As it aims to squeeze every inch of available space while promoting buses and carpooling on Highway 101 in San Mateo County, Caltrans announced its proposal to add express lanes is expected to have minimal environmental impacts and that no current lanes will be taken away.
The San Mateo Highway 101 Managed Lanes Project aims to incentivize carpooling and mass transit by creating a new lane that would be free to carpoolers and open to those willing to pay. A lengthy draft environmental impact report was released Monday and Caltrans will host public forums on the project early next month.
The project aims to align with plans in Santa Clara County to convert existing carpool lanes and create a new 22-mile stretch of express lanes in a region touted as being one of the biggest economic drivers in the world, but where 70 percent of commuters drive solo.
But unlike traditional highway widening, engineers have pored over every inch of San Mateo County’s 15-mile stretch from Whipple Avenue to State Route 380 to create a new lane in each direction. Now, officials are pleased to announce the project will primarily stay within existing Caltrans right-of-way.
“The reason the environmental impacts and right-of-way impacts are minimal, is because we designed it that way to save time and money,” said Caltrans spokesman Jeff Weiss. “We were very motivated to work within the existing right-of-way.”
The proposal is still in the relatively early stages, with the environmental review a key component before design work can begin. Plus, funding for the $534 million project has yet to be secured. The goal if all goes to plan, however, is to begin construction in 2020 and open lanes by 2024, according to the report.
The general plan involves realigning constrained portions of the highway to add a new managed lane in each direction. That can be accomplished by narrowing far left lanes, reducing the width of shoulders and eliminating auxiliary lanes where possible. But the project is not without impacts.
Certain auxiliary lanes, which are reserved for merging on or off the freeway, will be eliminated while heavily trafficked ones will be replaced. The report also outlines several sound walls that will need to be relocated and the replacement of a pedestrian overcrossing along Monte Diablo Avenue in San Mateo. There would also be a range of impacts during construction and requires approvals from a litany of local, state as well as federal agencies, according to the report.
The project also necessitates some right-of-way acquisition in constrained areas, particularly near the San Mateo-Burlingame border. About a 6-foot-wide strip of frontage road — primarily around the Poplar Avenue ramp and Department of Motor Vehicles office in San Mateo — may need to be acquired to make room for the project. Small swaths of road may need to be acquired from the cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, and other right-of-way acquisitions may be needed in various areas along the corridor for the installation of tolling equipment, according to the report.
The express lanes would be free to buses or shuttles, carpoolers with at least three people and, per state law, clean air vehicles. The lane would be available to solo drivers for a fee, with a discounted rate available to two people carpooling. Rates and who is able to use the lane would be adjusted depending on congestion as laws require carpool or express lanes to operate at a minimum 45 mph, according to the report.
“There’s not enough incentive to take a bus or carpool on San Mateo 101 because there is no carpool lane,” Weiss said. “If we’re asking people to carpool, we can’t expect too much because we’re not giving them enough benefit to get in someone else’s car or get on the bus. So the idea is we’re moving away from vehicle throughput and moving toward throughput. We’re trying to get more people in each vehicle rather than move more vehicles through the corridor.”
The end goal is to create a larger, interconnected Bay Area system of express lanes, he explained. Tolls would be collected electronically and violating express lane laws can cost upwards of $400, according to Caltrans.
Recommended for you
The local project is a collaborative effort between Caltrans, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and the City/County Association of Governments. C/CAG Executive Director Sandy Wong agreed the ultimate goal is to encourage people to carpool or take mass transit.
“The project is proposing a new express lane so it will give carpools and buses the advantage, reliable travel time and that in turn would relieve some congestion on the general purpose lane,” Wong said while trying to assure solo drivers the project won’t exacerbate traffic projections.
Traffic analysis showed converting a general purpose lane would worsen travel times for solo drivers who remain the majority of commuters. Instead, engineers have looked throughout the corridor to find areas where they can pinch pennies, or in this case inches, and create a new managed lane primarily within the existing footprint of the highway, she said.
“They’re maximizing every inch of the freeway,” she said.
The project costs range from about $505 million to $534 million when including escalation and while no specific funding sources have been identified, Wong said she’s hopeful Senate Bill 1 could provide assistance. That recently approved legislation, which included gas tax increases and hikes to vehicle registration fees, includes a congested corridors program. She noted managed lanes on Highway 101 were specifically listed as examples in the legislation and is hopeful the San Mateo County project will be considered competitive for the statewide funding source.
Weiss emphasized this corridor has a major influence on the continued prosperity of the region and Caltrans will aggressively seek funding, as well as public input on the project that affects a broad segment of the community.
“We think the project is vital to the economy, 20 [percent] to 25 percent of the [gross domestic product] of California comes from businesses along that corridor,” Weiss said. “If people can’t get to their jobs, than it’s going to have a drag on the economy.”
The public meetings are 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 6, at Redwood City Hall, 1071 Middlefield Road; and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Monday, Dec. 11, at San Mateo City Hall, 330 W. 20th Ave. Visit dot.ca.gov/d4/101/managedlanes/ for more information.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
Twitter: @samantha_weigel

(12) comments
They will take every inch of leeway emergency vehicles need to pass the gridlock...They are going to take property imminent domain..so they think this is a solution? Provide more space and east west Bridge commuters will take it...We will be right where we started..
This will not address the root cause (public transit isn’t good enough), but goes in the right direction…but….at what cost?
Meaning that this will only increase the queue or buffer to the main bottle neck: The San Mateo/Hayward Bridge (92) and the interchanges at both ends will still be logger jammed with traffic. They can add 100 new lanes to increase the queue and the congestion will still be there both on the freeways and those cutting through our neighborhoods trying to beat the other guy to the bridge interchange
Even it Caltrans can find the money and room to build another bridge parallel to the existing bridge…the logger jam will still be the exchanges at both end. 101 and 880…but then they feed eastward to the bedrooms in the evening and feed westward to the jobs in the morning.
Meaning that it is whole system and a regional system that needs to change.
At what cost to The City of San Mateo?...and for what gain to The City of San Mateo? Ditto neighboring cities.
Other solutions like pay to drive in special lanes become a eco-social issue, as those at or below a certain income level will not be able to afford that extra cost.
Best to remove more vehicles from commuting and divert them to public transit, which isn’t good enough yet. They all know of the MTC Columbus Day report…of which removing just a small percentage of commute vehicles dramatically reduces congestion on 101 & 880 where MRC measured. On Presidents Day…the congestion was ZERO. Reinforcing that removing a small percentage of vehicles from the commute will reduce congestion.
On that, removing vehicles from the commute, there are many, many possible ways. IMHO, think the millions planned on this would be better spent reducing the commute numbers.
More lanes --> more cars --> more traffic . . . When will we learn??? How about spending 1/100 of that amount for a safe, direct route for people who bike between SF and SJ.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
They are clearly trying to solve the wrong problem/ asking the wrong question. The problem is merging on and off of the freeway/ interchange configuration / signal coordination. Traffic flow does not work because people are cutting in at the last second/ using exit only lanes to game traffic. If 1,000 to 2,000 feet before the exit had lane dividers (similar to the ones on the Bay Bridge) then traffic could flow better. Also no need for huge shoulders on the exits. Space could be reconfigured to allow traffic to head west into San Mateo at 3rd ave and 92 west exits. TOD also means people who do not choose public transit congest major freeway exits more need to redesign to better accommodate the extra traffic. 101 was widened/ reconfigure back in mid 00's between Milbrae and San Mateo could have made improvements then.
Thomas, there are lots of reasons why traffic is as bad as it is on 101. Caltrans had plans in the 1980's for offramps that resemble those at Poplar in San Mateo for southbound at Maple St. and Second Ave in Redwood City. They also had plans for a direct on ramp from Maple Street northbound. As you cross that concrete bridge on 101, notice how much room there is until the outer guardrail. It was built to be the entrance to 101 from Maple Street. Why is there no direct fly over to the Bayfront Expressway from southbound 101? A city councilman from a city west of 101 at Marsh led a revolt believing their city would be inundated with traffic. Also remember, East Bayshore was originally intended to run from Menlo Park to San Carlos. RWC residents blocked the 2nd Ave off ramp and Caltrans gave up trying to sell the Maple Street ramps. The RWC City Manager promised a direct on on ramp at Maple St to 101 when they moved the Police Dept from downtown to across Highway 101 at Maple Street. Never happened. Talk about missed opportunities.
Since we're playing shoulda, woulda, coulda. They should have brought Bart down when we wanted them to, and they could have, years ago. Bart from San Francisco to San Jose. Hindsite is 20/20.
When exactly was this. The late 50's and early 60's when Santa Clara, San Mateo and Marin Counties bailed on BART? Or was it when San Mateo agreed to buy back into BART and paid enough only to get it to Millbrae and also contributed money to BART which helped fund the Dublin/Pleasanton extension.
Glad it didn't happen. BART is running on borrowed time, it will need many billions of dollars in the future for deferred maintenance. Upgrading Caltrain is a far better alternative.
A new lane will only mean more cars. The use fee will only add to the socio-economic divide of our society.
SamTrans will come to you for a sales tax Measure in 2018 for $500+ million to widen Highway 101 to ten lanes and $160 million expansion of the Highway 101/92 interchange. More here http://www.peoplepoweredpress.org/2017/11/21/san-mateo-county-sales-tax-to-include-highway-101-expansion/
Create the Express Lane by restriping an *existing* mixed-flow lane ... if they insist on adding another lane using a combination of existing and new (acquired) ROW, then tell them you're voting "NO" on the sales tax. No more kicking the can down the road on the proven failed "strategy" of road widening leading to more VMT and quickly returning to the same or worse congestion.
Focus the tax spending on congestion-free transit, complete streets and other more sustainable and heretofore underfunded and/or neglected alternatives to auto-based/dependent means of transportation, or forget it.
It's the only way to get these dead-enders' attention. We don't need to repeat the proven failures of the past and wind up choking in even more traffic congestion without non-driving alternatives.
This proposal is a joke, this is cause more traffic congestion on Hwy 101 near Poplar Ave exit. There's already lots changing lanes around that exit. This is just going to add more traffic to other particular lanes, and make the carpool lane more difficult.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.