Transit officials are soliciting feedback from San Mateo over a once-controversial 101/92 interchange project, which alleviated some concerns after confirming it would not involve acquiring private property.
The project, which would add a connecting lane between State Route 92 and Highway 101, has been a discussion topic for years, with transit agencies such as the San Mateo County Transportation Authority stating it could reduce congestion and improve safety by using a new ramp connector to get from one freeway to another. The lane would be similar to the current Highway 101 express lanes, which employ a demand pricing model, however, high-occupancy vehicles would be exempt or receive a discount.
The prospect of acquiring such property garnered pushback to the project last year, as it originally involved acquiring more than 30 parcels of private property via eminent domain, which stipulates that owners may have to sell their land under certain circumstances, provided it will be used for public use.
Now, none of the options involve taking homes or parks, however, two of the options could involve taking portions of the existing utility easement — the area between property owner’s rear fences and the freeway sound wall — and portions of two residential yards along Norton Street, said Carolyn Mamaradlo, senior project engineer at the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, during the San Mateo City Council meeting May 4.
That’s part of the reason the completion of the current environmental and technical review phase has been delayed until 2027, as transit officials worked to develop another option that didn’t involve acquiring any new property.
According to current plans, the first alternative would add a direct connection from westbound State Route 92 to both directions of the Highway 101 express lanes, which could mitigate morning congestion; a reversible lane that could serve both morning and evening demands; or a connection from the Highway 101 express lanes to eastbound State Route 92 to alleviate evening traffic. The last option would not require any additional property acquisition.
Recommended for you
Some transit advocates have pushed back on the project, claiming it could incentivize more vehicle travel, while the agency has also been analyzing the impacts of cut-through traffic by those who try to avoid the often-congested 101/92 interchange by driving on side streets.
San Mateo resident Kevin Simpson said during public comment that the best way to improve congestion in that area is “to put transit on 92 across the Bay, and we’re not doing anything about that.”
The plan could also include updates to the Hillsdale ramps connecting Highway 101, aimed at reducing collisions and reducing cut-through traffic on Hillsdale Boulevard.
“With the extended auxiliary lane, people have more time to merge and weave safety, reducing the likelihood of crashes on 101,” Mamaradlo said.
Councilmembers were relieved the updated design would not require acquisition of homes, though Councilmember Rob Newsom echoed community concerns about whether “there is any proof that this is actually alleviating congestion rather than a pay-to-play model to get to the front of the line.”
Full funding for the design and construction phases have yet to be secured. Construction could start as early as 2030 if financial gaps are filled and technical studies are quickly approved.
Folks, it doesn’t matter whether the project eases traffic or not. It is a matter of whether our so-called leaders need another make-work project to transfer taxpayer money from your wallet to those of ever-increasing transportation union salaries, pensions, and benefits. We can only hope funding is not secured. BTW, transit advocates will always claim more lanes incentivize more vehicle travel. There is no definitive evidence.
More streets, more lanes, more cars… and capitalism.
Even Kevin Costner knew: “If you build it, they will come.” If you subsidize something as expensive as car infrastructure and then give it away for free, of course more people will want it.
I believe even Eisenhower D. Dwight famously said something like ""In the councils of city planning, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the automobile-petroleum complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced asphalt exists and will persist." ... and then he started the National Highway System with some 3,300,000 miles. Without those highways there is simple no highway congestion.
And sure, San Mateo Democrats have never cared much about equity, climate change, air pollution, or current California law. That is what 'addiction' to 'sponsorships' by the automobile-petroleum complex is doing to these poor and weak people.
Thank you, Councilman Newsom, for your concern on whether this project will actually help congestion or make it worse.
Sadly, there is no discussion of cost here. Many taxpayers are concerned that spending $300M on this project is not the highest priority when Caltrain and BART and threatening service cuts, potholes are everywhere, and pedestrians are afraid to cross the street without getting hit.
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!
(3) comments
Folks, it doesn’t matter whether the project eases traffic or not. It is a matter of whether our so-called leaders need another make-work project to transfer taxpayer money from your wallet to those of ever-increasing transportation union salaries, pensions, and benefits. We can only hope funding is not secured. BTW, transit advocates will always claim more lanes incentivize more vehicle travel. There is no definitive evidence.
More streets, more lanes, more cars… and capitalism.
Even Kevin Costner knew: “If you build it, they will come.” If you subsidize something as expensive as car infrastructure and then give it away for free, of course more people will want it.
I believe even Eisenhower D. Dwight famously said something like ""In the councils of city planning, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the automobile-petroleum complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced asphalt exists and will persist." ... and then he started the National Highway System with some 3,300,000 miles. Without those highways there is simple no highway congestion.
And sure, San Mateo Democrats have never cared much about equity, climate change, air pollution, or current California law. That is what 'addiction' to 'sponsorships' by the automobile-petroleum complex is doing to these poor and weak people.
Thank you, Councilman Newsom, for your concern on whether this project will actually help congestion or make it worse.
Sadly, there is no discussion of cost here. Many taxpayers are concerned that spending $300M on this project is not the highest priority when Caltrain and BART and threatening service cuts, potholes are everywhere, and pedestrians are afraid to cross the street without getting hit.
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.