Tag: transportation sales tax

followup on SacTA hears voter survey

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I attended the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) last Thursday (2023-09-14). Though I really wanted to complain about the continuing funding of the climate arson Capital Southeast Connector, I held my tongue, to concentrate on the voter survey presentation. The presentation was a brief version of the whole document (see SacTA hears voter survey), highlighting the most critical parts. The jist of the presentation is that a measure on the 2024 ballot would probably fail at about 55%, well below the 67% necessary for passage of an agency-sponsored measure.

The SacTA board members accepted the bad news, and were discouraged, but seemed fairly fatalistic about it. There was a recognition for some board members and a staff person that the failed 2022 Measure A (‘citizens measure’ sponsored by developers) had lessened the chances for future transportation measures even though this one was not sponsored by SacTA. A board member expressed hope that maybe a new and true citizen measure might come up, and other board members nodded. There was general agreement that another ‘same old, same old’ measure was never going to pass. There was also voiced resistance from at least two board members against any taxes, though that is not the consensus of the board. The item was up for presentation and discussion, not for decision.

I encouraged, and several board members supported, looking in more detail at Mayor Steinberg’s proposal once there is enough detail to clearly understand.

My statement to the board was (not word for word):

  • Transit needs more funding in order to meet air quality and GHG reduction targets in MTP/SCS, so doing nothing is not a good answer. SacRT is the lowest funded transit agency in California for a city of its size.
  • Low public support is due in part to the horrible 2022 Measure A, which the public recognized was designed as a gift to greenfield developers and freeway builders, and did not address the transportation needs of the county
  • The public has never seen a measure or proposed measure that was designed to establish and meet goals for transportation investment, so they are leery of any new measure
  • Mayor Steinberg’s proposed housing and transportation measure is something different, it addresses real needs in the county, with 1/3 to affordable housing, 1/3 to transit, and 1/3 to active transportation and safe streets
  • If the public were aware of an innovative and progressive measure, I believe voters would be much more supportive
  • Though no organizations have formally come out in favor of the mayor’s, it is likely that support would be present. At the same time, if another business as usual measure is proposed by SacTA, it will be opposed. The transportation advocacy community knows how to kill bad measures, and will again.

SacTA hears voter survey

Dan Allison1 Comment

This afternoon (2023-09-14, 1:30PM), the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) will hear from consultants about a survey of likely voters and attitudes toward a transportation sales tax measure. Agenda item 13 is available (the entire agenda packet is so long that it is hard to find this item; this is a low resolution version).

The survey indicates that only 54% would vote yes, which is less than the 67% required for passage, assuming that the measure is sponsored by SacTA, and not a citizen initiative.

There are a lot of interesting bar charts, in the presentation. Below is just one, showing the level of support in various surveys and actual elections over time. I recommend you take a look at the whole document to see what jumps out for you.

bar chart showing Sales Tax Measure Support over time
Sales Tax Measure Support over time

The presentation does not really address what I think is a key factor, which is the cynicism developed by voters over time when the same failed policies get presented again and again. The 2016 Measure A, the withdrawn 2020 Measure A, and the landslide failure of 2022 Measure A presented transportation investments that are more of the same: more highways, more interchanges, more roadway capacity, more air pollution, more greenhouse gas emissions. The voters have never been offered an alternative that does not represent the interests of traffic engineers who always want more: more cars, more concrete, more ribbon cuttings, more money. Particularly after the 2022 developer-sponsored ‘citizen initiative’, voters don’t trust that sales taxes will be spent on what they actually need for livability and economic vibrancy. 2022 Measure A was just more money in the pockets of greenfield developers and highway builders. Money out of the voters pockets.

But there is now an alternative, Mayor Darrell Steinberg’s proposal. I wonder if that were presented to the public, what the level of support would be. More about that in the next post.

real transportation solutions

Dan Allison3 Comments

Measure A 2022, which will be on the ballot this November, is a bundle of old ideas and a commitment to doing things the old way, the way that has dominated our transportation system since World War II. It does not address current transportation challenges. It proposes building more freeways, more interchanges, and widening roadways. It proposes to continue and increase the motor vehicle dominance of our transportation system. Sure, there is a weak commitment to fix-it-first, for the first five years of the 40 years. Sure, there are some complete streets, but that won’t make a dent in the pedestrian and bicyclist-hostile roadways that traffic engineers have built for us.

When Measure A fails, we have a chance in Sacramento County to identify and implement progressive and effective transportation projects and systems. What would a better transportation system look like?

  • One not so dependent on sales taxes. Sales taxes are regressive – low income people spend a much higher percentage of income on sales tax than do higher income people. Property taxes and congestion charges are a much fairer way to fund transportation. We have been too dependent on sales tax, for not just transportation, but many government functions.
  • One that recognizes and works to overcome the disinvestment that low income and high minority communities have suffered. Our transportation system is largely designed to ease the commutes and travel of high income individuals, not of society as a whole. The light rail system was designed with the needs of suburban, largely white commuters. So too were our freeways. At least 70% of transportation expenditures should be in and for the benefit of disinvested communities.
  • We have all the lane miles and pavement we will ever need. It is time to stop adding lanes miles and stop adding pavement. Not just because of the climate implications, but because these are low-return investments. Instead, transportation expenditures should support walking, bicycling and transit.
  • Big transportation projects such as freeways and interchanges claim big job benefits, but they are in fact much less efficient at generating high paying jobs than many other types of infrastructure investments. New construction spends most of its funds on materials, not on labor. The construction companies make large profits on large projects, but little of that filters down to workers. Small to moderate projects would employ many more people.
  • A transportation system dependent on motor vehicles, whether they are fossil fueled or electric, has strongly negative impacts on our places: direct air pollution, tire dust pollution, noise, traffic violence, loss of land to parking and roadways rather than productive development, and probably most important, it intimidates people out of walking and bicycling. A transportation system based on walking, bicycling, and transit eliminates most of these negatives.
  • A car dominated transportation system pushes everything further apart, jobs and housing and shopping and medical far away from each other. Cars not only encourage but largely demand low density development, so that there is space reserved for cars, all the parking and roadways that take up a large portion of our cities. It requires a car to participate in society, and thereby requires low income people to expend an unsustainable percentage of their income on transportation. A transportation system that relies much more on walking and bicycling allows things to be closer together, so that cars are not necessary for most daily travel.
  • Transportation investment should depend much less on state and federal funding, and much more on local funding. Large portions of the Measure A funds are intended to be matches for grants. But grants cause planners to focus on what the state and the federal government want, not on what the county or cities need. When the income from taxes or fees is close to the people, the solutions are much more likely to be what is desired by the people.
  • Private vehicle travel does little to contribute to making our places and our lives better. A innovative transportation system would focus on access to services, and make those services available nearby. It would reduce vehicle miles traveled, both by changing our development pattern and by actively working to reduce motor vehicle travel.
  • Our current transportation system has destroyed a lot of natural and agricultural lands, paving it over with roadways and low density housing. The best way of preserving nature and agriculture is to focus our attention and our funding on already higher density areas, which means infill.
  • None of the projects in Measure A are designed to support infill development. A progressive transportation system would focus nearly all investment on infill areas. It would cost much less money, and be much more productive.
  • Measure A calls out and essentially requires completion of the Green Line light rail to the airport. But who will use it? Unless service hours are 24 hours a day, it won’t be usable for many of the airport workers, who work before and after peak travel times. Instead, it may become yet another very expensive service for high-income travelers, just like our freeways system. Instead, we need to rethink our transit system to determine what citizens want and will use, and build a more efficient system around that. We know that frequency is freedom, so we must shift spending towards that, even while maintaining a reasonable level of areal coverage.

I’m sure you can think of many other things that an innovative, equitable transportation system would accomplish. Please suggest!

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.

SACOG Board outcome

Dan Allison2 Comments

At the SACOG Board meeting this morning, the board passed the staff-recommended agreement that authorizes Executive Director James Corless to negotiate an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the transportation sales tax measure proponents and SacTA (Sacramento Transportation Authority) to include elements of the agreement in the MOU and in the ballot measure statement of support.

There was a lot of controversy over this issue, more than I have seen at any board meeting. Representatives of the other five counties (Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, El Dorado) and the cities within expressed great concerns about the agreement. Some voted no, some voted reluctantly yes, but there was no enthusiasm. The only really enthusiastic voice at all was from David Sander, representative of Rancho Cordova, who is also conveniently the board chair of the Capital Southeast Connector JPA. Even James Corless who supports the compromise expressed considerable discomfort that the agreement was even necessary to keep SACOG in the discussion.

The agreement implies that each new project (not in the current MTP/SCS) will have to completely mitigate all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the reduction. Left unanswered is how that can be accomplished. How can a project like the sprawl and VMT inducing Capital Southeast Connector be mitigated? Will the project fund all mitigation, or will the project proponents come back to SACOG or SacTA begging for funds for mitigation? Are all the other projects expected to pick up the slack in order to meet the required reduction in GHG? Will projects in the other five counties be expected to pick up the slack? Nothing in the agreement says the proponents of these capacity expansion projects will help to meet the regional target of 19% GHG reduction.

Don Saylor of Yolo County asked some very pointed and relevant questions of Corless and SACOG Counsel Kirk Trost. Trost confirmed that it is unlikely that any signatories to the MOU could be held legally accountable, that the MOU would be worthless if it continued the same vague language in the agreement, and that the whole thing was dependent on the good will of all the players. All players includes Sacramento County and each city in the county, and by implication, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. It is not at all clear whether they will all sign on, or that they will fulfill their agreement. The commitment to the 1970s model of transportation (the dark side), which the measure proposes to continue for 40 years, is very strong among many of the entities in the county, and it would not be surprising if some decided to back out on or just ignore the commitment to mitigating ALL GHG impacts of each project.

The original motion to adopt the agreement and delegate to Corless was modified to include a review (not approval) by the board chair and the chairs of the SACOG committees. A second motion to include formal representation on the review by the other five counties failed, but Corless promised to reach out to them.

Most board members just held their nose and voted yes.

My comments were directed at the mis-information that was being provided by signature gatherers, talking about fixing streets, support for bicycling, and “it’s all for transit”. There was never mention of freeways, interchanges, or capacity expansion, which is largely what the measure is really about. The measure proponents clearly intended to fool the public into signing by not telling the truth about the TEP (Transportation Expenditure Plan). Of course many ballot measures have the same dishonesty, but it is significant in this case because these are the people that Mayor Steinberg and Corless were negotiating with ‘in good faith’. There is no good faith with the proponents.

I think the transportation advocacy community can see a small victory here in that many people are now coming to understand how bad the proposed measure is and specifically how it will harm the region. And they saw today how the proponents intended to bully SACOG, in the measure language, and in this agreement. We lost on this particular vote, but board members can’t really deny anymore that the transportation future of the county and the region has been hijacked.

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.

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 analysis of Measure 2022

Dan Allison1 Comment

SACOG has released a blockbuster analysis on the effects of the proposed transportation sales tax measure that may be on the ballot in November 2022. The report is extensive, 88 pages. The SACOG Board agenda for 2022-05-19, item 12: SACOG Review & Analysis of Proposed Citizens’ Transportation Tax Initiative in Sacramento County is available here; the entire agenda packet is available on the SACOG website, but is quite large. I will be creating a number of posts on this analysis, but to start, here are two key quotes:

SACOG’s analysis of the proposed transportation tax initiative in Sacramento County projects the region would likely fall short of meeting its state-mandated 19 percent per capita greenhouse gas reduction target by nearly 2 percent. This would jeopardize the region’s ability to compete for state transportation and housing funding programs. The analysis shows that the potential impacts from this revised 2022 initiative are indeed significant enough that the region and decisionmakers should take the time to understand and weigh the potential benefits of the transportation investments against the risks of failing to meet the region’s GHG target.

SACOG Review, page 7

* The 26 known capacity expanding projects in the measure would substantially increase per capita GHG emissions, threatening the region’s ability to meet its 2035 GHG target. This conclusion results from the impact of the transportation facilities themselves, and from the impact additional transportation capacity would have on the location of new housing and employment development, substantially altering the region’s land use forecast and travel patterns and increasing per capita VMT.

* As a result, while the region’s 2020 MTP/SCS succeeded in meeting the per capita GHG emissions reduction target—19% from 2005 to 2035—the analysis shows that the initiative’s capacity projects would erode the region’s performance by nearly 2%; adding the capacity projects to the 2020 MTP/SCS would achieve an overall reduction of per capita GHG of less than 17% by the target year.

* The transit expansion projects in the initiative did not offset the impact of the initiative’s roadway capacity expanding projects enough to help the region meet its GHG emissions reduction target.

SACOG Review, page 5

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.

Measure 2022: allocation to places

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Under the Transportation Expenditure Plan major category of Local Streets and Roads (page A-8 of Exhibit A), both ‘Local Street and Road Repair and Transformative System Improvements’ and ‘Local Projects of Regional Significance’ funds are allocated to the cities and county. The table below show these allocations.

The percentages for each city and the county are not too far off of what would be their allocation if based solely on population. So this aspect of the TEP can be considered to be not unfair. However, as with all transportation funding, the question arises whether this ‘formula grants’ allocation, as it is called, is the best way to meet the transportation needs of the county. 47.25% of the entire measure is dedicated to local streets and roads, so this is an important question. But one which I don’t have a clear answer to.

A future post will take a closer look at the 93 projects that are listed under both ‘Local Street and Road Repair and Transformative System Improvements’ and ‘Local Projects of Regional Significance’, and the fix-it-first language in this section.

Search for category Measure 2022 to see posts as they are added.

Measure 2022: Southeast Connector exceptionalism

Dan Allison1 Comment

A group calling themselves A Committee for a Better Sacramento is sponsoring a citizen-initiated ballot measure for the November election, titled “Sacramento County Transportation Maintenance, Safety, and Congestion Relief Act of 2022—Retail Transactions and Use Tax”. (Note: Some people are referring to this as Measure A, but measure letters are assigned by county elections, not by the sponsors. I’ll continue to refer to it as Measure 2022, for now.)

One of the major projects in the measure is the Capital Southeast Connector, a new freeway from Folsom to Elk Grove. Future posts will talk about what a bad transportation idea this is, but for now, what a bad part of the measure it is.

The measure essentially makes the Capital Southeast Connector JPA the judge of whether the project meets air quality requirements – the fox watching the henhouse. It is somewhat obscure what the language means, and takes a close reading, but the gist is that if the project fails to meet air quality requirements and therefore is not included on the project list in the MTP (SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan), the JPA can go its own way and decide for itself that the project meets requirements.

K. Metropolitan Transportation Plan & GHG Reduction Targets. The Sacramento region Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP) currently requires that the region meet a 19% per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. Expenditure Plan projects that are planned or programmed for construction in an MTP, as may be amended from time to time, shall be eligible for Measure funds. Expenditure Plan projects not planned or programmed for construction in an MTP shall be eligible for Measure funds if the construction phase of the project is exempt from project-level and regional level air quality conformity.

For any non-exempt projects that are not planned or programmed for construction in an MTP, as may be amended from time to time, the following requirements will apply:

For any non-exempt projects that are not planned or programmed for construction in an MTP, as may be amended from time to time, the following requirements will apply:

1. In order to meet the then applicable regional GHG reduction target for the MTP, project sponsors (parties) shall develop mitigation measures for any project(s) that increases GHG emissions.

2. If the parties can mitigate any such project impacts to maintain adherence to the then applicable regional GHG reduction target, the project(s) shall be eligible for Measure funds.

3. If the GHG impacts are not mitigated to meet the region’s then applicable GHG reduction target, and as a result the region cannot meet its applicable GHG target, the funds planned for the non-exempt project(s) may be used by the corresponding Implementing Agency at their discretion, for other than the originally intended project(s), provided any alternative project(s) are consistent with the Expenditure Plan and included in an MTP, as may be amended from time to time, that meets the then applicable target. Per above, alternative project(s) not planned or programmed for construction in an MTP shall be eligible for Measure funds if the construction phase of the project(s) is exempt from project-level and regional-level air quality conformity.

Measure 2022, Exhibit A, Chapter 1, Section K

This treatment of the JPA might very likely be found to be unconstitutional, but the measure proponents have thought of that too:

If any portion of this Measure is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, we the People of the Sacramento Transportation Authority indicate our strong desire that: (i) the Authority use its best efforts to sustain and re-enact that portion, and (ii) the Authority implement this Measure by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Measure, including, to the extent permitted by law, adopting or reenacting any such portion in a manner consistent with this Measure.

Section XII, Paragraph B, of the potential measure

In other words, if we, the sponsors included something illegal or unconstitutional in this measure, we expect the Sacramento Transportation Authority to defend the measure and make sure it all gets implemented.

To mitigate the immense GHG/VMT (greenhouse gas emissions / vehicle miles traveled) generated by the Connector, the measure proposes Transit and Rail Congestion Improvement Projects. With somewhat less money allocated to this than the Connector, these expenditures might make up for the harm of the Connector, but would not address any other needs in the county. It also proposes BRT features for the Connector, which is ridiculous as this is the last place in the county that a transit agency would propose BRT.

If the Connector, as a whole or in the piecemeal projects by which is has already been partially constructed, causes the region to not meet its legally required greenhouse gas reduction target of 19%, the entire region would therefore be under non-compliance, and therefore ineligible for federal grants.

The proponents see the value of the Connector as enabling greenfield development in the southeast area of the county. Though touted as a solution to congestion on Hwy 50 and Hwy 99, it will not be. What it will do is encourage long distance commuting between El Dorado County and Elk Grove, and generate VMT trips due to the greenfield developments along the corridor. The Connector will not turn out to be a boon to Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove, but yet another congested highway, sucking value away from the cities and citizens.

Search for category Measure 2022 to see posts as they are added.

ECOS presentation on sales tax measure

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Tonight (March 10, 2022), the ECOS Climate Change Committee received a presentation on the potential transportation sales tax measure (which I’m calling Measure 2022, until it receives an official name). The presentation was given by Roger Dickinson, who was a member of the state Assembly and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. It was very well presented, concise and on topic. My summary will not cover all the points of the presentation and following discussion, but I think will interest people who are starting to follow the potential measure.

Roger said the measure is very much like the 2020 measure which was not placed on the ballot: 1) fix-it-first; 2) solving congestion; and 3) transportation alternatives. But there are some poison pills included in this measure that were not in the 2020 measure, specifically the Capital Southeast Connector and related issues.

The language included in the 2020 measure to make sure the Capital Southeast Connector complied with air quality requirements of the SACOG MTP/SCS (Sacramento Area Council of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy) was removed. This language was specifically worked out by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg as a compromise to ensure the city’s support for the measure. The removal is likely to ensure opposition from Steinberg and others in the city. The potential measure essentially makes the Capitol Southeast Connector JPA the judge of whether the project meets air quality requirements – the fox guarding the henhouse. More on this in an upcoming posts.

If the Connector causes the region to not achieve the legally required 19% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the region will be non-compliant and likely not eligible for federal transportation grants.

Discussion that followed Roger’s presentation largely revolved around two issues: 1) is it possible to stop this measure, before or after it makes the ballot, and what would that take?; and 2) should the measure be opposed even though it is likely the only significant source of match funding for SacRT grant applications to advance capital projects including light rail modernization, light rail extension, and BRT (bus rapid transit) corridors?

No answers yet, but this will likely be a major topic of conversation within and among all the transportation advocacy and equity organizations in the county, for many months to come.