Concerns flowing over highway widening plan

But only a few weeks ago, he learned that he may have to leave his hometown, not because of a job, family or personal preference — but because of a express lane between Highway 101 and State Route 92 that could potentially be constructed in his neighborhood, thus triggering eminent domain — a stipulation that owners may have to sell their land under certain circumstances, provided it will be used for public use. Unlike previous plans, the current proposal options wouldn’t take any houses or parks, but it could involve taking other land such as backyards. The two areas in question are on the southwest side of Highway 101, in the Fiesta Gardens neighborhood south of State Route 92, and on the northeast side of Highway 101, in the Shoreview neighborhood north of State Route 92.

The 92/101 connector lane project 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 project would add a connecting lane between State Route 92 and Highway 101 and would be similar to the current Highway 101 express lanes, which employ a demand pricing model, though high-occupancy vehicles would be exempt or receive a discount.

Like several of his neighbors, Nelson found out about the project right before a City Council meeting April 7, when a representative from the Transportation Authority, a sponsor for the project, presented its status and next steps. Because the initiative is in its early stages — the agency could still scrap the project — the impact of community feedback could be limited, said Amy Linehan, government and community affairs officer at the TA. Once an environmental impact report is finalized, likely fall 2026, a 45-day public comment period would take place.

Nelson said he felt the presentation didn’t do much to allay residents’ fears, adding that it’s unrealistic to expect affected property owners to hold off for over a year before voicing concern.

“They’re saying, ‘When the time comes, we’ll open up a one-month window so you can come in, and we can hear your voice,’ which would be next year after their minds are probably made up,” Nelson said. “Right now, it feels like we can talk about, but we can’t have our voices heard by anybody meaningfully … it felt condescending.”

Nelson said if his backyard was affected, he would probably put his house on the market — possibly going to the East Bay — as prices have only increased in the years since he purchased the home.

“I would probably put it up for sale, since that isn’t the house that I bought,” he said.

San Mateo Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, whose district holds some of the potentially affected areas, said she understands the process is in the early stages but feels the communication about the project hasn’t been clear and transparent. She, along with a majority of other councilmembers, decided to pen a letter to various transit agencies. A council vote on sending the letter is Monday, May 5. The proposed letter states the city is particularly concerned with eminent domain, equity impacts from toll lanes, environmental effects and lack of communication with residents.

“Communication early and often is 50% of it. [The TA] has mentioned having office hours, but where are the office hours? I’ve gone out three times to these impacted areas, and I’m the only face they’re seeing,” she said. “Give us a timeline and schedule of when communication is coming and when office hours are coming.”

The connector lane would encompass parts of both San Mateo and Foster City, though no eminent domain is proposed for the latter. Foster City Mayor Stacy Jimenez said the eminent domain factor is clearly a big concern, but there are major benefits to the project as well.

“There is a definite need for help with traffic along the 92/101 interchange, for our residents to get in and out of the city. There are growing concerns, particularly in response to wildfires and people trying to evacuate in times of emergency. We know that that could be a problem,” Jimenez said. “The concern that we’re seeing from our residents is a concern for our neighbors in San Mateo … the eminent portion is still nebulous.”

The San Mateo letter also asks Foster City to co-sign its opposition with the City Council, though Jimenez said the council plans to wait until it hears a formal TA presentation May 19.

A frequent point of contention revolves around the transit agencies’ central goal of the project — reducing congestion. Opponents, including Nelson, have pointed out that creating more lanes only incentivizes driving, and an express lane may create more congestion in other non-managed lanes. Data from the current Highway 101 express lanes has not indicated whether they’ve reduced or exacerbated traffic over the last couple years.

“The more data we have the better off we are,” Jimenez said. “But it’s a little tricky because we are trying to figure out what that data is … are we seeing more traffic simply because there are more people on the road and people are going back in to work, or are we seeing more traffic because of the managed lane? I just don’t think we know that yet.”

Nelson said that he hopes local and state transit agencies listen to neighborhood residents, as he and his wife have put significant time and energy into establishing connections with the neighborhood families.

“It’s the equity in the community that doesn’t have a monetary value,” he said.

alyse@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102