It’s far from over

It's astounding how myopic and off-base our own Planning Commissioner Patel can be on this very important subject which has caused a lot of pain and consternation to residents in North Central. Thank goodness for Councilmember Fernandez, who is much more in touch with her constituents there. This bike lane fiasco is an example of pushing things through (thanks to Councilmember Loraine) without doing any due diligence or mitigation. It's odd there are zero consequences when these kinds of decisions are made which do not benefit the majority of residents - the fallout of which will cost San Mateans almost a million bucks to do the right thing and fix a problem that never needed to happen if things were done right the first time.

It's deeply concerning to see Gerd from Redwood City and Seema, a City Planning Commissioner, stoop to spreading unfounded assumptions and misleading narratives. If they had any legitimate evidence of impropriety, they would have presented it by now. Misinformation isn’t just false – it is a weapon used to cause harm. Let’s set the record straight.

The concerns raised by the author, Trina, about the bike lanes are centered on community impact, safety, and accessibility. It is not some secret agenda nor a financial motive. Gerd-Seema dismissing valid concerns as merely "anti-bike" is an oversimplification that ignores the real issues at stake.

It is ironic that Gerd-Seema, who don’t live in North Central, are taking issue with the concept of San Mateans helping other San Mateans. WOW! Like many of us, it warms my heart to see people helping other people – neighbors helping neighbors. That’s a good thing – yes?

Many residents are joining those who live directly in the affected area to voice their concerns. Imagine you wake up one morning to find out the City has taken away your curbside parking – WHAT?! WHY?? For a virtually unused bike lane? It’s NOT OK no matter where you live.

FEAR is what drives some to stoop to purposeful speculation about personal motives and suggesting corruption without evidence. It is a tactic based on deceit – to mislead and detract from truth and meaningful dialogue. It also insults the readers here by implying that you are easily fooled.

As for me, I have 40+ years of tackling complex transportation challenges, and I’ve dedicated my career to improving how people move safely and efficiently. I can empathize with those who are fearful or threatened by the fact that I am a subject-matter expert and CEO of companies that deliver Smart Parking and Intelligent Transportation Systems. Honestly, there is no need to be fearful – as I am just a regular person, someone who enjoys helping others – and you never know, I could be helping you someday – and likely I already have. For the record, to answer the unfounded assumptions and misleading narratives by Gerd-Seema, I do not, nor do any of my companies have any current financial interests or contracts with the City. Additionally, the City is not seeking to contract my expertise nor services.

Here's the real story: As a longtime San Matean - I, along with many others, am growing increasingly frustrated with City-led street changes that seem to create more problems than they solve. It takes courage to right a wrong. Our City Council must demonstrate that courage by doing the right thing and immediately restore all parking on North Humboldt. Let’s correct the injustice inflicted upon this Equity-Priority Community. Do the right thing – restore all the parking.

Follow The Money. In the end we might just be seeing good old San Mateo corruption at work.

As the proponents have proven over and over again they are NOT lobbying for more car storage space, they are only lobbying AGAINST bike lanes.

And most of the people speaking out AGAINST the bike lanes were neither living on Humboldt Street nor are they even living in the neighborhood, which is very, very weird.

"Car storage" is a very local, very personal thing to the small amount of households with an excess amount of cars - the collectors so to speak.

And yet the group ONLY lobbying against bike lanes, came from west of El Camino. Why would they need car storage space in NC?

But let's remember per US census the average number of cars per household is 1.4-1.7 and municipal code encourages homes to have 2-4 garage or driveway spots. There is no real "Need" here, that part is all made up.

Turns out the main effort comes from an executive who works for a company that has helped cities like San Mateo and Redwood City with downtown parking demand studies.

So of course, both the Executive and Mayor Rob Newsom are in fear of bike lanes. People might just using their bicycles more, which would reduce income for the city and that Executive.

I could swear there was some secret eye contact between several council members and that Executive.

https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y2012/m12/san-mateo-launches-smart-parking-technology-from-streetline-and-cisco.html

I agree with the author on two things:

1. The outcome of the Humboldt bike lane discussion at City Council last week went in a different direction than many North Central residents hoped. Some stats from the City Council meeting:

* 106 total unique commenters between live comments and written comments

* 36 commenters identified as living in North Central. Of those, 20 commented in favor of keeping the bike lanes, 15 commented to ask the lanes be removed, and 1 didn't express an opinion on the removal.

* Of the 36 commenters who identified as living in North Central, 12 stated they live on N Humboldt St. Of those 12, 10 commented in favor of keeping the bike lanes and 2 commented to ask the lanes be removed.

2. We need consistent community outreach and enough data collection to provide statistically significant conclusions

Prior to the installation of the bicycle lanes, the City conducted the following outreach:

* Posters in three languages posted throughout the proposed bike lane corridor about how to participate in an online community survey and/or in-person workshops

* Postcards mailed to 3,000 households within the neighborhood with the same info as above

* 5 pop-ups within the neighborhood with polls and multilingual staff

* Static information display with polls in the neighborhood community center through the month of December

Prior to last week's City Council meeting where staff was directed to explore removing the bicycle lanes, the City conducted the following outreach:

* Met with the "Live Experience Group" (no info about participants)

* Hosted a community meeting attended by 110 people, of which 66 filled out a survey. Of those 66, 21 were residents of N Humboldt St, and 29 were residents of North Central that do not live on N Humboldt St.

The staff presentation (and Daily Journal article) noted that 76% of N Humboldt St residents who filled out a survey at the December 4 community meeting said that the bike lanes impacted them negatively. But the sample size was very small - 21 people.

It would be just as mathematically valid to say that based on the Council Meeting, 83% of Humboldt St residents want the bicycle lanes to stay.

Given there are likely several thousand residents of N Humboldt St, drawing statistically significant conclusions (confidence level of 95%, margin of error of 5%) would require a sample size of several hundred individuals. I hope that moving forward the City makes it a priority to obtain demographically representative and statistically significant sample sizes before reporting any statistics that are used as the basis of data-driven decision making.

Hi, Trina

Thanks for taking the time to write a letter to the editor and providing an update re: bike lanes on Humboldt Street.

"Forget what is behind and strain toward what is ahead... press on toward the goal."

A little clarification here:

- The author says that we should prioritize safety projects that are "low hanging fruit." This means, projects that have little to no impact on free car storage or on vehicle speeds. For 100 years we have used every inch of our roads for car convenience. There is no "easy" way to make the streets safe without people who drive giving back some of the street to others - e.g., parking in driveways and garages instead of the street. Streets should be safe for all everywhere, not just where it is convenient for drivers.

- What good is a long-term budget for safety infrastructure if we are unwilling to approve projects (and rip others out) when one small segment of society objects. The only people opposed to the bike lanes are those living on Humboldt. Per the City survey, a plurality of N. Central residents support the bike lane project.

- Ms. Pierce does not represent N. Central, despite her claims to the Council. In fact, the neighborhood association did not take a position on the issue given the community is divided. Again, a plurality of N. Central residents like the bike lane project.

- Ms. Pierce is not accurate in saying that they are moving the bike lanes to Idaho or Fremont. There is no such plan. Instead, they are planning on painting arrows on the street. This is not a bike lane as it offers no separation or protection for kids who ride to school.

- Ms. Pierce intimates that the people who live on Humboldt, Fremont, and Idaho should determine how the City designs its streets. To be clear, this is public property; it does not belong to these residents. While their input should be considered, it is no more important than the families who live on adjacent streets and would like their kids to get to school safely via these streets. Furthermore, there is no right to free car storage on public property. The streets belong to all SM taxpayers. If these residents think that the streets belong to them, let them pay the $3M for the parking that they seek. Many other San Mateans pay for parking, too.

- Ms. Pierce uses seniors as a primary rationale for the need for parking. We want our seniors to live full lives. Nevertheless, she fails to acknowledge that N. Central is perhaps the youngest neighborhood in SM. Only 5% of residents are seniors. Most new residents support the bike lanes and will be the ones with the most at stake over the next 50 years.