Category: Caltrans

complete streets and intelligent speed assist

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This week at the legislature, the Assembly Transportation Committee is hearing SB 960 (Wiener) Transportation: planning: complete streets facilities: transit priority projects, Monday, July 1, 2:00 PM in Room 1100 at 1021 O Street in Sacramento (StreetsblogCA: Complete Streets Bill Hearing Next Week). This bill would force Caltrans to follow its own policy on Complete Streets, which is seldom does, and could have a beneficial impact on all street redesign in California as many transportation agencies look to Caltran for guideance.

The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee is hearing SB 961 Vehicles: safety equipment (Wiener), Tuesday, July 2, 1:30 PM, in Room 126, State Capitol. The bill would implement Intelligent Speed Assistance for all vehicles except emergency vehicles. Though considerably weakened from the original version, with passive rather than active control, it is still a valuable step forward, and would encourage NHTSA to speed up their policy process, which they have been slow walking (to preserve fast driving).

If you live in Sacramento and can attend, please do. All you can do at legislative hearings is ‘support’ or ‘oppose’, but since most speakers are paid lobbyists, hearing from actual citizens can be powerful.

CalBike What are complete streets? graphic
CalBike What are complete streets? graphic

lawsuits against Yolo 80

Dan Allison1 Comment

For earlier posts on Yolo 80 and managed lanes, see category ‘managed lanes‘.

Two lawsuits have been filed against Caltrans over the Yolo 80 freeway widening project.

Sierra Club and ECOS: Sierra Club, ECOS file lawsuit against Caltrans over I-80 project; Sierra Club and ECOS Sue Caltrans over Yolo I-80 Freeway Widening Project

“Caltrans’ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) grossly underestimates increased vehicular travel, which would emit far larger quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants than claimed. The EIR fails to consider viable alternatives, such as increased public transit or alternate tolling strategies. Therefore, the project neither adequately manages demand nor produces adequate revenue to fund needed transit alternatives. Also, Caltrans’ proposed mitigation is woefully inadequate to offset the resulting increased GHG and air pollutant emissions.” – Sierra Club/ECOS Press Release

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)/Planning and Conservation League/Center for Biological Diversity: Environmental Groups File Suit Against I-80 Highway Expansion; Environmental Groups Challenge Highway Expansion Project in Court

“First, Caltrans improperly chopped this project into two pieces to use funding in illegitimate ways and obscure environmental impacts, as documented by a Caltrans whistleblower. The first project, already underway, is using maintenance-only transportation dollars to strengthen the shoulders of the highway so they can accommodate heavy vehicle travel. The second project would restripe the road to accommodate the additional lane of traffic in each direction.” – NRDC

I tend to be cynical about the chances of stopping this widening project. However, the lawsuits can have several beneficial impacts:

  • requiring Caltans to supplement or revise its Environmental Impact Report, because it failed to consider several impacts, and failed to address induced demand
  • requiring Caltrans to allocate more funding to environmental and GHG mitigation; the existing project only partially mitigates impacts, and depends on income from a single tolled lane, which may fall short of projections
  • highlighting the failure of the California Transportation Commission, and in particular Chair Carl Guardino, to provide legally required oversight of Caltrans

I am in favor of tolling freeway lanes in order to recovered construction and maintenance costs, and to fund mitigation measures, not just for GHG but for other environmental impacts. A tolling authority (CARTA) has been set up to administer the added toll lane, but there are great uncertainties about how much will be raised, and the fee structure (vehicles and time of day) has not been developed.

“The EIR does not consider tolling existing lanes, which could be based on income, with funds used to provide clean public transit and bike and pedestrian options along the corridor, facilitating affordable infill development.” – Ralph Propper, ECOS Climate Committee Chair, from the press release

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 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.