Caltrans’ data shows 100mph rail upgrade 15x more cost-effective than road widening
October 12, 2023
Study: Average speed difference trivial if toll lanes added; HOV lanes don’t work.
By Alan Hirsch, Yolo Mobility
If you read deeply and critically into Caltrans documents, you will often find a number of things acknowledged- inconvenient truth not always shared with elected officials.
City and County elected officials rely on agency staff to give honest and complete presentation of objective findings. However, the reality is elected official are very vulnerable if an agency’s staff is committed to pursue a pre-ordained solution. Staff can bending their analysis or make strategic omissions of information in their presentation. These are rarely caught by elected official who don’t have time to read, much less understand the reports.
Then it’s up a rare whistleblower and or nerdy gadflies to protect the public interest by catching this, and making public comments to elected who otherwise don’t have time to read everything.
But in the end, it up courageous electeds, who are willing to both listen to the outsiders, and are then open to changing their minds, if the agency solution is be questioned if its pre-ordained solution is in the public good.
This manipulation of data does come from all Government agencies, or even most, but this Machiavellian approach to public policy can hard backed into the culture of some.
Dance between Caltrans and Local Electeds
A dance of credibility and accountability is now begun between Caltrans and the local city council members who sit on Yolo Transportation District Board.
Just two weeks ago a Whistleblower at Caltrans, a hi Level Deputy Director of Planning at Caltrans resigned stating Caltrans methods to advance YoloI-80 state violated environmental laws. This fit into a bigger picture concern about Caltrans’ veracity: a UC Davis study has shown Caltrans consistently overstates the benefit of freeway widening to elected officials by understating Induce Traffic Demand. And thirdly, UCD Professor Susan Handy, head of the National Center for Sustainable Transportation has written a letter stating the Caltrans Widening plan not only won’t fix congestion, but will hurt transit ridership and the environment.
Adding to this now is fourth finding: a close reading a hidden Caltrans report on alternatives to improve travel on the full I-80 corridor show how upgrading the Capitol Corridor rail service to 100 mph is 15 times more cost effective than road widening.
Public should watch to see If elects on the 5 member YoloTD board, including Davis’s Josh Chapman and Lucas Frerich have the courage to revise their positions taken based on Caltrans information.
What Caltrans Own Numbers Show
The three data tables below are from the larger Caltrans I-80 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (I-80 CMCP). It considered five alternatives to improve mobility for the entire I-80 corridor-from the Carquinez Bridge into Sacramento. The plan ranked the alternatives based on travel impact-including one that upgrading the neglected Capitol Corridor rail service to 100 mph. Others encouraging more carpooling via adding HOV carpool lane or adding managed toll lanes -aka HOT or “express lane” (a Caltrans marketing euphemism.) There was also TDM option: Transportation Demand Management strategy of mostly supporting shift to carpooling, or promotion of fixed routed or shuttle or micro transit bus without unimproved infrastructure.
It’s also worth note Caltrans did not study a regional (3 or 4 county) bus rapid transit (BRT) option to use freeway express lanes as another transit alternative: interregional/intercounty bus travel in the “capitol corridor falls between the cracks of county bus services, or possibly because Caltrans does not want competition for it rail service.
Still, the flawed study does give a perspective comparing freeway widening with 100mph passenger rail service—even with only 4 or 5 stations along I-80 corridor.
Caltrans in their I-80 CMCP then estimated the travel speed difference for the average traveler for each of the “scenarios”, along with it costs and benefits, generating a benefit/cost ratio.
To cut to the chase: the Capitol Corridor upgrade option is 15x more cost effective. And that the average speed improvement for drivers is only around 2-4 mph even for most extensive road widening proposal. And vehicle hours traveled difference between them all is also just few percent different even with maximum road widening. The un-peer-reviewed report also seems to once again underestimate the Induce Traffic compared to what independent academic studies, so the numbers in these table are likely overestimate benefit of wider freeways, meaning the 100-mph rail alternative might likely be ever more advantageous.
Report Hidden from Elected when deciding on I-80 Alternatives
Conveniently for the advocates road widening at Caltrans on I-80Yolo widening, these results were not released until after EIR alternatives for Yolo I-80 widening were chosen by electeds. While the report was finalized in January of 2023, it was not released to public in final form on Caltrans website until May of 2023. This is long after YoloTD electeds and Caltrans agree to EIR alternatives in early October of 2022 by signing the YoloTD/Caltrans MOU document.
The CMCP has never been presented to YoloTD Board. Supervisor Lucas Frerichs did ask one question about it at the board’s September 2023 meeting, though he did not follow up to ask about the contents.
Below screen shots are pages from Caltrans’ full I-80 CMCP multimodal corridor study, finalized 1/26/2023 but not made public until May 2023 — long after I-80 EIR alternatives were considered, and meaningful transit options rejected.
Source: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-i80-cmcp
Rail upgrade to 100 mph 15x more cost effective than freeway widening: Caltrans Table 5.13
Source: Caltrans I-80 CMCP Page 103
Note bottom line in chart: CC cap corridor scenario 4 is 3.05 vs 0.22 for best road widening option scenario 3. HOT (Tool/HOV lanes)
This chart raises questions as to why full corridor rail transit alternative (not just buses in the short segment within Yolo County) were not included in Yolo80 EIR study, particularly because 95% of traffic on the Yolo Causeway begins or ends in Solano County and points west. In the below chart Segment 6 is Davis and segment 7 is Causeway, but of course the rail upgrade (Scenario 4 CC) needs to be analyzed for entire corridor (last line of table).
New carpool lanes do not make freeway use more efficient. Caltrans Table 5.3
Source: Caltrans CMCP page 95
Chart shows less than 1-4 % increase in carpooling if HOV lanes are added shift from (1.32-to max 1.37 people in the average car). This is change in average vehicle occupancy between current “no build” vs scenario 2 & 3 HOV and HOT scenarios ). This mean the user of car pool lanes are not due to a behavior change: they are “dates” or family or groups who were going to travel together regardless of the existence of the lane. This mean HOV lanes have not environmental advantage, they just add lane capacity to the freeway. Note also that “Carpool only” is in practicality just a theory: With tinted window and enforcement minimal one can believe this is just Caltrans justifying on paper building another lane- maybe to prevent shift of money to a local transit agency. On highway 99 in Sacrament it was found 48% of car pool lane users were single occupancy vehicles- so they become as congested as the other lanes: there is no reliable automated way to enforce HOV lane useage.
Only 2-4 mph faster travel if widening nearly the full length of I-80 — i.e., only 2- to 4-minute average travel time decrease with Express/HOT/HOV managed lanes: Table 5.9
Source: Caltrans CMCP page 97.
Note: Data in this table should be accept know this is Caltrans “best shot” to show the freeway widening—which is already begun-- was the right thing to do.
Then begin do a critical analysis Caltrans’ record of overstating benefits of freeway widening by understand induced traffic effect. According to UC Davis ITS study, Caltrans historically has chronically understated induced demand from freeway widening. The small VMT increase in this chart due to adding many miles of HOT/HOV lanes seems highly suspect. The induced demand for the Yolo80 project predicted by the UC Davis induced demand calculator for just that 17-mile segment is about 450,000 vehicle miles per day. Caltrans’ induced demand estimate for adding at least twice as many lane miles in CMCP study is 400,000 miles (no build vs both HOT/HOV). The UC Davis model is not controversial: it is accepted by Caltrans as accurate within 20% .
Recall also that the Caltrans CMCP is not formally peer reviewed and is not subject to legal challenge so there is no outside quality control of it modeling.
The table also gives the VHD: Vehicle Hours of delay. Note the small difference in delay between managed lanes compared to the rail alternative: less than 3%. The difference in VHD Hours between no build and HOT2+ is 14,000 hours. This sounds like a large difference, but it is less than a 6% increase in average travel time.
Caltrans typically pushes the “absolute” number (e.g., 14,000 hours here), but it’s more useful to normalize this to a 6% increase for the average drive time and then weight this tradeoff for against the sprawl and climate change impact of the extra freeway lane. Again, this CMCP is not a peer reviewed document, but reflect Caltrans “best shot”- likely to justify widening it already started. So, it does not surprise that if resulting induced demand was understated for build options (1,2 & 3) , VHD, VHT and VMT are likely understated relative to rail (CC) and TDM options. Thus, the benefits of HOT/HOV alternatives are likely overstated—meaning rail might be even a better investment.
Will YoloTD Board turn from advocacy role for Caltrans and revisit what is in best interest of county?
A substantial among to data questioning has surfaced about the road widening and transit option, and Caltrans method .
We will now see if YoloTD board and staff have the courage to be more critical Caltrans data.
Best Practices would be for the board should hire an independent traffic expert--- one not dependent on Caltrans for future work -- to review Caltrans DEIR and CMCP before it is released. They should not depend on privately funded Environmental lawsuit to once again exposure Caltrans questionable methods.
The public should also ask of the YoloTD board: Why have you already lawyered up? -Is this to defend Caltrans again private environmental law from group ECOS does, that has time and again have force locals confront inconvenient truth of Caltrans and invest in transit, or are these taxpayer-paid lawyers to protect the public interest in Yolo County from Caltrans questionable methods?
Skimming through this, I have some questions:
The Capitol Corridor line is shared with freight trains (which have priority). And last time I checked, it already experiences significant, frequent delays.
As such, how would a 100 mph be successful using that line?
Also, how would the "new" passengers be transported to the rail stations? Would they drive (and park there)? If so, is there sufficient parking at any of the stations?
What difference would it actually make if the Yolo TD board "reversed" its position? Do you actually believe that anything will stop the state from expanding I-80?
Posted by: Ron O | October 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM
Unfortunately Ron is right even if I share Alan's "disgust" with the I80 widening and HOV lanes. Moreover, even without the freight trains, it would sadly take huge improvement in the rail infrastructure to take even 80 MPH trains. Think of the stretch of line west of Martinez for starters! How about more state money to public transport (which Newsom is cutting or wants to cut) so people can get to and from rail stations? For that matter, how about better public transit in Davis than Unitrans?
Posted by: Dan Cornford | October 12, 2023 at 10:52 AM
Given Caltrans bias toward freeway widening, 'why would they low ball the expense and complexity of upgrading rail service?
Caltrans is the one who run the cap corridor, so why not assume upgrade was based on reality-- re: sharing line with freight: this can include adding 3 or 4th rails in the corridor like they are doing in rail line to Roseville.
Their rail upgrade proposed, I am told is well over a billion dollars.
Amtrak shares rail line with freight in east coast corridor and they have hi speed Accella service.
Posted by: Alan Lorax Hirsch | October 12, 2023 at 12:05 PM
"re: sharing line with freight: this can include adding 3 or 4th rails in the corridor like they are doing in rail line to Roseville."
Not familiar with that (or the one on the east coast), but are you stating that they can run a 100 mph train right next to a slow-moving freight train? And that they'd both be going past the same water crossings, train stations, etc.?
Seems to me that you're talking about an entirely-new system. And again, would have to integrate it with other systems (and/or parking).
Transfers to other systems are where inefficiencies occur. It doesn't matter if the thing goes 100 mph, if you're waiting for a bus for 45 minutes at a transfer point, which then makes multiple stops before arriving at "your" destination.
It doesn't even go to S.F., and S.F. itself already has "no use" (slight exaggeration) for its downtown office buildings anymore (due to telecommuting and the economic downturn).
This reduced usage has also impacted existing public transit systems, like BART.
But perhaps more importantly, decision-makers at the state level are supported by construction/business interests, who support sprawl. And continued sprawl requires freeway expansion.
Think about it for a minute - the decision makers think it's a "problem" that the state is no longer growing, and are pushing for more sprawl. (Show me one regional locale, other than Davis, where that isn't the case.) And they're seemingly-ready to threaten Davis as a result of its (mild) resistance to sprawl.
The system itself is too corrupted to even consider what you're proposing.
Posted by: Ron O | October 12, 2023 at 12:43 PM
Below is what our state does to "reduce VMTs", "preserve open space", "safety and security" (per their own claims). That is, a new 34-mile expressway (freeway):
https://www.connectorjpa.net/overview.html
That, my friends, takes some "hutzpah" to make those claims (right there on their website).
Personally, I think they should name this the "Scott Wiener/Newsom Expressway".
Posted by: Ron O | October 12, 2023 at 02:01 PM
I am speaking here as a citizen of Davis.
To answer some of the questions:
"The Capitol Corridor line is shared with freight trains (which have priority). And last time I checked, it already experiences significant, frequent delays. As such, how would a 100 mph be successful using that line?"
This would require heavy investment in improving the infrastructure so there is sufficient capacity for both freight and passenger service along with upgrading the rail for higher speeds.
"Also, how would the "new" passengers be transported to the rail stations? Would they drive (and park there)? If so, is there sufficient parking at any of the stations?"
That may be part of the infrastructure, as needed. Along with timed-regularized station-out-station bus loop routes.
"What difference would it actually make if the Yolo TD board "reversed" its position? Do you actually believe that anything will stop the state from expanding I-80?"
It's a matter of reversing the highway-auto trend we've been in for 100 years. Northern California can be like the Los Angeles Basin in a few years, or we can invest in a different transportation paradigm where we have the choice to use a different and convenient rail option for many trips.
"Moreover, even without the freight trains, it would sadly take huge improvement in the rail infrastructure to take even 80 MPH trains."
We already have 80mph trains, though it's a top speed. And yes, huge improvement/investment. That's the point. The other option is more of what we are doing, and getting more of the same.
"Think of the stretch of line west of Martinez for starters!"
That is slated to be rerouted to a more direct route.
"How about more state money to public transport (which Newsom is cutting or wants to cut) so people can get to and from rail stations? For that matter, how about better public transit in Davis than Unitrans?"
Unfortunately, the speed of public transit can't be increased a whole lot, and in a town like Davis, there isn't and probably never will be the density that people can go to and from where they want to go without spending much of the day doing it. What can work is station-out-station bus loops timed with regularized hourly or half-hourly service.
"Caltrans is the one who run the cap corridor"
Actually a joint powers authority and a management agency manage the corridor and Amtrak operates it. Caltrans funds it and does long-term and coordination planning and overseeing meeting state goals such as on-time performance and moving towards a regularized service pattern and adherence to the State Rail Plan.
"so why not assume upgrade was based on reality-- re: sharing line with freight: this can include adding 3 or 4th rails in the corridor like they are doing in rail line to Roseville."
True.
"Their rail upgrade proposed, I am told is well over a billion dollars."
The can be done in segments, as highways are, to a full build out. The full build-out, if you include re-routing via San Francisco, is more on the order of a couple of tens of billions of dollars. Without the reroute, still many billions of dollars.
"Amtrak shares rail line with freight in east coast corridor and they have hi speed Accella service."
Minimal night freight there, and much freight on a parallel line.
"Not familiar with that (or the one on the east coast), but are you stating that they can run a 100 mph train right next to a slow-moving freight train? And that they'd both be going past the same water crossings, train stations, etc.?"
Basically yes, but with much investment in infrastructure to allow the higher speeds and capacity for both services. And Union Pacific would have to agree all upgrafes as it's in their right-of-way.
"Seems to me that you're talking about an entirely-new system."
Not easy to characterize 'entirely-new' - but essentially a massive upgrade to an existing system.
"Transfers to other systems are where inefficiencies occur. It doesn't matter if the thing goes 100 mph, if you're waiting for a bus for 45 minutes at a transfer point, which then makes multiple stops before arriving at "your" destination."
The idea is to have timed-transfers between all systems, operating on a coordinated 'pulse' as they do in Europe and most other countries. This is a key premise of the State Rail Plan.
"It doesn't even go to S.F., and S.F. itself already has "no use" (slight exaggeration) for its downtown office buildings anymore (due to telecommuting and the economic downturn)."
Certainly there has been a massive dropoff in ridership to SF, and recovery will probably be long in coming, but SF is still the prize for a destination, even if currently it is a shit-hole city. The long-term plans are for a standard-gauge tunnel from the east-bay to SF that will facilitate a re-route.
"This reduced usage has also impacted existing public transit systems, like BART."
Yes it has.
"But perhaps more importantly, decision-makers at the state level are supported by construction/business interests, who support sprawl. And continued sprawl requires freeway expansion."
Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil.
I know nothing. I see nothing.
"Below is what our state does to "reduce VMTs", "preserve open space", "safety and security" (per their own claims). That is, a new 34-mile expressway (freeway). That, my friends, takes some "hutzpah" to make those claims (right there on their website)."
Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil.
I know nothing. I see nothing.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 12, 2023 at 10:40 PM
Thank you, to both of the Alans.
It would make sense to have high-speed rail all the way to S.F. Or maybe extend BART, since it already goes under the bay. (Don't know the logistics of that.)
But to truly serve sprawling valley development, the stations would need to include massive parking lots. There is no realistic way to provide timely/regular bus connector service (e.g., to areas outside of Davis, or possibly even within Davis). And traffic to those parking lots would have an impact, as well. It might require use of shuttles from parking lots to the station, like they have at airports.
In any case, high-speed rail to S.F. seems like a better use of funds than the "train to nowhere" that the state is building. (That one would also make sense, if it actually stuck to the coast between S.F. and L.A.)
But realistically, I think we all know this isn't going to happen, and that they will expand the freeway. Truth be told, parts of Davis itself would be "relocated" if it gets in the way of freeway expansion.
Posted by: Ron O | October 13, 2023 at 09:35 AM
It is only about 13 miles from the Davis train station to the Sacramento train station and for less about $2.5 Billion (at $200 Billion a mile) we could hire the current CA High Speed rail guys (who have not been doing much for the past 15 years) to build a high speed line between Davis and Sac and cover the cost with a $160,000 parcel tax on all of the single family home parcels in town. Once it is built the people of Davis could all drive to a new high rise parking structure (paid for by yet another parcel tax) in downtown and take the train in to Sac and get to work in a fleet of robo taxies for Davis residents only (paid for by another parcel tax).
https://www.hoover.org/research/little-engine-couldnt-californias-high-speed-rail-costs-rise-200-million-mile#:~:text=California's%20high%2Dspeed%20rail%20(HSR,San%20Francisco%E2%80%93Los%20Angeles%20route.
Posted by: South of Davis | October 13, 2023 at 06:57 PM
Clicking on the links that SOD provided, I found the following (see link below). I suspect this one (from LA to Vegas) might work. (First I heard of it.) The again, who wants to take a train from LA to Vegas, or vice-versa? If you're already going to Vegas (or vice-versa), you probably already have a car, and/or will fly there.
And if you're going to Vegas, are you actually concerned about climate change? Really?
In "anything goes" Nevada?
The problem with the SF to LA route is that it goes inland. The bigger problem is that once cities are built (e.g., near the coast), I suspect that the only way to properly route a train (or freeway) is via eminent domain through some of the most-expensive real estate in the country.
As far as the Sacramento to S.F. link, I suspect that the only way to make that happen is to "eminent domain" the owner of the track. And from what Alan M said a long time ago, that's not a happening thing (perhaps unless Congress changes laws). And if they actually did so, it would impact freight.
I suspect some of this problem goes back to the days of the railroad barons. (Or was I thinking of tech barons, such as the ones who want to build a "new city" in Solano County adjacent to Travis AFB?)
https://ktla.com/news/california/vegas-to-socal-high-speed-rail-project-clears-major-hurdle/#:~:text=The%20plan%20to%20build%20a,completion%20plotted%20for%20around%202027.
Posted by: Ron O | October 13, 2023 at 08:05 PM
Correction - not even to LA.
To "Rancho Cucamonga" and "Victorville".
Uh, huh.
Put a high speed rail right up to the pier at Santa Monica, and you might have something.
Posted by: Ron O | October 13, 2023 at 08:22 PM