EVs? Meh.

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I have long looked askance at the emphasis on electric vehicles (EVs) for solving our climate change challenge and other issues. As has been said, they are necessary but insufficient. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is as important, or more important. Now comes a report, highlighted in the Streetsblog USA article EVs — What Are They Good For? that indicates just how insufficient they are. (The Effects of ‘Buy American’: Electric Vehicles and the Inflation Reduction Act)

If EVs were competing in the marketplace, they would be gradually replacing fossil fueled vehicles (also called ICE – internal combustion engines), but in an effort to accelerate adoption, the federal government and California are subsidizing the conversion to the tune of billions of dollars. Is this a good investment, compared to other investments that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase roadway safety? I doubt it. EVs will kill and severely injure more people than ICE vehicles. EVs will generate more tire and brake pollution. Most importantly, EVs support the faux environmentalist attitude that I can keep on driving my private vehicle while ignoring the damage to the livability and financial stability of cities, and the mis-allocation of transportation investments towards motor vehicles and away from walking, bicycling and transit.

For those who might miss the cultural reference of the Streetsblog headline, it is from the Motown ‘War‘ – “War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing”.

SacATC 2024-10-17

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, October 17, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM. The meeting is held at city council chambers, 915 I Street, and can be viewed online via the link available when the meeting starts, on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. People may comment in person (preferred) or make an eComment on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. Though all eComments become part of the public record, only those submitted before noon of the meeting date will be seen by the commissioners. The agenda includes three discussion items, below, and is available as pdf.

  1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant
  2. Assembly Bill (AB) 43 Project (speed limits)
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2024 Draft Annual Report

At the last meeting, the commission decided to reduce the list of recommendations to those directly impacting street safety. In the updated draft annual report, these six are:

  1. Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
  2. Expand Speed Management Programs
  3. Create a Sacramento Quick- Build Bikeways Program
  4. Re-Establish Slow & Active Streets
  5. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
  6. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy

They are listed in inverse order of funding. with #1 requesting the highest level of funding, $3M per year.

It is important for the community to support the annual report with its focus on priority safety actions, to support the report when it goes to city council, and to support the city prioritizing these funds in the mid-year budget revision and in next year’s budget.

The city reduced speed limits in many school zones several years ago, and recently reduced speed limits on a few streets, and is gradually working to reduce speed limits on more streets, including alleys, business districts, local roads, and senior zones. The graphic below shows the approach. The presentation will bring the commission up to date on the project.

graphic of speed limit setting flow chart

City staff is asking the commission to recommend two grant applications under Caltran’s Sustainable Communities Planning Grants for Transit Needs in Sacramento to meet Climate, Equity and Mobility Goals; and the Walking, Bicycling and Transit Access Wayfinding Project.

The city’s Department of Public Works Transportation Planning Newsletter has more information on these topics and others. I recommend you sign up if you aren’t already getting the email newsletter, which comes out once a month.

Strong Towns approach to roadway safety

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Strong Towns, an organization which provides leadership and thinking through five priority campaigns: End Highway Expansion, Transparent Local Accounting, Incremental Housing, Safe and Productive Streets, and End Parking Mandates and Subsidies. Safe and Productive Streets are the focus this week, with a podcast Prioritizing Safety in Street Design: A Conversation with Melany Alliston, posted today, and tomorrow, Beyond Blame Press Conference: How Cities Can Learn From Crashes To Create Safer Streets Today, and release of a report Beyond Blame: How Cities Can Learn from Crashes to Create Safer Streets Today.

Strong SacTown, the ‘local conversation’ or affiliate of Strong Towns is an active participant in the City of Sacramento Street Design Standards Update. Please join Strong SacTown. Slow Down Sacramento (Isaac Gonzalez) is also playing a major role in bringing awareness of roadways safety to the public, and his emails inform this post. Please join Slow Down Sacramento. Civic Thread and SABA, along with many other organizations, are providing both leadership and technical expertise on roadway safety. Please support them!

Strong Towns has offered the Crash Analysis Studio for two years now, with 19 studios. I have participated in several of these, and I think they are great, though only a part of the necessary response.

this week 2024-10-14

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Monday 14

  • SacRT Board Meeting (special), 4:00 PM, includes presentation and discussion of revised Smart Ride program

Tuesday 15

Wednesday 16

Thursday 17

Friday 18

Saturday 19

Prop 5 bonding for transportation?

Dan Allison1 Comment

Proposition 5

A Yes on 5 website offers details in support of the proposition. The arguments against, on the voter information guide, are just the standard anti-tax voice, so isn’t useful to this post, but you can read your guide if you are interested. Prop 5 was placed on the ballot by the legislature, as a result of two legislative resolutions. The proposition is entitled “Proposition 5: Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval.“

The proposition would change the voting threshold from two-thirds, 67%, to 55%, for ballot measures by cities, counties and special districts (does this include SacRT?) that bond against property taxes for the purposes of affordable housing and public infrastructure. The proposition does not directly raise property taxes, nor would local bonding measures directly raise taxes, though since the bonds have to be repaid with interest, property taxes could eventually go up within the limits sets by other legislation. This has nothing to do with sales tax, which remains at two-thirds for govenment proposed sales taxes, and 50%+1 for citizen proposed measures.

The history of the proposal development indicates that it is more about affordable housing than public infrastructure, but infrastructure is definitely allowed, and could easily be justified when that infrastructure supports affordable housing. It can also apply to transportation infrastructure. The specific language in the ballot measure related to infrastructure is “construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure”, which is pretty open-ended. More specifically, the proposition lists the following infrastructure uses:

(I) Facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services, including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, seaports, public transit, railroad, airports, and
(II) Utility, common carrier or other similar projects, including energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure.
(III) Projects identified by the State or local government for recovery from natural disasters.
(IV) Equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff personnel.
(V) Projects that provide protection of property from sea level rise.
(VI) Projects that provide public broadband internet access service expansion in underserved areas.
(VII) Private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public infrastructure.
(VIII) Grants to homeowners for the purposes of structure hardening of homes and structures, as defined in state law.

The reason for raising this issue is that taxes based on property are progressive, meaning that people with higher incomes and therefore higher value property, pay more in taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, meaning that low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than do higher income people. Proposals to increase the sales tax in Sacramento County have been resisted by many who think we have runs out that option and need to turn to options that are not regressive, like property tax.

I prefer pay-as-you go expenditures from most transportation projects, except for a few which are very expensive and of clear benefit to everyone. There are few transportation projects that would or should quality for this. The transportation projects we most need going forward are many small fixes, not the mega-projects done in the past which tend to be motor vehicle projects. But some transit projects could be or should be bonded. The problem with bonding is that interest payments raise the cost to about 1-1/2 times the project cost, depending on the bond length and bone rates, and that money goes to wall street investors, not to the project.

I am in favor of the proposition. It gives local governments, and therefore citizens, control over how they spend their property tax, rather than being constrained by statewide controls that were implemented by anti-tax interests.

If the proposition passes, would it be the solution, or a solution, to funding affordable housing and transportation infrastructure instead of or in addition to sales tax or other taxes and fees? I don’t know, but I do think it is worth exploring. Though the proposition applies to local measures on the same ballot, there are no transportation measures of any sort on the 2024 ballot in Sacramento Couny. There may be in 2026, as a Sacramento Transportation Authority new Measure A transportation sales tax, or a SacRT sales tax for transit with a limited geography, a citizen measure sales tax for housing, transportation, and active transportation (the SMART/Steinberg proposal), or other ideas that have not yet come forward. A property transfer tax has been discussed, which is another progressive tax. The state has a property transfer tax, as do other entities. It isn’t clear to me whether Sacramento County or any of the cities within the county have transfer taxes.

Yolo causeway bike path

Dan Allison3 Comments

Caltrans and Yolo County Transportation District are proposing to widen a section of Interstate 80 from Sacramento to the Yolo/Solano county line, a project called Yolo 80. This is not just a future project, subject to funding shortfalls and lawsuits, but is actually underway, as Caltrans illegally spends funds for highway maintenance on highway widening. I have written a number of posts on Yolo 80 and managed lanes, but today is just about the bike path that parallels Interstate 80 from the west edge of West Sacramento to Davis.

I am not a commuter or regular rider on the causeway path, but I do average riding it about once a week (I like concerts and beer and Mishka’s tea), and have been doing so for about 13 years.

Read More »

SacTA Board 2024-10-10

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I realize that posting meetings so close to the meeting makes it impossible to schedule your possible attendance, and sometimes even to submit comments through email. But it is still useful, I think, to keep up on transportation issues and government agencies. Discussion and even decisions on the agenda are often not the final word.

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA – I label it SacTA rather than STA, to distinguish from the California State Transportation Agency which goes by STA or CalSTA) Board of Directors will meet today, Thursday, October 10, at 1:30 PM in the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chambers, 700 H Street in downtown Sacramento. The agenda can be viewed on the SacTA Board Meetings page, or here. The entire meeting packet is available on SacTA, but it is quite a large document, and you may find looking at individual agenda items to be more efficient. I’ve commented on a linked to three items of greatest interest to me.

Agenda 08: SB 1 Cycle 4 Local Partnership Program (competitive) Project Prioritization

There are two projects to be prioritized for application to the state SB 1 Local Partnership Program, one related to the I Street Bridge Replacement project, and the other for a transit bus yard, hydrogen buses, and hydrogen refueling in north Sacramento, and other transit and transportation projects. Generally only one submitted project is funded, so the prioritization is important.

I don’t have any strong feelings about the two projects, though I will caution that the rush to hydrogen, which is fueled (pun intended) by strong federal, state and local subsidies, is risky. Though hydrogen fuel cells may turn out to be the best solution for some transit routes, the paucity of green hydrogen (that does not rely on fossil fuels or biomass conversion), and the lack of really addressing this issue, is concerning. Much of hydrogen boosterism comes from the fossil fuel industry, trying to maintain its grip on our energy system.

I think everyone would agree that the I Street Bridge replacement is critical, but the city has made sure that it is an expensive trophy bridge rather than a utilitarian bridge.

Agenda 11: Potential Legislative Changes (I’ll let you read the full agenda item title)

The charter for SacTA, established with the passage of the existing Measure A (not the failed Measure As) limits the agency to pass-through of transportation funds to local transportation agencies, with limited influence over the projects implemented. The ‘Measure C’ proposal by SMART (Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit) and Mayor Steinberg, places an emphasis on transit, housing, and safe streets. And no roadway capacity expansion. The measure being considered by SacRT, for the City of Sacramento and Elk Grove portion of its service area, would provide some support for infill transit oriented development and first mile/last mile active transportation, but would be primarily for transit. SacTA does not have the authority to fund anything other than direct transportation projects. This agenda item would allow SacTA to consider legislation to broaden it mandate to include housing or housing-supportive infrastructure related to transportation.

It is not clear whether any measure proposed by SacTA would approach the model proposed by active transportation and transit advocates, but this idea is worth pursuing.

I support this agenda item.

Agenda 12: Consider the Creation of a Temporary New Transportation Funding Subcommittee

This agenda item would form a subcommittee to explore the possibility of, and chances for success, of a 2026 transportation sales tax measure sponsored by SacTA.

We know that a transportation measure heavily weighted towards roadway capacity expansion has failed and will fail, but with a possible shift in priorities to roadway maintenance (fix-it-first), transit and active transportation, there is some chance of success. If Proposition 5 passes this November, it is possible that a ballot measure in 2026 would require only a 55% yes vote, rather than a 67% yes vote, which is difficult to pass in Sacramento County with its strong suburban and semi-rural opposition to all taxes.

Several transportation advocacy organizations are opposed to any additional sales taxes since they are regressive, having a much greater impact on low-income people than other taxes. However, at this time, it does not looks as though any of the potential proposals uses alternative taxes.

I support this agenda item.

more on Broadway-Land Park bike signal

Dan Allison3 Comments

I have written before about the problematic bike signal for Broadway eastbound at Land Park Drive (dangerous bike signal on Broadway, Broadway bicyclist press the button). Now some more detail, from a full hour of observation on the signal and driver behavior.

I had hoped to observe bicyclists reacting to the signal, but unfortunately there were no bicyclists. Despite the city devoting much of the street right-of-way to bike lanes (not protected, on only sometimes buffered), it appears that no one is riding their bicycle on Broadway. I’m not surprised. Broadway continue to be an unpleasant place for bicyclists and walkers, and regular bike lanes are unlikely to change that.

The last post I had noted that there was a required beg button for bicyclists to trigger the bike signal, but had failed to look up and notice that there was a complete set of regular signal, bike signal, and blank-out no-right-turn sign on the same post. It looks like:

photo of Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blank-out no right turn
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blank-out no right turn

For those unfamiliar with the blank-out signs, which are relatively uncommon in the city, it illuminates when turns are prohibited, and is blank when not prohibited. See photo below for the blank-out phase.

This signal array is definitely mis-communicating to drivers. When the bicycle signal is on, the no-right-turn sign should be on, and the regular signal red. This is mounted close to the right hand turn lane, and drivers see it as applying to that lane.

Most of the time, it is necessary to press the pedestrian beg button to trigger the bike signal. But then sometimes it is triggered without any press, and not due to the presence of bicyclists, as there were no bicyclists. Most signal cycles the bike signal remains red.

When the bike signal is on, there is a period of time when the no-right-turn sign is not on (blanked out), as below.

photo of Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blanked-out no-right-turn
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blanked-out no-right-turn

Do drivers follow the no-right-turn sign? In an hour of observation, I did not see one driver follow the sign. Every driver turned across the no-right-turn sign and across the green bike signal. Every. Though I did not observe it at this time, I have experienced drivers yelling at me, and other bicyclists have reported being yelled at, by drivers who think they have the right of way and wonder why bicyclists are proceeding and interfering with cars. The photo below shows just one of about 70 drivers who turned against the no-right-turn sign.

photo of Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, driver turning against no-right-turn sign
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, driver turning against no-right-turn sign

Solutions

  1. The regular signal should remain red while the bike signal is green. The placement of this signal is interpreted by drivers as applying to the right hand turn lane, so it must be red.
  2. The bike signal must have an exclusive phase where all other vehicle movements are prohibited. A properly designed intersection with a properly designed signal system probably would not need an exclusive phase, but this is NOT a properly designed intersection and NOT a properly designed signal system.
  3. The pedestrian beg button should be removed from the bike lane, and automatic detection of bicyclists installed. The city knows how to do this, and has done it at a few other intersections, but chose not to here.

Bicyclists will be fatally or severely injured here, and the cause of the crash will be mis-designed roadways, for which city engineers are directly responsible. Drivers are just responding to a mis-designed roadway, the guilty party is the traffic engineers.

The design document for Broadway Complete Streets, and as built, has a through lane, a dedicated left hand turn lane, and a dedicated right hand turn lane. This right hand turn lane is the source of the conflict, the source of the danger. The roadway as built prioritizes motor vehicle throughput over safety.

a trip to San Francisco

Dan Allison1 Comment

My last major trip for the Week Without Driving was a trip to San Francisco.

Friday, I walked from a transportation safety meeting to Sacramento Valley Station, and caught Capitol Corridor train to Richmond, then transferred to BART into San Francisco Embarcadero Station, and walked to Trader Joe’s and then to the Hostelling International hostel near Union Square. That evening I walked to San Francisco Playhouse to see The Play that Goes Wrong, only two blocks away, which is why I stay at that hostel when I’m seeing a play.

Saturday morning I walked to the Ferry Building farmers market to grab a few picnic items, then took Muni Metro N Judah light rail to 9th & Irving. From there I walked into Golden Gate Park and to Hardly Strictly Bluegrass (HSB), a three day free festival (I missed the first day due to the transportation meeting) that I’ve attended seven times since 2010 (the festival is 24 years old). I realized sitting on the grass that I really wanted a lightweight folding chair to Sunday, and other uses, so I took two Muni buses to Sports Basement in the Presidio, bought the chair, and then one bus back to Union Square area and the hostel.

Evening, I went to a contra dance in Oakland, Circle Left. Short walk to BART, BART from Powell Station to 19th St Oakland, walk to the dance center. I didn’t last the entire dance, because a hot day in the sun and dancing at the festival left me drained. Walk and BART and short walk back to the hostel.

Sunday I again took Muni Metro N Judah to 9th & Irving, and walked to the Japanese Tea Garden, my favorite part of Golden Gate Park (among many), spent some while just being, and then had Hojicha tea. From there, a walk along JFK Promenade to HSB. The promenade is a long now car-fee route in the park, one of the best outdoor spaces in the city. The day was slightly less hot, but no less sunny, so in between main stage performances, I wandered to shadier stages (six stages total). The closing act by Emmylou Harris draws the biggest crowd of the festival, and of course I joined the many dancers on the grass to the left of the stage. Everything over, I walked out of the park and caught N Judah back to Union Square to pick up my travel pack left at the hostel, then BART to Richmond.

I missed the Capitol Corridor train that I intended to catch, so had to wait for the last. For an unknown reason, this last train was scheduled for an hour later than normal. The last train is often delayed to accommodate people attending the 49er’s game, or other major sports events, but the game on Sunday was an afternoon game, so the delay made no sense. And then the train was late. The plus was that I met and talked with several people on the platform who had also attended HSB. The train got me home after midnight, and I walked back home (there is no light rail service after 11:00 PM).

I do tend to cram in as many activities as possible when I take trips to San Francisco and the Bay Area, and this weekend was no exception. A big part of what enables this is the great transit system in the Bay Area. Not perfect, but great. Could I have done all this with a car? No, because I’d have spent so much of my time looking for parking that I’d have missed other activities, and paid more for parking than I spent on the entire trip travel.

I plan almost all of the travel with the Transit App, and pay for all of my transit in the Bay Area with a Clipper Card (on my watch). Capitol Corridor travel I buy in the Amtrak app, which is now easier to use than the website.

These are my three big trips during the Week Without Driving (a trip to San Rafael, a trip to Fair Oaks). I did a lot of bicycling and walking as well. I am not a person who has to walk, bicycle and transit. I do it by choice. Though having a car would probably eat up so much of my income that I’d likely end up living in my car. That is not a joke. If you look at areas in Sacramento where unhoused people are living, you will often see high value cars. I suspect paying for those very expensive cars is what pushed many people over the edge into homelessness.