are 200,000 of human existence proving our point.
So TBot, we get it you are rich. Stop bragging!
With all this inflation and those tariffs, who can afford buying 10 bags of anything let alone groceries? And bottled water? A gallon of water is more expensive than a gallon of gasoline.
Bottled water (bacteria, microplastics) is basically a very expensive health hazard ... just like driving.
Btw. it's not me that is calling gasoline and driving a substance and behavioral addiction - it's AMERICA. In fact Alexander Hamilton was the one creating that special category for substances that can lead to bad behavior and addiction: alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, betting, ...
Or wait, have your Russian programmers still not taught you what an EXCISE TAX really is?
The reason people walking or biking don't have to pay gasoline excise tax is because they aren't responsible for burning down the planet or killing 40,000 Americans every year.
Bicyclist tried to pay license fees, but fire departments didn't even have the forms anymore. They said, the police can't even enforce the millions of drivers that drive illegally without license, registration or insurance or those 40% car pool cheaters. They certainly won't be going after a few kids on bicycles.
eGerd – TBot here. I like how you attempt to conflate car ownership with being rich. If that’s the case, you should probably inform everyone who owns a car (up to 280 million people) that they’re rich. I bet maybe half of these folks own bikes so are they “richer”? I appreciate you going off on tangents to make some point without addressing my comment – although I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. Maybe ask a Russia programmer. Bicyclist (sic) tried to pay license fees? Obviously they’re not trying very hard since these folks can just write checks or nowadays, Venmo, to transfer money to the state. But are any cyclists willing to do that? I’d bet not.
As for cheaters, don’t you think it’s cheating to expect gas taxes to pay for bicycle infrastructure? As for police not enforcing the laws, don’t you think our California politicians are cheating residents by not allowing law enforcement to do their job, such as in helping to remove invaders to our state? Meanwhile, when should we expect you or folks with your same mindset to cut a check to California for cycling licensing and infrastructure? Or will we get another nothingburger tangent? I’m betting the latter, because according to you, I can afford to bet. Along with up to 280 million other people.
TBot, Gasoline Excise tax is not an infrastructure tax - it is one of the "SIN TAXES" or "VICE TAXES".
Gasoline and driving let to bad behavior, substance abuse and behavioral addiction in America. That is the kind of things the Framers originally wanted to reign in through the sin or vice tax.
We are talking alcohol, tobacco, vaping, cannabis, gambling, lotteries, sports betting, and other bad, often addictive behavior. And American lawmakers put gasoline right in there, because of it's pollution; and driving because it leads to SLOTH (one of the big sins - which you like to call "convenience").
So why would people on bicycles have to pay "Sinner's Tax", when their mode of transportation isn't causing 40,000 dead Americans every year and millions in injuries.
Why would they have to pay the "Vice Tax" if their behavior is the opposite of SLOTH?
The Framers like obviously like those guys.
Bicycle infrastructure is never paid by gasoline tax - it's paid through sales taxes - and everyone pays those anyways.
The big question is why are Emergency Services - constantly out there fixing car violence issues - NOT paid through the gasoline tax - that would make way more sense?
Good news for drivers on Delaware Street. It seems councilmembers, at least on this issue, are compromising and taking into account the needs of the many over the needs of the very few pushing their pet issue. The power of protest…hey Bob Kauser and Steve Ortiz, it seems the power of protest wasn’t caused by folks loitering in the streets carrying hypocritical signs or inconveniencing travelers and yet they’ve achieved more than the protests defending criminals over American citizens.
Very good point Terence. Showing up at local city council meetings, school board, BOS, sending emails etc. on a specific issue can make a bigger difference than protesting in the streets because you don't like the current occupant of the White House.
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.