Category: Caltrans

a modest proposal to fix the budget deficit

Dan Allison5 Comments

I woke up this morning with thoughts about how Governor Newsom could largely solve the budget deficit. And shortly thereafter ran across the CalBike-led letter, co-signed by 25 organizations, to the governor about shifting budget priorities: Stop Fueling Climate Change: Coalition Challenges Governor to Shift Transportation Spending. In the Governor’s initial budget proposal, there is no reduction in highway building whatsoever. It is as though this is the sacred mission of the state, to fund and build highways at the level desired by Caltrans, and the asphalt lobby, no matter what else is going on in the state, with budget or climate. This is called the ‘Infrastructure Cult’ by Strong Towns.

The letter’s four asks are:

  1. Consider any proposed reductions in General Fund spending on transportation infrastructure in the context of our climate and equity goals
  2. Backfill any General Fund cuts by leveraging the existing statutory flexibility of federal highway formula funds as well as funding from the State Highway Account.
  3. Suspend California state investment in new highway capacity
  4. Develop a multi-year funding commitment that ensures at least 50% of the State Highway Account (SHA) funds go to VMT-reducing projects while prioritizing investments in California’s most burdened communities.

I support all of these ideas, but of course would go further:

  • Suspend SHOPP funding, the funding which is supposed to maintain and improve (but not expand) our highway system until an audit of the SHOPP program is complete. This would take at least a year, maybe more. SHOPP is the biggest part of the Caltrans budget, so the savings for this year would be considerable.
  • Suspend all STIP funding, the funding which is used to build new infrastructure, indefinitely, except for the TIRCP (rail and transit) and ATP (walking and bicycling) programs. This is much the same as the letter’s third action.
  • Propose to the legislature a bill that would convert all HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes (which are worthless in practice because so routinely violated), to tolled lanes, statewide, within five years. This effort would include state funding to accelerate creation of tolling authorities where they don’t exist, and to study merging of tolling authorities into regional entities.
  • Propose to the legislature a bill that would not only allow but encourage and/or require the conversion of general purpose lanes to toll lanes. For the time being, this would preserve two general purpose lanes on highways with more than two lanes per direction, but ultimately, all lanes would be tolled. Highways are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and general funds should never be spent on highways because they are not used by a significant portion of the population. And if all users are tolled in all lanes, the tolls would be reasonable and equitable.
  • Propose a bill to the legislature that assigns CalSTA (California State Transportation Agency) a study of the charter and organization of Caltrans. Caltrans is an outmoded legacy agency which should be reoriented towards meeting the needs of citizen access and climate action, and most specifically maintaining what we have and not continuing to build new.

Tolling for I-80 managed lanes

Dan Allison5 Comments

Caltrans and Yolo County Transportation District (YoloTD) want to widen Interstate 80 in Yolo County and into Sacramento County. I previously wrote about this project in missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project. The list of alternatives seems to continually change. I saw a presentation at the SACOG Transportation Committee meeting this week that had a different list of alternatives. But the one on the Caltrans ‘Yolo 80 Corridor Improvements Project’ website is:

  • Build Alternative 2a: Add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+).
  • Build Alternative 2b: Add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 3a: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOT 2+). Single-occupied vehicles would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 3b: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOT 2+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector. Single-occupied vehicles would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 4a: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with three or more riders (HOT 3+). Vehicles with less than three riders would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 4b: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with three or more riders (HOT 3+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector. Vehicles with less than three riders would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 5a: Add an express lane in each direction (i.e., everyone would pay a fee to use the lane, regardless of the number of riders).
  • Build Alternative 5b: Add an express lane in each direction (i.e., everyone would pay a fee to use the lane, regardless of number of riders), and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 6a: Add a transit-only lane in each direction.
  • Build Alternative 6b: Add a transit-only lane in each direction and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 7a: Repurpose the current number one general-purpose lane for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+); no new lanes would be constructed.
  • Build Alternative 7b: Repurpose the current number one general-purpose lane for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+); no new lanes would be constructed. Build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.

Note that of these 12 alternatives, 10 of them add a lane to the existing six lanes, which is capacity expansion, while 6 of them would be tolled in some manner. High occupancy toll (HOT) lanes charge vehicles that do not meet the minimum passenger count (often 2, but could be 3). Express lanes charge every vehicle using the lane, though there might be discounts for higher occupancy or certain types of vehicles, or certain times of day when there is no congestion.

I will have a lot more to say about the overall project in the future, but this post is about the tolling.

YoloTD, SACOG, and Caltrans are working on an application to the state for a regional tolling authority, a JPA – joint powers authority, that would administer tolls on these managed lanes. The proposal will be before the SACOG board on Monday, for review but not final decision (which would be in January). The two agenda documents are the staff report and the Toll Authority JPA. At the transportation committee meeting, there was general support for tolling and for the JPA, but clear discomfort about Caltrans as the possible lead agency (no one trusts Caltrans these days, though few people will say that publicly). The JPA would initially just be for the Yolo County I-80 section, but would be created so that it could include any managed lanes in the SACOG region. There are no managed lanes in the region currently, but there are in the bay area and southern California.

A tolling authority is probably a good idea. Freeways are tremendously expensive to build and to maintain, and the federal and state gas tax come nowhere close to funding either. Tolling would at least put money in the bank for maintenance. It has been suggested that it could also fund additional service for the Capitol Corridor trains and perhaps better bus service between Davis and Sacramento, but there is nothing in the JPA agreement that obligates such expenditures. It would be up to the JPA board. Income could also be used to construct other managed lanes on freeways in the region. Of course I am opposed to any added lanes, so new managed lanes are not a good use of the income. That is a risk of the JPA, that income could be used to make things worse in other places.

More info (there are quite a number of other media articles from the TV stations):

map of Yolo 80 Project

California needs to drop Caltrans, and create a Department of Highway Maintenance

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Caltrans has sliced and diced cities with highways, dancing to the tune of segregationists who wanted to isolate and destroy communities of color so that they could ignore the existence of ‘those people’. Caltrans is not likely to be building any completely new highways in the future, though many in Caltrans would still like to. What they will be doing is continuing to widen existing highways, increasing motor vehicle capacity and inducing more driving. It seems that nothing will cure them of this, except disbanding of the agency and firing most of the highway engineers. So that is what I am proposing. In it’s place, there would be a Department of Highway Maintenance. The purpose would be to maintain our existing infrastructure, and I mean actually maintain, not just use safety and maintenance as a cover for widening. If bridges were replaced, they would be required to have the same or less motor vehicle capacity as before.

The department could do projects which remove motor vehicle capacity. This might include removing freeways completely, but with guidelines that prevent the design of ‘boulevards’ that are just as much traffic sewers as the freeways. It might include converting existing general purpose highway lanes to managed lanes, but would never include constructing new managed lanes. It might include projects which reduce on-ramps and off-ramps from two or more lanes to one lane, shortening the crosswalk distance over on-ramps and off-ramps, and creating right-angle on-ramps and off-ramps which slow motor vehicle drivers by design, and it might include narrowing freeway lanes and posting lower speed limits.

All designated state highways which are actually surface streets would be transferred to local transportation agencies, so the state highway system would shrink to actual freeways.

So what would happen to the funds that currently go to widening highways? I propose that one-third be given to local transportation agencies, on a competitive basis, for active transportation projects. All of this funding would go through the California State Transportation Agency; Caltrans would have nothing to do with it.

The other two-thirds would go for rail and transit. A Department of Rail and Transit would be created out of the existing Division of Rail and Mass Transportation. The purpose of this new department would be to purchase rail right-of-way, by condemnation if necessary, from the freight railroads, so that passenger rail may run in California without interference from the freights. It would also fund infrastructure and operations for rail and transit throughout the state. With the movement of funds from highway widening to rail, it should be possible to complete High Speed Rail on schedule, and to greatly enhance the operating frequency of the three regional rail services (Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins/Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Pacific Surfliner). Once higher frequency service and modern ticketing are in place, the regional rails would separate from Amtrak and be operated completely by the state. The state already owns the equipment. Though the agency could fund other transit, the emphasis would be on rail.

Jeanie Ward Waller

Dan Allison3 Comments

Jeanie Ward Waller, former Deputy Director for Planning and Modal Programs Caltrans, was fired in September, in retaliation for questioning illegal expenditures on highway widening, and threatening to file a whistleblower complaint. Though I’ve added several comments about this to other blog posts, these deserve their own prominence.

Blowing the whistle on widening freeways (KPBS Freeway Exit podcast);
https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/freeway-exit/bonus-blowing-the-whistle-on-widening-freeways

I Lost My Job at Caltrans for Speaking Out Against Highway Widening; 
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/11/03/i-lost-my-job-at-caltrans-for-speaking-out-against-highway-widening

Jeanie Ward Waller at ECOS Climate Committee;
https://gettingaroundsac.blog/2023/10/16/jeanie-ward-waller-at-ecos-climate-committee/

CalBike Joins 100 Organizations Urging More Oversight of Caltrans;
https://www.calbike.org/calbike-joins-60-organizations-urging-more-oversight-of-caltrans/

California Transportation Commission Chair: “Widen Freeways for the People”; 
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/10/24/california-transportation-commission-chair-widen-freeways-for-the-people

More Than 60 Organizations Urge Governor Newsom to Intervene at Caltrans; 
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/10/17/letter-to-governor-newsom-intervene-at-caltrans

Sign-on to Support a Moratorium on Highway Expansions in California (for organizations); 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdQI_O5bdYPjAPxi7pMP-SzuMGPYlrxOMwaak21CT90Eh6GOg/viewform?fbzx=4437060886318091529

A Caltrans executive questioned a freeway expansion. Then she was demoted; 
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-13/caltrans-whistleblower-says-demoted-block-freeway-expansion

Caltrans official says she was demoted for objecting to highway expansion; https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/03/caltrans-official-demoted-whistleblower-complaint-00119767

Caltrans “Shakeup” is a Bad Sign;
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/09/19/caltrans-shakeup-is-a-bad-sign

Caltrans D3, the criminal highway wideners

Dan Allison8 Comments

Caltrans District 3 (which covers Sacramento, Yolo, El Dorado, Placer, Nevada, Sierra, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties), is committed to widening freeways, now and forever. They do not intend to comply with direction from Caltrans headquarters, or with the upcoming complete streets policy, or with guidance such as Cal STA CAPTI (California Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure), which requires Caltrans to consider climate impacts of its projects. Caltrans D3 only knows how to build and widen highways, and they don’t believe that any other transportation modes are important.

Take a look at the list of current projects on the D3 web page. Most are highway widening projects. Of course Caltrans never uses the term widening, it uses terms such as enhancement, improvement, and multimodal to hide the true nature of these projects.

Caltrans has a long list of on-the-shelf projects which it will move to when these projects are done. Some of these projects were designed 20 or more years ago, when much of society had not yet woken up to the environmental and social damage that freeways cause, and before the surge of deaths and severe injuries to walkers on the state highway system. They will be pulled off the shelf and built, because that is what Caltrans does.

All of this is well to anyone who works with or follows Caltrans. Many engineers and planners won’t talk about this on the record, but privately confirm it.

A recent article on Politico (Caltrans official says she was demoted for objecting to highway expansion)explains why Jeannie Ward Waller was fired/demoted. It was for calling out Caltrans D3 for violating the law, misusing maintenance funds to widen highways. This one goes beyond earlier articles on StreetsblogCal (Caltrans “Shakeup” Is a Bad Sign) about the firing/demotion.

Retribution is an interesting action, usually reserved for dictators and right wing politicians, but it seems to be alive and well in Caltrans.

Caltrans likes killer interchanges

Dan Allison2 Comments

See Caltrans Readies Guidance for Complete Streets, with a Giant Exemption (StreetsblogCal, 2023-09-29) and Caltrans: We Need Complete Streets at Freeway Interchanges (CalBike, 2023-09-28).

I worked for 10 years as the Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified School District. Three of those years were focused on Citrus Heights schools, and the rest on schools in unincorporated Sacramento County (Orangevale, Fair Oaks, Carmichael, Arden-Arcade, and Gold River). The interchanges with Interstate 80 presented barriers for students who lived on one side and went to school on the other. They could not walk or bike across the freeway, because the interchanges were designed to be safe only for motor vehicle drivers (and not really even those), not to be safe for walkers and bicyclists. Crosswalks over on-ramps and off-ramps were placed where drivers would cross them at freeway speeds, with poor visibility due to the curves. Bike lanes were usually non-existent, and when they were there, exposed bicyclists to high speed merges at on-ramps and off-ramps. If you have ever had the ‘pleasure’ of walking or riding across one of these interchanges, you will know how scary and unpleasant they are. Generally only ‘fearless’ bicyclists and people who have no other choices will walk or bicycle here.

Since these horrible interchanges were designed and constructed by Caltrans, you might think that they are responsible for fixing them. They deny responsibility. They say to cities and counties, if you want a better interchange, you build it on your own money, or with grants. One of the interchanges in Citrus Heights, Antelope Road, was repaved by Caltrans, and they removed the bike lane from the westbound direction. Of course that bike lane was not safe to begin with, but removing it was criminal.

Same Caltrans denial of responsibility for ped/bike bridges over the freeway. There is one ped/bike bridge over I-80 in the entire stretch between Sunrise Blvd and Watt Ave, a distance of about eight miles. One. And it is no a pleasant crossing to use, often full of trash and graffiti. Again, to the cities and counties, Caltrans says, if you want it, you pay for it, don’t expect it to come out of our budget.

Given this, Caltrans will not even allow the application of complete streets designs to these interchanges. They want them to remain as they are, barriers to travel, and killers of the few walkers and bicyclists who use them.

All of this after spending four years developing a new complete streets policy, which could have been done in a year if Caltrans were not dragging its feet. Caltrans says that it has changed its ways, and is now concerned with people who walk and bicycle. Their actions say otherwise.

darkness of Caltrans

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

You might assume from the post title that this is about the climate-killing actions of Caltrans, particularly District 3, which continues to expand highways, with full knowledge of induced demand, and makes life difficult for agencies that would like to improve underpasses and overpasses for walkers and bicyclists. And there is plenty to say about that. But in this case it is literal.

Caltrans is adding capacity to Hwy 50 through Sacramento. In order to do so, they have filled in the space between the two directions of travel. For all the street underpasses, this means that there is now a single bridge rather than two separate ones. There is no longer this gap for daylight to reach the street, so it is much darker. Caltrans could have placed additional lighting in these locations, but they did not. A multimillion dollar project, and they couldn’t afford a few additional lights. They did fix most existing lights, many of which had been out for years, but they did not add any.

This is a big middle finger to people walking, as it is really quite dark under the freeway now.

This really came home to me when I went to the farmers market under the freeway last Sunday. The market is between W and X, and 6th and 8th. It was so dark that it was difficult to see the produce. I had to use my phone flashlight to examine vegetables. The pricing signs were almost impossible to read. One vendor had actually put up lights, and a number of vendors apologized for how dark it was.

Caltrans has essentially killed off this farmers market, because they were too cheap, or too oblivious, or too mean, to install lighting. I won’t be going back. I’m angry, and every person who goes to this market, or pays taxes that Caltrans uses to make things worse, should be angry.

missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project

Dan Allison3 Comments

Note: This post was rushed out and not well written, so I’ve revised it.

The Caltrans-led Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project suggests adding roadway capacity to the Yolo Causeway in a number of different configurations. The project alternatives listed are:

  • No build: Alternative 1: This alternative does not address the purpose and need of the project by not making corridor improvements and relieving traffic congestion.
  • Build Alternative 2: Add a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+).
  • Build Alternative 3: Add a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOT 2+).
  • Build Alternative 4: Add a HOT lane in each direction for use by vehicles with three or more riders (HOT 3+) Lane in Each Direction.
  • Build Alternative 5: Add an Express Lane in each direction (everyone using the lane pays to use the lane, regardless of number of riders.).
  • Build Alternative 6: Add a Transit-only lane in each direction.
  • Build Alternative 7: Repurpose the current #1 general purpose lane to HOV 2+. No new lanes would be constructed.
  • Build Alternative 8: Add a HOV 2+ lane in each direction with I-80 connector ramp.

Of these alternatives, the only one which would not increase VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is #7, converting an existing general purpose lane to HOV 2+. Caltrans has on many projects claimed that state law does not allow this, but Yolo County forced Caltrans into including this option. All the other alternatives (except no build) would increase VMT ranging from a little to a lot.

It is true that the bulk of the motor vehicle traffic between Sacramento and Davis is not commuting traffic, but it is also true that the addition of commuter traffic to the background bay area to Sacramento and beyond is what causes the worst congestion episodes. Actually, the worst episodes are caused by traffic crashes, which none of these alternative would address. Caltrans sees traffic crashes as just part of the cost of doing business, and does not see reducing these as their responsibility.

The alternatives identified are missing two important ideas.

One alternative not mentioned is to increase service on Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and Davis to hourly or better, all day, over a longer range of hours. The trip on the Capitol Corridor takes only 15-minutes, about the same as the freeway when it is free-flowing, and far better than the one hour bus trip.

Many people have said that increasing passenger service on Union Pacific-owned tracks is impossible, because UP won’t allow more passenger trains without substantial taxpayer subsidies for track improvements. The Sacramento-Roseville third track project is basically a bribe to UP to allow some more passenger service. I don’t see this as a valid argument. Though freight railroads are regulated by the federal government, not the state, there are dozens of ways in which the state can put pressure on UP by withdrawing support and permission unless there is cooperation. UP net worth is $139B, large for a transportation company but very small in the world of corporations, while California is the fifth largest economy in the world. Are you saying that California has no leverage over UP? California could even buy out all UP tracks in the state, thereby solving the passenger vs. freight issue.

The second missed alternative is to subsidize high frequency bus service, 15-minute or 30-minute, on all weekdays, with a long range of hours, at least 5:00AM to 11:00PM. Service on weekends might be only hourly, but it would be a 30 minute trip without stops, rather than the hour-long Yolobus service. If Yolobus could afford to offer high frequency service between Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis, they would already be doing so. High frequency service could be offered for years on the same amount of money that will be wasted on capacity expansion for motor vehicles. The project alternatives do offer some support for buses, as buses can use HOV (high occupancy vehicle) and HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, and alternative 7 even has dedicated bus lanes. But there is no mention of how this would be taken advantage of. If funding for buses is not increased, buses will not be a significant solution for the corridor.

Caltrans of course has no desire to fund non-motor vehicle transportation, despite slapping the ‘multi-modal’ label on everything they propose. As always in Caltrans District 3, walking, bicycling and transit are an afterthought, crumbs added if it doesn’t seem to interfere with private vehicles and commercial freight, not part of the project design criteria.

The Caltrans presentation on the project does not mention bicycles at all. There is an existing bike route all the way from Davis at Olive Drive offramp to West Sacramento at the Capitol Avenue onramp. There is a 3-mile Class 1 path from Olive Drive to county road 32A, then a shoulder on 32A, then a 4-mile Class 1 path to the edge of West Sacramento. There portion of the path on the elevated causeway bridge is in decent shape, but the asphalt part is seriously deteriorated. Whether the project means to improve the path or not is unanswered. To Caltrans, ‘multi-modal’ is just a catch phrase, not meant to be taken seriously. Even if this path is improved, the ride alongside the freeway will still be very unpleasant. The ultimate solution is to move the path north of the railroad, far away from the freeway.

Check the City of Davis, City of West Sacramento, and Yolo County pages on the project. Note that the alternatives listed, project description, and maps are somewhat different on each of these pages, because they were created at different point in time of the project planning.

It is not clear from any of the pages whether there is a still a chance for public input. Workshops were conducted in 2022. Whether or not there is still an open process, you can email Caltrans (Yolo80corridor@dot.ca.gov), City of Davis, City of West Sacramento, and Yolo County with your opinions.

this to that

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I have been irritated by the Caltrans ‘Let’s Change This to That’ advertising campaign for litter pickup and highway cleanup. Certainly litter is a water quality issue, particularly when that litter is washed into the ocean. The really big problem is not the litter, however, but the roads and highways that Caltrans has designed. The highways and wide roadways seem especially adept at accumulating litter, and illegal dumping. Could it be that the highways are such horrible places that people feel compelled to litter them? The highways are overbuilt, incredibly expensive, destroyed and divided neighborhoods, inject air pollution straight into low income communities, and prevent real solutions to climate change and livability. Maybe litter is a comment on all this.

Inspired by the campaign graphics (second below is an example), I’ve created one of my own. I took a shortcut, using something that has already happened (without Caltrans cooperation), the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco which was damaged beyond repair in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. When I have the time, I’ll look for other photos to pair, of actual changes or of potential changes. I’ve seen AI transformations that I think could play well for that, but a big part of my purpose here is to call out Caltrans greenwashing.

If this idea inspires you, I’d like to see your campaign graphics for highway removal. My ‘Let’s Change This to That’ graphic is available as a webp. Don’t know how to upload other formats.

'Let's Change This to That' for Embarcadero Freeway
‘Let’s Change This to That’ for Embarcadero Freeway
Caltrans 'Let's Change This to That' graphic
Caltrans ‘Let’s Change This to That’ graphic