May 6, 2025
Executive Director Sean Charpentier
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear U.S.,101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project Sponsors:
We are writing to you today on behalf of the residents of the City of San Mateo to express concern with the current U.S. 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project, as currently proposed. While we know that reducing traffic congestion and improving the US 101 / SR 92 interchange is important to the long-term economic success of the City of San Mateo, San Mateo County and the wider Bay Area region, residents (250+) came out in force at our April 7 council meeting to request a modified approach.
As always, we greatly appreciate your efforts to improve transportation infrastructure across San Mateo County, and we look forward to partnering with you to balance local community concerns with ongoing regional needs. To help us find an effective and community-friendly path forward, we would like to share more information about the specific concerns raised by residents:
• The potential use of eminent domain.
The San Mateo City Council cannot support a project plan that includes eminent domain. Any project should be developed within the current footprint of the existing highways and should not lead the removal of a local park and up to 31 residential homes.
• The inclusion of toll lanes in the project with surge pricing.
While we recognize these lanes generate much-needed revenue for transportation authorities, the efficacy of these lanes to reduce congestion in high-traffic corridors is unclear. We also are concerned these lanes could exacerbate income inequality.
• Potential impacts to bike and pedestrian lanes.
We are unsure how this project could impact the City’s current plans for East to West protected bike lanes & pedestrian ways in the 19th Ave corridor under SR 92.
• A lack of clear and consistent communication with residents.
When councilmembers initially engaged with residents of the 31 properties that could be impacted by eminent domain, not a single resident was aware of this project and how it could materially affect them. Communication and community engagement is key, and in this case, a gap in these areas explains much of the negative reaction to the project.
• Cost and environmental impact.
We understand the use of Regional, State and Federal funds is not always flexible and may be earmarked toward specific project types. However, it is unclear whether spending $200 million or
CITY OF SAN MATEO
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1338
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7040
more to expand highways is the best use of taxpayer funds, especially as there may be more environmentally friendly ways to address congestion in this corridor. For example, we could explore strategic highway widening within the existing highway footprint that benefits those who live in the cities of San Mateo and Foster City, rather than building toll lanes for East Bay Commuters, or implementing robust mass transit across the Bay on the SR 92 corridor.
For these reasons, the San Mateo City Council, in support of our community, is respectfully asking relevant transit and government authorities to seriously reconsider the US 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project as currently proposed.
We believe there are pathways for existing transportation funds to remain dedicated toward a project to ease congestion in this corridor, and we remain open to alternative proposals. As noted, we stand ready to work collaboratively toward solutions that benefit our residents.
Sincerely,
Robert Newsom Jr., Mayor on behalf of the City of San Mateo City Council City of San Mateo