Proposed bike lanes along 19th Avenue and Fashion Island Boulevard are part of a growing number of projects that are expanding rifts between some neighborhood residents and bike and transit advocates.
19th Avenue, which eventually turns into Fashion Island Boulevard, intersects with highway on- and off-ramps, including Highway 101 and State Route 92. The road, with one lane in each direction, is also one of the only entrances into Foster City, leading to high congestion during peak commute hours especially from those looking for another entry point to eastbound 92.
The project would implement Class IV bike lanes — which are separated and thus more protected from vehicles — and pedestrian crossing improvements along the corridor between Pacific and Mariners Island boulevards.
Rich Hedges, a former councilmember, said there were some opponents during a community meeting July 15, but said many others, including himself, were in favor of the protected bike lanes and felt it could relieve congestion as well.
“It’s important to note that the bike lanes will pass several modes of public transportation,” Hedges said, citing bus lines, including 251, 250 and 292, that connect to Caltrain stations and other major hubs. “People will have options who are on bikes to take their trip regionally or locally on public transit.”
San Mateo resident Max Mautner said many of the vehicles along the corridor are traveling under 1 mile, and safer bike lanes and pedestrian crossings would encourage more people to use nonvehicle transport, reducing congestion.
“The Peninsula is really physically divided by [Highway] 101, and anything that cities up and down the county can do to make short trips under a mile not require a car is amazing,” he said.
To address vehicle congestion, the project would also reconfigure lanes on the Seal Slough bridge, creating two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane, instead of the current configuration, which comprises one eastbound lane and two westbound.
But Susan Manheimer, a former San Mateo police chief who lives east of the proposal, said she’s skeptical of the city’s claims the project would significantly relieve vehicle congestion, as installing the bike lanes would remove the possibility of adding a second lane, which is the most effective way to provide much-needed relief along the road, which has been a request of residents for decades.
“We’ve been working on and waiting for congestion relief for over 20 years, and now we’re going to take that money and work on bike lanes,” she said.
The design costs are mostly financed by a San Mateo County Transportation Authority grant, though construction, estimated to be around $21 million, still faces funding gaps.
Over the past few months, some residents in the Ironwood apartment complex have voiced opposition to another bike lane project along Delaware Street, stating it will also negatively impact congestion, as it would get rid of one lane of traffic on a major San Mateo road.
Perhaps the most notable, recent bike lane controversy took place in the North Central neighborhood, where, as part of a $1.5 million federal grant, the lanes along Humboldt Street and Poplar Avenue were installed in the area, removing about 200 parking spaces, and the initiative caused an uproar in the neighborhood. Earlier this year, just a couple years after their installation, the City Council voted to start the process of removing some of the lanes to reinstate about 100 parking spaces. Not only has the move angered some community members, including cyclists and bike advocates, but it likely means the city will have to repay much of the grant.
Opponents of the bike lanes have said that neighborhood residents voiced their disapproval prior to the implementation, but the city pushed ahead anyway.
“These neighborhoods, and the San Mateo County Event Center, are all now uniting their voices to ensure that the neighborhoods are not harmed by ideological decisions in favor of the really critical traffic engineering and public safety policies,” Manheimer said.
Because many of these projects are funded via regional, state or even federal grants, Manheimer said cities feel like they have to move forward on a project, simply because there is money for it.
“Sometimes with grant funding, it’s like the tail wagging the dog. You can’t chase the money just because the money is there,” she said. “The responsible thing is to do what the city needs.”
Mautner said the grant funding is in fact an important piece in the city and county’s overall goal of creating more bike and pedestrian connectivity, and widening the road will only incentivize more driving.
“If San Mateo doesn’t get this grant money from the county and federal money, it’s a missed opportunity for connecting the east and west sides of [Highway] 101,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for improving the residents’ mobility in that area over [State Route] 92 drivers. If you created more roadway … you’re inducing more spillover traffic at the expense of residents’ mobility options.”
City staff predict the project can be completed by 2026.
(6) comments
quote: "Susan Manheimer, a former San Mateo police chief who lives east of the proposal, said she’s skeptical of the city’s claims the project would significantly relieve vehicle congestion, as installing the bike lanes would remove the possibility of adding a second lane, which is the most effective way to provide much-needed relief along the road,"
A former police chief usually knows that two lane roads only lead to more congestion and more importantly more speeding when there is no congestion. More speeding usually leads to more crashes and/or more complaints by the residents about speeders. Both requires more police officers to step in and solve this "self-inflicted" problem caused by the second lane. This is more about job security then sound transportation research.
Bike lanes on the other hand - and if connected to a safe network - are known to reduce speeding and congestion.
This police chiefs version of congestion relief has been tried in cities like New York and Los Angeles and has miserably failed there.
The bike lane solution however works very well in many smart, modern cities of this world. We can assume the police chief knows this as well.
Ah, yes, confirmation that “use-it-or-lose-it” grant money is a driving force behind how San Mateo makes decisions affecting bicycle lanes, which caused the short-sighted decision behind installing North Central bike lanes that backfired. And yet, here we go again…all because of potential “use-it-or-lose-it” money (and this money still faces funding gaps). (Another way of looking at it – money for union labor.) Hey folks, how about gathering data to determine if bike lanes are needed or how much usage the road sees from cyclists, or analyses to see if bike lanes can be installed without road diets or losing parking. But ultimately will it come down to the amount of “free” money” forcing their decision? And as a plus, it’ll be more work and money to uninstall any changes.
Did you read the article or just make assumptions based on your political leanings? There is no mention of road diets or parking loss for the 19th/FI project.
I don't understand the "use it or lose it" argument against the project. Are you saying that because there is external funding for the project (i.e., not costing SM taxpayers as much), we should not do a project that has merits? Would it be OK if SM taxpayers were paying 100%?
Thanks for your responses, joebob91. I’m opposed to any grants, however funded, which attach use-it-or lose-it conditions. If ideas have data supporting their implementation and overall public support, they should move forward. Projects which help a subset, or a minor subset, such as cyclists should not be considered or funded unless they have an overall benefit. As for the 19th Ave/FI lanes, please point me to a finalized project plan which does not include road diets. Until such time, everything is on the table. And, based on a sample of folks commenting on bicycle lanes, I’d say the issue is not related to any particular political party.
at this point it's hard to disagree. Voters have approved plenty of local sales tax measures. If so-called "Advocates" would make sure that money actually goes where voters approved, no additional grants would be needed. However San Mateo Democrats always find ways to give that money to cars and drivers unwilling to pay there fair share.
For example when money for two ped/bridges went to Lexus Lanes instead.
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.