I couldn't find an existing thread about this; please merge if there is one.
The 101 express lanes project (https://101express.com/) adds a new express lane from I-380 to Whipple Ave in San Mateo County, and converts the existing HOV lane to an express lane from Whipple Ave to the SM-SC county line (and seemingly beyond, though maybe this is being managed separately). The new lane (Phase II) is expected to open in late 2022 while the existing HOV lane being converted to an express lane (Phase I) is expected to open in early 2022.
Question: from what I can tell from the documentation, this will result in 5 through lanes (including the express lane, so 4 general purpose) from I-380 to Whipple, but from Whipple to the county line there will be only 4 through lanes. (Sometimes there is a fifth lane, e.g. SB from Whipple to the Woodside Rd exit, but this is more of an auxiliary lane.) Why are they only adding a 5th lane for part of the peninsula? Seems weird that 101 will have 5 lanes from I-380 to Whipple and again from the county line to 85 (5th lane / second HOV lane already exists here), but with a "gap" from Whipple to county line where no new lane is added. Was this due to some infrastructural limitation or is it by design due to lower traffic demand in that stretch?
Hypothesis: there was a requirement to not reduce the number of general purpose lanes at any location. Therefore, the new lane *had* to be added north of Whipple since they didn't want to convert an existing general purpose lane to an express lane. Whereas south of Whipple the #1 lane is already HOV-only so it was not an issue to convert it to express lane.
I get this, but it still seems weird to construct a fifth lane all the way down but stop at Whipple. Or am I overthinking it?
Quote from: FredAkbar on December 25, 2021, 01:28:56 AM
Hypothesis: there was a requirement to not reduce the number of general purpose lanes at any location.
Yes, Caltrans has a policy of not converting general purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes. Any new HOV/HOT lanes are the result of road widening and not the conversion of an existing general purpose lane.
In 1976, Caltrans converted the leftmost lane of I-10 between LA and Santa Monica to a carpool lane. There was a public uproar. People dumped tacks in the carpool lane, others painted over the diamonds at night. After 5 months the lane was changed back to a general purpose lane. LA Times Article with more info. (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-20/1976-los-angeles-carpool-lane-anti-vax-protests)
The one exception is a pilot project in San Francisco, where one lane on city streets is being converted to an HOV lane. US-101 on Lombard Street and CA-1 on Park Presidio Blvd have one GP lane (out of a total of three lanes each direction) converted to an HOV lane.
QuoteThe project is a pilot which will last as long as the city is still under the COVID-19 state of emergency. After that is rescinded, SFMTA will have 120 days to analyze the success of the changes and determine if they will be removed or become permanent.
Source (https://abc7news.com/san-franccisco-traffic-hov-lane-lombard-avenue-richardson/10538685/)
San Francisco is also proposing adding an HOV/HOT lane to the freeway portion of US-101 and I-280 by converting a GP lane, but that is still in the project scoping stages.
I wish San Francisco would convert the 101 to a freeway through town. Shit.
You would sooner see San Francisco tear down all their freeways before you would see one inch of new freeway (or even one new lane) constructed in the city of San Francisco. I think that would be true for the majority of inner segments of cities nationwide.
Unfortunately this is true.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 31, 2021, 09:47:20 PM
You would sooner see San Francisco tear down all their freeways before you would see one inch of new freeway (or even one new lane) constructed in the city of San Francisco.
Technically the Presidio Parkway segment of US 101 and its tunnels are all-new build in the last 10 years, but I've always suspected the "parkway" naming was CalTrans's way of getting around any uproar this freeway modernization project (which is what it really was) would generate.
It also occurred in property that is essentially federal land (in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area).
Quote from: TheStranger on January 02, 2022, 02:50:05 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 31, 2021, 09:47:20 PM
You would sooner see San Francisco tear down all their freeways before you would see one inch of new freeway (or even one new lane) constructed in the city of San Francisco.
Technically the Presidio Parkway segment of US 101 and its tunnels are all-new build in the last 10 years, but I've always suspected the "parkway" naming was CalTrans's way of getting around any uproar this freeway modernization project (which is what it really was) would generate.
It also occurred in property that is essentially federal land (in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area).
It ("Doyle Drive") was also on a structurally deficient viaduct so something had to be done. The GGNRA and Parks Conservancy folks for years have wanted to reconnect the main post area with the shoreline/former Crissy Field so a surface-level boulevard, ala the Embarcadero, was not going to work with the traffic. volumes on 101. Including the tunnels, albeit expensive, has the benefit of achieving the main post-shoreline connectivity objective and buries a good amount of the freeway through what is now a national park. Reconstructing something essentially on its original alignment while improving circulation over and under it is vastly simpler, logistically and politically, than trying to plow through a dense urban fabric. Any new freeway segments proposed in SF proper would be DOA and no politician in their right mind (or at least wanting to be reelected) would get behind such a proposal.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 02, 2022, 02:50:05 AM
but I've always suspected the "parkway" naming was CalTrans's way of getting around any uproar this freeway modernization project (which is what it really was) would generate.
Building to parkway standards instead of freeway standards allowed the footprint of the roadway to be reduced. The lanes are only 11 feet wide and the inside shoulders are only 2 feet wide in places.
Quote from: jeffe on January 17, 2022, 03:13:01 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 02, 2022, 02:50:05 AM
but I've always suspected the "parkway" naming was CalTrans's way of getting around any uproar this freeway modernization project (which is what it really was) would generate.
Building to parkway standards instead of freeway standards allowed the footprint of the roadway to be reduced. The lanes are only 11 feet wide and the inside shoulders are only 2 feet wide in places.
The digitally-signed 45 MPH speed limit in the tunnels is also another likely side effect of building this to parkway standards - even though that is pretty slow for that stretch of road!
---
Actually heard a radio ad today for the 101 express lanes through San Mateo County, though the ad didn't state exactly when they would open.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2022, 03:36:11 AMActually heard a radio ad today for the 101 express lanes through San Mateo County, though the ad didn't state exactly when they would open.
The latest I've seen in the news for the Whipple to SC County Line segment is Jan 28. There are electronic signs on 101 saying that the tolls will start in "late January".
As for the main section (380 to Whipple), it probably doesn't make sense to have an exact date considering how often projects seem to get delayed or pushed back around here. I think it's projected for "late 2022" which maybe means spring 2023?
Yep, drove from Sunnyvale to SF this evening and indeed the express lanes are open from at least CA 237 to CA 84. Beyond that it's still under construction in various stages - before CA 92 the lane hasn't been marked as express lane and closer to Burlingame there is a new (5th) lane but closed off. Of course the overhead signs have orange "Under construction" stickers.
(https://i.imgur.com/fiDPYye.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qp7ZBkW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KfbWzm7.jpg)
Yeah the portion from 237 to Whipple Ave is done as it was already a carpool lane (now converted to express lane) so no new lane needs to be added (see earlier discussion in the thread).
From Whipple Ave north, there's a new lane coming, but in various stages of construction. In some parts the median wall seems to be done and the new lane could be striped where the breakdown lane currently is. In other parts the new lane is "hidden" behind the additional construction barrier.
North of Broadway like you mentioned, the new lane is more complete and striped though it's blocked off. Going northbound it "opens up" (as a general purpose lane) around the 380 interchange, since the express lanes are not being added north of that. Interestingly the 380-to-101N ramp has been modified, in that the left of the two ramp lanes now merges with the #5 lane of 101N. Previously the two lanes came in without a merge and only later do you have to merge as each of them becomes an exit lane at the next two exits respectively. Basically the net result north of Grand Ave has to be the same (4 lanes) and the new left-most lane was added, so the right side has one fewer lane north of that interchange, to balance it out.
The northbound lanes are finally paved and striped--well, all but a few miles in Burlingame, as of yesterday morning when I drove up the peninsula. (Southbound has been fully paved and striped for some time.)
I guess the next step (once the final bit of striping is done on the northbound side) is installing and testing all the cameras? Does that really take another 6 months or however long until it opens? It'd be nice if they just opened the lane for free use until the toll system is up and running, but I guess that's not practical.
Yeah I agree, there's precedent for Caltrans to open up an entire corridor when it's finished as opposed to in piecemeal like with the CA-58 Kramer Junction bypass I think.
Last week I got a good look at the southbound express lane from I-380 to CA-84. The lane is finished for sure but there's still some equipment missing. In the last photo one can see the toll sign active but the lane is still closed!
(https://i.imgur.com/GFaCUmI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/r0LxwRy.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cltiPdC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3zxFwUM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ax2ZLYW.jpg)
The last photo's sign has been active for a bit I think, though I'm usually not there during peak hours to actually see a dollar amount like that. The express lane opens up shortly after (south of) that point, at Whipple Ave, and I guess they didn't want to add in another sign there, so we just have to remember it's $1.50 and later merge in if desired.
One of the things I have really liked about the various express lane projects around the Bay Area is that they have incorporated the addition of lighting to the median. Lighted freeways is one of the things that I saw in other states and wished we had here, it makes night driving feel quite a bit safer. This seems like a recent change to designs, and I am not sure what motivated it, but I hope it continues in non-express lane projects as well.
Quote from: jdbx on July 19, 2022, 02:29:43 PM
One of the things I have really liked about the various express lane projects around the Bay Area is that they have incorporated the addition of lighting to the median. Lighted freeways is one of the things that I saw in other states and wished we had here, it makes night driving feel quite a bit safer. This seems like a recent change to designs, and I am not sure what motivated it, but I hope it continues in non-express lane projects as well.
It has to be for the cameras to catch toll violators. No way the lights will be installed in places without express lanes.
Quote from: SeriesE on July 19, 2022, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: jdbx on July 19, 2022, 02:29:43 PM
One of the things I have really liked about the various express lane projects around the Bay Area is that they have incorporated the addition of lighting to the median. Lighted freeways is one of the things that I saw in other states and wished we had here, it makes night driving feel quite a bit safer. This seems like a recent change to designs, and I am not sure what motivated it, but I hope it continues in non-express lane projects as well.
It has to be for the cameras to catch toll violators. No way the lights will be installed in places without express lanes.
I doubt it is solely for that purpose, or they would only have installed the lights around the toll gantries holding the cameras. It is possible, however, that the lights are there due to something like the express lanes taking up the left shoulders or expected extra merging of cars in and out of the express lanes, which would be a reason I could believe for only installing the lights where express lanes are built.
Quote from: stevashe on July 20, 2022, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 19, 2022, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: jdbx on July 19, 2022, 02:29:43 PM
One of the things I have really liked about the various express lane projects around the Bay Area is that they have incorporated the addition of lighting to the median. Lighted freeways is one of the things that I saw in other states and wished we had here, it makes night driving feel quite a bit safer. This seems like a recent change to designs, and I am not sure what motivated it, but I hope it continues in non-express lane projects as well.
It has to be for the cameras to catch toll violators. No way the lights will be installed in places without express lanes.
I doubt it is solely for that purpose, or they would only have installed the lights around the toll gantries holding the cameras. It is possible, however, that the lights are there due to something like the express lanes taking up the left shoulders or expected extra merging of cars in and out of the express lanes, which would be a reason I could believe for only installing the lights where express lanes are built.
The additional lighting added to the epxress lanes is the result of this study:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/preliminary-investigations/highway-lighting-practices-and-policies-pi-a11y.pdf
Starting on page 29 of that PDF, you can see there were two pilot projects where additional lighting was added to freeways in California. The first was in Sacramento on CA-51. The second was in Seal Beach on I-405. After the lighting was installed there was a significant decrease in collisions during dark hours.
As a result, it is now Caltrans policy to add median lighting for Express lane and HOV lane widening projects. The first example of this was the Express lane addition on I-580 between I-680 and Altamont Pass. The Express lane on I-880 and the new sections of Express lane on I-680 have median lighting as well.
Median Safety LightingMedian safety lighting as been added to other Bay Area freeways without Express lanes:
- I-238 had lighting added to the median and is now all of the freeway is fully lit.
- Lighting was added to CA-92 between I-880 and the San Mateo Bridge toll plaza.
- On CA-24 lighting was added between the east end of the Caldecott Tunnel and Orinda.
- The most recent addition is I-80 between the MacArthur Maze and the I-580 split in Albany.
Quote from: jeffe on August 17, 2022, 04:38:29 AM
Quote from: stevashe on July 20, 2022, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 19, 2022, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: jdbx on July 19, 2022, 02:29:43 PM
One of the things I have really liked about the various express lane projects around the Bay Area is that they have incorporated the addition of lighting to the median. Lighted freeways is one of the things that I saw in other states and wished we had here, it makes night driving feel quite a bit safer. This seems like a recent change to designs, and I am not sure what motivated it, but I hope it continues in non-express lane projects as well.
It has to be for the cameras to catch toll violators. No way the lights will be installed in places without express lanes.
I doubt it is solely for that purpose, or they would only have installed the lights around the toll gantries holding the cameras. It is possible, however, that the lights are there due to something like the express lanes taking up the left shoulders or expected extra merging of cars in and out of the express lanes, which would be a reason I could believe for only installing the lights where express lanes are built.
The additional lighting added to the epxress lanes is the result of this study:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/preliminary-investigations/highway-lighting-practices-and-policies-pi-a11y.pdf
Starting on page 29 of that PDF, you can see there were two pilot projects where additional lighting was added to freeways in California. The first was in Sacramento on CA-51. The second was in Seal Beach on I-405. After the lighting was installed there was a significant decrease in collisions during dark hours.
As a result, it is now Caltrans policy to add median lighting for Express lane and HOV lane widening projects. The first example of this was the Express lane addition on I-580 between I-680 and Altamont Pass. The Express lane on I-880 and the new sections of Express lane on I-680 have median lighting as well.
Median Safety Lighting
Median safety lighting as been added to other Bay Area freeways without Express lanes:
- I-238 had lighting added to the median and is now all of the freeway is fully lit.
- Lighting was added to CA-92 between I-880 and the San Mateo Bridge toll plaza.
- On CA-24 lighting was added between the east end of the Caldecott Tunnel and Orinda.
- The most recent addition is I-80 between the MacArthur Maze and the I-580 split in Albany.
This is fantastic information, and exactly the reason why I love coming to this forum. Thank you for that. I'm looking forward to seeing more lighting added as our highways are improved.
It's absolutely amazing that Caltrans is just now finding this out. They need to add highway lighting to every highway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2022, 04:02:44 PM
It's absolutely amazing that Caltrans is just now finding this out. They need to add highway lighting to every highway.
I wonder though if there's a population/density requirement. i.e. I-280 in the Bay Area between Cupertino and San Bruno has a mostly rural/sububan character and has very very little lighting, even though it would be really useful given how far from any other form of light much of that road is in the evening.
Quote from: jdbx on August 17, 2022, 02:51:16 PM
This is fantastic information, and exactly the reason why I love coming to this forum. Thank you for that. I'm looking forward to seeing more lighting added as our highways are improved.
I'm glad you found it helpful!
There is currently a project (04-0K6804) in construction to add lighting to eastbound I-580 over Altamont Pass. This area doesn't have electrical service, so the project also includes a power line extension. A previous project repaved the roadway and at that time foundations were added for the lighting. Wood retaining walls are visible where the foundations were added next to hills. It should be completed by the end of December.
A future project will add median lighting to I-80 between Albany and the Carquinez Bridge. That should be ready for bidding in late September/ early October.
There is also a future project to add high friction pavement to CA-4 between I-80 and I-680. This will also add additional lighting. I'm not sure if it will be continuous median lighting, or just extra lights at select locations.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2022, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2022, 04:02:44 PM
It's absolutely amazing that Caltrans is just now finding this out. They need to add highway lighting to every highway.
I wonder though if there's a population/density requirement. i.e. I-280 in the Bay Area between Cupertino and San Bruno has a mostly rural/sububan character and has very very little lighting, even though it would be really useful given how far from any other form of light much of that road is in the evening.
There doesn't seem to be a population or density requirement for median lighting. I-680 over Sunol Grade has median lighting and it is quite rural. Same for the Altamont project I mentioned.
Instead, it seems like the additional lighting is based on areas with a high nighttime crash rate. If there are areas along that stretch of I-280 you mentioned with a high crash rate, then it could be a candidate for additional lighting. I agree it is quite dark along that stretch.
Lighting at interchanges, however,
is determined by traffic volumes. The baseline calls for 2 lights at the gore point of an offramp and 1 light at the merge point of an onramp. If the ramp has more than 300 vph, one additional light is added. If there is over 700 vph on the ramp, two additional lights are added.
Apparently the lanes are going to be opened earlier than expected (https://abc7news.com/highway-101-express-lane-project-lanes-carpools-caltrans-traffic-san-mateo-county/12339426/), but without the express/tolling capability for the first few months, so it will be HOV3+ only from 5am-8pm according to this article. Also interesting claim that the sudden change in plans is due to ABC7's reporting (I do remember that last article where there's much consternation about the inefficient progress).
Quote
But now, citing reaction to the I-Team report, officials have announced they will begin incrementally opening the express lanes for carpools beginning in early November depending on weather conditions, and that they plan to fully open all north and southbound lanes by mid-November.
Between the hours of 5 a.m. and 8 p.m., the express lanes will be limited to HOV3+ vehicles. Outside of those hours, all drivers will be allowed to use the lanes.
I've never heard of such long hours for a carpool lane to be in effect (for the next few months until they switch to proper express lanes), but then again HOV lanes are 24/7 in other places such as SoCal, so I guess it's not unprecedented. But I wonder if there will be confusion since other carpool lanes in the bay area are shorter hours (5-9am and 3-7pm).
Well it's about time! I recently moved to be much closer to where I currently work but I still find myself on US-101 every time I go to the office or drive more than a few miles.
I understand much more needs to be done than constructing the lane like getting the tolling infrastructure to actually work. It appears that's taking longer than expected, so glad to hear the lane will open first.
Yep the lanes are open but the tolling infrastructure is not ready yet neither are the HOV signs but I expect the latter to be ready soon...
Here is the southbound lane at and past the CA 92 junction
(https://i.imgur.com/ioFzkAg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GXyOpAa.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8TVZJNB.jpg)
The lines are now fully open in both directions (as of last week, the northbound side was still being reopened). Tolling is not yet functional, as has been reported.
One thing that surprised me is going northbound on 101, when you get to Whipple Ave, the newly added express lane appears on the left as a new lane, such that the existing express lane you're already in stops being express and you'd have to get over one lane to stay in the express lane. I had assumed they were going to restripe it so that the leftmost lane stays as one contiguous express lane (this is how it is going southbound), and the new lane would appear on the right instead.
I didn't see any articles about it, but I just drove down the peninsula for the first time in a few weeks and the express lane capability seems to be fully installed (or at least testing). The temporary "HOV 3+ only" signage has been removed. However, some of the signage between the new and old portions (in Redwood City) now doesn't make sense, e.g. "express restriction ends" when going northbound, when really it continues up the rest of the peninsula. But I assume that will be dealt with soon.
Also, they did the thing that I expected them to do in my last comment. The northbound lanes around Whipple Ave got restriped so that the left (express) lane stays constant, and presumably a new lane is added on the right.
Quote from: FredAkbar on February 16, 2023, 03:44:31 AM
The northbound lanes around Whipple Ave got restriped so that the left (express) lane stays constant, and presumably a new lane is added on the right.
I didn't notice this but I did notice the re-striping. Until 2-3 weeks ago, the right most lane towards northbound Exit 409 (Whipple Ave) was the only lane you could exit the freeway. Now, both the right most and the 2nd to the most right lane may be used to take the exit. I can even see the previous lane striping, which is darker than the asphalt.
Nice of Caltrans to let commuters know that tolling in the express lanes is starting soon! Also just noticed that the first destination doesn't mention CA 84, just the name of the route segment.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z0Iwv3Y.jpeg)
Quote from: Techknow on February 16, 2023, 11:00:43 PM
Now, both the right most and the 2nd to the most right lane may be used to take the exit. I can even see the previous lane striping, which is darker than the asphalt.
Actually it's sort of the opposite now: the lane is signed (overhead) and striped as Exit Only, but the lane doesn't end at the exit. The exit forks off from the rightmost lane like a normal exit, and the lane continues, becoming the #5 general purpose lane. (An onramp just after that, from EB Whipple Ave I believe, appends on as a 6th lane.)
Quote from: FredAkbar on February 23, 2023, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: Techknow on February 16, 2023, 11:00:43 PM
Now, both the right most and the 2nd to the most right lane may be used to take the exit. I can even see the previous lane striping, which is darker than the asphalt.
Actually it's sort of the opposite now: the lane is signed (overhead) and striped as Exit Only, but the lane doesn't end at the exit. The exit forks off from the rightmost lane like a normal exit, and the lane continues, becoming the #5 general purpose lane. (An onramp just after that, from EB Whipple Ave I believe, appends on as a 6th lane.)
Yeah you're right, I took the lane yesterday and there's no auxiliary lane that I mentioned previously, the NB right most lane to Whipple Ave is not an aux lane. And yes that 6th lane does appear which serves as an aux lane to the Holly Street exit.
Anyway, the signs have updated this morning to indicate that tolling begins at March 3 !