Impasse for Managed Lanes

The owner and operator decision is up to both the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, which oversees the county’s sales tax revenue earmarked for transportation, and the City/County Association of Governments. C/CAG is a joint powers authority comprised of board members representing each city and the county that works on quality of life issues such as air quality and transportation, among others.

At a meeting Thursday, C/CAG voted 11-7 to enter into negotiations with BAIFA after the TA last week voted 5-2 for the local ownership option.

Those divergent votes mean the project is currently at an impasse, though policymakers appear confident the two boards can come to a consensus within the next month or two. Part of the C/CAG motion Thursday entailed the creation of a joint ad hoc committee between both boards to resolve differences.

“Both boards have to come to an agreement in order for the Managed Lanes project to move forward,” said TA spokesman Dan Lieberman. “Both staffs are already in contact with one another and will work together to find a way forward on this issue.”

Facebook, which was part of a group of private sector employers that donated $50 million to the project, weighed in Thursday, Dec. 13, with a letter to C/CAG highlighting the benefits of consistency and regional interoperability if the BAIFA model is selected.

Andrew Fremier, deputy executive director of BAIFA, said whatever choice the two boards make will be virtually permanent because the express lane technology infrastructure doesn’t transition well between agencies.

“I think the decision you make, whatever it is, is a decision you’re going to be staying with for a long time,” he said.

How it works, raises money

The $514 million Managed Lanes proposal entails the construction of an additional lane in each direction on the stretch of Highway 101 in San Mateo County. The far left lane in both directions would be converted to an express lane equipped with signs and real-time surveillance equipment. After the project is complete, continuous express lanes would extend from Interstate 380 in San Bruno to San Antonio Road in Mountain View.

Express lanes promise speeds of at least 45 mph on all lanes at all times by allowing buses, carpools of three people or more and motorcycles to travel free while charging an electronic toll for other drivers who choose to use them. The tolls would fluctuate based on traffic volumes, but initial estimates suggest the average price would be $1 per mile in San Mateo County, which is relatively cheap compared to express lanes elsewhere.

The facility would also generate money. Estimates range from $9.7 million to $20.5 million in net revenue annually for the Highway 101 facility, but it could generate much less money or no money at all the first year it’s in operation or if there is an economic downturn. Revenue must be reinvested into the corridor and officials are excited to spend it on an express lane expansion as well as express bus service on those lanes.

The ultimate vision for many officials is to build continuous express lanes from Fourth and King streets in San Francisco to Mountain View. Fremier argued BAIFA can best realize that vision.

“We honestly believe that the things that BAIFA and MTC bring to the table give a lot more flexibility for developing the rest of the corridor and offering multiple mobility options in that corridor,” he said. “San Francisco seems to be much more engaged now to invest in an express lane system that would connect to [San Mateo County]. … There seems to be quite a bit of momentum to get the work going and frankly I think when the [San Mateo County] system starts to operate, people will really get engaged in recognizing the shortfalls of ending at 380.”

Construction on the Managed Lanes project is slated to begin in spring 2019 and wrap up by mid-2022.

The owner of an express lane facility owns all the tolling equipment, sets tolling policies and rates, issues violations and would be responsible for implementing any equity programs. The owner also assumes all liabilities and risks.

The operator of the facility, as one might guess, manages day-to-day operations.

Voting representation

BAIFA is a six-member committee comprised of voting members from the counties in which it operates. If BAIFA were to own the express lane facility on Highway 101, then the BAIFA committee would grow to seven members and San Mateo County would have one voting representative at the table.

That relatively small degree of influence was a turnoff for some C/CAG boardmembers.

“I have a deep concern about completely handing over [ownership to BAIFA] — one out of a handful of people doesn’t make me super comfortable that this isn’t going to get out of control and it’s going to negatively impact people’s lives and we’re doing this to make people’s lives better,” said Boardmember Catherine Carlton, who is also a Menlo Park councilwoman. “I’m uncomfortable with just handing it over.”

Boardmember Doug Kim, also a Belmont councilman, suggested local control wouldn’t be drastically compromised by granting ownership to BAIFA.

“As long as we can make sure that our representative on BAIFA has clear direction from the county, from the cities, I feel that we can make sure that our representative represents us on the BAIFA board,” he said. “As long as other counties can’t roll over us, I feel like we can preserve local control even though we only have one boardmember on BAIFA.”

Kim also suggested the BAIFA approach would be best in terms of expanding the corridor, but he’s not without reservations. He wants to see BAIFA’s promises in writing and wants to gain a clearer understanding of San Francisco’s willingness and ability to build express lanes there.

“I think there’s more advantages to the BAIFA approach, but it’s close,” he said.

Emily Beach, a TA boardmember and Burlingame councilwoman, spoke during public comment in support of the VTA partnership.

“What we’ve heard from our community is we’ve got to improve mobility on this corridor not just for cars on the highway but all modes of transportation and we also have to do it for all income levels. The VTA operating with ownership in San Mateo County I believe will best fulfill that vision,” she said. “Because this project is controversial and there’s concern about ‘are we creating a Lexus lane for wealthy people to drive faster in their single occupancy vehicles on the highway’ it becomes even more important that we have very transparent and local accountability to our constituents that yes we’re generating revenue, but we can draw a direct and local line to how we are investing and addressing equity.”

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102