City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of April 7, 2025, at 4:00 PM
1 From: Max Mautner < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:38 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: 101/92 Connector project impacts
Hello Councilmembers,
Ahead of Monday's presentation by SMCTA staff of the Highway 101/92 Connector project, I wanted to note a potential negative impact to city residents & visitors that I believe merits asking SMCTA staff about.
For years now, our city's public works staff have been studying, planning & lining up the funding package for a protected bike lane on Fashion Island Boulevard (public works project page):
SMCTA has even shared the news of winning grant funds towards executing on the Fashion Island Blvd project.
County projects have previously killed city projects aimed to improve local traffic safety.
For example, SMCTA widened highway 101 rendered the city's plans for a bike/ped bridge over 101 at Hillsdale infeasible and it was abandoned.
2 Would one of you please ask SMCTA staff about whether the 101/92 Connector county project could impact the feasibility and costs of the city's project?
Thank you for considering raising this point at Monday's meeting,
Max Mautner
San Mateo resident
T o:
San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA)
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Dear US 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project Sponsors:
Thank you for your work in service of the transportation needs of San Mateo County residents.
We are writing in support of the No-Build Alternative for the recently proposed US 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project in San Mateo and Foster City. We oppose all three Build Alternatives as they will be expensive, ineffective, bad for the environment, and fail to address the most pressing transportation needs of San Mateo County taxpayers. ● Highway widenings don’t reduce congestion - More lanes will simply encourage more people to drive instead of taking transit, walking, or biking. ● Encouraging driving threatens the viability of public transit - Caltrain and BART are facing a fiscal cliff due to the lack of dedicated funding sources. Encouraging more people to drive will further suppress transit ridership, requiring additional taxpayer subsidies for them to stay viable.
● The project could threaten quality of life in San Mateo and Foster City neighborhoods - The project may use eminent domain to take property from local residents. Air pollution will worsen, as auto traffic increases, at Fiesta Gardens Elementary, Fiesta Meadows Park and nearby communities. Air pollution often results in higher rates of childhood asthma for kids growing up next to the highway. Traffic in the neighborhood will worsen as more drivers race to get on a widened 101 and 92. Also, any crashes on a widened 101 or 92 will result in even more cut through traffic on neighborhood streets, increasing danger for residents who walk and bike. ● It is expensive and not the best use of our taxpayer dollars - The project could cost more than $200 million. T axpayers would prefer that their scarce transportation dollars go towards filling potholes, making transit more convenient and reliable, and improving the safety of our streets for those who walk and bike.
● The benefits (if any) will be for East Bay residents and corporate shuttles - Why are SM County taxpayers paying to encourage East Bay residents to drive to the Peninsula instead of taking BART? The San Mateo Bridge already handles 100,000 vehicles per day. If the tech companies want to speed their corporate buses, let them pay for this project.
● Climate change will worsen - Transportation is responsible for >50% of greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo County. Encouraging more people to drive is climate suicide.
● There will be no benefit to public transit and lower income riders who don’t own cars - Currently, there are no public buses that cross the San Mateo Bridge. AC Transit’s transbay service was canceled during COVID and hasn’t been reinstated. Low income bus riders would see greater benefit from a transit-only lane on the bridge. ● It runs counter to our housing efforts - We are making a major effort to increase the supply and affordability of housing on the Peninsula so tech workers can live closer to their jobs, improving their quality of lives. Why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars to encourage driving from the East Bay, if not Stockton and Modesto, where housing costs are much lower?
● This could facilitate other widenings - At recent meetings, staff acknowledged that this project would make it easier to widen SR 92 all the way to 280, greatly increasing traffic throughout the City of San Mateo and adjacent communities.
We encourage the project sponsors to cease investment in this flawed project and instead allocate our scarce taxpayer dollars to making transit more convenient and affordable and making our streets safer for those who walk and bike instead of driving.
Sincerely,
Mike Swire
Stop the 101 & 280 Widenings
Darryl Yip
Stop the 101 & 280 Widenings
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Carter Lavin
Co-Director
Transbay Coalition
Elaine Salinger
San Mateo County Chapter Leader
Citizens’ Climate Lobby
Kristina Pappas
President
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
Jayden Wan
Co-Leader, San Mateo Chapter
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Julio Garcia
Executive Director
Rise South City
Zack Deutsch-Gross
Policy Director
TransForm
Jon Penn
President
Western Wheelers Bicycle Club
Gregory Stevens
Northern California Director
California Interfaith Power & Light
Jared Sanchez
Policy Director
CalBike
Cheryl Weiden
Steering Committee
350 Silicon Valley
Gita Dev
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Michelle Hudson
Co-Chair
San Mateo Climate Action T eam
Lauren Weston
Executive Director
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet
Sarah Hubbard
Executive Director
Sustainable San Mateo County
Ben Crowther
Policy Director
America Walks
Max Mautner
Co-Chair
Move San Mateo
Anthony Montes
Organizer
North San Mateo T eam, SVBC
From: Evan Adams < >
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2025 12 09 PM
To: Clerk <clerk@cityofsanmateo org>; publiccomment@fostercity org Subject: Public Comment CC Meeting 4/7/25
The following is my public comment regarding item #1 for the San Mateo City Council Special Meeting April 7, 2025 5:30 PM regarding the US 101 / SR 92 Direct Connector project.
The following is also, by CC, my public comment for the Foster City Council Meeting of the same date, item #5 & #9. I would ask you agendize the US 101 / SR 92 Direct Connector project for a special meeting presentation and discussion as San Mateo has done.
My comment is as follows:
Thank you for your consideration.
Evan Adams
Foster City, CA
From: Kristie Eglsaer
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash Subject: Public Comment for 4/7 5:30 City Council Special Study Session Item 1. US 101 / SR 92 Direct Connector Update Date: Saturday, April 5, 2025 4:28:11 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
In your discussions with SMCTA, CCAG, & Caltrans for a possible expansion of the 101/92 interchange to add Express Lanes, please ensure that the induced travel effect is fully accounted for in travel demand models and in the project’s environmental review process and that vulnerable populations and the impacts to children are accounted for.
I am concerned about exposing our children to more air pollution with increased vehicles because of the expansion, as well as the dust and pollutants that would come with construction. We go to Trinta Park several times a week for Little League as do dozens of other children and their families. Trinta Park is right along this highway interchange, as is the Fiesta Gardens school and Fiesta Meadows Park. Not to mention there are homes in this area, some of which would need to be destroyed, while the others would experience increased pollution. Do highway expansion projects deliver a public benefit that justifies taking private property? [Frontier Group] Do they achieve the intended public benefit? Research shows that expanding highways increases vehicle miles traveled, which increases congestion, the opposite of the intended outcome. [NCST UC Davis] With increased congestion comes increased air pollution, and that has disproportionate impacts to vulnerable populations.
“There is well established evidence that traffic density and proximity to busy roads increases the risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, reproductive, and endocrine conditions, as well as all- cause mortality,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE). Woodruff also stated that “People of color, those experiencing linguistic isolation and those uninsured are most likely to experience higher traffic pollution in California. Thus, NRAP [near-roadway air pollution] is an environmental justice concern due to inequitable distribution of exposures.” [UC Davis Health] Research shows that residents who drive less are exposed to more air pollution, and residents who drive more are exposed to less air pollution. [LA Times USC Sol Price School of Public Policy]
The impacts to children should be a particular focus of the analysis because of this interchange’s proximity to parks, schools, and neighborhoods. Children are not just smaller adults. [USEPA ] Their natural defenses are less developed so they are less able than adults to detoxify and excrete the toxicants contained in air pollution. Their lungs, brains, and other systems are still developing, and air pollution can interfere with this development. They inhale more air per unit of body weight than adults. And they are more active and therefore breathe in more air and therefore more air pollution.
Will it improve efficiency and encourage buses and multimodal transit and carpooling? This is not just an “HOV” connector. According to the MTC, express lanes can be used by single occupancy vehicles. "Express lanes" give drivers a choice to save time by paying a toll, allowing solo drivers to pay for a faster trip and this is for clean vehicles as well as non-clean vehicles, who just pay more but are not prohibited from using it as a single occupancy vehicle. [MTC]
Thank you very much for taking all this into account in your assessment of which alternative to support.
Sincerely,
Kristie Eglsaer
San Mateo
https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=9458 https://www.smcta.com/101-92DC
https://frontiergroup.org/articles/wider-highways-dont-solve-congestion-so-why-are-we-still- knocking-down-homes-to-build-them/
https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-product/environmental-reviews-fail-accurately-analyze- induced-vehicle-travel-highway
https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/new-report-highlights-impact-of-roadway-air- pollution-on-indoor-air-quality/2024/03
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-07/air-pollution-driving-study-los-angeles https://www.epa.gov/children/children-are-not-little-adults https://mtc.ca.gov/operations/traveler-services/bay-area-express-lanes From: Mike Swire
To: Clerk; Adam Loraine; Lisa Diaz-Nash; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Robert Newsom Jr.; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: Reduced demand
Date: Saturday, April 5, 2025 10:39:45 AM
Attachments: Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand.pdf
Dear San Mateo officials,
Thank you for your service to the transportation needs of area residents.
I wanted to direct your attention to a recent Governing magazine article on reduced demand .
You have likely heard of induced demand - i.e., when we increase road capacity we increase vehicle miles traveled and there is no long-term improvement in congestion. Reduced demand is the opposite - when you reduce road capacity. - e.g., through a road diet - fewer people will drive, especially for lower value trips, which can be consolidated, avoided, or changed to alternative modes of transport like transit, biking, or walking. One of the best examples cited is the removal of the Embarcadero freeway in SF after the Loma Prieta earthquake, with no adverse impact on congestion and an improvement in quality of life in that neighborhood.
I'd encourage the City to consider reduced demand in its future decisions. Just because we have a lot of auto traffic in an area doesn't mean that we have to.
Thanks for listening,
Mike Swire
Vice Chair, SMCTA Community Advisory Committee
Chair, C/CAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(writing on my own behalf)
Building new highways doesn’t ultimately ease congestion.
By changing behavior, reducing capacity is a better solution.
OPINION | March 28, 2025 • Wes Guckert
Demolition of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway after it was damaged in a 1989 earthquake.
Its traffic was absorbed into the city’s street grid with little impact on congestion. (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)
America remains addicted to road construction. Since 1980, more than 183,000 miles of public roads have been constructed in the
TRANSPORTATION
Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 1/11 U.S. — an average of 6,500 miles per year. Last year alone, the cost of public highway and street construction was expected to surpass $126 billion, a 16 percent increase over 2023.
There are, of course, lots of reasons for this love affair with roads, beginning with the fact that elected officials often prioritize building new ones and expanding existing ones because these projects are highly visible, provide immediate benefits and align with public demand for reducing traffic congestion, no matter how short-lived that benefit might be. Federal and state funding structures also tend to prioritize highway spending over investments in transit or other modes of travel.
The focus traditional transportation planning places on increasing capacity fails to adequately take into account not only alternative solutions such as public transit, biking or walking but also induced demand, the concept that building or expanding roads to make driving more convenient encourages more people to drive, which translates into more vehicles on the road.
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 2/11 It’s encouraging that federal guidelines increasingly are prioritizing existing highway maintenance and repairs over new construction (as they should be!). But states and municipalities need to focus more on the concept of reduced demand. Also known as disappearing traffic or traffic suppression, reduced demand refers to a phenomenon where decreasing road capacity leads to a decrease in traffic volume. As with induced demand, reduced demand necessitates a change in behavior — people adjust by skipping some trips, condensing multiple trips into a single one, traveling at different times of the day or opting for alternative options such as walking, biking or public transport.
ADVERTISEMENT
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 3/11 While reduced demand flies in the face of traditional
transportation planning, multiple examples from throughout the U.S. prove that it works. Two frequently cited examples occurred in San Francisco and New York, where parts of the Embarcadero Freeway and the elevated West Side Highway, respectively, were torn down after sections of them collapsed. Instead of
overwhelming local streets, the traffic originally on these roadways largely disappeared, absorbed into each city’s grid with little impact.
More recent examples can be found in the federal funding flowing into multiple U.S. cities for highway removal, replacing them with boulevards, street grids or in some cases large swaths of land for projects designed to meet top community needs, from open space to affordable housing. Much of this work has been focused on the removal of urban highways, such as New Orleans’ Claiborne Expressway and Baltimore’s Highway to Nowhere, that segregated communities.
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 4/11 Reduced demand is not a hard sell for the public. Awareness of the negative social impacts highway construction has caused, including displacement of communities and increased pollution, has led to renewed public opposition to new highway projects and increased calls for highway removals. This change in mindset can help to lay the groundwork for consideration of alternative transportation methods and land use planning that supports both open space and mixed-use developments designed to lessen the volume of traffic and the need for long car trips.
While expansion of environmentally friendly, multimodal solutions can and should play a prominent role in reduced-demand
ADVERTISEMENT
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 5/11 planning, such initiatives should be augmented with other demand management strategies, such as implementing congestion pricing and incentivizing carpooling — strategies that optimize traffic flow, minimize congestion and improve overall transportation
efficiency. Perhaps more importantly, these actions change behavior. And behavior change is essential if we are ever to end our love affair with road construction and adopt a new way of thinking about connecting people to jobs and services.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
Why the Concept of Induced Demand Is a Hard Sell
Will Congestion Pricing Really Ease New York City’s Traffic Woes? The Terrible Urban Mistakes That All of America Made
The Roads That Tear Communities Apart
Asphalt, Gridlock and Common Sense
Related Content
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 6/11 Tags: Roads and Highways,Opinions
POLICY
A Rural California District Is a National Model for Reducing Absenteeism April 4, 2025
HOUSING AND URBAN ISSUES
Atlanta's Housing Approach Offers a Model for Other Cities OPINION | April 4, 2025
WORKFORCE
President and CEO of The Traffic Group
SEE MORE STORIES BY WES GUCKERT
Wes Guckert
ADVERTISEMENT
Latest News
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 7/11 California's Long-Term Population Slide Threatens Its Economy April 4, 2025
NEWS IN NUMBERS
$85 million
April 3, 2025
WHO SAID THAT
“I’m not a quitter.”
April 3, 2025
WORKFORCE
Louisiana Governor Orders Hiring Freeze Across Executive Branch April 4, 2025
More News
POLITICS
Illinois Republicans Suffer Losses Throughout the State
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Read
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 8/11 Stay on top of the latest state & local government news.
Sign up for Governing Daily. Delivered each morning to your inbox.
April 3, 2025
HOUSING AND URBAN ISSUES
Minneapolis Becomes Fourth City to Ban Rent Price-Fixing Software April 2, 2025
POLICY
A Rural California District Is a National Model for Reducing Absenteeism April 4, 2025
ARCHIVE
The Fast-Follower Strategy for Technology in Government August 24, 2018
HOUSING AND URBAN ISSUES
Are Libraries the New ‘Third Places’ We’re Looking For? OPINION | Feb. 18, 2025
ARCHIVE
States With Most Government Employees: Totals and Per Capita Rates March 21, 2014
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 9/11
FREE NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
Papers
Webinars
Podcasts
Sponsored Articles
About
Privacy & AI
Contact
Advertise
Stay Up To Date
Get smart with Governing. Where government is going in states & localities.
SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS
GET THE MAGAZINE
©2025 All rights reserved. e.Republic LLC
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Email Address*
4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 10/11 4/5/25, 9:19 AM Roads and the Case for Reduced Demand
https://www.governing.com/transportation/roads-and-the-case-for-reduced-demand 11/11 From: xin wang
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Opposition to Highway 101/92 Expansion
Date: Friday, April 4, 2025 4:27:33 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Highway 101/92 interchange. While addressing traffic congestion is a legitimate concern, this project poses serious long-term consequences for our city and its residents—especially those in the most vulnerable communities.
1. Expansion Doesn’t Solve Congestion—It Reinforces It
Transportation studies and historical data consistently show that widening highways does not reduce traffic in the long run. Instead, it induces more demand, and congestion levels ultimately return to their previous state. The recent example of the 101 expansion from Redwood City to San Bruno illustrates this clearly—despite significant investment, delays returned, and traffic patterns barely improved.
2. Environmental and Health Impacts on Equity Neighborhoods Communities adjacent to the interchange—such as Shoreview and Parkside —are designated equity-priority areas. These neighborhoods will bear the brunt of increased pollution, noise, and disruption. It feels as though our area is being treated as a path of least resistance. Shouldn’t we be protecting—not further burdening—the very communities that need support?
3. Displacement of Residents and Loss of Community Assets This project would destroy over 30 homes and eliminate a neighborhood park. At a time when the state is pressuring cities to build more housing, how can San Mateo justify removing existing homes—many of which have been in families for generations? These homes aren’t just structures; they are the foundation of stable, intergenerational communities.
4. Lack of Public Transit Solutions
Rather than funneling more cars onto already overburdened roads, why aren’t we considering bold alternatives like dedicated bus lines, ferry services, or shuttles? There is currently no public transit option across the San Mateo Bridge, which is a major contributor to commuter traffic. We need visionary solutions, not outdated ones that have proven ineffective.
5. Misuse of Public Funds and Rising Local Costs
This project comes at a massive cost to taxpayers—many of whom will never benefit from it. Meanwhile, our city still struggles with basic infrastructure like potholes and worn-down roads. Why should residents fund a project that disproportionately benefits wealthier drivers and out-of- town commuters, while increasing wear and tear on our local streets? In closing, I urge the City Council to reject this project and instead advocate for equitable, sustainable, and community-centered transportation solutions. Our neighborhoods, our homes, and our future deserve better.
Sincerely,
Xin Wang
From my iPhone
From: Borel Neighborhood Association
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Opposition for 101/92 Direct Connector
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 9:57:08 AM
Dear City of San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to oppose the proposed 101/92 Direct Connector project. The money could be better spent to reduce traffic through increased availability of public transportation, other modes of transportation, and local housing. Instead, this project is very likely to increase traffic, pollution, long commutes and decrease quality of life for residents.
Thank you for your attention,
Pam
Pamela Rittelmeyer, President
Borel Neighborhood Association
From: Aileen Catanzarita
To: City Council (San Mateo); [email protected]
Subject: Teen Bus Riders Can Reduce Traffic
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:20:24 AM
Dear Foster City and San Mateo City Councils,
“Foster City is the elephant in the midcentury classroom” (see attached article). It is a challenge to getting Foster City students on and off the island to get to San Mateo schools/work/activites. Having students take affordable and reasonable public transportation should be the goal and it will cut down on traffic.
At tonight’s San Mateo city council meeting, the discussion will be about rebuilding the 101/92 interchange and it seems they have completely jumped over the need to “expand local transit frequency” as it is stated in Plan Bay Area. Over the years, money has been allocated and spent on new “green” buses, but it certainly has not been spent on additional bus routes that benefit our community.
I grew up in San Francisco and took the bus everywhere. I live in Foster City and have two children. In 2017, when my boys were in high school, I started writing letters expressing my concerns about the lack of public transportation options - especially for teenagers - who are going to and from local high schools. The fact that Foster City students have to pay a stiff price to take the school bus is outrageous. I shared my worries with the mayors of Foster City, the newspaper, SamTrans and the superintendent and it all fell on deaf ears.
Sure, they expressed concern, and I was constantly told by SamTrans there was no money for buses but they always had the money to hire “youth commissioners” or buy news buses. In fact, Sam Trans paid for the Reimagine SamTrans campaign and THEY CUT SERVICE TO FOSTER CITY. It is infuriating To me, getting teenagers on public buses is LOW HANGING FRUIT in a complicated situation when you are trying to move people around the Bay Area. Why should parents have to drive kids around? How many parents drive during rush hours to pick up a children from an after-school activity? Plan Bay Area is very clear on its utopian goals to have a thriving public transportation system. This is a chicken and egg situation. You cannot ride public buses if you don’t provide them. This is about values, priorities and goals. Do we values Foster City and San Mateo teenagers? Do we want to cut down on traffic and provide affordable public transportation to and from their schools, the mall, their jobs etc.? Do we care about their mental health? Bus riding is good for self-esteem. If politicians honestly care about “building a next generation transit network”, then they will back up their words with concrete actions.
Regards,
Aileen Catanzarita
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/27/horgan-foster-city-is-the-elephant-in-the-mid-county- classroom/
https://www.samtrans.com/planning/reimaginesamtrans
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Transportation_October_2021.pdf https://medium.com/the-amiskuan-%E1%90%8A%E1%92%A5%E1%90%A2%E1%91%AF- %E1%90%83%E1%94%A8%E1%93%82/the-untold-psychological-benefits-of-public-transit-62aedffc6315 From: Dana Sahae
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Against Highway 101 / Route 92 Interchange lane widening Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 1:26:56 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed lane widening at the Highway 101 / Route 92 Interchange.
I believe the project to be too costly and invasive to the residents of San Mateo. The money could and should be better spent on improving mass transit alternatives for Bay Area commuters. Further, I don't want to see personal property or parks suffer to make more room for cars.
Please do everything possible to oppose this bad idea.
Thank you,
Dana Sahae
From: Rick Ballard
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Special meeting agenda item 1, 101-92 highway connector is a bad investment Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 1:36:50 PM
Dear City Council,
I was concerned to learn of plans for a potential new $200+ million connecting lane between highways 101 and 92.
This would be an investment in doubling-down on air-polluting, climate-damaging transit with uncertain impact on congestion. At this time we are facing an impending funding crisis for our local mass transit systems, and without enough funding they could fall into a downward spiral of reduced service cuts and reduced ridership. A collapse of mass transit would be catastrophic. We should be investing in keeping our mass transit available and encouraging ridership, not building more highway.
Additionally, the population here is going to increase, while space for cars won’t; so we will need to invest more in alternative transit options, including mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian safety. Please spend our limited funds accordingly, instead of wasting them on planning and evaluation of a potential 101-92 connector. This project should not go further in the planning process.
Thank you very much,
- Rick Ballard
San Mateo resident, district 2
From: Seema Patel
To: Clerk
Subject: Concerns about the 101/92 Direct Connector Project Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 3:10:09 PM
Hello City Councilmembers!
I currently serve as the Chair of the San Mateo Planning Commission but I am writing to you on my own behalf as a resident of San Mateo in District 3.
I have strong concerns about the proposed 101/92 Direct Connector project. I do not believe it is financially responsible to spend $200-$400M widening US 101 and adding a new express lane direct connector from SR 92 to US 101 given that studies have repeatedly shown that increasing road capacity results in a commensurate increase in car volume.
More concerning than the waste of taxpayer funds is the potential forcible seizure (eminent domain) of a portion of 33 residential properties - all to implement a solution that won’t actually solve the problem of traffic congestion.
The only way to reduce vehicle traffic is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. I encourage the Transportation Authority, Caltrans and C/CAG to redirect this funding to capital projects in the Regional Measure 3 Expenditure Plan that will enable a mode shift from private vehicles to public transportation, such as:
New BART cars
Extending BART’s Silicon Valley service to Santa Clara
Extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco
Expanding S.F. Muni’s transit vehicle fleet
More frequent transbay bus service [particularly restoring bus service across the San Mateo bridge, which was discontinued during the pandemic] Expanded ferry service
Thank you for your consideration,
Seema Patel