The $581 million express lane project from the San Mateo County line to Interstate 380 launched about two years ago and was heralded as a way to ease congestion on the heavily traveled Highway 101 by offering a faster lane for a payment or three people in the car. The trouble, however, is that there is no data on whether it has actually done what is was anticipated to do. Anecdotal data show the express lane sometimes is as slow, or as nearly as slow, as the other lanes, or nowhere near what one would expect for the payment they made to use the lane.
The further expansion initiative is in the environmental and preliminary design phase, expected to be completed by the end of 2026. Initial estimates are that total construction costs for the express lanes expansion could range from $250 million to $350 million for the stretch between Interstate 380 and the county line with San Francisco.
The express lanes bring in about $28 million a year to San Mateo County, which goes to operations and maintenance, construction repayment and a low-income benefits program for subsidized use. And the money being allocated for the environmental and preliminary design stage are for highway-specific projects. Meantime, there is further study being initiated for a much-needed express lane expansion at the State Route 92/Highway 101 interchange that could ease the backups onto 101 at rush hour. This is needed.
The nonsense part is the push to consider the pollution and air quality impact of a highway widening on nearby communities. There are those who say the express lane project north of 380 should not add an additional lane, but rather convert a current lane to paid. This, to them, equates to not expanding a highway. The express lanes project south of 380 added a lane, however, it did remove the auxiliary lanes used by many locals who went only one exit on the highway. It was a way to convince people it would be OK since San Mateo County never even had carpool lanes before.
Recommended for you
So there is a push to have express lanes without adding a lane north of 380 because, in large part, some say a highway expansion would have a negative effect on nearby neighborhoods. That’s a specious argument since not adding them would create congestion, which would add to poor air quality with idling and braking. If you take the “no on highway expansion” to a further end, keeping the lanes as is would make the travel experience so bad people might consider taking public transit or riding their bike. That works in fantasyland, but this is the real world where people take cars up and down the Peninsula all the time. There may be a time when we will have efficient electric self-driving cars and buses that maximize the highway experience, but we are not there yet. People use cars and trucks and vans to do all sorts of things. And if the highway is congested, expansion or no expansion, they will take surface streets and move their exhaust and brake dust there.
Before you start typing angry responses, I do agree we should consider if any highway project north of 380 is really worth it. We are talking about 6.6 miles that typically flows fairly well aside from the bridge where South City meets Brisbane. My guess is the expansion would generate about $15 million a year, but cost $350 million, which isn’t that great of an investment. However, there are other important things we should be doing with our transportation agencies.
First of all, every effort should be put into getting the Burlingame Broadway grade separation concluded. I know some people say this is car-centric because it helps traffic flow. But it will help the California Drive bike lanes become less of a drag on traffic and actually eliminate congestion and help air quality in the area. Every action has a larger ripple effect, and easing the traffic congestion will help the bike lanes become more popular and ease public sentiment in allowing more bike lanes in other areas. The lanes are used, but many see them as a traffic clogger though the blame should be on the Caltrain intersection. Unlock it through a grade separation and bike lanes can more easily spread.
Besides, the Broadway intersection is dangerous and we should focus our attention on eliminating danger too. So ditch the express lanes north of 380 and focus on grade separations to create a better environment for all, including more bike lanes.
The 101 widening also killed 2 bike and pedestrian 101 overpasses at Holly and Hillsdale, 2 projects that were shovel ready but became more expensive and required redesigns, causing the Cities of San Mateo and San Carlos to miss their grant funding deadlines. Cyclists are dying at these locations. Talk about priorities and ripple effects…
Spend the money on fixing potholes and safety for cyclists and pedestrians!
And then there is the issue of express lane to where? SF will never continue the express lane north.
Good article, although I don't understand how you can claim that we need to widen the highway in order to reduce pollution. History and science (supply/demand) demonstrate that more lanes means more cars. There is no way that more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars (even if you assume, without evidence, that the additional lanes will increase speeds). If that were the case, why do GHG emissions, especially from transportation, continue to increase?
Thanks for your comment, joebob91, but your assertion that “There is no way that more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars (even if you assume, without evidence, that the additional lanes will increase speeds),” is misleading. It is widely known that cars at lower and higher speeds emit more emissions than cars operating at a “sweet spot” speed. As such, more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars, especially if those fewer cars are stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Perhaps these extra lanes will get cars to drive at the “sweet spot” instead of being stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
If your assertion that “History and science (supply/demand) demonstrate that more lanes means more cars,” then where are these “more cars” coming from? Are they eschewing public transportation because the alternative is more convenient and efficient than public transportation? Perhaps these extra lanes will serve to allow more folks to commute more efficiently than public transportation. And reduce emissions from public transportation that must complete their routes whether they have no passengers or a full busload/trainload. What are the GHGs from those use cases?
You ask, “If that were the case, why do GHG emissions, especially from transportation, continue to increase?” Perhaps from cars sitting in stop-and-go traffic because they don’t have enough lanes. Perhaps because bus/train routes operate at 100% capacity (100% emissions) even though they’re operating at 50% or less capacity (still 100% emissions).
So should we add another express lane? I guess it depends on whether we’ll ever receive a rate of return on the money spent to create the extra lane. Or whether an extra lane will allow cars to achieve a “sweet spot” speed to reduce overall emissions? As it is now, we don’t have the data. Of course, we can always create an extra lane now and see what happens. But this time, accumulate data. If results aren’t good, we can remove the extra lane. Kind of like the bike lanes in North Central San Mateo. We tried them out, results weren’t good, so we’re removing them.
Congestion cannot be fixed. Period. If you provide something convenient for absolutely free, people will take advantage of it. So congestion will always happen. The ridership on SamTrans and Caltrain are proving that point. People just moved out of transit and onto highways polluting more in the process.
The question each city however needs to decide for themselves is do you want congestion on 2 lanes (less air pollution), 6 lanes (more air pollution), 26 lanes (Katy highway, Houston).
If more highways and more highway lanes were the solution, then Los Angeles would be heaven. Is it though?
So let's assume there are only 2 lanes of traffic going north-bound, which means all day long there would be traffic going either stop-and-go or maybe 40-60mph. But on 4 lanes you would end up with 4 times the stop-and-go traffic but outside of rush hour now you end up with speeding and racing cars, which leads to even more air pollution.
So no, not in the history of humankind have more lanes led to less air pollution ever. Any politician still repeating the old stories is probably in the pockets of the automotive industry, the fossil fuel billionaires, the infrastructure companies and their unions. It's a huge government subsidy that keeps making things worse for all of us.
eGerd – TBot here. These roads are not “absolutely” free, they were paid for with taxpayer money. And what is the difference between “absolutely free” and “free”? No taxpayer funds vs. taxpayer funded? And if “congestion will always happen,” then shouldn’t we do our best to ensure traffic flows at the “sweet spot” speed for vehicles? You ask if LA would be heaven if more highways and more highway lanes were the solution. I’d say it’s more of a heaven with more highways and more highway lanes than less. And we’ve already gone over the “pollution” thing. Cars aren’t as efficient at low and high speeds, which is why we should endeavor for a “sweet spot” speed. If we don’t have data, how can we tell where we’re at?
"Freeways" are called freeways because they are "free" to use and yes they are very expensive to build.
They are however rarely paid by the gas tax of all these joyriders and speedsters too good to take SamTrans or Caltrain and too rich or too lazy to ride a bicycle.
They are paid through the General Fund, which means people driving more are highly subsidized by pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and people driving less.
But mostly these "freeways" are paid for through National Debt ("Infrastructure Bill") - owned by the US pension system, China and Japan.
I'm all about the traffic flow and exactly for that reason, I prefer roundabouts over 4-way stops. I believe the sweet spot of driving, traffic flow, air pollution, GHG emissions, capacity, safety is somewhere around 35-45mph.
That speed moves the most amount of cars and drivers, keeps road maintenance cost lower, keeps emergency responders in their garages and lowers stress levels for all road users.
So if CA Democrats, Caltrans and the Automotive Industry really were all about the "sweet spot" - why are CA speed limits starting at 65mph, even 75mph on certain highways? Why is passing on the right hand side still allowed in CA?
Thanks for a thoughtful article about some of the traffic woes in our county. I agree... the priority should shift from express lanes to grade separations... especially at Broadway and California Drive. I cross the tracks at the location five times a week and doing so can be very stressful. I start planning my westbound crossing before reaching Rollins Road. Will a westbound vehicle turning north on California Drive stop to wait for the light to turn green for the westbound lanes? That can cause a car to stop on the tracks. Will a pedestrian or bicyclist in the right-hand lane crosswalk halt vehicular traffic crossing the tracks? While everyone agrees we want those peds and bikes to be safe, insisting on the right of way in front of cars trying to clear a dangerous railroad crossing may not be a safe thing to do. Will a westbound vehicle on Broadway, while crossing the tracks and without signaling, try to crowd over into the right turn lane? That can cause the car being crowded to stop on the tracks. As few weekday trains stop at the Caltrain Broadway station, when the red lights start blinking and the bells start clanging, a car stopped on the tracks may not have much time to get out of the way. A grade separation would make the Broadway/California Drive intersection safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
Crossing from California Drive onto eastbound Broadway across the tracks is whole set of other adventures.
As usual in these kinds of comments by many editors and commenters alike the years and years of strong but eventually false advertising by the automotive and fossil fuel industry keeps shining through.
Congestion cannot be fixed. In fact congestion is the desired outcome for Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats. Research has shown over and over again that more lanes don't fix congestion they just encourage more congestion. You don't fight air pollution by adding more capacity for air pollution. If someone feeds only ice cream to children they will eventually become diabetic and/or obese. If Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats would tell you more ice cream is the solution, would you believe them?
But if Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats can keep pretending that air pollution can be fixed by adding more air pollution then the developers and the unions can keep "endorsing and sponsoring" San Mateo Democrats. Sweet dealings.
Congestion cannot be fixed. Period. Cities like London, Paris, Los Angeles, New York, Dublin, etc. have tried and those are also the most congested cities in the world. Houston kept throwing lane after lane at Katy highway - the most research highway section in America - and congestion times kept going up and never down.
Canadian Doug Ford wants to eminent domain the heck out of more Toronto neighborhoods so he can make money on yet another highway project through Toronto.
Only bus and bike lanes can fix congestion - that is what research and common sense would tell you. Copenhagen, Amsterdam and hundreds of other bicycle or transit friendly cities on the other hand do not know the congestion the others have.
Paris, London, Dublin, New York are starting to wise up. San Mateo Democrats still feed ice cream to already obese children.
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(9) comments
The 101 widening also killed 2 bike and pedestrian 101 overpasses at Holly and Hillsdale, 2 projects that were shovel ready but became more expensive and required redesigns, causing the Cities of San Mateo and San Carlos to miss their grant funding deadlines. Cyclists are dying at these locations. Talk about priorities and ripple effects…
Spend the money on fixing potholes and safety for cyclists and pedestrians!
And then there is the issue of express lane to where? SF will never continue the express lane north.
Those who oppose another expensive and ineffective widening of highway 101 can sign the petition to County leaders:
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-widenings-of-highway-101-and-interstate-280
Good article, although I don't understand how you can claim that we need to widen the highway in order to reduce pollution. History and science (supply/demand) demonstrate that more lanes means more cars. There is no way that more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars (even if you assume, without evidence, that the additional lanes will increase speeds). If that were the case, why do GHG emissions, especially from transportation, continue to increase?
Thanks for your comment, joebob91, but your assertion that “There is no way that more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars (even if you assume, without evidence, that the additional lanes will increase speeds),” is misleading. It is widely known that cars at lower and higher speeds emit more emissions than cars operating at a “sweet spot” speed. As such, more cars can produce less pollution than fewer cars, especially if those fewer cars are stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Perhaps these extra lanes will get cars to drive at the “sweet spot” instead of being stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
If your assertion that “History and science (supply/demand) demonstrate that more lanes means more cars,” then where are these “more cars” coming from? Are they eschewing public transportation because the alternative is more convenient and efficient than public transportation? Perhaps these extra lanes will serve to allow more folks to commute more efficiently than public transportation. And reduce emissions from public transportation that must complete their routes whether they have no passengers or a full busload/trainload. What are the GHGs from those use cases?
You ask, “If that were the case, why do GHG emissions, especially from transportation, continue to increase?” Perhaps from cars sitting in stop-and-go traffic because they don’t have enough lanes. Perhaps because bus/train routes operate at 100% capacity (100% emissions) even though they’re operating at 50% or less capacity (still 100% emissions).
So should we add another express lane? I guess it depends on whether we’ll ever receive a rate of return on the money spent to create the extra lane. Or whether an extra lane will allow cars to achieve a “sweet spot” speed to reduce overall emissions? As it is now, we don’t have the data. Of course, we can always create an extra lane now and see what happens. But this time, accumulate data. If results aren’t good, we can remove the extra lane. Kind of like the bike lanes in North Central San Mateo. We tried them out, results weren’t good, so we’re removing them.
The math is all wrong.
Congestion cannot be fixed. Period. If you provide something convenient for absolutely free, people will take advantage of it. So congestion will always happen. The ridership on SamTrans and Caltrain are proving that point. People just moved out of transit and onto highways polluting more in the process.
The question each city however needs to decide for themselves is do you want congestion on 2 lanes (less air pollution), 6 lanes (more air pollution), 26 lanes (Katy highway, Houston).
If more highways and more highway lanes were the solution, then Los Angeles would be heaven. Is it though?
So let's assume there are only 2 lanes of traffic going north-bound, which means all day long there would be traffic going either stop-and-go or maybe 40-60mph. But on 4 lanes you would end up with 4 times the stop-and-go traffic but outside of rush hour now you end up with speeding and racing cars, which leads to even more air pollution.
So no, not in the history of humankind have more lanes led to less air pollution ever. Any politician still repeating the old stories is probably in the pockets of the automotive industry, the fossil fuel billionaires, the infrastructure companies and their unions. It's a huge government subsidy that keeps making things worse for all of us.
eGerd – TBot here. These roads are not “absolutely” free, they were paid for with taxpayer money. And what is the difference between “absolutely free” and “free”? No taxpayer funds vs. taxpayer funded? And if “congestion will always happen,” then shouldn’t we do our best to ensure traffic flows at the “sweet spot” speed for vehicles? You ask if LA would be heaven if more highways and more highway lanes were the solution. I’d say it’s more of a heaven with more highways and more highway lanes than less. And we’ve already gone over the “pollution” thing. Cars aren’t as efficient at low and high speeds, which is why we should endeavor for a “sweet spot” speed. If we don’t have data, how can we tell where we’re at?
Hi TBot, always nice hearing from you.
"Freeways" are called freeways because they are "free" to use and yes they are very expensive to build.
They are however rarely paid by the gas tax of all these joyriders and speedsters too good to take SamTrans or Caltrain and too rich or too lazy to ride a bicycle.
They are paid through the General Fund, which means people driving more are highly subsidized by pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and people driving less.
But mostly these "freeways" are paid for through National Debt ("Infrastructure Bill") - owned by the US pension system, China and Japan.
I'm all about the traffic flow and exactly for that reason, I prefer roundabouts over 4-way stops. I believe the sweet spot of driving, traffic flow, air pollution, GHG emissions, capacity, safety is somewhere around 35-45mph.
That speed moves the most amount of cars and drivers, keeps road maintenance cost lower, keeps emergency responders in their garages and lowers stress levels for all road users.
So if CA Democrats, Caltrans and the Automotive Industry really were all about the "sweet spot" - why are CA speed limits starting at 65mph, even 75mph on certain highways? Why is passing on the right hand side still allowed in CA?
Hi, Jon
Thanks for a thoughtful article about some of the traffic woes in our county. I agree... the priority should shift from express lanes to grade separations... especially at Broadway and California Drive. I cross the tracks at the location five times a week and doing so can be very stressful. I start planning my westbound crossing before reaching Rollins Road. Will a westbound vehicle turning north on California Drive stop to wait for the light to turn green for the westbound lanes? That can cause a car to stop on the tracks. Will a pedestrian or bicyclist in the right-hand lane crosswalk halt vehicular traffic crossing the tracks? While everyone agrees we want those peds and bikes to be safe, insisting on the right of way in front of cars trying to clear a dangerous railroad crossing may not be a safe thing to do. Will a westbound vehicle on Broadway, while crossing the tracks and without signaling, try to crowd over into the right turn lane? That can cause the car being crowded to stop on the tracks. As few weekday trains stop at the Caltrain Broadway station, when the red lights start blinking and the bells start clanging, a car stopped on the tracks may not have much time to get out of the way. A grade separation would make the Broadway/California Drive intersection safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
Crossing from California Drive onto eastbound Broadway across the tracks is whole set of other adventures.
As usual in these kinds of comments by many editors and commenters alike the years and years of strong but eventually false advertising by the automotive and fossil fuel industry keeps shining through.
Congestion cannot be fixed. In fact congestion is the desired outcome for Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats. Research has shown over and over again that more lanes don't fix congestion they just encourage more congestion. You don't fight air pollution by adding more capacity for air pollution. If someone feeds only ice cream to children they will eventually become diabetic and/or obese. If Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats would tell you more ice cream is the solution, would you believe them?
But if Caltrans and San Mateo Democrats can keep pretending that air pollution can be fixed by adding more air pollution then the developers and the unions can keep "endorsing and sponsoring" San Mateo Democrats. Sweet dealings.
Congestion cannot be fixed. Period. Cities like London, Paris, Los Angeles, New York, Dublin, etc. have tried and those are also the most congested cities in the world. Houston kept throwing lane after lane at Katy highway - the most research highway section in America - and congestion times kept going up and never down.
Canadian Doug Ford wants to eminent domain the heck out of more Toronto neighborhoods so he can make money on yet another highway project through Toronto.
Only bus and bike lanes can fix congestion - that is what research and common sense would tell you. Copenhagen, Amsterdam and hundreds of other bicycle or transit friendly cities on the other hand do not know the congestion the others have.
Paris, London, Dublin, New York are starting to wise up. San Mateo Democrats still feed ice cream to already obese children.
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.