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 lane 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.
Agency officials are contemplating a few options. One 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 connection from the Highway 101 express lanes to eastbound State Route 92 to alleviate evening traffic; or a reversible lane that could serve both morning and evening demands.
While the project is still in the early stages, it would likely involve 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.
During a San Mateo City Council meeting Monday, April 7, most voiced opposition to the project during the public comment period. Some noted the impact to longtime residents in the area near the proposed project, such as the homes along Adams Street, and also expressed skepticism over the assumption that adding such a lane would in fact reduce congestion. Similar to the opposition over extending the express lanes north of Interstate 380, some residents argued more lane capacity only incentivizes driving.
“We currently do not have any mass transit system going from Caltrain over to BART on the other side. There’s no mass transit going across. That needs to be explored before you start ripping out houses,” James Cutler said. “Otherwise we’re going to have 20 lanes … and we’ll still have the problem.”
Most councilmembers agreed to write a letter to various agencies and representatives, including the TA and Caltrans, expressing the council’s opposition to moving forward with the project.
“Everything I’ve read about this project does not lead me to believe that this project will solve for, or even alleviate, any of the east-west commute problems we have. The project appears to be diamond lanes to nowhere, and while diamond lanes used to be for carpools, HOVs and commuter buses, now these lanes have become more pay to play, and the pricing is all over the place,” Mayor Rob Newsom said.
Though a longtime advocate for bicycling and public transit, Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine said he felt the TA should move forward with the environmental review process that will include more in-depth analysis of traffic impacts and local concerns.
“I’m concerned that a lot of what I’ve heard tonight comes from concerns that seem to me to be worried about the worst-case scenarios that have not yet been proven with the analysis work that was to be done. And this work came about due to previous sustained interest in addressing traffic and congestion at 92 and 101 for decades,” Loraine said.
Funding for the entire project is also uncertain. The initial $200 million estimate is several years old, and the price tag will likely be higher. Updated cost estimates will be released with the draft environmental impact report, which is expected to be circulated for public comment and feedback in the fall of 2026.
(12) comments
Only ONE commenter expressed support for the 101/92 Direct Connector project. I wish him luck in his Council campaign!
"Though a longtime advocate for bicycling and public transit, Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine"
Adam Loraine has never been an advocate for bicycling and public transit, where is the proof?
He has just voted with "corporate interest" to take away a bike lane from an Equity Focus Area (North Central) and wants to push even more air pollution into the same neighborhood with this project.
That clearly proves he is anti-equity, anti-cycling, anti-transit but all about corporate interest and rich union leaders.
Loraine is your typical San Mateo Democrat and YIMBY-endorsed candidate which are all about high-density luxury housing (that's where the money wants to go anyways). On rare occasions they might even support "affordable housing".
What they however never support is "High-Density and Affordable Transportation" - those are known as bike lanes and bus lanes.
Over the last few years, YIMBY action and Peninsula For Everyone endorsed the following politicians (just to name a few):
2020 for various positions
- Amourence Lee (San Mateo)
- Rico Medina (San Bruno)
- Jeff Gee (RWC)
- Isabella Chu (RWC)
- Michael Smith (RWC)
- Alicia Aguirre (RWC)
- Diana Reddy (RWC)
- Shelly Masur (State Senate) [over Josh Becker]
- Marc Berman (State Assembly)
- Kevin Mullin (State Assembly)
2021 for SMC United
- Amourence Lee (San Mateo)
- Alicia Aguirre (RWC)
- Rudy Espinoza-Murray (RWC)
- Chris Sturken (RWC)
2022 for various positions
- Gavin Newsom
- Marc Berman
- Laura Parmer-Lohan (San Carlos)
- Chris Sturken (RWC)
- Noelia Corzo (San Mateo County Supervisor)
2023:
- Julie Lythcott-Haims
2024:
- Nicole Fernandez (San Mateo)
- Dr. Charles Hansen (San Mateo)
- Katie Causey (Palo Alto)
- George Lu (Palo Alto)
- Phoebe Shin Venkat (Foster City)
- Mark Nagales (SSF)
- Lissette Espinoza-Garnica (RWC)
- Isabella Chu (RWC)
- James Coleman (SSF)
- Harvey Rarback (HMB)
- Elmer Martinez Saballos (RWC)
There are several names in here of people that actively hurt and sabotages Public Transportation in San Mateo County.
There are hardly any names in here of people that supported bike lanes in their jurisdiction or in the county.
No wonder people keep YIMBY isn't about grassroots advocacy - it's about corporate interest.
If they can't even understand the most simple tool of high-density transportation (bike lanes) they basically MUST be paid for.
eGerd – TBot here. Let’s face it, the folks you cite may be aware that only 0.002% of people are riding bikes on a regular basis and as such, don’t deserve to unfairly impact automobile drivers since bike riders are allowed to use the same roads as automobiles. Since you discount 0.002% of biological men competing against biological women as trivial, we can take that argument to discount bike riders and trivialize bike lanes. Sound equitable?
The people in charge of the topic, the rules and the regulations like NCAA, NAIA, IOC, FIFA, UEFA, MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS basically anyone in professional sports says transgender athletes stealing medals is basically a non-issue and already covered. 10 out of 510,000 NCAA student athletes over 3 large Divisions does not sound like a major crisis.
Bike lanes on the other hand are a major crisis. 60% of American households own bicycles, 43% of San Mateo residents ride bicycles occasionally, 65% would ride more often if there was safe infrastructure. Especially women want more bike lanes. And since we don't want to discriminate against biological females and biological female children on bicycles, we should join the following organizations which repeatedly have asked San Mateo Democrats to install way more protected bike lanes:
American Heart Association (AHA), American Lung Association (ALA), American Cancer Society, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), ADA, BFP, ARB, CARB, BAAQMD, BATFCA, AARP, CARE, FAST, SR2S, SR2T, RBP, RBN, Complete Streets Movement, Livable Communities, Bloomberg CityLab, LAB, People For Bikes, Bikes Belong, Bikes Make Lives Better, San Mateo County Bikeways Committee (1971-present), BATALC (1997), MTC, RTPCs, CATDA, SMCTA, SMCTA Measure A, RM2, TFCA, Grand Boulevard Initiative, BOS, C/CAG, ... and many many more.
And if San Mateo Democrats weren't such equity-hypocrites we would have way more bike lanes by now.
eGerd – TBot here. I see you’re still pinning your hopes on your cherry-picked NCAA statistic you insist is the only one that matters. It’s not. And your NCAA statistic undermines your position. That being said, I’ll follow your lead… I’ll presume that the folks you cite have cherry-picked their statistics (while throwing out all others because it doesn’t fit their narrative) to make their decision. Sounds equitable/equal to me, eh eGerd? Especially since bike riders are able to ride in vehicle lanes… BTW, how many biological females identifying as biological males are in the MLB, NFL, or NBA? And didn’t a bunch of teenage boys beat the US Olympic Women’s soccer team?
The 0.002% was given by the Republican leader of the NCAA in front of a congress committee. Actually he said there are 10 or less transgender athletes out of 510,000 student athletes. How many of those 10 or less did actually win championships or medals or took away draft positions or money was not talked about. But I'm sure we would know if there ever was a man drafted into the WNBA or NWSL or tried to get into the Olympics. Basically it's a made-up crisis that has already been solved and therefore a waste of everyone's time.
The video can be found on CSPAN, go to 1:42:10.
(https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-on-legalized-sports-gambling/653198)
But Charlie Baker did say that harassment is a much bigger problem in women's sports.
That kind of harassment and violence against biological females is real and has been seen on Bay Area roads. Just recently three women on bicycles were killed by violent men on public streets in Los Altos, Palo Alto and San Carlos. More female pedestrians were killed in Burlingame and San Mateo. Stories like this are probably the reason why biological women don't feel comfortable riding their bicycles in traffic with biological men in 6,000 lbs. pick-up trucks with >400hp. They want to play in a different league, they want bike lanes.
So if you want to join me asking for fairness for the biological women on Bay Area roads and streets - this seems a way more important cause.
eGerd – TBot here. If your definition of fairness is to allow biological men to compete against biological women, I (and the vast majority, as polls show) will take a hard pass. Again, your cherry picked NCAA statistic supports my case because any number above 0 proves unfairness. You ask, “How many of those 10 or less did actually win championships or medals or took away draft positions or money was not talked about.” Look up Riley Gaines. She was cheated from her rightful place at the podium during an NCAA championship. Sound fair to you? BTW, she was recognized by Trump when he signed his common sense executive order banning transgender athletes from competing against biological women.
You say, “But I'm sure we would know if there ever was a man drafted into the WNBA or NWSL or tried to get into the Olympics.” Actually we do know. Look up Paris Olympics where two men competing as women in the Paris Olympics won Olympic gold medals. Two boxers previously disqualified from competing in the Women’s World Boxing Championships but were allowed in the Paris Olympics. Sound fair to you? So, to repeat from MichKosk’s observation, “It is unfortunate that you don't think girls and women deserve fairness, safety and privacy in sports and locker rooms at all levels.” Perhaps a refresher on the common, and not cherry-picked, definition of “fairness”?
"A little cheating is OK in college sports... meanwhile F--- them kids"- Egerd, probably.
Thanks for quoting me Terrence. Privacy and safety for girls and women are also issues in addition to the fairness, which matters at all levels and ages.
There was also a male weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, who competed as a woman in the prior Olympics.
Before you are corrected I will point out that the two boxers weren't "trans"- they were males with disorders of sexual development. The runner Caster Semenya is another example- he's been disqualified from international competition. ("My internal testicles don't make me less of a woman"- direct quote.) Soccer player Barbra Banda is another. These males may have female-appearing genitalia at birth but have internal male testes that product testosterone, and therefore male advantage, at puberty. Olympics needs to bring back the simple check swab sex testing- track and field will start doing so.
TBot, wasn't Riley Gaines the one that was pissed because she had to SHARE fifth place. She was far away from winning any medals. Vice president and family man JD Vance would have told the parents of Riley that they missed a great parenting opportunity to raise an better American. He would have told Riley that this is a character building experience and sometimes you just have to suck it up and share. And especially if you couldn't cut it at the top and only reached fifth place. He probably would have called her a "snowflake" too.
But Riley wanted Instagram fame instead of improving her own character - she is a typical fake-outrage-child of the mainstream media.
Do you have the names of the two Olympic boxers so we can all look up if they really existed or if they were banned for PED (very likely) rather than their gender transformation, which the IOC prohibits already.
MichKost - there is actually A LOT OF CHEATING going on college sports - athletically and more important financially. That is why I call on leaders to shut the whole thing down. In almost all states is a basketball or football coach the highest paid public employee - that is a waste of public funding.
But back to cheating. There are Performance Enhancing Drugs (10-20% of kids are taking them). There are creepy coaches praying on young girls and boys (could be almost 50%). There is harassment through other teachers, administrators and boosters. There is even worse shenanigans coming from legalized sports gambling and desperate gamblers. Non-athletes are taking on huge student loans for tuitions so universities can afford the huge travel costs and private planes of a handful of coaches and student athletes.
All students could benefit from cheap bike lanes around campus (look at Davis or Stanford), but only a handful of very few selected benefit from student athletics. Now that is really unfair, wouldn't you agree.
eGerd – TBot here. It is not surprising you cling to unfairness while denigrating Ms. Gaines. Seems to me that Ms. Gaines has used her, as you describe, Instagram fame to improve the lives of women’s athletes across the USA. There’s a reason our (yes, our) great President Trump recognized her common sense efforts to support women, all the while withstanding unwarranted criticism and vitriol from those who would impugn her character (such as yourself) and from those who don’t apparently don’t care about fair competition (such as yourself). No matter how you slice it, Ms. Gaines and many others have been and continue to be cheated from their rightful places at the podia along with their rightful recognition due to biological males.
As for what our (yes, our) great Vice President Vance would say, there’s a 0.002% chance he’d say what you think he would say. There’s a 99.998% chance he would agree with and reiterate MichKosk’s observation, “It is unfortunate that you don't think girls and women deserve fairness, safety and privacy in sports and locker rooms at all levels.” BTW, in her comment above, I’d say MichKosk has provided an astute observation summarizing your stance.
- disheartening, it really was. I left the pool with no trophy. Not a big deal, but it was the goal that I had set all year.”
She actually did get the 6th place trophy, because they only had one 5th place trophy. And she acknowledges - at the time - it's not a big deal.
- Gaines added that she became upset that it appeared the NCAA was prioritizing the transgender athlete over others.
That is certainly the kind of "virtue signaling" we expect these days. There is certainly a point there to be made about the officials there.
- “I am in full support of her and full support of her transition and her swimming career and everything like that because there’s no doubt that she works hard too, but she’s just abiding by the rules that the NCAA put in place, and that’s the issue,” Gaines said.
Even though she was upset by the situation, Gaines made clear that she was not upset with Thomas personally, but with the rules. She even called Lea Thomas "she".
It must have been much later that Riley Gaines realized she can gain fame and money by being pretend-outraged about a problem that wasn't one when it happened. Better parents would have stepped in and stopped her from embarrassing herself and her family.
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.