Tag: high frequency bus

all-lanes tolling (freeways are not free)

Dan Allison2 Comments

All-lanes tolling means that all lanes of a freeway or bridge are tolled, or priced. Freeways and bridges are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, even if they are not way over budget as most bridges and many freeways are. Gas tax or road charge (road charge) will never be enough to pay for these infrastructure projects and maintenance. Therefore, more than half of the cost is shifted onto taxpayers who use less of these facilities, or don’t use them at all. In the future, either more and more taxpayer funds will go to keeping these facilities in state of good repair, or they will deteriorate, which is already happening in many places. The solution is to have the users of such facilities pay the full price of such facilities.

Caltrans approach to transportation is to continually build more and to under-maintain what they already have. Anyone who says the era of big, expensive bridge and freeway projects is at an end doesn’t know Caltrans. Caltrans is like the heroin addict who needs ‘just one more hit, and then I’ll quit’. The only solution is to have Caltrans go ‘cold turkey’, ceasing all freeway expansions and focusing on maintenance. Of course most Caltrans engineers would be suddenly superfluous, and that it the real issue, that freeway and bridge building is just an employment program for engineers, having little to do with meeting the needs of the traveling public.

MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) is the Municipal Planning Organization, MPO, for the nine county Bay Area, similar to SACOG in the Sacramento region. MTC is considering all-lane tolling in a study to determine how to fund maintenance of freeways. I encourage you to view the MTC presentation at the SPUR Digital Discourse in January 2023 (https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/NGFS_SPUR_Jan2023.pdf). The best summary page is below. Keep in mind that this is a long term study, and solutions might not be implemented before 2035. Nevertheless, the Sacramento region could learn a lot from the study, and even implement some ideas before 2035. Other MTC pages and documents of interest: Express Lanes START, Next Generation Bay Area Freeways Study, Bay Area Express Lanes, and Open Road Tolling. Yes, Sacramento is not the bay area, but anyone who claims we can’t learn from each other is stupid.

Most Bay Area bridges are already all-lane tolled, via the Bay Area Tolling Authority and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. So the issue for the Bay Area is the freeways, some of which currently have HOV, HOT, or Express lane tolling on one lane, but many freeways do not have tolling at all.

MTC graphic for Pricing Strategies
MTC graphic for Pricing Strategies

Note that it says ‘in Transit-Rich Corridors’ for two of the options. Sacramento currently has three corridors that might be considered transit-rich: Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and the Bay Area (if frequency were improved), light rail to Watt/I-80 for I-80 (if access and connections were improved), and light rail to Folsom for Hwy 50 (if access and connections were improved, and after 15-minute service to Folsom is implemented). I-5 does not have an alternate transit corridor. None of these are comparable to transit-rich corridors in the bay area provided by BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and several high frequency and BRT-ish bus services. To achieve this level of transit-rich in the Sacramento region will require funds beyond that which might be available from a new sales tax measure (which has been delayed until 2026, or beyond). I believe that tolling/pricing is the only practical source of funds that will allow our region to develop transit rich corridors parallel to our freeways, and beyond, as well as maintaining what we have. Note: I can’t find an official definition of high frequency rail, so I’m going to say 30 minutes during peak times and 60 minutes at all other times. Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins do not achieve this yet.

I believe that all-lane tolling is the best ultimate solution. Freeways should not be free. The illusion that they are free to use is the same that biases motor vehicle drivers over all other modes and users. The money is coming from somewhere, so the question is, is it coming from the users of the freeways, or from everyone? For individuals, paying for what they use would cause them to use less, and shift travel to other modes. Yes, people would still drive, but less than they do now. For freight, paying true costs would no doubt increase the price of goods transported by truck. Truck freight traffic is highly subsidized, most prominently by not making trucks pay their share of road damage. Rail freight is not directly subsidized, though in a sense accepting the diesel pollution, disruption of travel across rail corridors, and dominance over passenger rail are indirect subsidies.

Below is a map of the SACOG region showing freeways, rail, and high frequency transit (light rail and bus). If you squint hard, you may be able to pick out the transit. So the following map shows the area focused on Davis to Folsom. These are sketch maps meant to give a general idea, so pdfs are not provided, and I intend to update and refine the maps.

map of freeways, rail and high frequency transit
map of freeways, rail and high frequency transit
map of freeways, rail and high frequency transit, focused on Davis to Folsom
map of freeways, rail and high frequency transit, focused on Davis to Folsom

missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project

Dan Allison3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

The alternatives identified are missing two important ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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