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.
The proposal by Yolo County Transportation Authority (YoloTD) and Caltrans to add a managed lane to the I-80 corridor between the Solano County line and just inside Sacramento County, is the hot transportation topic in the region. It would induce motor vehicle traffic (VMT) along this corridor, and by extension, would induce traffic on I-5, I-80, and US 50 within Sacramento County. I’m sure I’ll have a number of posts. Two so far are: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes and missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project.
Cool Davis sponsored a recent event in Davis, entitled A Freeway Teach-In: Davis Futures Forum on the Future of the I-80 Corridor. You can watch a video of the event on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7a07pyhLs. The first 4:45 is dead space that you can skip, and the actual presentations start at 19:00. I encourage you to watch the video. I noticed that different people had different take-aways, so you may have your own. But of course I’ll comment.
There are three items that I found most interesting.
Susan Handy (starting 32:27) of UC Davis ITS summarized and referred to her recently published book, Shifting Gears. Here primary point is that his particular project must be viewed in the context of our entire transportation system, including how we go here, where we are, and where we might go. She explained induced travel in a succinct and clear manner. She reminded that transportation and land use cannot be considered separately.
Don Mooney (starting 1:13:00), an attorney who has previously sued Caltrans, pointed out that public comments on the Draft EIR of the ‘I like it’ or ‘I hate it’ are meaningless to the process. Only substantiative comments from experts or which quote from expert sources have any effect on the decision, or provide standing for suing over the final decision.
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.
Getting Around Sacramento 