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!
Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.
Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal. We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
Premium Subscription
As low as $8.25 per week
Premium Includes:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
| Rate | Price | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Year | $99.00 | for 365 days |
| 1 Month | $20.00 | for 30 days |
| 1 Week | $8.25 | for 7 days |
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
DJ Basic Subscription
As low as $5 per month
Basic includes:
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
What you're missing -- Additional features available only with the Premium level:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
All for as low as $8.25 per month.
| Rate | Price | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Year | $60.00 | for 365 days |
| 1 Month | $12.00 | for 30 days |
| 1 Week | $5.00 | for 7 days |
Ryan Fuller lights a candle for a vigil honoring the life of Andrea Vallebueno, a 31-year-old bicyclist who died after being struck by a car on the Holly Street/Highway 101 overpass in San Carlos Nov. 16, 2024.
Although long-term improvements to the Holly Street/Highway 101 interchange in San Carlos are a city priority, pedestrian and bike advocates are working with staff on mitigations that can address concerns in the meantime.
The city has sought to make changes to the notorious overpass for over a decade, but after bicyclist Andrea Vallebueno was struck by a car and died in November, the improvements have remained front of mind.
Since, the city has worked closely with community advocates to come up with “long-awaited” solutions, bike safety advocate Mike Swire said. At a previous listening session, the community gathered and mourned the loss of Vallebueno, and shared early ideas of improvements they hoped to see.
“This was a more upbeat meeting,” Swire said. “We held a moment of silence for Andrea at the beginning, remembered why we were there, and then we were looking forward. This time was really about solutions.”
The city has worked with Caltrans to add additional signs and high visibility crosswalks that were completed this month.
A pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing over Highway 101 is the ultimate goal, and previous plans for one were once close to breaking ground, but were ultimately halted because funds were allocated elsewhere.
Luckily, city staff said those original plans will be able to be repurposed — saving time avoiding going back to the drawing board — and the pedestrian bridge may be able to be completed in as soon as six years, Swire said.
In the meantime, three alternative mitigations were proposed by city staff at the most recent community meeting, to address safety concerns.
Alternative 1 proposes a mix of separated bikeways and bike lanes, maintaining the existing driving lane configuration. Flashing beacons will also be added at highway on- and off-ramps. This proposal is estimated to take one to two years to complete, and cost $3 million to $4 million.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 propose more involved solutions, both that would take closer to five years to complete and cost between $6 million and $8 million.
Alternative 2 proposes a separated bikeway, with vehicle lane reduction in both directions between Shoreway Road and Twin Dolphin Drive, and in the southbound direction between Shoreway Road and the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp. New bike signals would be added at Shoreway Road and Industrial Road, as well.
Alternative 3 proposes a two-way separated bikeway in the center of the street between Industrial Road and Shoreway Road and transitions to curbside separate bikeways elsewhere. This would include vehicle lane reductions similar to Alternative 2.
Each alternative plan has its own advantages and disadvantages, and there was no clear consensus of which was the favorite by residents, Swire said.
“Sooner we can get something in, the better we can prevent another tragedy, but certainly the strongest and safest option would take longer and cost more,” Swire said.
Swire commended San Carlos staff and councilmembers for their prioritization of the road improvements.
“This is a great example of how a city should respond to someone dying,” Swire said. “This is a good example of trying to prevent it from ever happening again.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Plaza Suite Read morePlaza Suite
Classic, custom & vintage automobiles displayed throughout the day along with music, loc… Read more2025 San Mateo Rotary Car Show
Join us for this family-friendly event, and explore how green buildings can help shape a hea… Read moreGreen Building Tour: Greenprints for a Brighter Future
LittleFoot said:
Just ask the people from Lahaina Maui - FEMA are a Satanic organization.
LittleFoot said:
LittleFoot said:
Anybody with a nose ring is mentally ill.
LauraB1969 said:
Sue Lempert said:
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
(13) comments
Assuming some kind of improvement is going to happen, I can see it now… three Alternatives (for now) where money is no object are going to cause analysis paralysis while the price tag goes higher and the completion time becomes longer. Perhaps a different method to determine a path forward… Set an upper price tag of say, $5 million, and determine which options would work. If the option doesn’t fit the price tag – gone. If there are any cost overruns after the project has started, bells and whistles are sacrificed. Or set up a toll for bikers crossing the overpass until the overage is paid. Fastrak?
Fastrak for people who bike on Holly across 101 but free passage for those who drive the same route. Sounds like sound policy.
TBot, I agree with you completely.
Streets are made for transportation and transportation has value. And in the olden times - when America was still great - you had to pay your way along the Oregon Trail. You paid scouts, you paid toll at bridges, you paid the ferryman.
There should absolutely be a toll system where EVERYONE pays according to the weight they drive around. I would even go as far as asking to double the price for all the wasteful weight logged around.
Let's do a math example.
An 60lbs e-bike logging around a 200lbs person and 4 grocery bags (20lbs) does not require an expensive bridge nor much earthquake proving. That is a ratio of 60/220 = 0.27
A 6000lbs Heavy-Duty-Truck logging around a 300lbs person and 10 grocery bags (50lbs) does require expensive bridges and a lot of earthquake proving. That ratio is 6000/350 = 17.14
Fastrak could then be set up on a scale:
The cyclist would receive 2.7 cents every time they cross the bridge and the heavy duty vehicle driver would pay 171.4 cents.
Sounds fair, doesn't it, especially considering how many potholes the truck will create vs the bicycle.
Two for one… Thanks for your responses, eGerd and joebob91.
eGerd – TBot here. An interesting proposition but as with most things, the devil is in the details. A few issues come immediately to mind. You wouldn’t be able to verify separate weights for each vehicle and driver load combination dynamically which means everyone needs to stop. Operators would drive the vehicle on a scale with themselves and their load to get weighed and then remove themselves and their load to be weighed to obtain the difference for your toll calculation. If you thought stop/go traffic was bad now…imagine each car having to stop for a few minutes, at a minimum. And the outrage from those being weighed, “No, I do not weigh 250 lbs, your scale is wrong. I object! Where’s your scale calibration certificate! I’m not leaving until you fix it.” Hazard pay for toll collectors?
Assuming you can do the impossible and get folks past the outrage and inconvenience, the next stage is folks who may game the system. If I understand how your ratio works... For any vehicle, especially trucks, why wouldn’t folks haul rocks or cement to lower their toll (while their heavier load takes a bigger toll on roads)? Or, if folks find a way to reduce their ratio below 1 then they can also receive refunds. On the bright side (not if you’re in the self-driving car business) your ratio provides incentive to not have self-driving cars with no passenger or load. And wouldn’t your ratio discriminate against those able to achieve their ideal weight profile? Seems to me that Fastrak for cyclists remains the simplest option. We already have technology in place to charge tolls dynamically. As Larry the Cable Guy (if I recall correctly) is fond of saying, “Git ‘er done.” Yes?
Thanks for your response, joebob91, but please remind us how much bicyclists pay in gas taxes for transportation infrastructure (that includes the construction and maintenance of roads and highways). Shouldn’t cyclists pay their fair share? Since we already use it for bridges and express lanes, it shouldn’t be difficult to install RFID technology to monitor Fastrak for cyclists. In fact, I’d recommend listing the installation and operation of RFID in the RFP for that project. As Larry the Cable Guy (if I recall correctly) is fond of saying, “Git ‘er done.” Yes?
Let's address the gas tax myth:
Tax Foundation (2019) - Share of State & Local Road Spending Covered by State & Local Tolls, User Fees, and User Taxes, Fiscal Year 2016:
- Gas Tax: 51%
- Gas Tax, Tolls, Fee: 60% - that made them rank #12 in the country - Hawaii #1 (73%) Florida #2 (72%)
Meaning Californian's have never paid for all the infrastructure they are getting for free. They have also not paid for all the cost cars and drivers are dumping onto our police and emergency responders. The measly sales tax, even including the HOV lane fees have been able to catch all these car pool cheaters invited and released onto 101 express lanes. San Mateo's drivers are still behind on these payments to the CHP for that one.
Add in all the free on-street parking - 4 out of 5 parking spots are empty on a regular basis - that is quite the waste in an area where real estate is valuable and parking lots don't create property tax or income.
According to research done by the Tax Foundation and various Universities world wide:
- people on bicycle are a huge boon to society as they are a net benefit (healthier, happier, smarter, better looking, etc.)
- people in cars however are a costing society by a huge margin (physical health, mental health, obesity, depression, dementia, etc.)
(now if Rob, Adam, Danielle, Nicole, Lisa were less opinionated, more knowledgeable and would read, they would know this information from ca. 20 different plans paid for with millions of dollars for redundant "studies" in San Mateo County).
Anyways, several EU states, Canada, Japan, etc. did years of research on this topic as well and the EU is going now with these calculations:
- Driving 1km is costing society 11 cents.
- biking 1km is benefitting society 18 cents.
- walking 1km is benefitting society 37 cents.
If San Carlos wanted to do this right, every car would pay 11 cents when crossing, every person on foot or bicycle would gain 18 or 37 cents. That would also show that San Mateo Democrats actually are as "green" and as smart as they pretend to be.
eGerd – TBot here. The most relevant takeaway from your response… You’re confirming gas taxes are used to pay for infrastructure and you’re confirming bicyclists do not pay for any of the infrastructure they’re using. Doesn’t sound like bicyclists are paying their fair share. You haven’t mentioned that gas taxes are diverted for non-related items, including subsidizing money-losing transportation, such as ferries. Perhaps if these funds weren’t diverted, Californians would get the infrastructure they’re paying for. Meanwhile, let’s work on solutions so cyclists begin paying their fair share. Enforcing laws and imposing fines on scofflaws. Fastrak for cyclists. Registration fees for cyclists comparable to that of vehicles. What else?
Most people on bicycles also own cars, so they are also paying vehicle license fees and sales tax and even gas tax when they fill up. They also pay income tax and property tax. They just drive fewer miles.
But gas tax, vehicle license fee and sales tax are not high enough, so the driver is creating a deficit.
That deficit is currently financed through the General Fund (paid by people walking and biking), bonds and of course the National deficit, which the current administration has chosen to increase again. Which means more US infrastructure will be owned by China or the Social Security Administration.
Basically every time a person is using their car, they are cheating society by 11 cents (btw. that value is at least 20 cent in the US). Every time a person is using their bicycle, society is owing them 18 cents.
Unfortunately car-socialism means that society is stuck with that debt, which the driver will never pay back. It also means the person on the bicycle will not get the reward they deserve for not creating harmful air pollution or just simple potholes.
eGerd – TBot here. The most relevant takeaway from your response, again… You’re reconfirming gas taxes are used to pay for infrastructure and you’re reconfirming bicyclists do not pay for any of the infrastructure they’re using. It still doesn’t sound like bicyclists are paying their fair share and so we need solutions so cyclists begin paying their fair share. And we’ve already gone over this “harmful air pollution” thing. People say they care and talk the talk but just about nobody does anything to walk the walk so it’s not a consideration.
TBot, I always thought Math is a strong suit of the Russians and would translate easily to a Russian chatbot, what happened?
Or maybe its the Kilometer thing:
- Driving 1km: -11 cents - as US debt to China
- biking 1km: +18 cents in benefits towards MAGA and MAHA
- walking 1km: +37 cents.in benefits towards MAGA and MAHA
Anyone claiming to be an US Patriot and driving a car is basically a liar stealing from this great country and handing our infrastructure to China.
Or in Russian: If a Deli charges you $1 for a bowl of Borscht soup and you throw only 50 cents on the counter and run out, you have not financed the Deli, you are still stealing from that Deli. Basically you committed a Borscht-Hit-and-Run.
eGerd – TBot here. The most relevant takeaway from your response. You’re unable to refute that gas taxes are used to pay for infrastructure and you’re unable to refute bicyclists do not pay for any of the infrastructure they’re using. Instead, you go off on an irrelevant tangent. This brings an end to this discussion. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
TBot - Yes, yes, the Socialists are running out of arguments. In the end everyone becomes an Socialist when the Government should make people pay real usage fee for "Freeways" and "Free Parking".
We pay usage fee to pay for our electricity, we pay usage fee to pay for water and sewage, we pay full price for groceries, we pay full price to get our garbage remove, but don't come for our "Freeways" or free on-street parking. That is holy ground.
Why would cyclists have to pay gas tax that is only paying for Freeways. They don't use gas and they aren't allowed to use "Freeways" either.
eGerd – TBot here. The most relevant takeaway from your response. You’re unable to refute that gas taxes are used to pay for infrastructure and you’re unable to refute bicyclists do not pay for any of the infrastructure they’re using. Instead, you try to convince everyone (to no avail) that gas taxes are used only on “freeways” which they’re not. BTW, I’m not proposing cyclists pay a gas tax. I’m proposing cyclists pay their fair share for using the infrastructure they’ve been using for free. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
TBot, thanks for your remarks, that gives me another chance to make even more points.
Voters approved California gas tax in 1923.
California had local streets long before that. Which means by that account alone California drivers are some 25 years behind in their gas tax payments.
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.