OT: Skyline widening proposal and meeting Wednesday 9/13

[Adam Cozzette]

The city of San Bruno and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) have been working for a while on a proposal to widen Skyline Blvd. (SR 35) from two to four lanes between Sneath Lane and 280. San Bruno's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee has this on its agenda for its meeting this Wednesday September 13 at 6:00 pm at city hall conference room 115. If you have any thoughts on the widening project, this meeting would be a good time and place to share them.

You can find the full details about the project in the preliminary planning study here. At the end of July, the city council surface infrastructure subcommittee recommended against moving forward with the project, but last Wednesday the traffic safety and parking committee recommended in favor it. The next step is that it will go before the city council, probably some time in the next few months, and the council will make the ultimate decision of whether to continue with the project or not.

Best,

Adam

[Beckett Madden-Woods]

Most relevant part to us I think appears in §3.2.2:

 [...] The General Plan also proposes a bikeway along SR-35 from Sneath Lane to the San Andreas Trail entrance as a part of the 2030 Plan. Currently the San Andreas Trail is accessible from the San Bruno Avenue West and SR-35 intersection. The Trail provides a designated path for non-motorized methods of transportation south from San Bruno Avenue West. The proposed bikeway would serve an existing gap in designated bicycle routes from Sneath Lane to San Bruno Avenue West. Discussions with the City of San Bruno are recommended during project design in case additional SR-35 lane(s) are incompatible with bicycle traffic on SR-35, particularly between Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue West.

If there are temporary closures during construction, can re-route between Sneath to San Bruno Avenue via Earl/Glenview. But past that, the only viable alternative route is the S.A.T. itself, since there's no other way to cross 280 that doesn't go all the way down the hill to San Bruno.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this proposal, *unless* the proposal would advance removing bicycle access from that section of 35/280. The S.A.T. can close at the whims of SFPUC, after all.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.