Category: agencies

Caltrans widening I-5 north of Sacramento

Dan Allison2 Comments

Yesterday I rode the bus to and from Sacramento International Airport, to see what the ride and buses and ridership were like. I noticed that there is significant construction occurring on I-5 between Arena Blvd and Airport Blvd, the entrance to the airport. The freeway width under overcrossings is being widened by one lane in each direction, and the roadway is being widened in between the overpasses and interchanges. I had not heard or realized that this work was already going on, but then, I rarely travel on I-5. This project is titled “SAC-5 Corridor Improvement Project – Phase 1”, and is being referred to as “Sacramento I-5 Auxiliary Lanes Project”. A fact sheet is available.

Caltrans claimed a categorical exclusion for this project, meaning that they claimed they did not need to do an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for CEQA or NEPA because the project would not have a significant environmental impact. This is laughable. Capacity expansions ALWAYS have an environmental impact. It amazes me the number of agencies, including SACOG and California Transportation Commission, that sign off on this bullshit. The project number is 03-4H580, which means it is part of the Caltrans District 3 megaproject to increase the capacity of I-5 and I-80 in the Sacramento region. It may be that part of this widening is a separate project to add an auxiliary lane between Metro Airpark and State Route 99, using Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP). It appears that the main project is funded through Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). The project also shows up on lists of State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, though it is not clear whether it actually received any SHOPP funding. This type of widening would be illegal as a SHOPP expenditure. There are literally 70 documents that relate to this project, and it is beyond me to figure out what they all mean, or how they relate to each other. Caltrans specifically does not gather these documents onto a project page. That would entail some transparency, which Caltrans District 3 is apparently opposed to.

The photo below shows the widening of I-5 at Airport Blvd, captured from Google StreetView. The freeway is being widened to the west to the Sacramento River crossing, and the widening appears to continue all the way to Arena Blvd. Caltrans calls these auxiliary lanes, meaning they extend only between interchanges but not through, but it appears to me that they will be continuous, and that is why the freeway is being widened beneath the overpasses. These modifications of the overpasses are called tie-backs by Caltrans, meaning the the original slope under the overcrossing bridge to the freeway is being truncated to add width to the freeway.

This is phase 1 of the project. Caltrans intends to add capacity to I-5 all the way from the Yolo County line to US 50, where the earlier project greatly expanded capacity from Elk Grove north.

If readers travel this section of I-5 and have comments about this project, or more knowledge of the project than I have been able to come up with, please comment or contact me.

Senator Wiener introduces road safety bills

Dan Allison1 Comment

California State Senator Scott Wiener has introduced two bills to improve road safety in California.

The more important is SB 961, which requires changes to vehicles directly, including a first-in-the-nation requirement that all new vehicles sold in California install speed governors, smart devices that automatically limit the vehicle’s speed to 10 miles above the legal limit. The old name for these is speed governors, which limited speed with a physical device that disengaged the driver train when a certain speed was reached. They were required on all early motor vehicles before vehicle manufacturers managed to eliminate laws requiring them. Today, speed can be digitally read and limited. Already, almost all new vehicles have built in the ability to limit speeds to the posted speed limit, but it is not implemented. The bill would require it be implemented by 2027.

Speed is a contributing factor in all motor vehicle crashes. Whether it is driving too fast for conditions, or simply driving way over the speed limit, speed is a contributing factor to carnage on our roads. Of course there are other factors such as roadway design which encourages speeding. And speed limiters won’t prevent drivers from running red lights, as has become so common, but at least the resulting crashes will be at a lower speed, less likely to result in fatalities.

Speed limiting of vehicles also would remove law enforcement from most speed enforcement, which increases safety for everyone on the road, including officers.

SB 960 requires Caltrans to implement and report on a complete streets policy. In vetoing a Wiener bill to require complete streets, the governor implemented a executive order that purported to accomplish this, but Caltrans has done almost nothing since then, and has weakened and then delayed release of its complete streets policy directive. The bill also requires Caltrans to develop a transit priority policy with performance targets.

Caltrans headquarters has, to some degree, gotten on board with the idea of designing and re-designing roads for better safety and productivity, but the Caltrans districts, including our District 3, are still full speed ahead (pun intended) on building unsafe highways that kill walkers and bicyclists. They must be reigned in by the legislature.

CalBike is a sponsor of both of these bills, along with other organizations. Yay, CalBike!

Links:

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 authority at SacTA

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) board meeting today, SACOG gave a presentation on the tolling authority and governance, as part of agenda 9, Receive Information on the creation of the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA) and the Yolo 80 Managed Lane Project and provide direction as appropriate. The two presentations, one by SACOG staff and the other by Executive Director Kevin Bewsey on possible SacTA role, are available: SACOG, SacTA role. SACOG estimated in the current MTP/SCS (not the update being worked on) that about 70% of the expected tolled lanes will be in Sacramento County. See map at bottom.

In my public comment, I spoke on these points, similar to the points I’d also made at the SACOG Transportation Committee meeting:

  • Support creation of regional tolling JPA
  • Support governance options with one Caltrans voting member, but not two
  • Support inclusion of Sacramento Transportation Authority as the Sac county agency
  • Tolling advances user pays concept, which transportation advocates support
  • If the JPA had been in place, Fix50 project would have had toll lanes rather than HOV: HOV lanes don’t work for management because they are routinely violated
  • Support does not indicate that I support adding lanes in Yolo, but if lanes are added, they should be tolled
  • Questions about JPA membership, board members and voting are probably best answered by proportional representation based on tolled lane miles rather than county representation, which is more consistent with citizen representation; this would also entice counties to add or convert tolled lanes so they could be part of the process and benefits
  • Conversion of HOV lanes and general purpose lanes to tolled lanes will be required in the future to maintain our very expensive highway system, so this is a start

Brian Abbanat of YoloTD also spoke.

Several board members spoke, and to summarize and paraphrase their comments:

  • Rich Desmond and Eric Guerra supported a lanes miles voting idea
  • Karina Talamantes expressed concern but seemed satisfied by the answers
  • Bret Daniels expressed the standard ‘I don’t want to pay anything’ and tolling is for rich Tesla people
  • Phil Serna asked about safety of adjacent lanes, SACOG responded that safety can be part of the infrastructure and/or tolling design; I don’t think the idea of separation on the causeway has come up before; also asked about detection and enforcement
  • Eric Guerra said benefit or presentation is raising awareness
  • Patrick Hume actually said that eventually we will need to toll not just lanes but entire facilities

Overall, the concerns of the board were mainly that Sacramento County be treated equitably in terms of tolled projects, design of tolls, and distribution of toll revenue; several people also commented that the focus on excess revenue may be premature since it isn’t clear that there will be excess revenue, and some of it is already dedicated to mitigation measures.

Kevin Bewsey presented on SacTA’s role in the JPA, including how votes would be handled.

Though no motion was made on the issue, nor any vote taken, the consensus of the board seems to be:

  • Support for creation of the JPA
  • Support for creating tolled lanes in Sacramento County
  • Yes to SacTA being the agency for Sacramento County
  • Yes to appointing members of the SacTA board to the JPA board, probably with one county representative and one city representative (under the staff recommended governance structure, SACOG would appoint another from its own board, and from Sacramento County or a city within)
  • Concern about the governance model treatment of Sacramento County, and concern about a voting methodology that is equitable for Sacramento County, but willingness to allow some uncertainty here for the time being (the voting document created by SACOG was not presented, but was discussed since several SacTA board members are also SACOG board members)
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region

Note: I am unsure of the source of this map. It was referred to as being in the 2020 SCS, but I don’t find it there. Apologies for the low resolution, it was extracted from the SACOG presentation today, not from an original source.

For additional posts on managed lanes in general, this regional tolling authority, and the Yolo 80 project, see category ‘managed lanes‘.

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.

Read More »

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.