Why actually try to fight global warming and make a more sustainable future when you can just lie about it?
By Roger Rudick
The Caltrans division that handles the Bay Area received an “environmental” award from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure for adding lanes, pollution, emissions, and additional motor vehicle traffic to Highway 101 on the San Mateo Peninsula. From a Caltrans release quoting Dina A. El-Tawansy, District Director, Caltrans District 4:
“The Caltrans Bay Area Team is pleased to receive the ENVISION® Silver award for the US-101 Managed Lanes Project. The project represents the successful partnership
of multiple state, regional and local agencies as well as the private industry to reduce traffic congestion, improve travel time reliability and promote mode shift, carpooling and transit for all users on a critical corridor linking the economic centers between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. This award demonstrates the commitment of our team, partners and contractors to delivering innovative improvements to advance air quality, climate goals and a sustainable and efficient transportation network.”
It was apparently awarded in 2021, but only just came to Streetsblog’s attention via 
Mike Swire, a Peninsula advocate and member of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee of the San Mateo County Transit Authority. “I have never heard of this Envision award,” he wrote in an email to Streetsblog shortly after learning about it. “101 is the #1 source of GHG emissions on the Peninsula. Caltrans has made it easier for thousands more to drive and they are claiming that this is sustainable?!”
This just adds insult to injury for everyone who actually cares about the environment.[i][1]
As Streetsblog San Francisco, California, and Los Angeles have documented many times, Caltrans and the local agencies it works with (in this case the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County) have long played this game of pretending to “get” that they can’t keep widening roads, and yet they continue to do it under various other labels. They “improve interchanges,” do “seismic retrofits” or “reconnect communities” or add “express lanes” in ways that always involve more asphalt. Occasionally they even build brand new freeways under the guise of addressing emissions. They use garbage c[ii]an traffic models to show that increasing the width of freeways–or building new ones–somehow reduces pollution, when of course they do not.
Part of this 101 Express lane project converts existing HOA lanes to toll lanes which they claim, among other things, helps buses. How allowing additional drivers to pay a toll to drive solo in the lane helps buses run faster is anybody’s guess! Even in the graphic they include in their own materials they picture a driver cutting in front of a bus, as seen below:
The fifteen miles or so from Whipple Avenue in Redwood City to I-380 in South San Francisco weren’t even a carpool lane conversion: it’s just plain-old freeway widening.
Obviously, Streetsblog supports congestion pricing and tolling, which is part of this project. That can actually help offset induced demand by requiring drivers to pay for something slightly closer to the full cost they incur on the general public. But that’s something that should apply to pavement that’s already in place. Caltrans, in typical fashion, has perverted the concept to again justify more asphalt. They even do some new verbal yoga and try to claim they’re not really adding lanes, they’re connecting ramps to create “auxiliary lanes” to the outsides of the freeway and converting the inner lanes into Express lanes.
Sorry, more lanes are more lanes.
ALSO ON VANGUARD: Be wary of Caltrans science denial on VMT/GHG.
There are so many ways the state and region could have spent $581 million that would help reduce emissions for real (build a network of off-street bike paths, or rebuild the Dumbarton bridge for rail, are just two examples that come to mind).
Meanwhile, Swire warns that Caltrans is now talking about widening 101 north of I-380, and they’re continuing to portray the project as good for the environment. “This is greenwashing at its finest,” he said.
Get state headlines at Streetsblog California, national headlines at Streetsblog USA
LOCAL NOTE FOR YOLO COUNTY READERS: Yolo’s Autumn Bernstein was on the project leader to determine how to distribution part of the toll to the poor to poorest 10% in San Mateo County to make this Project “socially equitable” She now head of Yolo County Transit District that is the local agency on Highway I-80 widening via tolled managed lanes.
[i] [i] Caltrans Gets Award for Creating Another Bike and Pedestrian Hellscape https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/06/17/caltrans-gets-award-for-creating-another-bike-and-pedestrian-hellscape/
[ii] How Traffic Engineers Blame You for Their Profession’s Mistakes https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/12/16/how-traffic-engineers-blame-you-for-their-professions-mistakes/
Republished PERMISSION FROM STREETBLOG
I completely disagree with the entire premise of this commentary. If there is anyone that is actually lying regarding this issue, it is the author of this commentary, definitely not Caltrans. Widening freeways reduces pollution because people will get where they need to go quicker and there are fewer vehicles in traffic jams. Gas powered vehicles sitting in traffic jams spew more emissions every minute they move slowly or at standstills. In my opinion, HOV lanes have been almost complete failures. Few people will carpool to legally use such lanes. Few people will bike 10 or more miles to get where they need to go. Does Roger Rudick own a vehicle? How often does he drive it? Where does he drive it to? If he owns a bike, how often does he ride it? Where does he ride it to and for what purposes? These are the kinds of questions I typically pose in order to “out” hypocrites.
It would, if the widening didn’t induce growth/development. Which it does seem to. (Probably not something that can be “proven”, though growth/development usually occurs alongside of freeways.)
As a result, I generally don’t support freeway widening or freeway creation, for that matter.
That is certainly true.
The only real “exception” I’ve see regarding this is that public transit (buses) are allowed to use those lanes. Public transit works well for people who have to commute to a relatively-centralized location for work. (Or at least “used to” have to do so, before the increased adoption of telecommuting.) I still don’t understand why some employers apparently object to this, since it seems that the essential question is whether or not the “work” is getting done.
Not even 5 miles. Not even 1 mile.
All of which are irrelevant, as the article addresses “policy” (and claims).
I find Roger Rudick’s lifestyle to be absolutely relevant, especially since he accuses others of lying.[edited] Do as I say, but not as I do. It’s also not leadership by example.
Roger Rudick, I assume – is not personally adding freeway lanes and calling them “green” – regardless of his “lifestyle”.
He accused Caltrans of lying irregardless of the real truth! Adding freeway lanes is indeed green in my opinion and on balance improves the negative effects of climate change. Roger’s preferred modes of transportation are absolutely relevant if he doesn’t want to be viewed as a verified hypocrite. You seem completely unwilling to consider the concept of blatant hypocrisy.
Help me out, Walter – I’m not seeing any allegations of “lying”. Where are you seeing it?
Again, you’re not explaining how his mode of transportation is “hypocrisy” in regard to the article.
I know what the definition means, already.
Now, if he said that other people “should” drive less (but he himself takes no steps to do so), that might be an example. But that’s not what the article states.
“Hypocrisy” is implied in the term “NIMBY”, which implies that it’s NOT o.k. in “my” backyard – but it’s o.k. in “yours”.)