The San Mateo City Council voiced support for a controversial Delaware Street bike lane project, which would add protected cycling lanes and remove one lane of traffic on part of the road.
The city plans to upgrade the bike lanes along Delaware Street between 19th Avenue and Pacific Boulevard and improve pedestrian crossings. Both northbound and southbound lanes will receive more protected bike lanes with better delineation, but South Delaware Street will go from two lanes of traffic down to one lane from Bermuda Drive to Saratoga Drive, with dedicated turn lanes opening up after Saratoga Drive.
During a council meeting May 5, councilmembers voiced support for the project, however, they reiterated concerns regarding emergency response access.
“One of the concerns the [fire chief] said was to make sure we have a main thoroughfare for fire trucks. Fire trucks and ambulances use this corridor extensively and so there is some concern if you remove the ability for them to build a pass in one direction or another,” Mayor Rob Newsom said.
Dana Stoehr, CEO of the San Mateo County Event Center, echoed some of the concerns, especially since it is used as the county’s emergency response center.
“As the county’s emergency response center … narrowing southbound Delaware would significantly impede the flow of traffic even with the two additional left turn lanes onto Saratoga and provide undue burden on the other side of the Event Center,” Stoehr said. She also said that she was only informed of the plans recently.
Recommended for you
The project, estimated to cost $3.6 million — half from grants and half from local funds — has angered several residents of nearby complexes, who have voiced frustration over the potential traffic impacts. Other city residents have reiterated the need for stronger bike infrastructure, especially along the city’s busiest corridors.
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.
Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine said he understands how the change could create uncertainty for nearby residents but felt it was a net positive for the city.
“It connects so much. It connects us to these important parts of Delaware within our city but also through 19th and other parts of our city,” he said. “I feel that this is a relatively minor cost for a potentially large benefit to a lot of folks.”
The council will continue discussion on the city’s transit-related projects in June, and construction is expected to start this summer.
Here we go again… with another make work project to reward union labor which may result, again, in union labor undoing the bike lanes they’re planning on installing, such as what is occurring in North Central. Seems to me that $1.8 million in local funds could be better used elsewhere, such as fixing potholes or resurfacing El Camino Real. Meanwhile, I assume global warming isn’t a thing anymore since San Mateo is opting for more idling in traffic due to extended commute times due to another ill-advised road diet.
The 'fixing-pothole' union money went instead to the $600M "101-Lexus-Lane-equity-project" and now $600M+ will go to the "Lexus-Lane-Connector-eminent-domain-projects" in Redwood City and San Mateo - both set up to create more congestion, more pollution, more speeding, more car violence to the neighborhoods along 101.
On the one hand our political leaders (Canepa, Medina, Gee, 2xPapans, ...) are pushing all these pro-speeding-car projects into existence and therefore attacking public transit ridership. On the other hand the locals (San Mateo, Redwood City) later can spend another few millions to reign in all that speeding through "Road Diets" or "Traffic Calming".
All the while they are using transit and bike/ped funding to finance this grift.
eGerd – TBot here. Totally agree, in part – they need to include/pay as many employees as possible to use up that $600M so they can turn around and propose more measures to pay for ever increasing pensions and benefits. The small amount of funds used for fixing potholes isn’t high enough to require additional tax measures… As for your more congestion and more pollution, one can say those are anticipated consequences of road diets, too, so they cancel out.
The SMDJ seems to delight in celebrating supposed division. At the community meetings and city council meeting on this topic, almost all attendees were in support of the project. At City Council there were 13 public comments in support and 3 negative. That's hardly widespread division. Please stop representing this as 50/50 when it clearly is not.
Reading these articles, you would never be aware that >80% of the public who turned out to comment on this proposal (and the one on Humboldt) were supportive of safer streets instead of auto speeds and free parking. I wish the articles better captured the actual majority sentiment of the public as opposed to focusing on the perceived negatives.
For context, many communities on the Peninsula have implemented road diets in recent years - Farm Hill in RWC, California in Burlingame, etc. I haven't heard anything about an increase in challenges to emergency response times. Traffic adapts to the changes. If anything, cut through traffic stays on highways and major arterials instead of migrating to smaller streets with more people on foot and bike.
Furthermore, the article provides little context for the need for the proposed safety improvements. There is no mention of the Nueva student who was hit while scooting on Delaware at 28th. Nor was there a mention of the multiple complaints of speeding and street racing on Delaware - including by the Events Center CEO.
Whenever your city staff or your council (like San Mateo or Burlingame) tries using emergency response times as a reason not to install bike lanes, they are just messing with us.
A] Emergency Response is hardly ever inhibited by bikes or bike lanes. They are also no danger to emergency responders themselves.
B] The three most dangerous problems that reduce traffic flow and therefore Emergency Response Times are speeding cars, driving cars, and parked cars.
Problem 1: Speeding cars - those are the ones causing many of these emergencies in the first place
Problem 2: Driving cars - the second most common ways fire fighters die on the job is by being killed by these cars
Problem 3: Parked cars - these are cars where owners use the public street as 'private storage' while blocking traffic and fire lanes, even hydrants
C] Since few people can read and understand plans like this, let me help. The main reason for this project is NOT to have "bike lanes" or even "safe-routes-to-schools" (there are no schools here) - the plan tells anyone in the know that the main reason here is about speeders and reckless drivers. So this is all about reducing problem 1.
D] Considering problem 3, if the city or CEO was so concerned about the emergency response center, why is currently private car storage allowed on this street?
Because if Burlingame or San Mateo really cared they would try harder to reduce speed, get people out of cars, and have an overnight parking permit ordinance (like Menlo Park) to make sure everyone takes care of their own storage need and doesn't burden the public.
This would protect our emergency responders and improve emergency response times.
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!
(6) comments
Here we go again… with another make work project to reward union labor which may result, again, in union labor undoing the bike lanes they’re planning on installing, such as what is occurring in North Central. Seems to me that $1.8 million in local funds could be better used elsewhere, such as fixing potholes or resurfacing El Camino Real. Meanwhile, I assume global warming isn’t a thing anymore since San Mateo is opting for more idling in traffic due to extended commute times due to another ill-advised road diet.
Totally agree TBot.
The 'fixing-pothole' union money went instead to the $600M "101-Lexus-Lane-equity-project" and now $600M+ will go to the "Lexus-Lane-Connector-eminent-domain-projects" in Redwood City and San Mateo - both set up to create more congestion, more pollution, more speeding, more car violence to the neighborhoods along 101.
On the one hand our political leaders (Canepa, Medina, Gee, 2xPapans, ...) are pushing all these pro-speeding-car projects into existence and therefore attacking public transit ridership. On the other hand the locals (San Mateo, Redwood City) later can spend another few millions to reign in all that speeding through "Road Diets" or "Traffic Calming".
All the while they are using transit and bike/ped funding to finance this grift.
eGerd – TBot here. Totally agree, in part – they need to include/pay as many employees as possible to use up that $600M so they can turn around and propose more measures to pay for ever increasing pensions and benefits. The small amount of funds used for fixing potholes isn’t high enough to require additional tax measures… As for your more congestion and more pollution, one can say those are anticipated consequences of road diets, too, so they cancel out.
The SMDJ seems to delight in celebrating supposed division. At the community meetings and city council meeting on this topic, almost all attendees were in support of the project. At City Council there were 13 public comments in support and 3 negative. That's hardly widespread division. Please stop representing this as 50/50 when it clearly is not.
Reading these articles, you would never be aware that >80% of the public who turned out to comment on this proposal (and the one on Humboldt) were supportive of safer streets instead of auto speeds and free parking. I wish the articles better captured the actual majority sentiment of the public as opposed to focusing on the perceived negatives.
For context, many communities on the Peninsula have implemented road diets in recent years - Farm Hill in RWC, California in Burlingame, etc. I haven't heard anything about an increase in challenges to emergency response times. Traffic adapts to the changes. If anything, cut through traffic stays on highways and major arterials instead of migrating to smaller streets with more people on foot and bike.
Furthermore, the article provides little context for the need for the proposed safety improvements. There is no mention of the Nueva student who was hit while scooting on Delaware at 28th. Nor was there a mention of the multiple complaints of speeding and street racing on Delaware - including by the Events Center CEO.
Whenever your city staff or your council (like San Mateo or Burlingame) tries using emergency response times as a reason not to install bike lanes, they are just messing with us.
A] Emergency Response is hardly ever inhibited by bikes or bike lanes. They are also no danger to emergency responders themselves.
B] The three most dangerous problems that reduce traffic flow and therefore Emergency Response Times are speeding cars, driving cars, and parked cars.
Problem 1: Speeding cars - those are the ones causing many of these emergencies in the first place
Problem 2: Driving cars - the second most common ways fire fighters die on the job is by being killed by these cars
Problem 3: Parked cars - these are cars where owners use the public street as 'private storage' while blocking traffic and fire lanes, even hydrants
C] Since few people can read and understand plans like this, let me help. The main reason for this project is NOT to have "bike lanes" or even "safe-routes-to-schools" (there are no schools here) - the plan tells anyone in the know that the main reason here is about speeders and reckless drivers. So this is all about reducing problem 1.
D] Considering problem 3, if the city or CEO was so concerned about the emergency response center, why is currently private car storage allowed on this street?
Because if Burlingame or San Mateo really cared they would try harder to reduce speed, get people out of cars, and have an overnight parking permit ordinance (like Menlo Park) to make sure everyone takes care of their own storage need and doesn't burden the public.
This would protect our emergency responders and improve emergency response times.
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.