1 Alby Calles
From: David Hunt
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 1:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Annual Transportation Review and Climate Action Plan Progress Report — June 1, 2026 Hello council, a lot here but I tried to summarize up top here if you're short on time. I appreciate your time on these high-priority topics.
These two important agenda items read together reveal a gap. The Climate Action Plan Progress Report measures progress against the city's adopted 2024 Climate Action Plan, which establishes that on-road transportation is the city's largest and growing emissions source, making better travel alternatives a priority. The Transportation Review shows the city is giving away peak-demand parking for free while the highest-priority safety projects are stalled for lack of funding and staff. Right-pricing parking won't solve emissions on its own, but it is a logical local source to help fund the alternatives, and both items overlook the metric needed to track whether any of it works. The requests below connect them.
Summary of requests:
1. Study evening parking pricing. Downtown lots hit 90% occupancy at dinner while free. The city should ensure it keeps the majority of any new revenue working in downtown and dedicate a defined subset to Quick Build safety projects and other unfunded transportation safety projects in our extensive Master Plans.
2. Bring on-street occupancy data (lunch and dinner, by time of day) before setting pricing.
The city collected this for the 2014 Downtown Parking Management Plan and I believe has plans to do another parking study in the near future. Collecting this data should be explicitly included in that future study.
3. Track VMT in both reports. Neither the Transportation Review nor the Climate Action Plan Progress Report measures vehicle miles traveled, the variable the city's largest emissions source depends on.
——————————————————————————————————————
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you to Public Works staff for a thorough review. My comment connects two items on tonight's agenda that the city presents as unrelated: the Annual Transportation Review and the Climate Action Plan Progress Report. The 2024 Climate Action Plan establishes that on-road transportation is the city's largest and growing emissions source and the Transportation Review shows the city giving away revenue and overlooking the metrics needed to understand climate progress.
Price evening parking, and use it to close the safety funding gaps.
The utilization slide shows downtown dinner-hour demand (6-8 PM) reaching 90% at the two main downtown garages, and the slide notes this is outside the parking enforcement window, meaning it is free. The key-takeaway slide presents this as a success: occupancy "remains strong, even after 6pm." But 90% occupancy at a price of zero is not a success. It is unpriced peak demand, which produces cruising for spaces, double-parking, and a less pleasant downtown, while leaving money on the table.
2 Council should also ask staff to look beyond the garages and lots. The data presented covers off-street facilities, but the on-street spaces, the most convenient and sought-after, are likely fuller still at lunch and dinner. The city collected on-street oc
cupancy for the 2014 Downtown Parking Management Plan, so refreshing that data is no new lift, and pricing can't be set sensibly without it. The spaces drivers compete hardest for are exactly where pricing does the most good.
Downtown parking already generates roughly $3.6M a year, but the bigger win from right-pricing the busiest hours is a better downtown. Keeping a space or two open on every block means drivers find parking quickly instead of circling, which cuts congestion, idling, and the cruising and double-parking that create safety conflicts. It improves turnover so more customers reach businesses over an evening, rather than a few cars holding the best spaces for hours. And the revenue can be reinvested directly into the downtown people are paying to park in.
To be clear about how that revenue should be used: the majority should stay in the area it was collected, reinvested in the downtown parking program and in beautifying and improving the downtown itself. That is both good policy and what builds public support for pricing.A defined subset of the new revenue be dedicated to two things the Transportation Review itself flags as unfunded:
Community engagement and design capacity for the high-priority projects that require reallocating street space.
Further funding for supporting and implementing Quick Build solutions on our streets. The three example CIP projects identified with "Critical QB Gap Funding," including the Delaware Safe Routes to School protected bike lane, the Hillsdale/Alameda intersection safety improvement, and LRSP Priority Package 1.
This matters because the highest-priority projects are the ones being deprioritized.
The Bicycle Master Plan slides sort projects by whether they "don't reduce vehicle lanes or remove parking." Only about 48% of High-priority projects avoid touching lanes or parking. Read plainly: nearly half of the High-priority projects, and a majority of the work overall, requires reallocating space, and the Challenges section frames that as a constraint rather than the core of the assignment. The progress slide confirms the result: only about 22% of the High and Med-High network is complete.
The presentation also identifies what is actually blocking these projects. It is not engineering. It is funding and staff capacity. The staffing slides show Transportation Planning positions downgraded and the half- time Safe Routes to School coordinator gone, and Private Development/Right-of-Way cut from seven positions to three. Priced evening parking is a logical, locally controlled source to help rebuild that capacity for the projects Council has already made a priority.
Finally, direct that VMT be tracked across both of these reports.
This is where the two items most need to talk to each other. The Progress Report includes no updated inventory or VMT measure, despite its own 2024 inventory naming on-road transportation as the largest emissions source. The Transportation Review, across 55 slides, likewise never measures VMT or ties transportation to climate targets, and its mode-share slide titled "More Balanced Network" actually shows walking and biking commute shares declining. Both count outputs, EV ports, bike-lane miles, grant dollars, but not whether driving is going down. We cannot manage what we do not measure.
Council should direct staff to add a per-capita VMT indicator to both reports going forward. 3 In short: price the downtown parking that is currently free at peak demand, keep the majority of that revenue working in downtown while dedicating a defined subset to the safety and bike projects staff have flagged as unfunded, and track VMT in both the Transportation Review and the Climate Action Plan Progress Report so we know whether we are moving the needle.
Thank you for your time and for considering these requests. - Dave
David Hunt
1 Alby Calles
From: Mike Swire
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 3:55 PM
Subject: Item 17 Transportation Review - detailed analysis & questions Hello SM Leaders,
Thank you for considering the state of transportation in SM. Here are some thoughts on the packet:
Agenda Report
p. 2 - The crash figures seem much lower than what I currently see when I query TIMS. Is your query based on a SWITRS/TIMS query or is it based on the SMPD's website? TIMS shows:
o 384 total crashes instead of 197
o 2 fatalities instead of 1
o 18 severe injuries instead of 13
o 40 pedestrian crashes instead of 34
o 26 bike crashes instead of 25, etc.
o Regarding primary crash factors in TIMS - 40% unsafe speed, 15% improper turning, 8% DUI, etc.
o The City should not exclude crashes occurring in the City of SM on state highways, including 101, as the City can influence these routes. The City of SM did not object to the recent widening of US 101 in San Mateo, thereby encouraging more auto traffic and more crashes. The City can influence the 101/92 Direct Connector project, which could add many more cars to local streets and the highway.
p. 2 - When will staff present its proposal for an improved traffic calming process/program? Will citizens have the opportunity to provide input before this proposal is finalized? What were the 12 (or 15) quick build projects?
p. 1 & 3 - What % of "bike infrastructure" actually provides a safety benefit? (vs. Class III/sharrows projects/mileage without traffic calming elements) (e.g., new South Grant and Highland "Bike Boulevards")
p. 3 - What is the status of construction on the Delaware Safe Routes to School Project? There has been no recent activity here. Is this related to complaints from the ARCO gas station owner? p. 4 - Auto congestion has increased in the past year. Why is this? Population and employment in the County have been steady for several years so these factors aren't to blame. Meanwhile, Caltrain and BART usage are down from pre-pandemic levels. Are more people driving because we widened 101?
p. 4 - "The City seeks to enhance the efficiency and accessibility of parking resources". I am not sure what "efficiency" means here. Shouldn't we be optimizing parking resources? By enhancing accessibility, do we imply that we would never consider reducing parking supply regardless of demand or efforts to get people out of cars and into other modes of transportation? Every parking space we create or continue to maintain raises taxpayer costs, increases danger on our streets, and worsens air and climate pollution.
p. 4 - Why did the number of downtown parking permits skyrocket this year? Is this good?
2 p. 4 - You mention that parking utilization was high at two of our many garages (for very limited periods). What about the others? Are there garages that can be decommissioned to save taxpayer $ and add more housing?
p. 4 - Monthly permit utilization is 100% at two garages. Is this good or bad? Why is this important?
p. 4 - We quantify parking revenue. What about parking cost and net revenue? Do we make or lose money on parking? How can we improve net revenue? Draft Presentation
p. 8 - Do we have 2025 mode shift data? This timeline doesn't align with the rest of the presentation?
p. 8 - Why do we think ped and bike mode share is decreasing in SM? Are people scared to walk and bike? Have we made it easier for them to drive (through speed and parking)? p. 14 - How are we currently managing traffic calming requests? Is this trackable in My San Mateo app?
p. 17 - What is the definition of a quick build project? E.g., the Delaware Safe Routes to School project took several years (?) and had several public meetings. p. 19 - Are we taking advantage of recent changes in State law to reduce speed limits in areas beyond schools? - business activity districts, "safety corridors", areas with high mix of vulnerable road users, rounding down from 85th percentile?
p. 20 - What has happened to the SRTS Strategic Plan after its completion more than a year ago? There has been zero communication to the many community members who volunteered their time to this effort.
p. 22 - What is the PP delta stat?
p. 24 - Can we add "inexpensive" to the reasons we support active transportation? With the price of gas >$6 and new cars costing $50K, we need to make it safe for those who cannot afford a car. p. 42 - Why is monthly parking discounted/subsidized? Why aren't we charging market rates? $65
public vs. $250 private????
p. 44 - Why is residential permit parking program free? Taxpayers without cars are subsidizing people with cars?
p. 45 - What is utilization at the less utilized garages. How underutilized are these garages and can we repurpose them?
p. 46 - What does permit utilization mean?
p. 48 - Why only $7M/year in internal spending in our budget? Does grant money reduce the amount the City pays or augment the number of projects? p. 51 - Staffing is remaining constant in Transportation. Does this mean we are OK with the pace of change?
Sorry for the brain dump but I wanted to cover everything as I know that different members have different interests. I will distill my comments for tonight,
Mike