San Mateo County TA Rejects Ped Safety Projects But Not Highway Expansions

San Mateo County TA awarded $108 million on October 1 to eight highway expansion projects, still believing we can "build our way out of congestion" on Highway 101. Photo: Andrew Boone
San Mateo County TA awarded $108 million on October 1 to eight highway expansion projects, still believing we can “build our way out of congestion” on Highway 101. Photo: Andrew Boone

With $125 million to lavish on it’s Highway Program this year, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) has decided to spend $108 million on highway expansion projects while denying funds for major pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements [PDF].

On October 1, the TA Board approved $11 million to reconstruct the Holly/101 Interchange in San Carlos as a partial cloverleaf to accommodate higher traffic volumes, but rejected the city’s $3 million request to include a ped/bike bridge. Scheduled for completion in 2018, the interchange will force people crossing the highway on foot or by bicycle to navigate a series of hazards.

“With the new design of Holly/101, people on bikes still must cross and weave with [auto traffic from] high-speed on and off ramps, and it won’t make people safe and comfortable enough to use walking and bicycling,” Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) Policy Manager Emma Shlaes told the board. “If a true Complete Streets design cannot achieved on the interchange itself, then funding should be provided to alternatives, in this case, the bike and pedestrian overcrossing.”

The pedestrian bridge was declared “not eligible to be funded from the Highway Program” by TA staff, even though the Highway Program has funded many safety improvements included in other projects.

“I certainly would not go so far as to say it would be illegal,” said TA Legal Council Joan Cassman at the board meeting. “But I would say that given the confines of this call for projects, and the rules we established in seeking proposals from sponsor cities to submit requests for grants from this agency for highway projects, we were quite clear that the requests for the projects we were seeking would not include separate bicycle overpass facilities.”

TA staff also defended their decision to deny funds on grounds that several ped/bike-specific funding sources could be used instead [PDF]. But those grant programs are tiny — dwarfed by sums heaped on highway expansions — so most critical safety projects remain unfunded for years or even decades.

“We are opposed to the position that the Holly Street & Highway 101 Interchange Reconstruction Project in San Carlos is ineligible for Measure A Highway Program funds,” wrote Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee Co-chair Gitv Dev in a letter to the TA Board. “The project was intended to ensure the safety of all users on the interchange. By splitting the project into a highway project and a bicycle pedestrian project, the Transportation Authority (TA) is unnecessarily inflating the cost and endangering a disadvantaged class of users.”

Also denied funds by the TA Board: Belmont’s $7.9 million request to implement part of the Ralston Avenue Corridor Plan, which install traffic signals, new sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes, and a new roundabout at the entrance to Notre Dame de Namur University.

Belmont's Ralston Avenue Corridor Plan proposes pedestrian and bike safety features in addition to vehicular capacity expansions on the deadly arterial street. Image: City of Belmont
Belmont’s Ralston Avenue Corridor Plan proposes pedestrian and bike safety features in addition to car capacity expansions on the deadly arterial street. Image: City of Belmont

And in another blow to creating walkable, bikeable streets and reducing traffic, the TA Board denied funds to a project that would create a more complete street grid in South San Francisco by extending Railroad Avenue under Highway 101. The highway is a major physical barrier that discourages nearly all non-motorized travel between the west and east sides of the city.  A continuous Roadroad Avenue would “alleviate significantly the existing traffic congestion caused by the only known west-east crossing along Grand Avenue… and create a more friendly bicycling and pedestrian environment,” according to the city’s application for $19 million in Highway Program funds.

Instead, the $108 million allocated by the TA Board on October 1 will fund eight interchange reconstructions or lane addition projects along Highway 101 in the hopes that providing more space for cars will somehow reduce traffic jams, even though decades of experience has shown otherwise.

Take it from the Federal Highway Administration:

The new or widened highway facility can carry significantly more traffic before it becomes congested. Many travelers who previously took other routes or traveled at other times may switch to the new facility to take advantage of decreased travel times… each user of a highway facility contributes to increased congestion on the facility. As congestion grows on the new facility, the overall user benefits attributable to potential travel time savings may decline. In addition, increased [Vehicle Miles Traveled] due to new or longer trips can result in air pollutant emissions and noise above the levels that would occur without the additional vehicle travel.

While the TA Board opted to deny Highway Program funds to the Holly/101 pedestrian bridge on October 1, it will review that decision at its next meeting on November 5.

  • City Resident

    Thank you for pointing out how our tax dollars are exasperating transportation problems (and indirectly worsening climate change) rather than contributing to infrastructure improvements that promote more environmentally sustainable and less gridlocked transportation.

  • Pat

    Many drivers claim they too are victims of trauma when they kill a pedestrian or cyclists. By that logic, anything that prevents that trauma could be considered a automobile safety upgrade.

  • gneiss

    The San Mateo TA has consistently claimed that the money raised from their funding source can only be used for highway expansion. It would be quiet instructive to know what laws they are actually citing for this position and whether or not they can be changed through a referendum.

  • murphstahoe

    Here’s another one.

    In 2011 – maybe earlier, Skyline Blvd over the Crystal Springs Dam was closed to repair the dam. Was supposed to be a 2 year project. Easy alternate route – take 280! Unless you’re a cyclist, in which case you descent Crystal Springs Road and then have a 2 mile climb up Polhemous Road – I’m pretty fit and it added 10 minutes to my commute by going flat out up the hill. For others the detour is longer or perhaps prohibitive compared to the original, flatter route.

    Solution? Allow cyclists to use that short stretch of 280. There are two other stretches of 280 just north of there that are bike legal due to the lack of an alternate route. But nope, can’t do it.

    The dam repair is done but the bridge across it appears to be indefinitely delayed. Perhaps because there is an easy alternate route on 280 – if you are in a car!

    A few intrepid souls met with Caltrans yesterday to discuss opening bike access (many cyclists have been illegally riding 280 anyway). There are a few infrastructure issues Caltrans would require to make it to bike standards – increasing the height of the safety rail, replacing grates with bike compliant ones, etc… Caltrans seems amenable but it would need to be funded, and San Mateo County has balked at this in the past. Basically they won’t fund re-opening the original route, nor fund an alternative needed because they won’t fix the bridge. Basically giving cyclists the finger.

  • Does this involve a state highway? Per SHC §887.8, Caltrans is required to provide bike improvements “parallel” anytime a state highway is improved. It might be worth a shot to see exactly how that could be applied in this case.

  • neroden

    This is the tack to take. If this abusive “funding for cars but not for people” tactic is actually illegal under state law, then you can force their hand.

  • neroden

    Under common law, a pedestrian walkway *is* a “highway”. It’ll be interesting to see what law they’re citing…

  • Part of the highway*. The highway is the entire right-of-way for public travel, which will usually include sidewalks and of course the roadway, shoulders, etc.

  • Yep, especially since Caltrans also claims that they want to triple biking by 2020. Here’s a great chance for them to put their foot down and do so. I’d get more involved, but I already have too much going on of my own here in the IE.


Pedestrian Safety Still Starved for Funding in San Mateo County

On March 3, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) awarded $4.9 million to ten pedestrian and bicycle safety projects – $1 million less than the agency awarded two years ago. Agency staff had revised up the amount of funding for this year’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to $5.7 million in February, but explained in the Board’s […]

San Mateo County Bike/Ped Safety Projects Starved for Funding

Despite growing demand for better walking and biking infrastructure in San Mateo County, active transportation grants from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) cover only a fraction of the projects that cities want to build, leaving many residents without the sidewalks, bike lanes, and other basic ingredients they need to safely […]