As lane-expansion work continues on the so-called “Novato Narrows,” the 17-mile stretch of Highway 101 between Novato and Petaluma that drops from three lanes to two in both directions—for years creating a bottle neck for weary commuters—transportation planners are already looking toward post-project considerations for when the new carpool lane finally opens toward the end of 2025.
Notably: What hours will the carpool lane restrict vehicles to two or more passengers? The new stretch will link carpool lanes in Marin and Sonoma—two counties with two very different sets of carpool-lane hours. In Sonoma County, the hours are 7 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6:30 p.m. in both directions; in Marin, carpool hours are 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. southbound and 4:30 to 7 p.m. northbound.
Members of several regional agencies are already in talks on the matter, including folks from Caltrans, the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the California Highway Patrol, Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit.
So far, they’re eyeing either of two options: The first is to align the hours with the Bay Area’s seven-state owned bridges, which restrict carpool lanes weekdays from 5 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m. The second is to simply restrict the lanes for most of the day, from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. Another option could be somewhere in between.
5 fascinating facts about carpool lanes
- Carpool lanes are also known as commuter lanes or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
- The first carpool lane in the United States was in Northern Virginia in 1969, and was originally only for buses. Carpools were finally allowed to join in 1973.
- The Lincoln Tunnel carpool lane in New Jersey is the busiest HOV lane in the country, serving 62,000 passengers daily during the four-hour morning commute.
- The first permanent HOV lane in California was the bypass lane at the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza, opened in 1970.
- In 2013, Marin motorist Jonathan Frieman was ticketed for driving solo in a local carpool lane, but contested the citation due to having the Articles of Incorporation paperwork for his business resting on his passenger seat. He argued his business met the legal definition of a person, citing the principle of corporate personhood. When his citation was upheld in traffic court, Frieman said his gambit wasn’t about avoiding a ticket, but an attempt to expose the fallacy of corporate personhood established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision.
