Environmentalists ask I-80 EIR to study sustainable options.
By Alan Hirsch
The Yolo County Transportation District (YoloTD) continues to quickly push ahead for the I-80 widening to happen, even after the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on June 28 turned down request for $107 million in missing funds.
They are even have considering issuing Municipal Bond to fund the freeway widening project per their staff report for this Monday’s meeting.
However, the environmental community is pushing back on rush to build the project before studying more environmentally sustainable alternatives.
The YoloTD Monday 7/17 meeting the Board be the first time publicly discuss next steps, even though this eventually was known at their last meeting.
A group of citizens headed by UC Professor Stephen Wheeler have put together the attached letter. It mirrors concerned express to and by member of the Davis Council on June 6th It ask YoloTD request Caltrans study more environmentally sustainable 
alternatives to the widening, “Alternatives that would take more seriously GHG emissions, VMT, transit, and social equity considerations” according to Professor Wheeler.
“ Preventing this freeway widening is one of the single biggest steps we can take to hold down our county’s future GHG emissions.”
However, it is unclear if board, including Davis rep Josh Chapman and Lucas Frerichs will being willing to take on the flaws in Caltrans ill-defined EIR study that hard wired in widening solutions from its conception.
The Board has certainly have not gotten any support from the YoloTD staff. The staff memo for the I-80 item offer not a hint of wiggle room in dealing with Caltrans. Even while acknowledging EIR time pressure is off due to failure of CTC to fund. Staff seem open to other creative sources of funding- including issuing minibonds, to keep the project moving head, but are unwilling to support studying new alternatives to the widening. The staff report states the following:
“YoloTD staff will continue to support Caltrans as needed toward release of a complete DED” (ed note: DED= Draft EIR.)
Below is the is the environmentalist’s letter asking for study of other alternatives.
Citizens who want to weigh in at YoloTD board in support of just the Study more sustainable alternatives to a widening, can write to Board directly at: public-comment@yctd.org or call in comment in any time in advance (it will be transcribed) at 530 402 2819 (call before 4pm Monday) or make personal comment via zoom in Monday at 6pm at: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81573305113?pwd=VmFiZWNtSzZleVVGRVpmQ0swWnhpZz09
July 17, 2023
Board of Directors
Yolo County Transportation District 350 Industrial Way
Woodland, CA 95776 Dear YCTD Directors:
We write to express our concern about Caltrans’ plans to add a lane to Interstate 80 between Dixon and Sacramento, referred to as the “Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project.” Such freeway capacity expansion will raise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the I-80 corridor while inducing motor-vehicle-dependent suburban sprawl. It is contrary to GHG-reduction goals set by the State of California, the Sacramento region, Yolo County, and many local cities. Any congestion relief will be short-lived due to induced demand, as shown by many past freeway expansion projects.
At your meeting on July 17, 2023, we request that you ask Caltrans to study additional options for this project that would substantially improve transit, keep freeway capacity within current limits, stabilize or reduce VMT, reduce GHGs and local air pollution, and improve equity.
Such options might include
- Improved regional transit service. This would develop high-quality regional transit in the I-80 corridor such as bus rapid transit (BRT) combined with better stations, ramps, and connections.
- A bus queue-jump This would restripe lanes to allow buses to bypass the most- congested locations, and could likely be done with the $86 million in federal funds already in hand.
- An existing-lane high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane alternative. This would use an existing lane for transit as well as HOV3+ or toll-paying vehicles.
- A congestion pricing alternative. This would add congestion pricing to all lanes and use the funds for an I-80 corridor transit and smart growth program aimed at reducing VMT and GHG emissions.
Since the California Transportation Commission on June 28 turned down Caltrans’ request for state money for the project, now is an opportune time for the YCTD and other stakeholders to ask that the project’s goals be expanded and the list of alternatives reconsidered. A flawed public engagement process, hampered in part by Covid, is another reason to reconsider the project now.
Of the 8 alternatives Caltrans is currently studying for the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 6 involve adding a lane. A seventh is the “No Build” alternative required by law, and an eighth proposes restriping an existing travel lane for HOV 2+ vehicles, a step unlikely to make a significant difference in terms of congestion or other goals.
Caltrans appears to have designed the project from the start as a freeway expansion. The agency’s stated goals (“ease congestion,” “improve freeway operation,” “support reliable transport of goods,” “improve modality,” and “provide expedited traveler information and monitoring systems”) do not specifically mention i) improvements to public transit, ii) GHG reduction, iii) VMT reduction, or iv) social equity. We believe these four goals should be prioritized by the project as a whole as well as by environmental evaluation. In particular, the Sacramento/West Sacramento Mayors Commission on Climate Change report sets a goal of reducing driving by 40% in those communities by 2045, and any project must help meet this key policy objective of two main cities along its route.
Extensive academic research has documented that expanding freeway capacity induces additional motor vehicle use, suburban sprawl development, and GHG emissions. It also undercuts the market for public transit. UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies researchers have estimated that adding a lane to I- 80—tolled or untolled—will create 178 million additional miles of VMT year, a large and unmitigatable impact. Caltrans’ own data shows that VMT and VMT/capita have risen statewide over the past decade, providing evidence that existing transportation policies, based heavily on freeway expansions, are not working.
On May 4, 2022 the YCTD specifically requested a multi-laned tolled alternative in a letter to Caltrans, as well as “An updated Purpose and Need section that identifies climate change, VMT reduction, and transportation equity as key considerations, consistent with state law and policy.” That letter also argues that
“Both statewide and regional planning documents assume user pricing such as tolled facilities and/or congestion pricing. At the state level, the California State Transportation Agency’s 2021 Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure states with no ambiguity that 1) VMT reduction is required to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, 2) roadway pricing will be required to achieve VMT reductions, and 3) challenges and barriers therein will require strong coordination between state, regional, and local agencies (Strategy S6). At the regional level, the 2020 SACOG MTP/SCS relies on highway pricing and reinvestment of tolling revenue in transit to meet GHG targets (Policies 9-16).”
This guidance is clear and unambiguous, and we ask you to reiterate to Caltrans the need for cooperative study of such alternatives. If the agency continues on its current path contrary to state, regional, and local policy, we respectfully ask that you cease coordination with Caltrans on the I-80 project, and seek ways to reprogram the existing $85 million in federal money to support better public transit in the corridor.
We know that convincing such a large agency as Caltrans to change course will not be easy. But doing so would be perhaps the single largest GHG-reduction action Yolo County could take. Thank you in advance for your leadership on this important topic.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Wheeler
Issuing muni bonds would shift burden of funding the wider freeway from already paid gas taxes to locally raised funds.
Why is there SO MUCH momentum behind what is essentially a failed paradigm?
It is just a few ppl that know about induced demand? I would think that the decision makers whose jobs it is to plan this stuff would understand it.
The only thing that makes sense to me why we keep doing this is “legal corrupion” – ie: lobby funding from construction companies who want the business of building this stuff… Its the only explanation that makes sense to me.
It never ceases to amaze me, how some “disassociate” freeway expansion from sprawl.
And then wonder why they’re stuck in traffic.
Regarding this particular expansion, there is no way that Davis is going to stop it. The “region” itself (and beyond) demands it. The freeway doesn’t belong to Davis, and Davis is not even “second banana” to it. (In addition, it is an interstate shipping corridor.)
Davis is merely a blip that’s “in the way” (while also busy trying to add its own sprawl). That’s another thing that never ceases to amaze me – how some believe that the region (and beyond) revolves around Davis.
It’s as if these people never venture over to see what’s occurring in other cities in the region (e.g., Folsom, Roseville, etc.). Development in Nevada and beyond also impacts I-80. Development up/down the I-5 corridor does, as well.
But the “icing on the cake” (as it were) is when these same government agencies which push this simultaneously create “goals” regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Nice to see they have a sense of humor, at least.
It never ceases to amaze me how some don’t recognize that unaffordable housing and the jobs-housing imbalance leads to commuters which leads to congestion. The failure to build housing near jobs and near transit is killing us.
Well, that’s why I don’t support the creation of jobs to the point where it creates an “imbalance”. In addition, I don’t have any problem with rent control, or with businesses actually having to pay employees what they’re “worth” to live in a particular locale.
Extreme differential in wages/compensation (as can be seen in places like the Bay Area) is what’s driving “poor people” (and those who grew up there) “out”.
Maybe it’s these low-wage businesses (and/or jobs) that you should focus your attention on. Ultimately, that’s what’s creating the “problem” and “need” for subsidies.
Perhaps the “biggest” problem with your theory, however, is that folks will generally select locales where they get the most “bang for their buck” (e.g., “sprawl”) – even if it means a long commute.
And as long as communities are allowed to pursue that, the pattern will never change.
(Of course, some of this is changing, as a result of telecommuting. San Francisco’s downtown is decimated, as a result.) And the population has been dropping significantly, as well. (Then again, that outward migration lowers housing prices in these dense locales.)
Gotta put jobs somewhere.
Even if you don’t add jobs, if housing is not affordable then even the existing jobs are causing people to commute.
You mean more jobs? Why?
That belief is what’s creating the problem. It’s the same growth/development mentality which has led to this point, and all of the problems it entails. There’s nothing “new” about your belief.
Maybe they should “jettison” some jobs – if already out of balance. (Actually, this has already been occurring in regard to the Bay Area – see exodus to Austin, for example.)
But again, as long as “other” communities are willing to accommodate sprawl, this pattern will continue. This is the problem – not necessarily the jobs.
But in general, folks don’t like living in dense locales unless they have to (depending upon their life stage, as well). That’s the underlying problem.
Now, if the state mandated that places like San Francisco “have to” build more Affordable housing, and the state funded it, and prevented sprawl in other nearby locales, and outlawed the exodus pf people and businesses from the state, the plan “might” work. 🙂
As it is, it’s not. Even transit agencies are going broke, due to the lack of commuters. (Oh, and they also have to outlaw telecommuting, for this to work.)
I actually meant you have to put “jobs” somewhere – regardless of whether you add new jobs.
Actually, I want to clarify my response further –
It’s not just “poor” people who choose to commute farther, to get more “bang-for-their-buck”.
In fact, I suspect that this choice skews more-toward middle income workers. Those are the folks buying houses out in the suburbs/exburbs. This is a group that will never be accommodated in expensive locales, and will continue to be accommodated in less-expensive locales. (I don’t consider Davis to be an “expensive locale” – which is probably the reason it’s one of the “landing spots” for relatively well-paid Bay Area workers.)
The poor live in subsidized housing, near their work. The wealthy also live near their work, but in the multi-million dollar houses in places like Silicon Valley.
But again, all of this has been turned on its head to some degree, as a result of telecommuting.
And of course, the middle-class will continue moving to the entire region via the pursuit of sprawl, and will also be traveling-through from the Bay Area, to reach the Sierra.
Meanwhile, folks like Alan H think they’re going to stop this, or have any influence at all regarding the expansion of a freeway along a major corridor.
I believe they’re also building an entirely-new freeway, out to the new development area in Folsom.
Grass-roots movements “can” stop freeway construction and expansion, but generally not on major corridors serving an entire region and beyond.
And in the locales where freeway expansion was effectively “blocked”, it generally goes hand-in-hand with curtailment of development (see “freeway to Pt. Reyes”).
Sometimes, however, the “locales” make it more difficult for THEMSELVES to get anywhere, as well (see freeway destruction, closure of streets to traffic, takeover of parking spots by restaurants in San Francisco).
There are many poles that show that people understand that widening a road won’t fix congestion.
But for a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail in Caltrans is an army of 14,000 people with hammers.
The question is, will our local electives stand up to an institution that is built around the failed paradigm?
With 70% of Davis’s greenhouse gases from driving if a local actors won’t stand up to caltrans all the other actions to address climate change or essentially performative.