California state law requires each city to develop a “general plan,” a long-term tool for guiding physical change within the city, shaping how it will look, feel and evolve.
Through its General Plan 2040, the city of San Mateo aims to build a more vibrant, healthy and equitable city, and to be a leader in environmental sustainability. Last March, the San Mateo City Council adopted General Plan 2040, and then in November 2024 voters passed Measure T approving the plan’s height and density limits. These milestones marked the culmination of more than six years of work to craft a vision for San Mateo’s future.
San Mateo’s plan adapts to the needs of today while putting in place what the community of tomorrow will need, including up to 19,764 new housing units and almost 3.2 million square feet of new office and retail space. Those numbers can feel overwhelming, and many residents’ first concern is the inevitable question: What about traffic?
The streets can’t grow wider, and state law (Assembly Bill 2097) prevents the city from requiring off-street parking for developments within a half-mile of major transit stops, an area covering much of San Mateo. So, what’s the solution? The answers lie in the general plan’s “circulation element,” a bold framework for reimagining how we get around the city.
At its heart, the framework prioritizes walking, biking and public transit, with goal No. 1 aiming to create a multimodal transportation system that is “sustainable, safe and accessible for all users.” The logic is simple and sound: People won’t choose active or public transportation unless it’s safe, convenient and connected for their entire journey.
San Mateo has already taken a big step in this direction. In 2022, the city installed 2.1 miles of bike lanes along Humboldt Street and Poplar Avenue, providing access to four schools and key connections to Burlingame and neighborhoods across Highway 101. Before these lanes were installed, this stretch of road was one of the city’s most dangerous, responsible for 11% of all bicycle collisions citywide. Today, those lanes have made a difference; collisions in the surrounding North Central neighborhood have decreased by 36% compared to 2019.
Even with these improvements, safety challenges remain, including vehicle speed along the corridor averaging 36 mph, well above the 25 mph speed limit. And now, the city is considering removing the bike lanes to restore 100 street parking spaces — a response to long-standing parking demand management challenges in the neighborhood.
While removing bike infrastructure might reduce parking issues in the short term, it would only exacerbate the problem in the long run. As San Mateo’s population grows and parking space creation becomes more restricted, the city needs to double down on its commitment to safer, greener transportation options. Investing in and expanding the pedestrian and bicycle network is critical to removing more cars from the road and reducing demand for parking altogether.
So how can San Mateo address the immediate parking concerns in North Central while continuing to prioritize its long-term goals? Here are a few ideas:
Recommended for you
• Create a Residential Parking Permit Program to prioritize street parking for local residents.
• Enforce parking regulations that prohibit commercial, oversized and inoperable vehicles from taking up valuable street parking.
• Expand parking enforcement hours to include peak parking demand times outside regular business hours.
• Partner with local businesses and government agencies to offer overnight parking and provide onsite security.
• Promote private parking rental services that enable property owners to rent out unused off-street parking spaces.
• Subsidize alternative transportation like San Mateo’s “Get Around!” Senior Rides Program, Caltrain and SamTrans passes, rideshare credits or e-bikes, making it easier for residents who don’t drive often to reduce or eliminate vehicle ownership.
It’s also worth considering the financial side of this debate. The Humboldt/Poplar bike lanes cost $1.9 million to install. Reversing them would likely cost a similar amount and potentially endanger future grants for infrastructure. Instead of spending that money on 100 street parking spaces, those funds could be redirected toward parking enforcement, transportation subsidies or other innovative solutions that better align with the general plan.
How San Mateo handles this situation will be a true test of its commitment to the goals laid out in General Plan 2040. Now is not the time to take a step backwards, but for bold leadership that ensures San Mateo achieves its vision for a vibrant, healthier and more sustainable future, accessible to all.
Seema Patel currently serves as the chair of the San Mateo Planning Commission and previously served on the General Plan Subcommittee. She writes on her own behalf.
The motto should be back to office and back on transit.
Equity is interesting what we think is equitable today will create someone else's inequity in the future. The less government does the better the outcome.
Everyone's time is highly valuable on the peninsula, transit may work well for younger people and empty nester's, but is horrific and too expensive for families (cost wise even a couple commuting to SF it is often cheaper to ride together in car than on the train) Bus is too slow and frankly does not work according to anyone's schedule (especially the express buses).
How about just have no parking 7 am to 10 am and 3pm to 7pm with zero tolerance towing? Bike lanes when people need them and parking when people need it.
We must do more with less not go off into our groups and push the ideas and policies the groups believe. If everyone tries to get what want versus what they need everyone will end up with a whole lot less.
I like the creativity, Tom, but this was investigated and won't work. The City doesn't have the resources to ensure enforcement. Without enforcement, the streets will be even less safe as people on bikes need to weave in and out of car traffic to get around cars that people didn't move on time.
Also, many people commute and bike outside of those hours. Many who ride on Humboldt are lower income construction and restaurant workers with jobs outside 9-5 and cannot afford the cost of a car.
Finally, while compromise is often good, it should be recognized that the current structure is itself a compromise. The City only repurposed one side of the street, not two. Most cities are installing protected bike lanes now as they are the most safe and comfortable. They also take up more room than the Class II bike lanes that were installed. Protected bike lanes would have required removing all parking. Those claiming that safe streets advocates need to compromise are washing over the fact that the current design is already a compromise, which may result in more deaths and injuries (but is still better than no bike lanes).
The city has the resources, but they choose to completely overpay our pubic servants. i.e. 9 SM police officers cost the city of San Mateo $400k + per year. This is pure insanity for a safe city. The City of SM believes that the revenue is theirs, it's not and there should be a hard cap to stop this insanity. Get rid of the unions for all public employees and cap ALL employees' salaries
While I love to ride my bike and always appreciate safe bike lanes, the people who think bikes are going to become a significant form of transportation for the majority of people are delusional. Was my 8 months pregnant self supposed to put my 6 year old on the back of a bike while taking her to school? Is my elderly father who doesn't walk well supposed to ride his bike and lug his groceries on his weekly Safeway trips?
The only people I've ever known who used bikes for a primary mode of transportation were my teen son and his friends before he got his license. Maybe young office workers (but only those who don't have to worry about dressing in business clothes or arriving sweaty and windblown to work) can do so, assuming weather cooperates.
Why do 60% of kids bike to middle school in Palo Alto but in San Mateo it is a small fraction of that number. Do they not get as sweaty? Do they buy fewer groceries?
Go to Humboldt and talk with the diverse group of people who ride. If you speak Spanish, you will learn that most of them can't afford cars.
None of that has anything to do with what I said. Pretty much no middle schooler buys the family's groceries, weird comment. My son biked to middle school in Burlingame, and like I said, the under 16 crowd is the only group as a whole that can and will use bikes as a primary mode of transportation.
If most of our North Central residents cannot afford cars then why is parking an issue??? Drive around our streets at night and I can assure you most do have cars and many maybe 2,3 4 cars! Come see for yourself don't just take my word.
I'm a 43-year-old man and I use a bicycle (or e-bike) for almost all my transportation needs, sometimes coupled with public transit (Caltrain in particular). I do all my grocery shopping with my ebike (panniers + basket can hold a *lot*). I commute on it. I go to appointments. Social visits. Etc etc etc. I don't get sweaty on the ebike (but still get some exercise from it, like walking).
My wife has a car because she has different cargo and transit needs, but because of my ebike (and Caltrain) we’re able to avoid being a two-car family. I almost never need to use that car for anything (< 1x/month). Biking as a viable means of transit & traffic reduction doesn’t mean everyone has to get by without a car. E.g. your 8 months pregnant self probably was very glad to have one! But it can reduce the number of cars families need, and some people can get by without one at all. Car sharing services (uber/lyft) and short-term rentals (zipcar etc) can fill in gaps, and if you’re not using them frequently that’s a lot cheaper than owning a car & using it for everything.
Ebikes (and other micromobility, like e-scooters) are a critical piece of forward looking transit; but they don’t have to solve every problem for everyone.
My comment was about biking as a primary mode of transportation in general and had nothing to do with bike lanes on Humboldt- I don't live in SM and don't have a dog in this fight. And my comment stands - personal anecdotes about how easy it is to conduct your lives traveling by bike don't negate the many more common situations where this is far from practical or possible. But good luck on making that happen, I suggest putting your energy elsewhere.
I'm out. And remind me never to mix it up with YIMBYs again or whatever the bike people call themselves. Tunnel vision.
Holy Cow! $1.9M for those Humboldt bike lanes is surprising. Your perspective is filled with so much great information and solutions, many of which are tried and true. Lower Baywood residents benefitted from the expansion of the Residential Parking Permit Program application process, brought on by the heavy over flow of cars from our downtown tech companies. Maybe 12 years ago Baywood residents had no parking spaces in proximity of their homes for services and family members, very similar to what has happened in the North Central neighborhood. Thankfully Public Works made this recommendation and it worked beautifully. We need long term solutions that work for everyone. The implementation of any alternatives will take community leaders who are willing to invest the time. First, there is signature gathering required for the application. Then Public Works mailed out a survey and homeowners responded with a majority approval. Then the signs were installed. Overnight parking returned to normal. As our city continues to grow, we need solutions that will ameliorate the changes that come with growth. Public Works can offer great solutions and that is a great place to start.
Thanks for the anecdote on permit programs. The City promised these but never delivered. As a result, the streets are filled with cars that sit idle for weeks. Others have 5+ cars on the street.
While the current permit program has many steps, this is easily changed at the Council level, assuming there is political will. It would certainly cost less than the $3M quote mentioned by staff in the packet for Monday's meeting.
Program and North Central is huge. Baywood’s program was to keep out non residents, if I’m not mistaken. North Central’s is designed to limit our own residents from parking here. Quite a difference!
Almost every house has a driveway and garage - no one is limiting residents from parking there. The question is what is the best use of public land - safety or free car storage???
Keep fighting for permit parking. It works! Also, changing to one way streets will have a tendency to increase speeding. I learned plenty about traffic when I was on the Public Works Commission, with Rick Bonilla and Joe Goethals. Safety on our streets is primary. Safety and Convenience do not have to be mutually exclusive.
The parking concerns of our North Central community must be considered.
Ms. Patel, from my point of view the problem is a simple fix. It is time to make our ridiculously narrow two way streets into"one way" streets. Thus the bikes and vehicles would travel in the same direction. This allows the parking to be added, which is necessary and it also makes the streets safer for bikes and pedestrians.
Thanks "Not So Common" - this would be a great compromise. So far however have the North Central owners of too many Audis, Lexus, RVs, monster trucks, etc not shown any sign of compromise.
Anyways there is a municipal code in this area that requires everyone to provide 2-4 car spots for the storage of their own property - so there is no real need here. Most arguments we hear have been against bike lanes, but not for better solutions. That is not the arguments you would hear from a real Home Association, these are the arguments presented by the automobile industry for the last 100 years. So this might be more about corruption and Astoturfing within the Home Association itself than real need.
Gerd, you keep mentioning North Central owners of too many Audis,, Lexus, RV's?? Where and on what street are you seeing this in North Central?? Care to provide proof on this?? Photos will do. As far as RV's I hardly see any in North Central. Note was involved in passing the Oversize Vehicle OrdInance many years ago. The only RV's I now see in North Central are around the DMV on Amphlett.
This was actually one of the options considered back in 2021. The challenge is that our "two-way" side streets are two-way in practice, but not in width. If you drive down Fremont St or Grant St in North Central, you'll often see cars parked on both sides of the road with just enough room for a single car to travel down the middle. When a car approaches from the other direction, one driver typically pulls over into a gap in the parking lane.
Grant St is 30ft wide; 2 parking lanes (8ft wide each) plus a vehicle lane (10ft wide) already gets you to 26ft, which is not enough room to add one 5ft wide bicycle lane. If you removed parking on one side of the street you could fit a vehicle lane (10 ft), a parking lane (8ft), and two bicycle lanes (5ft each), but that's a comparable loss of parking spaces to Humboldt St, where parking on the west side of the street was removed to fit two bicycle lanes.
Start at 2:57:01 in the staff presentation from the February 22, 2022:
I don't know that one way streets is a "simple" fix. It would require changes on two streets in addition to one. It would require multiple $100Ks studies on how it would. influence circulation. It would create additional congestion as drivers would need to circle the block to get to their homes or find parking. Politically, it might be even less popular.
Saving $3M seems like the best use of taxpayer $$$ and also the safest option for our kids.
Thanks for your well-thought guest perspective, Ms. Patel, advocating for bike lanes and for providing potential solutions. However, I can’t help but notice that the ideas you’ve proposed are band-aids and don’t address the continued issue of lost parking spaces. It appears many of the ideas will cost more money to implement, both for the city and for residents. I’d say all of these band-aids can be avoided by removing the bike lanes.
Bike lanes that were installed because the city wanted to use-it-before-they-lost-it federal funds. That being said, I’m not sure if any of the $1.9 million was coughed up by the city. But what the city is coughing up is continuing to add up. With ongoing discussions by the city to address their self-inflicted wound ever since bike lanes were installed and with implementing some of your ideas, costs will continue increasing. All of these band-aids could have been avoided if the union labor giveaway was never granted. Foregoing that $1.9 million may have been the better, and cheaper, option in the long run. On the “plus” side, I will say that if bike lanes are removed, union labor can again be the “winner” as they’ll be paid to “fill the hole” that they’ve already “dug,” so to speak. Win-win?
Thanks TBot for reminding us of the old "Follow the Money" and also "virtue signaling" of course.
These bike lanes are part of several plans important for San Mateo, Foster City and San Mateo County:
- SM has a General Plan 2040, where 6000 San Mateo volunteers (incl Adam Loraine, Nicole Fernandez, etc.) helped develop it.
- SMC Equity Framework and Action Plan (developed and signed off on by Diane Papan and Rich Hedges).
- Shireen Malekafzali - the County's Chief Equity Officer (DEI) should be up in arms about Amorounce Lee violating equity again.
- Jackie Speier's "Shared Vision 2025" promising livable, healthy, sustainable, yadda yadda ... (https://www.smcgov.org/bos/shared-vision-2025)
- SMC also has a Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan promising mode-shift and VMT reduction or in short bus lanes and bike lanes.
- YIMBY: high-density housing requires high-density transportation options or in short bus lanes and bike lanes.
Millions of dollars in salaries, consulting fees, staff and volunteer hours, etc went into these plans and the hiring of an Chief Equity Officer to oversee everything DEI. And yet the moment nobody is watching Rob Newsom and Adam Loraine are rolling equity and all these other plans backwards. So in a few years the city and county can go out, waste more money to again fix "climate change", "equity', "livable communities". San Mateo is in the TOP 5 of richest counties in America, the school districts, the cities, and the transportation agencies have become so rich that they are just looking for ways to waste more and more money to look poorer than they really are.
eGerd – Tbot here. Haven’t you heard? DEI is going the way of the dinosaurs (as it should). Anyone in favor of rolling back or better yet, eliminating DEI is doing America a favor. Thanks for detailing how many more $millions of taxpayer money is and was wasted on discriminatory equity policies. As you say, “Follow the Money” and also “virtue signaling” of course. Instead of talking points, how about proposing a few solutions that don’t discriminate against residents?
Absolutely. One side does NOT want to do DEI at all and the other side is all about "fake it till you break it". The second side looks much more wasteful in time and money spent and according to the last big election ... might have broken it.
And if you are looking for a few good solutions that don't discriminate against residents, that's bike lanes and bus lanes, they ...
- give drivers (DEI or not) a way to avoid "sharing the road" with people going 5mph
- give drivers (DEI or not) a chance for empty streets and reduced congestion.
- give all people (DEI or not) with no cars a chance for transportation
- give all children (DEI or not) a chance to get safely to school
- give older people (DEI or not) a chance to get healthy while moving around town
- give female riders (DEI or not) - who do NOT like "Share the Road" experiments (as surveys demonstrate) - a chance to participate in livable communities.
- give frugalist riders (DEI or not) a way to save money and stay safe.
And see with just 10ft of wasted parking space turned into 2 bike lanes we gave everyone a choice and didn't commit agism, chauvinism, genderism, bipocism, frugalistims - not even one minority is hurt by this great solution, everyone is benefitting.
Only the very few, but very loud people with 3 cars or more that can't be bothered to walk around the block for parking. But the municipal code clearly states that people need to take care of their own property on their own property. So this is all about enforcement of the agreed upon municipal code. This is all about a socialist city council giving a undeserved government handout.
How much would it cost taxpayers to open existing parking lots that aren't used at night - e.g., the DMV or civil court lots. Taxpayers have already paid for them. Open them up instead of spending millions on removing safety infrastructure.
If that’s done in North Central neighborhood, it would set a precedent that opens all government locations throughout the city to overnight parking. That same logic could be used to help solve the homeless problem. Allow them to sleep government buildings overnight. Allow tents to be pitched overnight in parking lots. It sounds like an administrative nightmare.
You say that the root of the problem is the bike lanes. Was everything fine before the bike lanes? No, we still had crowded streets, people parking on lawns, people abusing street parking because it was free, and congestion and crashes a plenty.
What is the root cause of these problems that existed prior to the bike lanes? - taxpayers subsidizing driving instead of other safer, less costly modes of transport. If we had permit parking, parking enforcement, and streets designed for safety instead of convenience, maybe we wouldn't see as many people with 3+ cars. All problems solved.
No, we had parking issues before the bike lanes. You take away 200 spaces that obviously made the problem worse. You ask what is the root cause? Density and people sharing a one or two bedroom apartment to save on costs. Apartment buildings that charge extra for a parking space and obviously cannot provide enough parking for every tenant living in a unit. Overcrowding is the root case of the parking issues here in North Central.
No simple solutions in all this but I believe your comments "hit the nail on the head". North Central has had parking issues for years before the bike lanes were installed. Year after year that was our number one complaint and to have our city remove over 200 spaces was a slap in the face to North Central residents. I hope we can do better.
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!
(34) comments
The motto should be back to office and back on transit.
Equity is interesting what we think is equitable today will create someone else's inequity in the future. The less government does the better the outcome.
Everyone's time is highly valuable on the peninsula, transit may work well for younger people and empty nester's, but is horrific and too expensive for families (cost wise even a couple commuting to SF it is often cheaper to ride together in car than on the train) Bus is too slow and frankly does not work according to anyone's schedule (especially the express buses).
How about just have no parking 7 am to 10 am and 3pm to 7pm with zero tolerance towing? Bike lanes when people need them and parking when people need it.
We must do more with less not go off into our groups and push the ideas and policies the groups believe. If everyone tries to get what want versus what they need everyone will end up with a whole lot less.
I like the creativity, Tom, but this was investigated and won't work. The City doesn't have the resources to ensure enforcement. Without enforcement, the streets will be even less safe as people on bikes need to weave in and out of car traffic to get around cars that people didn't move on time.
Also, many people commute and bike outside of those hours. Many who ride on Humboldt are lower income construction and restaurant workers with jobs outside 9-5 and cannot afford the cost of a car.
Finally, while compromise is often good, it should be recognized that the current structure is itself a compromise. The City only repurposed one side of the street, not two. Most cities are installing protected bike lanes now as they are the most safe and comfortable. They also take up more room than the Class II bike lanes that were installed. Protected bike lanes would have required removing all parking. Those claiming that safe streets advocates need to compromise are washing over the fact that the current design is already a compromise, which may result in more deaths and injuries (but is still better than no bike lanes).
The city has the resources, but they choose to completely overpay our pubic servants. i.e. 9 SM police officers cost the city of San Mateo $400k + per year. This is pure insanity for a safe city. The City of SM believes that the revenue is theirs, it's not and there should be a hard cap to stop this insanity. Get rid of the unions for all public employees and cap ALL employees' salaries
While I love to ride my bike and always appreciate safe bike lanes, the people who think bikes are going to become a significant form of transportation for the majority of people are delusional. Was my 8 months pregnant self supposed to put my 6 year old on the back of a bike while taking her to school? Is my elderly father who doesn't walk well supposed to ride his bike and lug his groceries on his weekly Safeway trips?
The only people I've ever known who used bikes for a primary mode of transportation were my teen son and his friends before he got his license. Maybe young office workers (but only those who don't have to worry about dressing in business clothes or arriving sweaty and windblown to work) can do so, assuming weather cooperates.
This isn't being thought through rationally.
Why do 60% of kids bike to middle school in Palo Alto but in San Mateo it is a small fraction of that number. Do they not get as sweaty? Do they buy fewer groceries?
Go to Humboldt and talk with the diverse group of people who ride. If you speak Spanish, you will learn that most of them can't afford cars.
None of that has anything to do with what I said. Pretty much no middle schooler buys the family's groceries, weird comment. My son biked to middle school in Burlingame, and like I said, the under 16 crowd is the only group as a whole that can and will use bikes as a primary mode of transportation.
30% of peak traffic is parents driving kids to school. If 60% of those kids bike, that is indeed a significant form of transportation.
Furthermore, I bike to the grocery store. It's not as hard as you think.
MichKosh - you are correct. Virtually no one rides the Humboldt Bike Lane. Ridiculous.
If most of our North Central residents cannot afford cars then why is parking an issue??? Drive around our streets at night and I can assure you most do have cars and many maybe 2,3 4 cars! Come see for yourself don't just take my word.
I'm a 43-year-old man and I use a bicycle (or e-bike) for almost all my transportation needs, sometimes coupled with public transit (Caltrain in particular). I do all my grocery shopping with my ebike (panniers + basket can hold a *lot*). I commute on it. I go to appointments. Social visits. Etc etc etc. I don't get sweaty on the ebike (but still get some exercise from it, like walking).
My wife has a car because she has different cargo and transit needs, but because of my ebike (and Caltrain) we’re able to avoid being a two-car family. I almost never need to use that car for anything (< 1x/month). Biking as a viable means of transit & traffic reduction doesn’t mean everyone has to get by without a car. E.g. your 8 months pregnant self probably was very glad to have one! But it can reduce the number of cars families need, and some people can get by without one at all. Car sharing services (uber/lyft) and short-term rentals (zipcar etc) can fill in gaps, and if you’re not using them frequently that’s a lot cheaper than owning a car & using it for everything.
Ebikes (and other micromobility, like e-scooters) are a critical piece of forward looking transit; but they don’t have to solve every problem for everyone.
My comment was about biking as a primary mode of transportation in general and had nothing to do with bike lanes on Humboldt- I don't live in SM and don't have a dog in this fight. And my comment stands - personal anecdotes about how easy it is to conduct your lives traveling by bike don't negate the many more common situations where this is far from practical or possible. But good luck on making that happen, I suggest putting your energy elsewhere.
I'm out. And remind me never to mix it up with YIMBYs again or whatever the bike people call themselves. Tunnel vision.
Holy Cow! $1.9M for those Humboldt bike lanes is surprising. Your perspective is filled with so much great information and solutions, many of which are tried and true. Lower Baywood residents benefitted from the expansion of the Residential Parking Permit Program application process, brought on by the heavy over flow of cars from our downtown tech companies. Maybe 12 years ago Baywood residents had no parking spaces in proximity of their homes for services and family members, very similar to what has happened in the North Central neighborhood. Thankfully Public Works made this recommendation and it worked beautifully. We need long term solutions that work for everyone. The implementation of any alternatives will take community leaders who are willing to invest the time. First, there is signature gathering required for the application. Then Public Works mailed out a survey and homeowners responded with a majority approval. Then the signs were installed. Overnight parking returned to normal. As our city continues to grow, we need solutions that will ameliorate the changes that come with growth. Public Works can offer great solutions and that is a great place to start.
Thanks for the anecdote on permit programs. The City promised these but never delivered. As a result, the streets are filled with cars that sit idle for weeks. Others have 5+ cars on the street.
While the current permit program has many steps, this is easily changed at the Council level, assuming there is political will. It would certainly cost less than the $3M quote mentioned by staff in the packet for Monday's meeting.
The difference between the parking permit
Program and North Central is huge. Baywood’s program was to keep out non residents, if I’m not mistaken. North Central’s is designed to limit our own residents from parking here. Quite a difference!
Almost every house has a driveway and garage - no one is limiting residents from parking there. The question is what is the best use of public land - safety or free car storage???
Keep fighting for permit parking. It works! Also, changing to one way streets will have a tendency to increase speeding. I learned plenty about traffic when I was on the Public Works Commission, with Rick Bonilla and Joe Goethals. Safety on our streets is primary. Safety and Convenience do not have to be mutually exclusive.
The parking concerns of our North Central community must be considered.
Ms. Patel, from my point of view the problem is a simple fix. It is time to make our ridiculously narrow two way streets into"one way" streets. Thus the bikes and vehicles would travel in the same direction. This allows the parking to be added, which is necessary and it also makes the streets safer for bikes and pedestrians.
Thanks "Not So Common" - this would be a great compromise. So far however have the North Central owners of too many Audis, Lexus, RVs, monster trucks, etc not shown any sign of compromise.
Anyways there is a municipal code in this area that requires everyone to provide 2-4 car spots for the storage of their own property - so there is no real need here. Most arguments we hear have been against bike lanes, but not for better solutions. That is not the arguments you would hear from a real Home Association, these are the arguments presented by the automobile industry for the last 100 years. So this might be more about corruption and Astoturfing within the Home Association itself than real need.
Gerd, you keep mentioning North Central owners of too many Audis,, Lexus, RV's?? Where and on what street are you seeing this in North Central?? Care to provide proof on this?? Photos will do. As far as RV's I hardly see any in North Central. Note was involved in passing the Oversize Vehicle OrdInance many years ago. The only RV's I now see in North Central are around the DMV on Amphlett.
Hi Not So Common!
This was actually one of the options considered back in 2021. The challenge is that our "two-way" side streets are two-way in practice, but not in width. If you drive down Fremont St or Grant St in North Central, you'll often see cars parked on both sides of the road with just enough room for a single car to travel down the middle. When a car approaches from the other direction, one driver typically pulls over into a gap in the parking lane.
Grant St is 30ft wide; 2 parking lanes (8ft wide each) plus a vehicle lane (10ft wide) already gets you to 26ft, which is not enough room to add one 5ft wide bicycle lane. If you removed parking on one side of the street you could fit a vehicle lane (10 ft), a parking lane (8ft), and two bicycle lanes (5ft each), but that's a comparable loss of parking spaces to Humboldt St, where parking on the west side of the street was removed to fit two bicycle lanes.
Start at 2:57:01 in the staff presentation from the February 22, 2022:
https://youtu.be/V_ZFKkoFPhA?t=10621
I wish that our elected officials did their homework like you, Seema.
I don't know that one way streets is a "simple" fix. It would require changes on two streets in addition to one. It would require multiple $100Ks studies on how it would. influence circulation. It would create additional congestion as drivers would need to circle the block to get to their homes or find parking. Politically, it might be even less popular.
Saving $3M seems like the best use of taxpayer $$$ and also the safest option for our kids.
Thanks for your well-thought guest perspective, Ms. Patel, advocating for bike lanes and for providing potential solutions. However, I can’t help but notice that the ideas you’ve proposed are band-aids and don’t address the continued issue of lost parking spaces. It appears many of the ideas will cost more money to implement, both for the city and for residents. I’d say all of these band-aids can be avoided by removing the bike lanes.
Bike lanes that were installed because the city wanted to use-it-before-they-lost-it federal funds. That being said, I’m not sure if any of the $1.9 million was coughed up by the city. But what the city is coughing up is continuing to add up. With ongoing discussions by the city to address their self-inflicted wound ever since bike lanes were installed and with implementing some of your ideas, costs will continue increasing. All of these band-aids could have been avoided if the union labor giveaway was never granted. Foregoing that $1.9 million may have been the better, and cheaper, option in the long run. On the “plus” side, I will say that if bike lanes are removed, union labor can again be the “winner” as they’ll be paid to “fill the hole” that they’ve already “dug,” so to speak. Win-win?
Thanks TBot for reminding us of the old "Follow the Money" and also "virtue signaling" of course.
These bike lanes are part of several plans important for San Mateo, Foster City and San Mateo County:
- SM has a General Plan 2040, where 6000 San Mateo volunteers (incl Adam Loraine, Nicole Fernandez, etc.) helped develop it.
- SMC Equity Framework and Action Plan (developed and signed off on by Diane Papan and Rich Hedges).
- Shireen Malekafzali - the County's Chief Equity Officer (DEI) should be up in arms about Amorounce Lee violating equity again.
- Jackie Speier's "Shared Vision 2025" promising livable, healthy, sustainable, yadda yadda ... (https://www.smcgov.org/bos/shared-vision-2025)
- SMC also has a Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan promising mode-shift and VMT reduction or in short bus lanes and bike lanes.
- YIMBY: high-density housing requires high-density transportation options or in short bus lanes and bike lanes.
Millions of dollars in salaries, consulting fees, staff and volunteer hours, etc went into these plans and the hiring of an Chief Equity Officer to oversee everything DEI. And yet the moment nobody is watching Rob Newsom and Adam Loraine are rolling equity and all these other plans backwards. So in a few years the city and county can go out, waste more money to again fix "climate change", "equity', "livable communities". San Mateo is in the TOP 5 of richest counties in America, the school districts, the cities, and the transportation agencies have become so rich that they are just looking for ways to waste more and more money to look poorer than they really are.
eGerd – Tbot here. Haven’t you heard? DEI is going the way of the dinosaurs (as it should). Anyone in favor of rolling back or better yet, eliminating DEI is doing America a favor. Thanks for detailing how many more $millions of taxpayer money is and was wasted on discriminatory equity policies. As you say, “Follow the Money” and also “virtue signaling” of course. Instead of talking points, how about proposing a few solutions that don’t discriminate against residents?
Absolutely. One side does NOT want to do DEI at all and the other side is all about "fake it till you break it". The second side looks much more wasteful in time and money spent and according to the last big election ... might have broken it.
And if you are looking for a few good solutions that don't discriminate against residents, that's bike lanes and bus lanes, they ...
- give drivers (DEI or not) a way to avoid "sharing the road" with people going 5mph
- give drivers (DEI or not) a chance for empty streets and reduced congestion.
- give all people (DEI or not) with no cars a chance for transportation
- give all children (DEI or not) a chance to get safely to school
- give older people (DEI or not) a chance to get healthy while moving around town
- give female riders (DEI or not) - who do NOT like "Share the Road" experiments (as surveys demonstrate) - a chance to participate in livable communities.
- give frugalist riders (DEI or not) a way to save money and stay safe.
And see with just 10ft of wasted parking space turned into 2 bike lanes we gave everyone a choice and didn't commit agism, chauvinism, genderism, bipocism, frugalistims - not even one minority is hurt by this great solution, everyone is benefitting.
Only the very few, but very loud people with 3 cars or more that can't be bothered to walk around the block for parking. But the municipal code clearly states that people need to take care of their own property on their own property. So this is all about enforcement of the agreed upon municipal code. This is all about a socialist city council giving a undeserved government handout.
How much would it cost taxpayers to open existing parking lots that aren't used at night - e.g., the DMV or civil court lots. Taxpayers have already paid for them. Open them up instead of spending millions on removing safety infrastructure.
If that’s done in North Central neighborhood, it would set a precedent that opens all government locations throughout the city to overnight parking. That same logic could be used to help solve the homeless problem. Allow them to sleep government buildings overnight. Allow tents to be pitched overnight in parking lots. It sounds like an administrative nightmare.
No, not good!
Hey joebob, people are already using the courthouse parking lot at night. Go check it out.
Which labor unions "benefitted" from the installation of the safety infrastructure? And by "benefitted", do you mean "got paid a living wage"?
You say that the root of the problem is the bike lanes. Was everything fine before the bike lanes? No, we still had crowded streets, people parking on lawns, people abusing street parking because it was free, and congestion and crashes a plenty.
What is the root cause of these problems that existed prior to the bike lanes? - taxpayers subsidizing driving instead of other safer, less costly modes of transport. If we had permit parking, parking enforcement, and streets designed for safety instead of convenience, maybe we wouldn't see as many people with 3+ cars. All problems solved.
No, we had parking issues before the bike lanes. You take away 200 spaces that obviously made the problem worse. You ask what is the root cause? Density and people sharing a one or two bedroom apartment to save on costs. Apartment buildings that charge extra for a parking space and obviously cannot provide enough parking for every tenant living in a unit. Overcrowding is the root case of the parking issues here in North Central.
No simple solutions in all this but I believe your comments "hit the nail on the head". North Central has had parking issues for years before the bike lanes were installed. Year after year that was our number one complaint and to have our city remove over 200 spaces was a slap in the face to North Central residents. I hope we can do better.
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.