Category: transportation

road charge

Dan Allison2 Comments

A road charge is a per mile charge for operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is intended to be a replacement for the gas tax, as gas tax revenues decline with the shift to electric motor vehicles (CalMatters: California gas tax revenue will drop by $6 billion, threatening roads). The state website is California Road Charge.

Road charge is not a tolling system. It charges per mile driven, no matter what the classification of roads (freeway, arterial, collector, local). The California gas tax funds maintenance of mostly large infrastructure, bridges and freeways, but to a lesser degree surface arterials, collectors and local roads. In every place in California, the gas tax, as well as motor vehicle fees, pays for only about half of the cost of roadways. The rest is paid for at the county and city level, by all taxpayers regardless of how much they drive, or even if they drive. As such, transportation funding is in part a subsidy to motor vehicle drivers by people who don’t drive. The same is true at the federal level, where gas tax accounts for less than half of the highway trust fund. The inflation adjusted yield of federal gas tax has been declining since 1994.

A road charge, which drivers pay when they actually use the roadways, is an equitable system because every driver can choose, to some degree, to drive more or less. Though many low income people live in locations where access to jobs and other destinations is difficult without a car, there is always some choice involved. That doesn’t mean there are no equity implications, but a road charge is definitely more equitable than the gas tax because high income people can afford higher gas mileage or electric vehicles, whereas low income people cannot.

Many road charge proposals charge all vehicles the same per-mile rate. This is not equitable. The damage to pavement, and the pollution generated by tire and brake wear, is directly related to the weight of the vehicle. Big rig trucks cause many times more damage to roadways, and produce many time more tire and brake dust, than passenger vehicles. And large SUVs, so popular these days, also produce much more roadway wear and tear and tire and brake dust. And of course since electric vehicles weight considerably more than fossil fuel vehicles, they also produce more. Therefore, road charges should be ‘weighted’ by the weight of the vehicle. This information is available for every vehicle, as it is required when registering; yes, people can modify to create heavier weight, but the initial weight is close enough. Caltrans claims that all vehicles under 10,000 lbs GVW cause the same amount of road damage, even the elephantine electric Hummer, but this doesn’t pass the smell test. The standard calculation is that road wear goes up as the square (conservatively; fourth power is well documented for heavy trucks) of the weight. So the Hummer (9500 lbs) causes about 100 times the damage of a Prius (3000 lbs). Even at the conservative second power, it causes 10 times as much damage. Heavier vehicles of course also require that bridges be built for heavier loads, increasing their built cost as well as maintenance.

California has carried out one road charge pilot, a demonstration for different charging mechanisms, and is soon to start another pilot. It is hard to say when a road change might be implemented across the state. It has a lot of opposition from drivers who think the roadways should be free and that others should pay instead, or that gas tax covers infrastructure needs, which is only partially does.

San Diego County (SANDAG MPO) was slated to start a road charge for that county, but the board chickened out and removed it from the regional transportation plan draft. However, it is unlikely the plan will be accepted by the state unless it is either returned, or a viable alternative is proposed (KPBS: SANDAG board nixes ‘road usage charge’ from transportation plan).

It is a universal truth that drivers don’t want to pay the true cost of their driving. An appropriately designed road charge comes closer to the true cost than anything else.

A reminder: A road change is different from tolling/pricing. The road charge applies to all roadways at all times. Tolling applies to high cost infrastructure such as bridges and freeways, and may vary with time or other criteria.

California Road Charge logo

Yolo 80 thoughts

Dan Allison1 Comment

I often take Capitol Corridor to and from the bay area, and sometimes back from Davis (riding my bike there, usually). My observation is that I-80 is indeed congested at times, never more so than on Friday afternoons with traffic heading to Lake Tahoe area, but to some degree at AM and PM commute times. And of course when there are crashes that slow or stop traffic, which seems to happen pretty regularly. Though transportation agencies and most drivers see this section of I-80 as a bottleneck, and want the congestion solved, I see this section as a control valve on the whole system between the bay area and Nevada. Some people will make a choice to travel at a different time, or to avoid the trip completely, or to use other modes of travel. But many will just sit in traffic and cuss the government for allowing congestion. As the say goes, “You are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic”. In that sense, the three lanes each way segment of I-80 through Yolo County serves as the pressure valve on the cooker of motor vehicle traffic. If the bottleneck is removed, traffic will expand to fill the available space, just as the steam does when I turn the valve to release my pressure cooker. Caltrans does not deny that the project will induce more VMT, so it has a list of mitigations for that induced VMT.

Earlier posts on Yolo and related managed lanes issues: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes, no HOV lanes, Yolo 80 teach-in. For existing and future posts, see category ‘managed lanes‘. I’ll have more to say about managed lanes.

There are more or less two views on the Yolo 80 project: Alan Hirsch/Yolo Mobility (and others) believe that we should not expand the freeway or remove the bottleneck. Instead we should better fund transit and rail to provide an alternative to freeway travel. The others, such as YoloTD and Caltrans, believe that expanding transit and rail is important, but we can only fund that with the income from managed lanes. They also want to ‘solve’ the ‘congestion problem’.

HOV lanes should be removed from consideration, as they do not work. Alternatives 2 and 7 in the draft EIR include HOV lanes. I don’t support alternative 6 to add a transit only lane (part-time of full-time) because under this scenario, no source of sufficient funding to run frequent bus service is available, and if no frequent service, a bus lane is a waste of space, whether it is a new lane or an existing lane. This is not to discount the value of transit lanes, but to say they must make sense under current or near term service plans. Alternatives 3 and 4 add HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, 3 is 2+ occupants, and 4 is 3+ occupants. I don’t know enough to distinguish between these, though I do know that 2+ is common in the bay area and 3+ is common in southern California. However, I don’t think that HOT lanes are the best tolling solution because they allow vehicles with the requisite occupants to avoid tolls completely. They do have some congestion reduction benefits and some VMT reduction benefits, but the research available indicates they don’t have significant benefits, and there are equity implications since it may be mostly higher income commuters and travelers that can arrange for higher occupancy over long distances.

If the corridor is to be widened at all, I believe alternative 5, express lane tolling, is best. It should be designed so that every vehicle (except transit) pays for every trip. There would be discounts for lower income people, probably using the CalFresh or other program discount of 50%. There would be discounts for the number of occupants for users of the FasTrak Flex transponder that can be set to 1, 2, or 3+ occupants. Caltrans is also exploring technology that would allow sensing of number of occupants without this particular transponder. The could be and probably should be discounts for travel during non-congested times when all lanes of the freeway are mostly free-flowing. But every vehicle should be paying something at all times. There is a clear equity advantage to express lane tolling in that all users are paying into the system so that tolls per use can be set lower. People talking about Yolo 80 tolling, including those opposed to any tolling at all, have bandied about charges of $10 to $40, but I believe that express lane tolling would set full price tolling at no more than $5, and likely less. A detailed operations and charges plan would await creation of the tolling authority, so nothing is known for certain about tolls at this time. I have not been able to find any projection of tolls in Caltrans or YoloTD documents, though certainly it may exist.

FasTrak Flex with occupany switch (from VTA)
FasTrak Flex with occupany switch (from VTA); different agencies use different models

My preferred alternative is 1, no build. I want the Yolo bottleneck to remain a bottleneck so that it sets a ceiling on VMT in the entire I-80 corridor from Nevada to San Francisco. We don’t need, now or ever, more motor vehicle capacity. We need travel mode alternatives. The best alternative, I believe, is higher frequency for Capitol Corridor between Roseville and San Jose. Other actions such as better bus service, both local and regional, better walking and bicycling facilities, e-bike subsidies, and effective bike share systems are all part of the solution. More lanes, of whatever type, is not the solution.

no HOV lanes

Dan Allison2 Comments

HOV lanes are a failure. They save time for the drivers using them, but always less time than was asserted when the project was designed, funded, and built. And they do not save average drivers any time at all. But when added to existing freeways, they certainly cost a lot of money. And they certainly induce a lot more travel, exacerbating climate change, motor vehicle pollution, and damage to the communities through which they pass.

Hwy 50 in Sacramento

Despite this fact, the Hwy 50 project in Sacramento is adding HOV lanes in order to widen the freeway, which will induce more travel, and return traffic to previous or greater levels within a few years, or less. That means accelerated climate change, motor vehicle pollution and noise in the areas through which they travel, and for this particular project, strong discouragement to walkers and bicyclist passing under the freeway, since the undercrossings are very dark and very scary.

Hwy 50 HOV lanes (Fix50) project includes: “Adding Carpool [High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)] lanes in each direction on U.S. Highway 50 from east of Watt Avenue to Interstate 5”. HOV lanes would also be added on two on-ramps at 65th Street. I haven’t been able to locate any operational information. Will HOV be weekdays daytime, as in the Bay Area, or full time, as in Southern California?

Read More »

Yolo 80 teach-in

Dan Allison2 Comments

The proposal by Yolo County Transportation Authority (YoloTD) and Caltrans to add a managed lane to the I-80 corridor between the Solano County line and just inside Sacramento County, is the hot transportation topic in the region. It would induce motor vehicle traffic (VMT) along this corridor, and by extension, would induce traffic on I-5, I-80, and US 50 within Sacramento County. I’m sure I’ll have a number of posts. Two so far are: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes and missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project.

Cool Davis sponsored a recent event in Davis, entitled A Freeway Teach-In: Davis Futures Forum on the Future of the I-80 Corridor. You can watch a video of the event on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7a07pyhLs. The first 4:45 is dead space that you can skip, and the actual presentations start at 19:00. I encourage you to watch the video. I noticed that different people had different take-aways, so you may have your own. But of course I’ll comment.

There are three items that I found most interesting.

  1. Susan Handy (starting 32:27) of UC Davis ITS summarized and referred to her recently published book, Shifting Gears. Here primary point is that his particular project must be viewed in the context of our entire transportation system, including how we go here, where we are, and where we might go. She explained induced travel in a succinct and clear manner. She reminded that transportation and land use cannot be considered separately.
  2. Nailah Pope-Harden (starting 57:00) of Climate Plan spoke about justice. For the Yolo 80 project, the process was not equitable, the end product was not just, and it does not feel just. She said “…given the tools we have available, pricing is inevitable, in order to reach our VMT goals…”. I was not aware that this was Climate Plan’s position. See ClimatePlan is joining the Pricing Conversations: Recap of Road Pricing Discussion in CAPTI workgroup and Road Pricing Factsheet.
  3. Don Mooney (starting 1:13:00), an attorney who has previously sued Caltrans, pointed out that public comments on the Draft EIR of the ‘I like it’ or ‘I hate it’ are meaningless to the process. Only substantiative comments from experts or which quote from expert sources have any effect on the decision, or provide standing for suing over the final decision.

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 »

Comstock’s Magazine: Free Parking?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In a measure of how much the world has changed, strongly pro-business Comstock’s Magazine has come out with an article, Free Parking? It recognizes that abundant parking everywhere does not promote economic success, but in fact handicaps it. Several properties that have been repurposed from parking to higher uses are mentioned, and there are quotes from one of the largest developers in the city. The article recognizes that the success of midtown is in part due to the removal of parking minimums years ago.

Take a read!

Park(ing) Day in Sacramento

Dan Allison1 Comment

Park(ing) Day, an event that repurposes street parking spaces in creative and fun ways, is Friday, September 15.

“Park(ing) day is a global, public, participatory project where people across the world temporarily repurpose curbside parking spaces and convert them into public parks and social spaces to advocate for safer, greener, and more equitable streets for people.”

The Park(ing) Day website (https://www.myparkingday.org) map shows two locations in Sacramento, but doesn’t have any additional information. The two are 1998 J Street and 2500 16th Street. 2500 16th may be the old Tower Records location, currently an empty lot awaiting development. 1998 J is the intersection of J and 20th. There have been Park(ing) Day events on this block of 20th in the past.

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) has coordinated Park(ing) Days in the past (2022), but there isn’t any information for 2023.

If you have more info, please provide a comment.

Central City Mobility update K71, curbs

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #18.

Flexible delineators have been installed along part of 21st Street, and are undergoing active installation this week. These K-71 posts are more substantial that the traditional vertical delineators. They can still be run over, and are run over, but since they look more substantial, drivers are less likely to run over them. They are still plastic, so provide no actual protection from errant motor vehicles; only hard curbs or true bollards (steel or concrete) can do that, but still, an improvement over earlier designs.

Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, K71 delineators
Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, K71 delineators

I don’t know how quickly the otherwise completed sections of the Central City Mobility Project will have these delineators installed. Apparently there is a US-wide shortage of materials for separated bikeways, and many cities are not able to complete their projects.

A second change since my last posting is that some parking spot paint is showing up. I had thought that parts of the striping that were still missing after quite some while were just missed, but in fact at least some of them were intended for parking regulation marking. The photo below shows a yellow curb and yellow stripe adjacent to the parking spots. I am glad to see that both the curb and the parking lane are being marked with paint. Otherwise, many drivers would fail to see, or pretend not to see, the curb color alone. This is hard to miss!

Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, yellow curb and parking marking
Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, yellow curb and parking marking

In California, painted curbs have the following meaning:

  • red – no stopping, standing, or parking
  • yellow – commercial loading and unloading (can also be used for passenger loading and unloading, unless otherwise signed)
  • white – passenger loading and unloading
  • green – limited time parking, as posted on a sign or the curb
  • blue – disabled parking (must have a license plate or temporary hanger tag)

In Sacramento, and many places in California, parking enforcement takes a laissez faire attitude towards curb colors. Except for red curbs, they are seldom enforced, and even red curb enforcement is uneven. Note that red curbs are really intended to mean what they say. If you stop there, you are in violation. A typical driver excuse for any parking violation is that they were ‘just going in for a moment’. Moments turn into minutes turn into hours, as I have observed many, many times. If you get out of your car, you are parking, no matter what the driver calls it, the law calls it parking. Parking on white and yellow curbs is a violation. Obviously commercial loading and unloading may take some time, but if there is no active loading or unloading going on, that is a violation.

I like green curbs as a solution for businesses where people pick up food and beverages. Fast food places where people order ahead. Coffee shops. My local coffee shop has a green curb right outside, and it is used for its intended purpose by some drivers. Other drivers just take it as an open free parking spot. I have reported these to city 311 as violations, but the city has not enforced so far as I am aware. More green curbs, please! (note that in the photo, the motor vehicle had just pulled into the curb, and the driver was crossing the street to pick up food at one of the businesses on the west side of 15th St; the parking meters are not functional, but the 15 minute limit is clearly posted)

green curb 15 minute parking, 15th St, Naked Lounge
green curb 15 minute parking, 15th St, Naked Lounge

Because past enforcement has been laissez faire, it will take some signing and education to make these curb colors work. Most drivers in California don’t really understand curb colors; I used to work in Nevada, and I can tell you most drivers there know exactly what they mean.

I am very pleased to see that curb colors are being more actively used in the city. Illegal parking endangers bicyclists, in particular, but also walkers and drivers. Of course something must be done to get delivery vehicles out of bike lanes and out of blocking streets and crosswalks. The city is far, far from having a plan to address that.

Other

19th St: no active work south of Q St

10th St: street being prepared for repaving and re-striping

I St: street being prepared for repaving and re-striping

5th St, 9th St: no active work

Nothing has been installed in the ‘turn wedges of death‘. I looked at the detailed design for these turn wedges (another advocate was able to obtain them), and it is still not clear what is intended for these locations. The bicycle signal at 21st and H Sts has not been installed, nor is there any sign cautioning bicyclist from using the pedestrian signal, which exposes them to high speed left turning motor vehicles.

parking and bikeways

Dan Allison2 Comments

A number of people have commented, here and other places, that my idea of converting parallel parking to diagonal parking is wrong. There should be bike lanes instead. These comments come from a misunderstanding of context. I’ve written some while ago about diagonal parking, and it is mentioned in many of my posts about parking and street design, particularly sidewalk-level bikeways and bike lane widths.

What I intend is a transportation system where:

  1. Streets designed for 20 mph and under don’t need any bike facilities, as they are naturally traffic calmed. Bike lanes would be a waste of space. Where these streets are too wide, diagonal parking is a great solution for narrowing the street.
  2. Streets from 21 to 30 mph need standard Class 2 bike lanes. Visual separation from motor vehicles is needed.
  3. Streets from 31 to 40 mp need separated bikeways. In most cases these should be at sidewalk level, not at street level, but street level bikeways can be a temporary measure until the street is redesigned. These bikeways need to be sufficiently wide to accommodate passing and all types (widths) of bicycles and mobility devices.
  4. Streets 41 mph and above are NOT streets, they are roads, and should be designed as such. No driveways, no street facing retail or commercial, few intersections. These are for getting someplace fast. These roads do not need bicycle facilities at the edge of the road. What is needed is a completely separate transportation system that keeps bicyclist safe and completely separated from motor vehicle traffic.

Is any of this real right now? No. Nothing like this exists in the Sacramento region. But I strongly believe it is the goal we should be moving towards, with haste. And diagonal parking on slow but overly wide streets provides traffic calming and more efficient use of space.

SacCity backs off parking reform

Dan Allison4 Comments

There are a number of things the City of Sacramento could be doing to better manage parking: Parking reform for Sacramento. But perhaps the most important is removing parking mandates, those city regulations that require developers to put in parking whether it is needed or will be used, or not.

The city council in January 2021 adopted the Proposed Roadway Changes document that had been recommended by staff working on the 2040 General Plan update. This is a very large document, so the relevant section on parking is excerpted. It states, in unequivocal terms:

10. Eliminate City-mandated parking minimums citywide and introduce parking maximums.

City of Sacramento, Council Report 15, 2021-01-19, 2040 General Plan Update – Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other Key Strategies

Here we are, about two years later, and the staff is recommending considerably less in the draft plan, that action ‘could include’. Not will include, not studied on a timeline, not implemented, but maybe we will think about it, if we get around to that. Could that city have come up with any more vague and unserious language?

M-2.17
Parking Management Strategy. The City shall continue to deploy a parking management strategy that optimizes the use of existing supply, minimizes the need for the construction of new parking facilities, and promotes the use of active modes of transportation, public transit, and highoccupancy vehicles. Program components could include the following:

  • Adjusting parking management strategies based on goals and needs;
  • Adjusting parking meter hours and pricing for effective management;
  • Eliminating City-mandated parking minimums;
  • Implementing parking maximums along established transit corridors;
  • Allowing unbundled parking in conjunction with strategies to reduce the need for private automobiles;
  • Incorporating or facilitating technology such as smart-phone apps and wayfinding signage that direct drivers to open parking spaces in real-time, automated and/ or stacked parking systems, or parking technologies that improve parking efficiency in mixed-use centers and corridors;
  • Supporting the use of alternative modes by providing alternative programs in lieu of monthly parking passes and discounts; and
  • Improving branding, communications, and wayfinding signage.
City of Sacramento, draft 2040 General Plan

It should be noted that the General Plan language implies that the city has a parking management strategy, or a parking management plan. So far as the public knows, it does not. So the city is referencing something that either does not exist or has never been shared with the public. The first thing that the General Plan must include is a commitment to developing a parking management plan, with public engagement, and then sharing the plan with the public. The plan does not even mention this.