Tag: SACOG

SACOG Transportation Committee 2025-11-06

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SACOG Transportation Committee meets today, Thursday, November 6, 2025, starting at 10:00 AM. This is a thin agenda, but may still be of interest for the trails strategy.

Agenda (pdf)

Consent:

  1. Approval of the October 2, 2025, Transportation Committee Meeting
  2. May is Bike Month Contract Extension
  3. SACOG Flexible Funding Program Grant Extension Request and Funding Transfer for the City of Isleton
  4. 511 Traveler Information Systems Consultant Services — Contract Terms Standardization

Information:

  1. 2026 Regional Trail Implementation Strategy Update – Governance and Funding (Summer Lopez) (Est. Time: 30) • Governance and funding options for trails

Other Matters

Adjournment

sustainable transportation planning grants

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants for 2025-2026 have been awarded.

Davis received a grant to develop an Active Transportation Plan, described as:

“The City of Davis proposes to develop a city-wide Active Transportation Plan (Plan) with the goal to increase the active mode share trips by 5% by 2040 with the development of innovative and data-proven successful projects, programs and policies that will reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (transportation accounts for 74% of GHG emissions in the City of Davis), improve access to transit stops, and enhance safety for all. The Plan will be informed by robust community outreach and the City will work with both our vocal and underrepresented community members and advocacy groups such as Cool Davis, Bike Davis, Strong Towns Davis, Davis Downtown Business Association, Davis Chamber of Commerce, Yolo Cares, Yolo County, the school district, church-based groups, SACOG, identity-based organizations, aging community organization and homelessness service providers to inventory the existing conditions, identify resident’s needs and desires, and identify projects, programs and policies and prioritize the outcomes. Major deliverables include an executive summary designed for decisionmakers and community members filled with graphics and easy to read maps and a technical document which includes recommended prioritized short- and long-term projects, programs and policies to increase active transportation mode share. The Plan will have a strong nexus with existing plans such as the City of Davis’ 2023 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and 2023 Local Road Safety Plan; SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; and the California Transportation Plan 2050, thereby furthering California’s goal of creating a transportation system that is equitable, safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient for all.”

SACOG received a grant for CARTA Regional Toll Equity Study, described as:

“Consistent with local and statewide plans, the Sacramento Region (Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Yuba, and Sutter counties) is developing our first toll lanes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve transit reliability, and manage freeway congestion in our growing region. To deliver an equitable toll lane system, the Sacramento Region needs to evaluate the impact of toll lanes on low-income, disadvantaged, and other equity-priority communities; reduce disparities in benefits and burdens for those communities; and enhance transportation access for all users. The CARTA Regional Toll Equity Study (Study) will fill this gap by reviewing toll equity best-practices, analyzing how toll lanes will impact travel for equity-priority communities, and providing a clear and actionable roadmap to deliver an equitable toll lane network in the Sacramento Region. The Study will be led by the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA), a joint power authority between SACOG, Caltrans District 3, and Yolo Transportation District (YoloTD) that is the new designated tolling authority for the Sacramento Region.”

City of West Sacramento received a grant for West Sac Forward Transit Priority Plan, described as:

“With West Sacramento experiencing some of the strongest growth in the region this century; planned Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit construction into West Sacramento starting in 2026; public On-Demand Rideshare services growing in popularity; and existing Yolo County Transit District (YoloTD) bus and paratransit service changes anticipated – the City of West Sacramento in partnership with SacRT, YoloTD, and Via, with support from Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) proposes to develop the “West Sac Forward Transit Priority Plan”: an innovative sustainable public transit plan rooted in community feedback and collaborative public participation.

Using Sustainable Communities funding, our agencies will team-up to analyze existing systems targeting efficiency, effectiveness, and seamless integration of public bus, rail, rideshare, and planned rapid transit systems to better serve residents and local workforce through new policies, strategies, and recommended infrastructure improvements. Objectives include reducing transit delay, increasing reliability and resiliency, increasing ridership, improving access and mobility for equity priority communities and transit-dependent populations, reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, reducing congestion and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and improving traffic safety while balancing service cost and system performance.

The final deliverable: a transformative plan with recommended improvements that support healthy, diverse communities and strengthen the economy by implementing the City’s Strategic Plan and Mobility Action Plan, YoloTD’s Short Range Transit Plan, and the SACOG 2025 Blueprint Triple Bottom Line strategic goals of Equity, Economy, and Environment – which complement Caltrans’ six Strategic Plan Goals, meet grant objectives, and achieve CTP 2050 vision and Statewide Transit Strategic Plan objectives prioritizing cost-effective public transit services with improved mobility, social equity, and reduced GHG emissions.”

There are other grants in the region, which can be viewed on the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants page.

regional block grants for transportation

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This week’s podcast Talking Headways Podcast: Localities Subsidize the State DOT, Talking Headways, Jeff Wood, was an interview with Adie Tomer of Brookings Institution about a research paper recommending that some federal transportation funding go directly to regional government, MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) and COGs (Council of Governments), rather than through state departments of transportation. The paper points out that in most cases local governments are subsidizing the state DOT, giving more money to the state than they are getting. The solution suggested is regional block grants (Regional block grants: A new approach to funding transformative infrastructure projects, Brookings Institution, 2025-05-08).

“Regions are the economic hubs of the nation, with metropolitan areas alone producing 90% of gross domestic product in 2023.”

“Regional infrastructure needs are complex, outpacing existing federal funding mechanisms. Formula funds primarily flow to states, while regional actors struggle to qualify for many competitive grants.”

“A new federal model should empower regions and their localities directly. Regional block grants can equip regions with predictable, flexible funding to deliver transformative infrastructure.”

I love the idea! Caltrans gets state funding, and gets a portion of SACOG funding, and a portion of Sacramento Transportation Authority funding. That allows Caltrans to continue to widen freeways and build interchanges, while local roads are pocked with potholes. We have ever fancier freeways with ever expanding lanes. Why? We don’t need that, it contributes nothing to solving our transportation needs, but just induces more driving and more congestion and more pollution and more crashes.

There is a constant tension at the SACOG Board when Caltrans demands funds that come from the state and other sources, for their pet projects. Same at SacTA, when Caltrans demands funds that come from local sales tax. Time to end this!

I encourage you to listen to the podcast, available on any podcast reader, and check the Brookings research paper.

SACOG Regional Planning Partnership

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SACOG Regional Planning Partnership (RPP) is holding its quarterly meeting tomorrow, February 26, 2025, at 2:00 PM, online via Zoom. Registration is required. The RPP is not part of the SACOG governance structure, but is an advisory group, or forum for transportation and air quality concerns to increase coordination within the region. The agenda is not a traditional one for SACOG with staff reports and presentations, but there are a number of links in the agenda of interest.

Discussion of these items will likely be at an overview level, not the detailed discussion that happens in SACOG committees.

Four boards meeting

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

On November 9, 2023, the boards of four agencies met together for the first time: SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments), SacRT (Sacramento Regional Transit District), SMAQMD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District), and SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utilities District). This is probably the largest gathering of elected officials in one room in Sacramento history. Of course the number was not as great as you might think, because many officials serve on multiple boards. The SMUD board is independently elected, while the other three boards are composed of elected officials appointed to the boards by their own boards or councils.

The agenda for this meeting and the resolution that was passed are available here. The reason for the meeting was to advance collaboration among the boards to further mutual objectives, and to pass a resolution stating that. The staff of these agencies already collaborate to some degree, but also don’t on some important issues.

There was a long discussion period before passing of the resolution. No surprise, many of the smaller cities dominated the discussion, as is the case with SACOG board meetings. Several electeds used the time to promote commercial concerns that they benefit from, which is a really sad statement on the quality of our elected officials. Probably 90% of the discussion was devoted to electric vehicles, and in fact it looks as though seeking grant funding for more electric vehicle infrastructure was the real reason for the meeting. Grant applications with multiple agencies on board are more likely to receive funding. There was also discussion of managing forest lands for carbon sequestration and need to manage forests to reduce severe wildfire carbon release. And a few other topics. Active transportation was not one of them.

The boards tried to cut off public comment, but this caused an uproar and several citizens were allowed to speak (if they had been prevented, it would have invalidated the whole meeting under the Brown Act). Of course I spoke, and made the following points:

  • Where is Sacramento Transportation Authority? SacTA probably has more effect on carbon emissions that any other agency in the region, but was not represented. I later learned they were not invited.
  • The discussion and collaboration is about money, money, money, but should be about policy, policy, policy. What are the policies that the agencies can agree on? Money should follow policy, not control it.
  • The strong focus on motor vehicle electrification is techno-glitter, and results in deemphasizing:
    • safe walking: no mention was made of the needs of walkers for safety from motor vehicles
    • bike share: no mention was made of bike share, or scooter share for that matter
    • electric bikes: no mention was made of electric bikes during the discussion; bikes are the most important solution to the climate crisis, but one that the agencies seem particularly disinterested in
    • reducing VMT: the discussion was mostly about electrification, with very little about reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled), though all reputable sources indicate that it will be necessary to reduce VMT along with electrification
    • land use: no mention was made of land use; though none of these agencies have direct control over land use, their expenditures affect land use and are affected by land use; the climate crisis cannot be solved without changing our land use patterns, but all of the smaller cities, and the counties, want and hope to ignore this fact

I finished up by talking about my experience with bike parking at the venue, which was the Sacramento State Alumni Center. When I rode up, there was no bike rack on the north side of the building, so I locked up to a parking sign. Exploring around I noticed a wave rack on the south side of the building. Wave racks received a ‘not recommended’ status from the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals, which is the national standard, about ten years ago. Yet that is all the university provides. There are acres of car parking north of the building, and acres of parking south of the building. The university does have two dedicated bike parking compounds, but neither are close to the alumni center. The pathway along the south side of College Town Drive is nice, though substandard, but it ends at the intersection with Stadium Drive, where the alumni center is located. This is what we get when we focus on the needs of motor vehicle drivers, and place them above other users of the public space. This is what got us into the climate crisis, and we will not get out of it until we change that focus.

SACOG ATP awards

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Ten projects were awarded ATP (Active Transportation Program) funding in the SACOG region for 2023-2027. Brief descriptions follow. All are full funding of the grant request, unless otherwise noted.

  • Citrus Heights – Arcade Cripple Creek Extension. Construct a 0.5 mile Class I multi-use trail following the Arcade Creek alignment between Sayonara Drive and Mariposa Avenue. $7,155,000
  • El Dorado County – El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing. Construct a Class I multi-use grade-separated crossing over Missouri Flat Rd, closing a gap in the El Dorado Trail. $3,271,000
  • Elk Grove – Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99. Construct Class I Bikeway across State Route 99 and adjacent class I trail gap closure. $6,874,000
  • Folsom – Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project. Install curb ramps, sidewalk connections, curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, curb & gutter, raised medians, pavement markings, signage, striping, and asphalt overlay. $1,700,000
  • Roseville – Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2. Construct a Class I multi-use trail and Class II buffered bike lanes. $6,063,000
  • Sacramento County DOT – Bell Street Safe Routes to School. Construct new sidewalks and curb ramps. Relocate signal poles and straighten sidewalks. Install pedestrian signal, RRFB, new signs, bike lanes and bike detectors. $8,808,000
  • Sacramento County Regional Parks – Dry Creek Parkway Trail. Construct a paved Class1 multi-use trail, including dg shoulder, plus two bridges and roadway crossing evaluation. $7,704,000
  • Sacramento – 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project. Construct a Class IV bikeway and a Class II bikeway. [This would extend the Central City Mobility Project from Q St to Broadway, which is not part of the current project.] $2,564,000
  • West Sacramento – North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project. Project will install bike lanes, intersection enhancements, and new sidewalks, and an ADA ramp connection from 5th Street/A Street to Riverwalk Trail. $3,131,000 (partial funding)
  • West Sacramento – West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements. Construct vertical delineators to create separated bike lanes, Class II bike lanes , intersections improvements, and improve Westacre Rd underpass. $735,000

I am particularly pleased about Bell Street Safe Routes to School and Arcade Cripple Creek Extension, as these were projects that I promoted when I was Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified School District. Bell Street is used by many students attending Howe Avenue Elementary, Encina Preparatory High, and Greer Elementary, as well as several private schools in the area. The Arcade-Cripple Creek trail project serves both students at a number of schools and promotes active transportation for the entire community.

Measure 2022: SacTA buys in

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento County Transportation Maintenance, Safety, and Congestion Relief Act of 2022—Retail Transactions and Use Tax (Measure 2022) by the Committee for a Better Sacramento came before the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) last week, 2022-07-27.

Agenda item 6 was to have the authority accept responsibility for implementing the measure if it passes in November. This item did not generate much discussion, and passed unanimously. I will note that the measure sets up a gotcha that will be very difficult for the authority to work through – it basically says that if a project sponsor claims that a project meets air quality criteria, they do not have to prove that it does, and may proceed to spend tax funds on it, no matter what anyone else says. Not only will this likely make it impossible for the SACOG region to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 19% set by the state, but likely make it imperative that other projects both in Sacramento county and the other five counties in the SACOG region make up for (mitigate) the GHGs generated by the project. This is largely about the Capital Southeast Connector, but applies to every capacity expansion project in the measure.

Agenda item 7 (presentation), to direct the SacTA Executive Director to negotiate an memorandum of understanding (MOU) with SACOG that would set us criteria for having SACOG review the GHG impact of the entire measure, using SacTA funds (presumably Measure A funds, since tax collection would not start until January 1 if the measure passes). A review would also be done by a third party, not specified in the MOU, but likely a consultant more amenable to discounting the GHG contribution of roadway expansion projects. SacTA or the third party may challenge the SACOG analysis, but the MOU doesn’t make clear what happens then. It is worth noting the several SACOG board members, particularly David Sander of Rancho Cordova, who is also, conveniently, on the board of the Capital Southeast Connector JPA, said the the SACOG analysis of the impact of the connector on GHG and the likely failure to meet the target, was so flawed that it should be discarded. Several board members accused SACOG staff of lying. I assume that the new review of the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be challenged in the same way, by the same people. It is likely that the measure, and the MOU, and the signing agencies will end up in court.

There was considerably more discussion on item 7. It passed, but with three no votes and one abstention (of the sixteen votes on the board, some of whom were absent).

The MOU is only between SacTA and SACOG. It does not include the Capital Southeast Connector JPA, nor the tax measure proponents (the greenfield developers), nor the county, nor any of the cities, nor the other five counties. So it is not legally binding on anyone beyond SacTA and SACOG. That means that the connector JPA can do what it wants to do, which is to avoid responsibility for GHG emissions.

There was an earlier promise that there would be ballot language in the pro argument that explained the MOU and what it would accomplish, but it is not clear that this is any longer on the table. The MOU itself is far longer than could be included, so if there is anything there at all, it would be a summary, and would be written by the measure proponents, hardly an unbiased source.

I will repeat that it was the specific intention of the measure proponents to bully SACOG and SacTA into supporting the measure and specifically excepting GHG-inducing roadway capacity expansion projects from air quality review. The intentional removal of the GHG language from the 2020 version of the measure (which was withdrawn before going on the ballot) makes this absolutely clear. The claim by many politicians that the measure proponents think that the MOU clarifies that the intent was not to violate GHG goals is laughable. They intended to bully, and they succeeded.

For more on the measure, see Measure 2022 posts. The use of this name and category is not meant to confuse. A lot of people are referring to this as Measure A, but the measure letters are assigned by county elections after they have qualified, so this is in no sense Measure A at this time. Sacramento County Elections has verified signatures for the measure, but has not assigned a measure letter.

ATP6 applications in SACOG region

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Applications made for Active Transportation Program cycle 6 from counties and cities within the SACOG Region. So far as I know, no other details about these projects are available yet. The application period for the state-level program just closed. pdf version

See also Streetsblog California: Active Transportation Plan Update: $3.2 Billion in Requests

NoCountyApplication NumberImplementing Agency NameProject Name
260El Dorado3-El Dorado County-1El Dorado CountyPonderosa Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
294El Dorado3-El Dorado County-2El Dorado CountyEl Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing
254El Dorado3-El Dorado County-3El Dorado CountySouth Tahoe Greenway-Upper Truckee River Bridge at Johnson Meadow
253El Dorado3-El Dorado County-4El Dorado CountyMeyers Bikeway Connector – Pioneer Trail to Elks Club Project
303El Dorado3-El Dorado County-5El Dorado CountyFallen Leaf Road Recreational Access Project
290El Dorado3-Placerville, City of-1Placerville, City ofPlacerville Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Phase 1
226Placer3-Placer County Nonurbanized Area-3Placer County Nonurbanized AreaNorth Tahoe Regional Multi-Use Trail – Segment 1
38Placer3-Placer County-1Placer CountySR 89 / Fanny Bridge Community Revitalization Project Complete Streets
56Placer3-Placer County-2Placer CountyKings Beach Western Approach Project
98Placer3-Rocklin, City of-1Rocklin, City ofRocklin Road Sierra College Corridor Multimodal Enhancements
40Placer3-Roseville, City of-1Roseville, City ofDry Creek Greenway East Multi-Use Trail, Phase 2
139Sacramento3-Sacramento County-1Sacramento CountyElkhorn Boulevard Complete Streets Project
265Sacramento3-Sacramento County-2Sacramento CountyBell Street Safe Routes to School
208Sacramento3-Sacramento County-3Sacramento CountyStockton Blvd Complete Streets Project
417Sacramento3-Sacramento, City of-1Sacramento, City ofFranklin Boulevard Complete Street – Phase 3
221Sacramento3-Sacramento, City of-2Sacramento, City ofEnvision Broadway in Oak Park
218Sacramento3-Citrus Heights, City of-1Citrus Heights, City ofOld Auburn Road Complete Streets – Phase 1
93Sacramento3-Citrus Heights, City of-2Citrus Heights, City ofCarriage/Lauppe Safe Routes to School Project
319Sacramento3-Elk Grove, City of-1Elk Grove, City ofLaguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail SR 99 Overcrossing and Gap Closure
295Sacramento3-Folsom, City of-3Folsom, City ofHistoric District Connectivity Project
413Sacramento3-Folsom, City of-1Folsom, City ofFolsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project
204Sacramento3-Rancho Cordova, City of-1Rancho Cordova, City ofZinfandel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing
249Yolo3-Yolo County-1Yolo CountyCounty Road 98 Bike & Safety Improvement Project Phase II
219Yolo3-West Sacramento, City of-1West Sacramento, City ofI Street Bridge Deck Conversion for Active Transportation Project
26.Yolo3-Winters, City of-1Winters, City ofWinters/El Rio Villas Active Transportation Connection: SR-128/I-505 Over-cross
42.Yolo3-Woodland, City of-1Woodland, City ofWoodland Safe Routes to School & ATP Connectivity Project
195Yuba3-Yuba County-1Yuba CountyWest Linda Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Project
202Yuba3-Yuba County-2Yuba CountyOlivehurst Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Project
231Yuba3-Yuba County-3Yuba CountyEast Linda Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Project
150Yuba3-Yuba City, City of-1Yuba City, City ofYuba City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements
272Yuba3-Yuba City, City of-2Yuba City, City ofYuba City Abandoned Railroad Corridor Conversion Project

backroom deals on sales tax

Dan Allison1 Comment

Imagine, if you will, a backroom filled with cigar smoke, burley guys with prominent gun bulges around the edges, the sounds of illegal gambling games coming from the adjacent room, and the clink of bootleg whiskey bottles. Around the table sit power players, working out deals. Someone asks about the public, and one of the burley guys says “We took care of them”.

This is the picture I have of the just-released proposed agreement on the transportation sales tax measure being developed. Read the agreement: Mitigation Agreement, and the SACOG 2022-06-16 Agenda Item 13 Staff Report that introduces it. It is important to realize that this agreement was developed by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, SACOG Executive Director James Corless, and the proponents of the measure (called ‘The Campaign’ in the agreement). The proponents are named A Committee for a Better Sacramento, but their website tell the story: two mega-developers of greenfield (agricultural) lands, Cordova Hills Development Corporation and Angelo T. Tsakopoulos and Affiliated Entities, and the California Alliance for Jobs, an organization that supports large infrastructure projects on behalf of construction contractors (it is the contractors, not the workers who are represented). The proponents want the taxpayers to build them a freeway and interchanges to increase the value of their greenfield developments. The public was not involved. Actually, the SACOG Board of Directors was not really involved.

Before going into what is wrong with the agreement, a review of what happened at the last SACOG Board Meeting on May 19. Almost every representative from Sacramento county and cities badmouthed the SACOG study that revealed that the Capital Southeast Connector would likely cause the region to not meet its 19% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target, and therefore likely lose a significant amount of state and federal funding for transportation and housing. Several of them even questioned the honesty of the staff that wrote the study. It was a pretty horrible display of politicians saying they know more than professional staff. On the other hand, almost every representative of counties and cities in the region that are not in Sacramento County expressed concern about losing transportation and housing funding if the measure passes. James Corless listened to this, and decided an agreement that helps some select developers and some select projects, while harming the region, is the way to go.

So, the agreement. What is wrong with it?

  1. The agreement accepts that project proponents (cities and the counties, not measure proponents) can make a determination about whether their project meets air quality requirements. It encourages both projects and the overall program to meet SACOG requirements and inclusion in the MTP/SCS, but accepts that they may not. This will establish a precedent that will be used by project hosts and tax measure proponents from now on, to claim they don’t need to follow SACOG.
  2. The agreement proposes that SACOG undertake a study of the proposed measure to determine GHG/VMT impacts. This will be expensive, and the funds will come out of the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) Measure A funds, meaning less money for other projects. This study would probably be a good idea, but it should have been done before the measure was written, not after. If this measure fails, as it should, advocates should demand that climate impact studies be done before the Transportation Expenditure Plan is completed, not after.
  3. The agreement also proposes a third party study, because, basically, the measure proponents don’t trust SACOG to kowtow to the party line. Who will this third party be? The agreement doesn’t say. Handpicked by the proponents? Handpicked by SacTA (current SacTA Executive Director Kevin Bewsey was formerly the Principal Civil Engineer for Sacramento County, hardly an unbiased role)? The agreement says, if the two studies don’t agree, we’ll talk about it. Hmm. More smokey back rooms.
  4. The agreement depends upon an ‘extra’ $510M in additional sales tax revenue for mitigation. What if sales tax remains flat, or decreases? What if construction and management cost go up at the same rate as the sales tax receipts, thereby eating up the excess? No mitigation, then? That is the implication.
  5. The agreement relies on the good will of the transportation agencies in the county (pretty please) to spend their extra sales tax revenue on mitigation: “…recipient agencies can pledge that the use of these additional funds be used first for GHG Mitigation.” Notice it doesn’t say must or will, just can. Citrus Heights, for example, which is much more likely to propose multi-modal transportation projects than other entities, will be asked to sacrifice sales tax revenue to mitigate the Connector and other capacity expansion projects, even though they won’t benefit from those. The same for the City of Sacramento, which makes it doubly disappointing to me that Mayor Steinberg is a party to this agreement.
  6. The agreement implies that the GHG/VMT generating projects can be mitigated sometime later: “Therein, there should be no net increase to regional GHG emissions after mitigation measures are complete.” It doesn’t say the mitigation needs to happen first, or at the same time as the project, just sometime within the 40 years. Ouch!
  7. An MOU is just a statement of intent, laying out what each party intends to do. It is not a contract, and is not legally binding. If one of the parties is unhappy with what the other parties have done, or not done, they can bring a civil suit, but they may not allege breach of contract, because it is not a contract.
  8. The agenda staff report says it is likely that the SACOG Blueprint will have to be delayed in order for staff to be shifted to the study. This is SACOG’s flagship product. Why in the world would it be delayed just to meet the needs of the transportation sales tax measure proponents? This is crazy.
  9. $100M out of City of Sacramento’s share of sales tax revenues would be added for the Mobility Center. Why? What does this have to do with the Capital Southeast Connector and other roadway capacity expansion projects? Are we going to mitigate all the bad things in the measure with a small investment in electric vehicles?

    The measure proponents are bullying SACOG. This was their intention, else why would they have removed the GHG/VMT climate protection language that was in the deferred 2020 measure? It is as though the school bully said “hand over your lunch money” and the victim counter-proposes an agreement to only give half of the lunch money, and agrees not to report the bully to the Principal (the Principal, in this case, being the public).

Please take a look at the SACOG Board page to see who your representatives are, and contact them about this agreement.

The SACOG Board Meeting is this Thursday, June 16, starting at 9:30AM, and this is agenda item 13. You can view the meeting at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82132538239. You can comment via Zoom, or by email or online or phone, or even in person. This is apparently the first in-person meeting of the board. See the agenda for details.

For more on the measure, see Measure 2022 posts. The use of this category is not meant to confuse. A lot of people are referring to this as Measure A, but the measure letters are assigned by county elections after they have qualified, so this is in no sense Measure A at this time.

SACOG Board on sales tax analysis

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SACOG Board met today, and agenda item 12 was on the SACOG Review & Analysis of Proposed Citizens’ Transportation Tax Initiative in Sacramento County. This was an information item, for discussion, not for action. This post is a brief summary of the discussion, to follow on to the earlier post on the analysis: SACOG analysis of Measure 2022. The analysis identifies 26 (or more) capacity expansion projects proposed in the measure’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, all of which would increase GHG/VMT, and most of which would also increase sprawl.

Nearly every representative of the cities and counties in Sacramento County rejected the analysis as being flawed, some even said it was unprofessional. They claimed that the analysis made so many assumptions that it could not be trusted, and that SACOG should not be in the business of producing documents like this. Despite that fact that planning for transportation and land use is specifically the purview of the MPOs, and that they instead support a measure that speculates about transportation needs for 40 years into the future. If you don’t like the message, blame the messenger.

I can’t resist pointing out that this has become a pattern for supporters of more of the same (more capacity expansion, more sprawl, more GHG/VMT):

Supporters of sprawl and the measure proponents: Show us the data!

SACOG: Here is the data.

Supporters of sprawl and the measure proponents: No, not that data. We don’t believe you.

On the other hand, every representative from the other five counties in the SACOG region expressed great concern that allowing the measure to go through would threaten their own transportation projects and funding due to the region not meeting GHG reduction goal of 19%. Don Saylor of Yolo County was the most succinct, saying that SACOG must consider the impact on the region as a whole, and that it is time to move past the limited vision of the past.

The out-of-left-field part of the discussion was that Darrell Steinberg talked about an ongoing negotiation with the measure proponents that would mitigate for the worst aspects of the measure. This apparently has been going on for six weeks, and is the reason the release of the analysis was delayed, even though it was completed a month ago.

Darrell talked about five elements of the negotiation (this is captured from his verbal report, and may not be accurate, no printed information was offered):

  • $300M in the measure for the connector would be contingent upon SACOG defining mitigation measures, and that the Capital Southeast Connector JPA accepted the mitigation.
  • SACOG would develop a scenario in the currently developing MTP/SCS that includes the connector.
  • SACOG would commit to putting the connector in the MTP if these other conditions where met.
  • An additional $300M would be provided for connector mitigation in the measure.
  • $100M will be added to the California Mobility Center, diverted from other projects.

It looks as though Steinberg is putting the onus on SACOG, not on the proponents. It is true that none of the government entities have any control over the measure, but if negotiations are going on, it should be from a position of strength, not weakness. If the City of Sacramento opposed the measure, it is very unlikely that it would pass.

The proponents intended to bully the agencies into supporting it, and to make sure that they got their message across, removed the climate protection language from the measure. They want the agencies to make their own decisions about whether and how to mitigate climate impacts, regardless of regional interests or the intent of the state legislature, or even the interests of the counties that would be impacted.

To my knowledge, no opponents of the measure, of which there are many, the majority of the transit, transportation, and environmental advocacy organizations, were asked to participate in the negotiations. Yet another example of excluding public engagement, just as the people who wrote the measure excluded public engagement.

SACOG said that the analysis would be presented to the various SACOG committees, and would come back to the board in June. It isn’t clear to me what, if anything will happen at that point. I assume the negotiations will have completed by then, successfully or unsuccessfully. It isn’t clear what kind of agreement could be reached that would actually be binding on Sacramento Transportation Authority and the other governments, since a measure, if passed and not found unconstitutional, has the force of law. Maybe there is a way.

For more on the measure, see Measure 2022 posts. The use of this category is not meant to confuse. A lot of people are referring to this as Measure A, but the measure letters are assigned by county elections after they have qualified, so this is in no sense Measure A at this time.