What’s next: freeways

As I said in my post Slow Down Sacramento’s response to the initiative failure, I really like Slow Down’s thoughts about where to go after the failure of the Safer Sac Streets initiative to make the November ballot. But of course I also have some more radical ideas. It will probably take a few posts to get to them.

Our transportation system is broken. Seriously broken. It kills people on a regular basis, to a level that is unheard of in the developed world, and puts us solidly down in the third world statistics. It damages the earth, most prominently as the primary cause of climate change, but in many other ways as well. Perhaps most importantly, it has led to a society that is fragmented and unhappy, because we have turned much of our urban form into a lonely, sad place. Except for those lucky enough to live in diverse, walkable communities (I am one), the livability of our places is declining at an accelerating rate. I take that as a given, and it is not my purpose here to amplify that argument. If you don’t buy that, you probably won’t be interested in what comes next.

The interstate highway system was probably a plus for society, and for our economy, though it made the mistake of destroying central cities for the benefit of through traffic. But as Strong Towns has so well documented, we finished that project in 1992, and mostly earlier, The Interstate Was Finished. The Program Wasn’t (Mission Accomplished). See a local focus, End Highway Expansion by Strong SacTown’s Troy Sankey. Caltrans has not slowed down in its expansions of highway capacity, and despite the lip service of Caltrans headquarters, our regional District 3 has recommitted itself to the maximum number of new lanes miles, and a never ending supply of make-work projects.

Why is this important? Caltran’s mission is to supply all the highway capacity that anyone might ask for. If there is congestion, add capacity. If traffic slows below 65 mph, add capacity. If new interchanges are needed to support sprawl development, add capacity. This is really all District 3 knows how to do. Their world view is that the purpose of our transportation system is to ease and speed motor vehicle travel, and their constituency is people who want to drive more at a faster pace. The engineers, and particularly the leadership of District 3, is living in the 1950s.

So, highway capacity is increased. Yolo Causeway on Interstate 80, add a lane. Hwy 50, add one or more lanes. Interstate 80, add lanes (this was already done, but I’m sure they are planning more). Interstate 5, add lanes. Hwy 99, add lanes (this was already done, but I’m sure they are planning more). Sacramento is not really a city of trees, it is a city of highways.

Each and every capacity expansion induces more traffic, and in particular encourages longer distance travel. Want to live far from where you work? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. Want to get to the coast or Lake Tahoe with a short easy drive? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. Want to develop agricultural lands into suburbs? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. What Caltrans does not do, and seems uninterested in, is ensuring that freight traffic, which we all depend upon to some degree whether we drive or not, has the capacity to move. The freeways are full of commuters and travelers, with freight crawling along in the traffic. Stand on a bridge over any of our freeways, and notice who the freeway was designed for. For private cars, not for freight and commerce.

Why is this pattern so important? When highway capacity is expanded, it induces more motor vehicle traffic. That in turn induces more traffic on local roadways, particularly arterials and collectors. So the local agencies (SACOG, counties, cities) have to expand their roadways to accommodate all the induced traffic. And just as with the freeways, there is no apparent end to capacity expansion. In more urban areas, some cities are now moving in the other direction, reducing capacity for safety, but at the edges, capacity is still being increased, in many cases at a rapid rate. Caltrans has its hands deep in the taxpayers pockets, and gets essentially unlimited funds to expand capacity (with the complicity of California Transportation Commission (CaTC), the governor, and the legislature), while local agencies don’t have the money to even maintain what they already have, let alone expand capacity. Yet the actions of Caltrans forces them into expanding capacity and accumulating debt and deferred maintenance that they will never, ever be able to catch up on.

So, solutions. Discourage freeway use for commuting and non-essential travel. That would include:

  • stop current and planned capacity increases
  • all freeway lanes in excess of two per direction to be tolled (and eventually, all lanes)
  • convert all existing HOV lanes to tolled lanes

Stopping capacity expansion would free up the money (and more) to create the tolling infrastructure on all freeways in the region, including converting HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to tolled lanes. The not yet finished Hwy 50 project, Fix50, added an HOV lane, which should have been a tolled lane. Now is the time to fix that. We already have a regional tolling agency, Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority, ready to operate the tolled lanes, and redirect income to maintenance and mitigation.

I have no illusions that this change would be easy. There are vast forces that will try to delay and subvert it. Not just Caltrans, not just commuters, but politicians who want to cut ribbons on increased capacity. The asphalt lobby, as it is called, though it includes concrete and everything that goes into a freeway. Suburban and exurban land developers. Owners of remote shopping malls who want an interchange just for their development. And the forces of status quo: ‘we’ve been doing this for 80 years, why would we change now?’

To make this change, it would take a strong, organized, and committed coalition of organizations that support equity, environment and financial solvency and transparency, and are willing to do whatever it takes to rein in Caltrans. And every citizen who knows we are on the wrong road, which is a continually growing group.

Caltrans District 3 is a rogue agency, not controlled in any significant way by anyone outside the district. Not Caltrans Headquarters, not the CaTC, not the governor, not the legislature. Bringing it under control might well be the hardest thing that could be accomplished, it will take years, and labor, and tears, and money. The best time to start was 50 years ago, the next best time is tomorrow.

convert HOV lanes to Express Lanes

With the establishment of the regional tolling authority, Capitol Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA), a joint powers authority (JPA), the opportunity exists for existing HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to tolled lanes, specifically Express Lanes. HOV lanes had their time, but that time is past. HOV lanes are routinely violated. If you stand on an overpass and look down at vehicles in the HOV lane, you will see that many of them are single occupant vehicles, not high occupancy. You could also do the same while driving, but I’d rather you kept your eye on the road. The HOV 2+, used in the Sacramento region, which requires two occupants, is a pretty low bar, but even that is not achieved by many drivers. HOV lanes, being free, also generate no funds to maintain the lanes.

The SACOG region current has about 144 lane-miles of HOV lanes. It has no HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, and no Express Lanes (all vehicles tolled, though toll may vary with occupancy or time of day). The map below (pdf) shows the existing HOV lanes (blue), and the HOV lane now being constructed as part of the Fix50 project. I have seen a SACOG map of the intended Managed Lane Network, but am unable to find it at the moment.

While the Yolo 80 project initiated the current tolling effort, SACOG in the 2020 MTP/SCS, identified managed lanes as a key component of both managing traffic and paying for maintenance of the system.

Read More »

tolling authority at SacTA

At the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) board meeting today, SACOG gave a presentation on the tolling authority and governance, as part of agenda 9, Receive Information on the creation of the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA) and the Yolo 80 Managed Lane Project and provide direction as appropriate. The two presentations, one by SACOG staff and the other by Executive Director Kevin Bewsey on possible SacTA role, are available: SACOG, SacTA role. SACOG estimated in the current MTP/SCS (not the update being worked on) that about 70% of the expected tolled lanes will be in Sacramento County. See map at bottom.

In my public comment, I spoke on these points, similar to the points I’d also made at the SACOG Transportation Committee meeting:

  • Support creation of regional tolling JPA
  • Support governance options with one Caltrans voting member, but not two
  • Support inclusion of Sacramento Transportation Authority as the Sac county agency
  • Tolling advances user pays concept, which transportation advocates support
  • If the JPA had been in place, Fix50 project would have had toll lanes rather than HOV: HOV lanes don’t work for management because they are routinely violated
  • Support does not indicate that I support adding lanes in Yolo, but if lanes are added, they should be tolled
  • Questions about JPA membership, board members and voting are probably best answered by proportional representation based on tolled lane miles rather than county representation, which is more consistent with citizen representation; this would also entice counties to add or convert tolled lanes so they could be part of the process and benefits
  • Conversion of HOV lanes and general purpose lanes to tolled lanes will be required in the future to maintain our very expensive highway system, so this is a start

Brian Abbanat of YoloTD also spoke.

Several board members spoke, and to summarize and paraphrase their comments:

  • Rich Desmond and Eric Guerra supported a lanes miles voting idea
  • Karina Talamantes expressed concern but seemed satisfied by the answers
  • Bret Daniels expressed the standard ‘I don’t want to pay anything’ and tolling is for rich Tesla people
  • Phil Serna asked about safety of adjacent lanes, SACOG responded that safety can be part of the infrastructure and/or tolling design; I don’t think the idea of separation on the causeway has come up before; also asked about detection and enforcement
  • Eric Guerra said benefit or presentation is raising awareness
  • Patrick Hume actually said that eventually we will need to toll not just lanes but entire facilities

Overall, the concerns of the board were mainly that Sacramento County be treated equitably in terms of tolled projects, design of tolls, and distribution of toll revenue; several people also commented that the focus on excess revenue may be premature since it isn’t clear that there will be excess revenue, and some of it is already dedicated to mitigation measures.

Kevin Bewsey presented on SacTA’s role in the JPA, including how votes would be handled.

Though no motion was made on the issue, nor any vote taken, the consensus of the board seems to be:

  • Support for creation of the JPA
  • Support for creating tolled lanes in Sacramento County
  • Yes to SacTA being the agency for Sacramento County
  • Yes to appointing members of the SacTA board to the JPA board, probably with one county representative and one city representative (under the staff recommended governance structure, SACOG would appoint another from its own board, and from Sacramento County or a city within)
  • Concern about the governance model treatment of Sacramento County, and concern about a voting methodology that is equitable for Sacramento County, but willingness to allow some uncertainty here for the time being (the voting document created by SACOG was not presented, but was discussed since several SacTA board members are also SACOG board members)
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region

Note: I am unsure of the source of this map. It was referred to as being in the 2020 SCS, but I don’t find it there. Apologies for the low resolution, it was extracted from the SACOG presentation today, not from an original source.

For additional posts on managed lanes in general, this regional tolling authority, and the Yolo 80 project, see category ‘managed lanes‘.

Yolo 80 and managed lanes

These are my posts on Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project, or related and relevant. The category ‘managed lanes‘ will surface most of these posts, and future ones if there are any. My main purpose is to inform the public so we will be better informed for the next project (and there will be a next project). The only thing that might stop the Yolo 80 project is a lawsuit or lack of funds. Public opinion will not stop it.

I now will get back to other issues that I’ve been neglecting while focused on Yolo 80 and managed lanes.

all-lanes tolling (freeways are not free)

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.

Read More »