Bike lane controversy: Ideology vs common sense

Streets are made for Transportation not Private Car Storage - as usual this is all about corruption in the council.

Here is what we found so far:

- The first environmentalist Alexander von Humboldt would want bike lanes here.

- A majority of humboldt street residents like the bike and many are using them already.

- A few troublemakers from side-streets are causing the noise and have connections to the council

- The on-street parking is full of Teslas, cybertrucks, Audis, Lexus, Benz, sportscars etc.

But

- A CEO of a parking company wants to eliminate competition (bicycles)

- A once called "slumlord" with connection to the Papan sisters is violating the municipal code by failing to provide required garage and driveway space on several properties.

- A former Major is blocking off sidewalk space to sell cakes and obesity from the curb.

- City removed enforcement from this neighbor, so rich people from Permit areas (like Baywood, or Gramercy) have moved their private car collections here.

Democrats call this an Equity Focus Area, which means "if kids in rich neighborhoods deserve bike lanes, then kids in this neighborhood even more so"

Nicole Fernandez has failed them, but she wants to provide weed shops instead.

Streets are made for Transportation, not private car storage, not having your own marketplace, not so you can fleece residents.

The city needs to immediately restore any and all curb parking which was removed to install bike lanes that go virtually unused as they are unsafe for children to use. No reasonable person would encourage a child to ride their bike in traffic. And the installation of bike lanes can negate the ability to leverage existing roadway infrastructure to mitigate the growing traffic congestion caused by over-building high-density housing in San Mateo. Unused bike lanes are wasteful and have a net-increase in pollution that cause health concerns for everyone, especially our elderly and young children.

If I wasn’t using my bike to get around San Mateo I’d probably wind up buying, and parking, a car. But I'm able to use my bike for all my local errands and trips, and my ebike + caltrain for longer trips (e.g. to work). And, in my neighborhood (North Central), I see a lot of people biking just to get around -- both kids and adults. Many of those people are using the sidewalks, because almost none of the streets have bike lanes. I'm not sure how many of those people own cars (or enough cars for their whole family), but given how dense north-central is I'd imagine a number are as dependent on their bikes as I am.

I wish we had more, safer infrastructure for biking. I’m very upset that our current council is pushing for removing this lane. It's short-sighted and backwards. Zero-emission & electric cars have a place, but still use a ton of energy, cause more fatal accidents, and shed significant air pollution from tires. And they won't scale to the necessary increase in housing.

Streets are made for Transportation. Keep your fridges, freezers, lawn furniture and car collections off our streets. Take care of your own private car storage needs. When did Squatting become a core government function?

According to the San Mateo Grand Jury reports from 2002 and 2022 San Mateo has NOT built the necessary bike paths to increase safety and ridership.

Basically the Superior Court of California has called out County politicians like David Canepa, Rico E. Medina, Kevin Mullin, Diane Papan, Jerry Hill, Josh Becker, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, Carole Groom, Jackie Speier and many more (failure like this requires many parents) for doing some BS job here.

I would like to add Rob, Adam, Lisa, Nicole, Danielle to that list of people who behave like climate change deniers and are being anti-Education

The only logical path forward is to eliminate all bike lanes that go virtually unused, waste public funds, and worsen traffic. Instead, we should redesign our roads intelligently to manage growing congestion, prioritize traffic flow, and prepare for a future to be dominated by zero-emission vehicles. This approach addresses both environmental goals and real-world transportation needs without sacrificing common sense.

I agree with this letter 100%. With the passage of Measure T, San Mateo’s population will grow—and that means more cars on our already congested streets. More cars stuck in traffic means more idling, more air pollution, and greater health concerns for everyone.

When the City removes traffic lanes or curbside parking to install bike lanes that remain largely unused, it only makes the congestion and pollution problem worse. We’re trading something most residents use every day—traffic capacity and parking—for infrastructure that serves a fraction of a percent of commuters.

A common-sense approach would be to focus on solutions that actually improve traffic flow, protect air quality, and make streets safer for everyone without eliminating essential road and parking capacity. Let’s solve problems, not create new ones.

We have developed a system where we have too many cars on the road. Your suggestion of encouraging more cars on the road seems akin to telling the obese patient to loosen their belt instead of getting smarter about what they eat (or, in this case, how they get around).

It's worth noting that the 19th Ave / Fashion Island Blvd improvement project is not eliminating any vehicle lanes or street parking. Rather, the traffic corridor is being expanded to add protected bicycle lanes. It seems the author is opposed to this because he would prefer the expanded area to be used for additional vehicle lanes ("just one more lane!") despite an established body of research that concludes adding vehicle lanes does not decrease congestion in the medium and long term.

Through the state mandated Housing Element, San Mateo has to plan for the creation of 7,015 new housing units by 2031. In the last five months alone, applications for 5,000+ new units have been submitted.

Most people would agree that San Mateo's existing roads don't have room for 14,000+ additional cars, especially since new state laws (AB 2097) prohibit local jurisdictions from requiring off-street parking in developments within 1/2 mi of a major transit stop, which is where the majority of new development in San Mateo is occurring.

So San Mateo has three options:

1. Endure Manhattan levels of traffic congestion (and the associated evironmental and health impacts) as the city continues to grow

2. (Repeatedly) eminent domain private property to (repeatedly) expand our roads, at great expense and impacts to public safety (wider roads are associated with higher speeds and collisions)

3. Make walking, biking and taking public transit safer and more accessible so that people don't need a private vehicle to get around the city

I'm curious which of these options the author (and our community at large) would prefer, as San Mateo continues to grow through 2031 and future Housing Element cycles.

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Isoardi. What is always ignored is that carbon emissions from cars idling in traffic due to lane diets will easily surpass what supposed carbon emissions savings will occur from the 1% of people riding bicycles as a form of transportation. Similar to wildfires, larger and more fierce due to the lack of forest and fire management, easily emitting carbon surpassing whatever carbon savings California alleges to have “banked.”