Can Local Caltrans Office be Trusted on DEIR’s Traffic-GHG Forecasts?
November 14, 2023
By Alan Hirsch, YoloTD
As you read this, the lengthy draft Environment Impact Report (EIR) for the widening of I-80 has been released for public review (see I-80 Widening draft EIR now available). It was first promised in early 2021.
Readers should be warned not to take its results as truth, but rather as a forecast that has not been peer reviewed. The goal of public review of an EIR is to correct the deficiencies before the final document is completed and a decision to approve the project is made. If done accurately, the conclusions should inform government decision makers if the $330 million project‘s benefits outweigh the impacts.
These background facts and past Davis Enterprise reporting might be useful as you read the draft EIR:
- The draft EIR is a product of a power local Caltrans office not Caltrans HQ. That office (District 3) is accused of misappropriation of funds to begin the project ahead of the EIR by a high level whistleblower, as discussed in Politico, LA Times and Vanguard. The head of that local district office has announced his retirement.
- UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies published a peer reviewed study 2 years ago documenting that Caltrans district office’s traffic models overstate the ability of widening to reduce traffic congestion (the induced demand effect). This has been reported on by Monica Stark in the Enterprise page 1 June 2, 2023
- Caltrans HQ has acknowledged the accuracy of this UCD study.
- Caltrans HQ accepts a UC Davis traffic forecasting model which forecasts that I-80 Yolo widening is likely to add an additional 12,000 cars to the freeway within 10 years.
- Caltrans HQ policy guidance to local districts provides that adding a new toll lane will not fix this congestion either; i.e. it will just allow the richest 25% to buy their way out of congestion instead of providing a transit system we all can use.
- California Air Resources Board (CARB) wrote a draft EIR Comment letter in July 2023 stating a Caltrans District office in Southern California continues to not update its traffic forecast modeling based on UC Davis research: CARB says Caltrans local office understated the induced traffic increase by 94% for a section of I-5, therefore grossly overstating congestion relief.
- Caltrans released a study to the public in May 2023 showing improving the Capitol Corridor rail service to 100 mph to the Bay Area would be 15 times more cost effective than the I-80 Yolo widening. This alternative to widening was not considered in the draft EIR. See Davisite, Oct 12, 2023
- Professor Susan Handy, head of the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, wrote a letter YoloTD on I-80 widening stating the widening for a toll lane won’t fix congestion, but it will increase GHG. Only better transit improvements provide a sustainable fix.
- Yolo TD Director of Planning Brian Abbanat has stated publicly he believes, regardless of the environmental impacts found by the EIR, the local Caltrans District office will approve the widening via finding “overriding” benefits based on alleged congestion relief of adding a lane.
- The California Climate Action Plan, and all 4 Yolo County city climate plans state explicitly that if we are serious about reducing driving, we must shift some car trips to transit to address climate change.
- A high Level Caltrans whistleblower claims that our local Caltrans District office has illegally appropriated funds to begin the widening as part of the pavement rehab project now happening. See Enterprise page 1 Oct 15, 2023.
Readers of the draft EIR should also be aware that the adequacy of fixes to the draft EIR (based on comment letters) will be decided by Caltrans alone. Caltrans already has plans to begin construction on the widening by Sept 30, 2024.
However, as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans, the five members of the YoloTD board, including Davis’s Josh Chapman and Supervisor Lucas Frerichs, do retain a final power of veto.
This would not be so concerning if it were not for the fact that the ideas have been around for so long. In 1962, the economist Anthony Downs wrote an article titled, The Law of Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion, in which he accurately predicted that expanding expressways does not reduce traffic congestion because demand increases as a result of the expansion. In other words, more lanes induce more traffic.
Wikipedia goes on to say the following about Downs and his work:
His book, Stuck in Traffic (1992), which detailed the economic disadvantages of traffic congestion and proposed road pricing as the only effective means of alleviating it, was denounced by traffic engineers for its insistence on the futility of congestion relief measures. However, enough of his gloomy predictions about congestion were proven correct that he successfully published a second edition, Still Stuck in Traffic (2004)
Posted by: Greg Rowe | November 14, 2023 at 10:33 AM
What I'm failing to see (from someone like Alan H) is the acknowledgement of a connection between sprawl and traffic.
As I recall, for example - Alan H spoke in favor of Covell Village, Act II.
I can only conclude that he doesn't need to attend the "15 additional meetings" from the folks who advocate sprawl as a "solution" to traffic and greenhouse gas emissions:
"Davis, CA – One of the community-based efforts engaging the community on housing took place on Sunday at Da Vinci’s Tech Hub sponsored by Davis Community Action Network (DCAN). The organization is planning to hold up to 15 such smaller events between January and April 2024 with the hope of assisting in a community vision setting for the next General Plan Amendment."
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/11/dcan-engages-community-on-housing-the-intersection-of-housing-and-climate-change/
Now, repeat after me: "There is no connection between sprawl and traffic, there is no connection between sprawl and traffic . . .
I been hyp-no-tized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtZZgscj2-M
Posted by: Ron O | November 14, 2023 at 11:16 AM
I'm starting a new movement in Davis:
D-CAN'T
As in, "Davis Can't Save the World"
So stop trying . . .
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | November 14, 2023 at 01:54 PM
Like Alan I would love to see my friends in Davis (most who have not taken public transit or ridden a bike in 20+ years) to stop trying to save the world (and to stop hoping that preventing a 4th lane on I80 will stop "climate change"). As Ron says it is "sprawl" not "wider freeways" that causes traffic (I challenge anyone to make a path in their back yard wider and see if more people walk on it). P.S. I wish my friends that spend so much time working to save the global climate would spend less time at their Sea Ranch and Tahoe Cabins and maybe try to do something about the growing (not very "environmentally friendly") "village" next to I 80 between Mace and Olive (or at least chip in for a couple fire extinguishers for the guys living under the new bike bridge to Olive so they don't start a fire that closes it like the guys living under the 10 freeway in LA did).
Posted by: South of Davis | November 14, 2023 at 03:13 PM
Yeah, ok, I am assuming you can see how bad of an analogy this is, there not being any serious traffic in your back yard, but for those following along: Have you ever not driven somewhere, or gone less often, or gone at a different time, because you knew there would be a ton of traffic? Raise your hand:
✋🏼
Ok, now imagine that a lane is added and woo-hoo!! For a little while the way is clear, so now you go, or go more often, or go when you want. And so does everyone else. Until the freeway is full again.
That is induced demand.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 14, 2023 at 05:15 PM
"As Ron says it is "sprawl" not "wider freeways" that causes traffic . . ."
I believe they actually go hand-in-hand.
See "freeway out to Pt. Reyes", (which was never built) as an example of combined freeway access / development proposals.
Also, see "Rebels with a Cause", which discusses the example above.
https://www.pbs.org/video/rebels-with-a-cause-g718xi/
And if you're ever driving up the Waldo grade (in Marin county), check out the "Rodeo" exit, which was intended to accommodate some of the 30,000 residents in "Marincello" (which is now part of the Marin headlands, instead.
https://tracycurtisrealtor.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-rodeo-exit-in-sausalito
I wonder what the modern-day YIMBYs would have to say about any of this. My guess is that more than half of them (including those in the Bay Area) have no idea, nor do they have any appreciation for the effort behind it.
(And more-locally - see DISC, the "Woodland technology center", Lagoon Valley in Vacaville etc. - as examples of development proposals pursued as a result of freeway access.)
For that matter, all of the development along the I-80 corridor.
And see the "new freeway" out to Folsom, as a result of the development that city loves to pursue.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/folsom-capital-southeast-connector-expressway-completed/103-4f30a96d-b0a2-42dc-8166-272b9aaaf1e8#:~:text=FOLSOM%2C%20Calif.,50%20in%20El%20Dorado%20County.
Posted by: Ron O | November 14, 2023 at 06:38 PM
The Sacramento Metro Area has gone from ~500K people to over 2 million in the past 60 years and that is why traffic has gotten worse (not wider freeways).
There is a bike path in Davis just north of my home South of Davis. If we made it twice as wide there would be no "induced demand".
If we approve the 1,000+ home "Pioneer Community" South of Davis there will be more bikes on the bike path (and people like Roberta will say that the increased bike traffic was caused by making the path wider).
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/pioneer-community-master-plan
P.S. To review more people = more traffic, wider roads (or bike paths) do NOT cause more traffic.
Posted by: South of Davis | November 15, 2023 at 08:25 AM
SOD, I can't tell if you are deliberately misrepresenting what induced demand is or if you really don't get it, but I will clarify again anyway.
In order for there to be "induced demand," there already has to be traffic that increases the amount of time that a journey would otherwise take. I-80 has it; the bike path near you, I assume, does not. It is the traffic and loss of time that deters people from traveling. If you add a lane, then that temporarily makes the journey faster. It is temporarily making the journey faster that induces demand, not merely making it wider.
The question isn't why I-80 has a lot of traffic now, and certainly there are many factors that go into it. The question is whether adding a lane will help our traffic woes now, and the answer is NO -- things will briefly get better only to get worse very quickly, and this would happen even without a substantial increase in the population, because more people will use the freeway.
The answer is to put money in alternative, more climate-friendly modes of transportation, not to add a lane that won't help in the long run and will only increase our carbon footprint.
Now I suppose you can continue to misrepresent what "induced demand" is if you like, but then that just reveals something about you, not about I-80.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 15, 2023 at 08:41 AM
Roberta and South of Davis are talking about two different things.
Roberta is referring to the formal definition of "induced demand", but the effect of this can't be isolated when a region is growing.
There is no doubt that the vast increase in traffic is due to the pursuit of increased population/sprawl in the region and beyond. This isn't even in question.
If "induced demand" were the only concern, there would be a limit to that demand which could be satisfied by increasing freeway capacity. However, when population/development increases are simultaneously pursued, there is no limit to that increased demand.
But there's another impact I'm referring to. That is, by providing increased freeway capacity, it no doubt LEADS to increased sprawl, as developers attempt to take advantage of existing infrastructure.
A (somewhat) similar situation is occurring today, in regard to elimination of parking minimums (thereby encouraging new residents to park on pre-existing streets).
Developments are often proposed near freeways to take advantage of the existing infrastructure (e.g., the I-80 corridor). This is not unique to this region.
As I recall, national defense was a primary reason for the creation of freeways across the country, after WWII. However, they've since been "taken over" by developments which take advantage of this access.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/national-interstate-and-defense-highways-act
Freeways are essentially responsible for "suburbia". And as more development occurs as a result of this access, increased freeway capacity is then sought as the existing freeway is choked with traffic as a result of that development. Sort of a vicious circle.
Posted by: Ron O | November 15, 2023 at 09:03 AM
Responding to Ron:
Roberta is referring to the formal definition of "induced demand", but the effect of this can't be isolated when a region is growing.
Actually, even though you are correct that there are many causes in play, the existing studies do show that induced demand is its own, distinct cause.
There is no doubt that the vast increase in traffic is due to the pursuit of increased population/sprawl in the region and beyond. This isn't even in question.
If "induced demand" were the only concern, there would be a limit to that demand which could be satisfied by increasing freeway capacity. However, when population/development increases are simultaneously pursued, there is no limit to that increased demand.
Yes, I agree with the above.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 15, 2023 at 09:10 AM
Against my better judgement, I'll go ahead and add my "tin foil hat" theory.
I'm partly convinced that there's some kind of organized conspiracy to create traffic jams (and/or engage in road construction) whenever I venture out onto roads/freeways.
Since I'm not on the road at the moment, I'm reasonably-certain that there is no traffic on those roads right now.
I don't know how those folks know what my plans are, but they are increasingly-effective at finding out.
Periodically, they do make mistakes and block the "other side" of the freeway (the opposite direction from me). At which point, I have the rare "last laugh". But they increasingly seem to take note, and learn from their mistakes.
Posted by: Ron O | November 15, 2023 at 09:25 AM
I understand that there is a tiny number of people in Davis that might be thinking of going out to dinner in Sacramento on a Friday night in the middle of ski season that will make different plans because of traffic, but this is maybe 5% of the traffic tops. if we add another three lanes going across the causeway the number of people that drive to Tahoe after work on Friday or go to dinner in Sac will not change much even if we eliminate slowdowns 24/7. Other than riding a bike or walking I can't think of a "more climate-friendly mode of transportation" than an electric car charged under a solar roof carport and these "climate friendly cars" need the same lanes to get around as the 400hp SUVs.
P.S. Closer to home getting rid of one lane on Mace (aka the "Mace Mess") made traffic a nightmare on Thursday and Friday nights and now that the lane is back traffic is much better on Thursday and Friday nights.
Posted by: South of Davis | November 15, 2023 at 02:06 PM
Agree with South of Davis.
The reason being that I (personally) wouldn't "head out to the highway" in celebration of no traffic as a result of adding a lane (or two, or three).
There are times when I've avoided particular hours, but I ultimately "head out to the highway" regardless, if needed.
Sprawl is a much, much bigger factor. And increasing traffic capacity encourages sprawl.
Posted by: Ron O | November 15, 2023 at 03:29 PM
I understand that there is a tiny number of people in Davis that might be thinking of going out to dinner in Sacramento on a Friday night in the middle of ski season that will make different plans because of traffic, but this is maybe 5% of the traffic tops. if we add another three lanes going across the causeway the number of people that drive to Tahoe after work on Friday or go to dinner in Sac will not change much even if we eliminate slowdowns 24/7.
I know it's tempting to extrapolate from one's own behavior or how you think other people behave, but the data show otherwise, and there is no reason to think that driving to Sacramento is exceptional in people taking fewer trips or trips at different times of day due to expected traffic delays. The data are suggestive that most people don't like to waste their time sitting in traffic when they could be doing other things.
Other than riding a bike or walking I can't think of a "more climate-friendly mode of transportation" than an electric car charged under a solar roof carport and these "climate friendly cars" need the same lanes to get around as the 400hp SUVs.
The point is that we could take the millions of dollars that would be spent on widening the highway and use it to improve public transportation instead. If it were more convenient, more people would use it.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 15, 2023 at 08:30 PM
Roberta may think I'm just making things up, but sit down for a minute and think of the majority of Americans that go to work, school and other events (not the retired people in Davis that can decide when to drive somewhere). I would love to drive from South of Davis to Davis High when traffic is lighter or drive to soccer games in Roseville on Tuesday mornings or weddings in Monterey midweek (since traffic is always bad on weekends), but since I don't schedule those events I don't get to decide when they start (I can't get the 49ers to play on Tuesday afternoons). I'm lucky that I can ride my bike to work, but VERY few adults are like me and commute on a bike (even in Davis). P.S. I'm sure most people have Google Maps on their computers and phones, but many don't know that there is a "Public Transportation" option. I just looked to see how long it would take to get to Genentech in Vacaville from Downtown Davis using Public Transportation and it is 3 hours 24 minutes (including 16 minutes of walking) at a cost of $9.25. Google Maps also says that Lyft will get me there for $29-$34 in 20 minutes (3 hours and 4 minutes faster EACH WAY). Even with Covid behind us I don't see many people using Public Transportation in Davis (it is rare to see even a single person in a bus mid day or at night). Next year fast-food workers will be able to make $30 for a single overtime hour and working a single extra hour to pay for a Lyft is a better idea for most people than spending an extra two hours waiting in the rain for Public Transportation.
Posted by: South of Davis | November 16, 2023 at 07:32 AM
Yes, our current public transportation system is terrible, but it why it could be improved with an infusion of money to increase frequency, interoperability, and reliability, rather than dumping money in a fruitless and carbon-intensive pursuit of more and more and more freeway lanes.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 16, 2023 at 08:18 AM
Existing public transit ridership has significantly dropped (e.g., BART). Last time I checked, BART was in serious financial trouble.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bart-on-the-brink-transit-agency-weighs-options-lower-ridership-financial-woes/
A large part of this is due to the ability to telecommute, which is also the reason for the enormous decline in commercial real estate prices in places like San Francisco.
The commercial market is also in serious trouble, as many of their owners are forced to refinance at significantly higher rates, on properties that have plummeted in value.
Commercial loans are different than homeowner loans, and are not fixed for 30 years. A lot of loans are coming due during the next couple of years, and some believe this will create a broader financial crisis.
Public transit primarily works well for commuters to work (especially if it's subsidized by employers) - not so much for anything else.
Posted by: Ron O | November 16, 2023 at 08:40 AM
Roberta, I'm a non political guy so I don't fit into the "left side all public transit good" or "right side all public transit bad" boxes, but it is going to be important to realize that unlike the 1930's when my great uncle got paid less than $5/day to drive basic diesel Muni bus from the Sunset District to Downtown SF it costs CRAZY money to run public transit today (even if we pay the janitors less):
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-janitor-pay-270000-Powell-St-questions-10911932.php
Today everything connected to "public transit" needs to cover the cost of so many political kickbacks that it would (really) be cheaper to hire a fleet of limos to drive people around,
https://batwgblog.com/2022/10/13/central-subway-will-bleed-muni-for-years/
P.S. I don't pay much attention to Boston but this just came up when I Googled to see of the SF Central Subway project cost over a "Billion a mile" (it did).
https://www.manisteenews.com/news/article/boston-public-transit-says-24-5-billion-needed-18496729.php
P.P.S. Boston has ~655K people so if you divide that by the $24.5 Billion the transit system needs it is $36K per person or almost $150K for every family of four in the city...
Posted by: South of Davis | November 16, 2023 at 01:13 PM