San Mateo US 101 Express Lanes Community
Transportation Benefits Program
An informational presentation to the
North Fair Oaks Community Council
January 26, 2023
Christa Cassidy, AICP
Project Manager + Transportation Equity Planner, HNTB
ccassidy@hntb.com
Agenda
▪ The Project and the Agency
▪ Studying Equity
▪ Implementing the Equity Program
US 101 Express Lanes Project
• Multi-year, multi-agency project lead
by Caltrans in conjunction C/CAG and
SMCTA to reduce traffic congestion and
encourage carpooling and transit use.
• Creates 22 miles of express lanes on US
101 from the San Mateo County/Santa
Clara County line to I-380 in South San
Francisco.
• Timing- Opened southern segment (8
miles) in February 2022 and northern
segment will open in early 2023.
3
SMCEL-JPA Organizational Chart
SMCEL-JPA Board of Directors
• 3 Members of the
City/County Associations of
Governments of San Mateo
County Board (C/CAG)
• 3 Members of the San
Mateo County
Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
Rico Medina (Chair)
Alicia Aguirre (Vice Chair)
Gina
Papan
Emily Beach
Carlos Romero
Michael Salazar
SMC Express Lanes
JPA Board
JPA Executive
Council
C/CAG Staff
SMCTA Staff
Policy Program
Management
(HNTB)
What is an Express Lane?
• Buses, vans and HOV 3+ generally use the lane
for free; HOV 2 people in a car receive a
discount
• Other drivers can choose to pay
• Toll prices are dynamic to keep the lane free
flowing
• Toll prices will be displayed on overhead signs
5
Equity Concerns
• Toll equity concerns
• Un-banked/under-banked
• Technological barriers (toll transponder)
• Potential for more benefits to accrue to higher income drivers
7
7
Four Major Equity Program Questions
1. How to provide equity?
a. Discounted tolls in express lane?
b. Equity investments outside of express lane?
2. Who should benefit?
3. How much should they benefit?
4. How to implement program?
8
Equity Study Overview
Goals:
• Develop a Pilot Equity Program that invests toll revenue in historically
underserved communities in San Mateo County
• The Program should be flexible and can evolve over time in response
to changing community needs
9
9
Equity Study Process
10
10
• Develop vision and
desired outcomes
• Phase I
community
engagement on
challenges
• Review of existing
local studies
• Define targeted
communities
• Literature review
Inputs
Preliminary
10
Alternatives
• Phase II
community
engagement
• Technical
evaluation
(qualitative and
quantitative
metrics)
Evaluation
Top
4 Alternatives
1. Express Lanes
benefit
2. Transit benefit
3. Place-based
improvements
4. Carpool
rewards
program
• Align with
community
feedback
• Align with Desired
Outcomes
• Breadth of benefit
(# of people
helped)
• Depth of benefit
(is it meaningful?)
• Cost
• Administrative
challenges and
ease of
implementation
Screening
Final
Recommended
Equity Program
Alternative
Literature review findings
Congestion pricing can reduce congestion, reduce air
pollution, and improve mobility and access for
everyone
Congestion pricing schemes are generally more
equitable than the status quo of unpriced roads
Express Lanes generally create fewer equity concerns
than other types of congestion pricing schemes
Express Lanes are slightly less regressive than other
forms of transportation finance
Revenue redistribution is key to equitable outcomes
It is difficult for Express Lanes to generate enough
net revenue to fully fund projects that benefit
underserved communities
Congestion pricing can have negative
environmental justice impacts if a highway
is expanded for a new lane
The evidence does not support claims that
traffic will be diverted through nearby
communities
The direct benefits of Express Lanes accrue
to higher income groups more than others
Acceptability after implementation is
widespread and all groups make some use
of the guaranteed reliable travel times
Low-income drivers are a small share of
peak-period traffic and therefore less likely
to pay the highest tolls
Our Community Engagement Approach
1. Interview community leaders from across San Mateo County to
understand community transportation challenges
2. Implement a Community Partner Program
3. Embark on a community roadshow to present to community groups
and have collaborative discussions
4. Hold public meetings
5. Engage an Equity Study Advisory Committee with representatives
from local jurisdictions and advocates
12
12
Phase I Community Engagement
13
13
13
Purpose
What we heard
•
Identify
community
challenges
•
Input on
how
revenue
should be
invested
•
Key challenges include unreliable public transportation,
high cost of transportation, too much traffic
•
Toll subsidies or other programs to help low-
income drivers
use the lanes
•
More frequent and reliable public transportation
•
Improved sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure
•
Discounted or free transit passes
Phase II Community Engagement
14
14
14
Purpose
What we heard
•
Input on
four Equity
Program
alternatives
•
Express Lanes and Transit Benefit
Alternatives received the
most support.
•
Many participants also expressed support for a hybrid of
these Alternatives
•
Stressed need for multilingual, culturally sensitive
education on how to use Express Lanes and how to access
Equity Program
• For cash benefits alternatives some people expressed that
$50 is too low to be a meaningful benefit.
Final Equity Program
1. Clipper Card with a value of $100; or
2. FasTrak® Flex toll tag/transponder with
value of $100)
15
Three or more
people
Buses
Motorcycles
One
person
Two people
*First year budget: $1,400,000; $600,000 annually after that.
Program Eligibility
• Resident of San Mateo County;
• and age 18 or older;
• Individual Income at or below 60% of the county AMI -
$83,640 for 2022; or
• Eligible to receive at least one benefit provided
through the Core Service Agencies Network
16
16
Program Administration Structure
17
17
PPM + SMCEL-JPA
Daly City
Samaritan House
South
Coastside Hope
Pacifica Resource
Center
Puenta de la Costa
Sur
Fair Oaks
Community Center
YMCA Community
Resource Center
Samaritan House
South
Benefits Distributed: April – December 2023
260
(18%)
1,207
(82%)
Income Level of Program Participants
59%
32%
7%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
No Income
$1 - 25,000
$25,001 - 50,000
$50,000 - $76,740
Where Program Participants Live
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
10%
24%
32%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Program Participants’ Race and Ethnicity
46%
28%
11%
8%
1%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Hispanic Asian or Asian
American (Not
Hispanic)
White (Not
Hispanic)
Black, African
American, or
African (Not
Hispanic)
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
(Not Hispanic)
Multi-Racial (Not
Hispanic)
How Program Participants Say They Will Use
the Benefit
2%
15%
17%
18%
39%
49%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
To be used in another way
To get to school
To care for family member(s)
To get to a religious or community center
To get to work
To get to healthcare
To get food or run other household errands
Questions?
Christa Cassidy, AICP
Project Manager + Transportation Equity
Planner, HNTB
ccassidy@hntb.com
www.smcexpresslanes.org
