Editor,
Communities across the Bay Area both in and outside the city of San Mateo are mobilizing to support the Humboldt Street bike lanes. That’s because the decisions made in the city of San Mateo set rippling precedent for other cities locally, and removing bike lanes in this city enables the removal of bike lanes in my city.
I expect that the council backed down on its decision to remove the bike lanes for the following reasons and many more.
• It is indisputable that bike lanes make streets safer for bikers, pedestrians, homeowners and cars. They also reduce vehicle congestion and negative greenhouse gas emissions.
• The pilot program to install bike boulevards on Fremont/Idaho is an insufficient supplement for bikers locally, who deserve dedicated bike lanes.
• The council has not involved youth in this decision-making process, and has not considered how removing the bike lanes would disenfranchise students at many local schools of their safety and mobility.
• In 10, 20, 50 years, the current councilmembers’ terms will have expired and the city will undoubtedly return to this issue of bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Bike culture should and will have popularized increasingly by then, and by not thinking long-term, San Mateo would be hindering its capacity to provide for the residents of the future as those here today.
There is still time to make the right decision for San Mateo and the future. History is watching this council anxiously.
Jayden Wan
Burlingame
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
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(4) comments
Thanks for your letter, Jayden, but while dedicated bike lanes are “rented” while used from folks from other areas, folks who live in the area are burdened by them all the time. Bike lanes, if not designed into roads from the start are neither convenient nor efficient after the fact. If they were, all roads would be put on diets with dedicated bike lanes installed. The Humboldt Street bike lanes should never have been installed and would not have, if not for the council at the time wanting to take advantage of a use-it-or-lose-it grant to reward union labor. Since then, San Mateo has continually wasted money to fix their self-inflicted wound. Hopefully removing the bike lanes will return the area to stability, while saving taxpayers money.
Hi TBot - as you well know by now there is no burden to the residents as municipal code allows them to store at least 2-4 cars on their own property. They are even allowed to use their own garages - but 43% of households don't do that.
They are also allowed to use their own driveways and front yards, but people said they love their lawns too much.
Humboldt Street residents actually like the new bike lanes. It makes their street safer, better looking, property values are going up. They are definitely better off. Now it is only the car lobby that is still arguing against it and we can assume they are "sponsoring" city council members in the process.
Funnily the residents complaining now are neither living on Humboldt nor are they even living in North Central. We have the lady from Baywood, the automotive executive from Gramercy-Mounds, we have people that store their company vehicles here longterm since the city council stopped enforcing municipal codes. We have the landlord who turned her garage into living space, creating more rental income for herself, but also violating the municipal code and now wants to be bailed out by city government. We have a former Mayor running a small business out of her home therefore inviting more speeding, more car violence, more air pollution into the neighborhood. She is also blocking the sidewalk violating ADA rules and laws in the process.
So you can see, there is plenty of "corporate and special interest" at work here.
Luckily you and I know, Streets are Made for Transportation - we don't need yet another Governmental Welfare program, do we?
Writer states that “communities” are “mobilizing” to support Humboldt bike lanes. This is a nonsense. There are cities being forced to implement ABAG and state rules such as Complete Streets which are part of the UN 2050 climate agenda. Cities do not have much of a say in the matter and certainly “communities” or the local citizens are not the ones calling for it except for a few militant bike activists and so called environmentalists who want to change everyone’s behavior. The only reason the bike activists are getting their way is because they are acting as the shock troops for the agenda of the ruling class, whose real goal is to control the rest of us. Decarbonize and “sustainability” is code for lower our standard of living, herd us into 15 minute cities and decrease our numbers.
Part of the plan to get us out of our cars is by deliberately disrupting traffic flow and causing congestion. The probable reason the city council is getting rid of bike lanes on Humboldt is to implement some even more disruptive tactics such as one way streets, diversions, speed limits, speed bumps, etc., or to turn busy and vital Humboldt into a “neighborhood street.”
It was indeed "Militant Bike Activist" Ronald Reagan who signed the "Bike Lanes" into law in California. And it was indeed "Militant Bike Activist" The Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger who brought California the "Complete Streets". First through Executive Order, then through a Senate Bill.
But even Ronald and Arnold couldn't fight the billions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel and automotive lobbying groups fighting harmless people centric infrastructure.
These bike lanes are in the regions plans since Ronald was in charge, but California Democrats have been fighting bike lanes ever since. Gavin Newsom - as Mayor and Governor - seems to have an outright hatred for people on bicycles, but has loved to subsidize and accommodate Tesla and its boss whenever possible.
Let's look at the plans Nicole Fernandez violated when she voted to discriminate against single mothers and children from low-income families in her own neighborhood ... and then turned around and asked to bring in more weed into downtown. If that doesn't shout "Driven by Corporate Interest", what does?
Here are a few of those plans:
- Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan (2005)
- Truck Study Route (2008)
- North Central Community Based Transportation Plan (2011)
- San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
- San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan (2012)
- Countywide Shared Vision 2025 (2013)
- San Mateo Sustainable Streets Plan (2015)
- Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2017)
- Green Infrastructure Plan (2019)
- San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan (2020)
- C/CAG Comprehensive Bike/Pedestrian Plan (2021)
- Bay Area Plan 2050 (2021)
- C/CAG of San Mateo County Youth-Based High Injury Network (HIN) Report (2022)
- TOD Pedestrian Access Plan (2022)
- San Mateo Strive 2040 General Plan (2023)
- North Central Complete Streets Plan (2023)
- Countywide Shared Vision 2025 (2023)
So there is clearly an execution problem in this city. The previous council wanted to fix that, this council and city manager chose discrimination again.
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.