New plan for Managed Lanes

BAIFA is proposing to only manage the express lane facility on Highway 101 and let San Mateo County own it — a deviation from its original offer to both own and operate the facility.

On Thursday, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority board celebrated the new offer — which it will likely vote to approve in February — and has sent a memo to the City/County Association of Governments to follow suit. Both agencies must agree on the owner and operator by February or the project will be delayed and construction costs will inflate.

“I think we can move forward particularly with this interesting new development that’s on the table, an opportunity to still partner with BAIFA but in a different way where San Mateo County can retain ownership,” said TA Vice Chair Emily Beach, also a Burlingame councilwoman. “I’m hoping that will really make a difference.”

Last month, the TA voted to have local control of the express lane facility with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority managing it while C/CAG voted for BAIFA to own and operate the facility — but that was before BAIFA’s new offer was proposed.

The TA oversees the county’s sales tax revenue earmarked for transportation, and 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.

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.

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.

A big part of why the TA is so interested in local control of the tolling facility is because it wants local policymakers to be able to implement their own equity programs for low-income drivers. The owner would also be able to spend revenue — which is estimated to range between $9.7 million and $20.5 million a year — on transportation projects of its choosing so long as those projects are in the corridor.

The ultimate vision is to build continuous express lanes from Fourth and King streets in San Francisco to Mountain View and revenue could be used to make that vision a reality.

“One of our concerns is equity and we wanted to make those decisions, we didn’t want them made someplace else. By us being owners of the Managed Lanes, we’d retain all funding and we’d be able to make decisions about equity as well as other decisions on toll policy, toll discounts, enforcement and an equity program that’s important to all of us as well as to C/CAG,” said Don Horsley, TA chair and San Mateo County supervisor. “We all agree whether ownership remains in San Mateo County or is transferred we all have a common interest, and MTC/BAIFA will work with us and San Francisco County to extent those Managed Lanes from 380 north into San Francisco to benefit the entire corridor.”

Local ownership also means San Mateo County would assume the risk if the express lanes don’t generate revenue as projected.

“The TA recognizes that the final risk of potential cost overruns on the construction of the project or cash flow requirement for ramping up the operations and the operations themselves are and will be the primary responsibility of the TA with C/CAG helping with STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) or other funds if it can,” Horsley said. “The reason for this is [San Mateo County] cities don’t want to find themselves assessed for additional funding. We’re agreeing that we the TA would not request C/CAG members provide their own funds to cover the financial risk.”

One of the reasons some C/CAG board members were interested in having BAIFA own the facility is they saw that agency as best equipped to expand the express lanes into San Francisco. But Beach listed alternative opportunities for buildout.

“There are other opportunities and one of them is (state gas tax increase) SB 1, that has now been protected. … In future grant cycles there could be opportunities and that’s probably one of the best opportunities because we’re such a high priority corridor,” she said.

She also mentioned federal grants, and Horsley added that installing express lanes from Interstate 380 into San Francisco would not be as expensive as the San Mateo County project because additional lanes would not be constructed as part of that project.

There was also some concern expressed about potential construction cost overruns, but most board members were adamant that such circumstances are unlikely.

“There aren’t as many unforeseen circumstances, it’s not as if we’re building a bridge so I wouldn’t anticipate a 25 percent overrun,” Horsley said in response to one board member’s claim that studies show large infrastructure projects regularly see cost overruns between 25 percent and 40 percent. “[The project] may well go over, but it’s not highly likely. It’s essentially just lanes and I think we have a pretty good history of managing projects efficiently.”

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102