top of page
Stakeholder Input

The US-101 MAP study corridor connects three counties, representing a broad spectrum of the Bay Area’s diverse communities and economic activity. Developing policies, programs, and technological solutions that improve mobility and address the underlying inequities associated with limited access and congestion requires regional coordination and shared ownership of these challenges. To ensure that the MAP engaged with essential decision makers that will be involved in carrying out improvements, the MAP leadership was built around the following organizational framework: 

  • A PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM (PMT) comprised of: C/CAG, Caltrans, MTC, SamTrans, SFCTA, San Mateo County TA, TransForm, VTA 

  • A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) comprised of representatives from cities, county and regional agencies, and other transit operators or providers within the study area 

  • A STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP (SAG) ccomprised of major employers, employer groups, community based organizations, advocacy groups, new mobility providers, and other stakeholders within the study area

The 101-MAP’s overall stakeholder engagement process invites community voices from those with and without formal representation in governmental decision making. Input from all stakeholders informed the definition of the project need, goals, and recommended actions. In this process, we heard from:

Asset 301Travelers.png
Asset 302Community Leaders.png
Asset 303Govt and Business.png

Travelers in and around the study corridor

Community leaders representing vulnerable communities

Government & business stakeholders

Informing the Equity Actions

Early on in the MAP project, the team determined that mobility actions and policy recommendations need to address the wide variety of mobility challenges. To define equity, the team adopted the factors MTC uses to designate regional Communities of Concern throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Communities of Concern.JPG

The MAP project team had 15 conversations with leaders and practitioners who work with these populations to provide essential services or programs.

Led Conversations with.JPG
What We Heard

Respondents are receptive to strategies that encourage higher vehicle occupancy, like carpooling and public transit.

Carpooling is a common activity on US-101, even without designated high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) or express lanes on 101 north of Redwood City. Among respondents, households with lower incomes carpool at higher rates.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_1.1-01.png

When asked about tradeoffs, there is a slight preference to carpool to save time or money on parking, as opposed driving alone, but this varies significantly by income group. Respondents from households earning under $50,000 are the most likely to prefer to carpool to achieve these savings.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_1.2.png
US 101 MAP Website Graphics_1.3-23.png

Respondents indicated a slight preference for traditional carpool arrangements over dynamic ride-matching services, such as Scoop and Waze Carpool that allow you to find carpool partners on the fly. Increased awareness and adoption of these services may be required to leverage their potential in incentive programs.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_1.4-03.png

Survey respondents use transit and are interested in investments in transit frequency, timed transfers, reliability, and free transit pass programs.

Multiple transit agencies and employee shuttles serve the communities along US-101 in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. 60% of all respondents take Caltrain at least occasionally, which runs parallel to US-101 for nearly its entire route.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_2_edited.png

When asked to prioritize investments, respondents ranked transit investments the highest.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_2.2.png

Overall, survey respondents would choose predictability on transit over the unpredictability of driving. The trend is strongest for higher income households.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_2.3.png

Travelers make travel decisions based on travel time, reliability, and convenience and are most motivated to rethink travel decisions when offered tangible incentives.

When asked to think differently about their travel on the corridor, respondents are most motivated by certain and tangible rewards, such as financial benefits and transit passes.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_3.1.png

Further, natural incentives emerge by examining the tradeoffs people would make between different travel scenarios. Respondents prefer:

  • To ride transit if it is faster and more reliable than driving (speed and reliability incentive)

  • To carpool if it is faster than driving alone (speed incentive)

  • To carpool to save money on parking when parking is priced (cost savings incentive)

  • To adjust their schedule to avoid paying a toll (cost savings incentive)

Respondents experience stress and unpredictability traveling on US-101, and communities near the freeway experience additional stress from pollution and spillover traffic.

Respondents are most concerned about congestion and reliability on US-101 and the stress it creates in their lives.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_4.1.png

Looking at the same responses by proximity to US-101, concerns about air pollution, spillover traffic, and street safety become greater for people living closer to US-101.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_4.2.png

Daily travel crosses city and county boundaries, pointing to a need for regional coordination to address mobility challenges.

On average, respondents’ home-to-work travel distance is about 15 miles “as the crow flies.” When mapped to the street network, travel distances would be much greater. Slightly more than a third report travelling over 20 miles, and over half travel 6-20 miles for their most common trip on US-101. This affirms the need for regional coordination to address regional travel patterns.

Respondents’ most common home and work zip code pairs illustrate a high reliance on the US-101 corridor

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_5.1.png
What We Heard
Gathering Input from
the Public

The MAP team developed and promoted a public survey with questions about travel along US-101 today, the mobility barriers people experience, and how travel might change in the future. The survey was open June 1 - August 15, 2019 and received 2,355 responses. 

The survey was distributed online and via paper copies, available in five languages: English, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. 

In addition to all the organizations and groups reached through MAP promotion, the survey was also distributed to the residents of affordable housing sites in San Jose that offer free transit passes.  

People on bus 02.jpg
What We Heard
People on bus 04.jpg
Who We Heard From
Community Survey
Who We Heard From

The survey was distributed online and paper* copies were distributed in five languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog) from: June 1st to mid-August, 2019. We received 2,355 surveys.

The split of responses by County is roughly proportional to the split of overall population across those counties, with the exception of San Francisco, which was underrepresented.

*Paper surveys were handed out at events and through outreach networks that included affordable housing sites with free transit passes, particularly in Santa Clara County.

Asset 2Santa Clara.png

Low-income households are also underrepresented in the survey. Households making $50,000 a year or less make up the smallest portion of respondents (12%), as compared to 26% of the population across the three counties.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_Who 2.png

18% of the responses indicate that they speak a language other than English at home, but only 9% took the survey in a non-English language. This is compared to 20% of the population overall reporting non-English languages spoken at home.

US 101 MAP Website Graphics_Who 3-13.png

Another aspect of understanding travel on US-101 is asking about the barriers to access people experience along the corridor, such as vehicle access, restrictive schedules, and bank, credit card, and phone access. Across all barriers, income has a strong correlation. Lower income households report higher rates of barriers and higher income households report better access.

Asset 31.png
Asset 42.png
Asset 53.png
Asset 64.png
Who We Heard From
bottom of page