CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Metering lights zoom onto Peninsula onramps
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: San Mateo County
)
San Mateo County plans to install more metering lights at onramps to help ease the flow of traffic onto roads.
San Mateo County (Map, News) - Stoplights are cutting precious minutes from drivers’ commutes during rush-hour traffic.
Metering lights were installed on U.S. Highway 101 onramps between Santa Clara County and state Route 92 in San Mateo in January 2007. Now, Peninsula commute times on Highway 101 are as much as 20 percent shorter than 18 months ago, officials said.
The lights, which carry negative connotations with some drivers, force commute-time drivers to stop briefly before they reach the freeway so cars slowly flow onto the roads.
The results from the previous 18 months have accelerated the installation of more of the lights throughout San Mateo County, said Richard Napier, executive director of the group in charge of the lights, the county’s City/County Association of Governments.
Metering lights will be turned on within the year on Highway 280 onramps between San Francisco and Interstate 380 in San Bruno, Napier said.
Lights will be added to Highway 101 between Route 92 and San Francisco — where traffic is the heaviest on the Peninsula — within two years, he said.
“Our board [of directors] was somewhat cautious in the beginning, and now our board has only one concern: how to put them out there faster,” Napier said.
Southbound drivers have knocked off four to eight minutes from an average 30- to 35-minute commute on Highway 101 through the south Peninsula since the lights were installed, according to the agency.
Northbound drivers, however, have seen their commute cut only slightly since the lights were installed, Napier said, because traffic remains gridlocked on areas north of metering lights.
Complaints from drivers, problems with the lights malfunctioning and criticisms from cities about overflow traffic have been minimal since they were installed, Napier said.
San Mateo County is following a precedent already established throughout the Bay Area, in particular in the South and East Bays, said John Goodwin, spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
“Metering lights are a proven, cost-effective way to increase the efficiency of the freeway system,” Goodwin said.
The lights are quick to install and cost only $800,000 for the southern portion of Highway 101 and
northern half of Interstate 280. However, extra equipment required for the northern part of Highway 101 has put the price tag for that project at more than $8 million.
The metering-lights project will be funded by the City and County Association of Governments.
Life by numbers
Cars that use U.S. 101 on a weekday in county:199,000
Cars using Interstate Highway 280 on a weekday in county:
121,000
Installed metering light cost for southern Highway 101:
$300,000
Metering light cost for northern Highway 280:
$500,000
Metering light cost for northern Highway 101:
$8 million-$9 million
Southbound commute time cut from southern Highway 101 after lights installed:
10-20 percent
Northbound commute time cut from southern Highway 101 after lights installed:
2 percent
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:16 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008 re: "City ‘gateway toll’ considered"
Report as inappropriate
10:59 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008
re: "City ‘gateway toll’ considered"
Report as inappropriate
10:41 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008
re: "City ‘gateway toll’ considered"
Report as inappropriate
2:43 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 1, 2008
re: "A way around crash sites"
Report as inappropriate
1:21 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Three die in crash-filled weekend"
Report as inappropriate
8:00 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008
re: "I-95 north of Baltimore home to region’s worst bottlenecks"
Report as inappropriate
7:31 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008
re: "I-95 north of Baltimore home to region’s worst bottlenecks"
Report as inappropriate
3:49 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 2, 2008
re: "Crash won't accelerate bridge-median plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:03 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 17, 2008
re: "Bad weather causes traffic delays around District"
Report as inappropriate
8:16 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 28, 2007
re: "Golden Gate Bridge tragedy could have been worse"
Report as inappropriate
4:44 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 28, 2007
re: "Golden Gate Bridge tragedy could have been worse"
Report as inappropriate
9:16 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 17, 2007
re: "Study: Traffic costs D.C. $2B, Baltimore $1 billion annually"
Report as inappropriate
6:09 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 9, 2007
re: "Triathlon will snarl Sunday traffic"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I guess SF really doesn't want people to come to the City! What a load of crock. Nobody in the SF govt has any business sense. Great, kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (businesses and sales taxes).
6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
just shoot me said:
sweet - another friggin toll. I already pay $1000/month in commute costs.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If there were a viable, reliable CLEAN option then people would be able to not drive. Without that option people must drive. Clean up MUNI, make it dependable and regular and co- ordinate with other transit agencies and people will want to get out of their cars. As it is if you are in a hurry or out of communte hours MUNI is not an option. Also, I am unclear why people love BART!. Signage is pathetic and it is NOT co-ordinated with MUNI or Golden Gate transit, what's the point? Take a look at NYC, London or Paris to get a look at what good transit systems are. Funny, their workers show up and they keep to a timetable. Maybe we could try doing that?
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bruce Simmons said:
for one, I don't understand how it cost $30 million to instigate the deployment of traffic control officers and traffic cones. Second, how would diverting a traffic jam to El Camino Real alleviate anything. El Camino Real is already questionably jammed up at traffic time and the ensuing flood of motor vehicles would only spill the excess onto the various side streets around that road. Spend the $30 million where it's needed, on the school systems or homeless shelters.
8 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
R.I.P. DeKeisha Skaggs! We will all miss you! -Jessica G. P.
8 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
600 Million dollars? Much too expensive and way too late to fix the problem. By the time the road is built, no one will care because the people will be gone.
6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These choke points have been around for over 30 years - and the drivers that dart into the lane and slam on their brakes that have not killed themselves are still endangering the rest of us! Leave the Baltimore area for good - I did 12 years ago and life is so much better since I don't have to deal with the crime or the local corporate societal ladder. I love to hear the companies complain about the lack of talent in the region. The problem is everybody in the Baltimore business district is trying to rape each other so what is left is table scraps for the locals - they don't have a problem hiring out of staters and paying them big bucks but if you are a local they hate the fact that they are reliant on you - especially if you are white and have a moral value system.
6 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
ms jackson said:
All this money spent on highway dividers, anti smoking campaigns, youth violence intiatives, dietary labeling, unwanted pregnancies, anti suicide barriers, etc. could be saved by introducing a microscopic brain implant that would cause extreme pain and forced change of action any time somebody begins to behave in a way that creates any sort of societal problems. Of course, this would mean about 95 percent of huimanity would be constantly groaning in pain and apparently changing their minds!
10 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
oh my gosh that is bad people need to start being more careful
152 agree | 125 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
When someone does something like this, it not only saves lives, it leaves the rest of us with the knowledge that one of us did a great good thing. I'm so grateful for that knowledge. John Beatty is a really good man.
202 agree | 208 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Francisco Voter said:
Wow. I knew there were at least a few good people around here.
212 agree | 201 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike Licht said:
>>Re: Study: Traffic costs D.C. $2B, Baltimore $1 billion annually<< Editorial decision to omit hyperlink to the actual study is a gross disservice to readers.
236 agree | 228 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
William Cooke said:
Great race. Thanks Annapolis, Annapolis Police, and AA County Police.
296 agree | 244 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree