Final I-80 EIR released - an embarrassment of errors that sets up Caltrans for Legal challenge
May 10, 2024
By Alan Hirsch
On Wednesday May 1, the 1971 page (plus 345-page appendix)- final EIR for yolo80 was released. The 139 comments take up nearly 71% of the pages. – 108 of the 139 were from individuals, not government agencies, cities or environment groups with paid staff. This highlights the fact this science-defying proposal from Caltrans has become “the most controversial freeway project in the state.”
-----------------------
NOTE: The last chance to comment on the funding will be at California Transportation Commission Meeting Thursday May 16, By Tuesday send any comments. (esp inadequately funded mitigation plan, induced demand negates any congestion relief, no environmental justice plan for tolls)
to [email protected]
Subject: Widening I-80 with a Expensive Toll lane.
Pro-Tip: use 14 or 16 pt font for short email.
--------------------------
The EIR concluded that despite the widening the freeway will generate 158M more miles of driving (VMT) a year...equal to adding over 11,000 more cars to the road and should be built based on “Statement of Overriding concern” as it has benefit to reducing congestion- Even though everyone agree this is wrong as congestion will return within less than ten years. It is also strange given their VMT Mitigation plan only offsets 55 Mil VMT miles year of the additional driving and ignores the nearly 50Million of additional a truck.
Adding capacity via toll lanes only guarantee richest member of community- and groups of Tahoe travelers never faces congestion.
The EIR also ignores any analysis of increased danger from narrowing lanes and permanently removing shoulders. (see diagram)
The ability of the proposed mitigation plan to provide a carbon/VMT offset is taken to higher degrees of absurdity to somehow claim the project tolls will fund adequate mitigations- and have money left for a social equity/environmental Justice program into perpetuity.
Public not told about public hearing on toll levels.
It's worth noting 108 individuals who took the time to write a comment letter on the Draft EIR, yet only one individual member of the public showed up at the public hearing setting up the toll for the new lane--- and how they would be set. This was because SACOG/California Transportation Commission staff failed to publish notice of the hearing anywhere outside of their own twitter feed....then did not share on a website what the hearing was about so interested members of the public would know. They held the hearing at rush hour (5:30) in West Sacramento when 89% of the drivers on the causeway neither work nor live in Yolo County.
YoloTD staff have said they expect the tolls will be $1/mile at rush hour, $10-$15 on way for a Davis to Sacramento commuter.
Caltrans FEIR contains obviously bogus VMT Mitigation Plan
The below table is from the Final EIR (4/24). This plan funds program to get people to drive less by improving transit, Microtransit, bicycle programs and trip reduction (TDM).
The table is from the FEIR pg. 2-125/126, show the plan (“Mitigation Measures”) proposes to cumulatively reduce car travel (mitigate) 55.6m VMT/year for a cost of $11.8m/year---this mitigation plan for the 154mil VMT/yr. Yolo80 will generate.(Alt 4b page 2-124)
To describe the massive commitment 55M VMT/year is for yolo county, YoloTD bus carries about 12m passenger mile/year. This mismatch is not surprising, considering yolo county will generate only 11% of new trip on this stretch of I-80 (89% trip Yolo80 both begin and end outside Yolo county.).
The table show the estimated cost/effectiveness of each measure– the basis on which Caltrans choose the specific measure. I have added a new column showing cost/effectiveness estimate for each measure in the Draft EIR. Note the wildly different cost/effectiveness- for FEIR it improved on not just 10-30% but 200% to even 3,300%. The improved cost-effectiveness of these measures allowed the project to be approved by Caltrans based on a “finding of no significant environmental impact and save tens of millions of dollars a YEAR difference in liability. For comparison, The net toll revenue for chosen Alt 4 HOT3+ per is just $9 mi/year, already short the $11.8m needed even if cost/effectiveness pencil out as proposed.
The FEIR does not seem to have any back up for these cost/effectiveness number in them nor reference to specific document where these number can be validated against standards.
Also, of note is for caltrans0 or any project, the VMT offset for project can only be counted as much as the Project fund it. Microtransit service requires subsidy of $8 to $15 a mile, to the mitigation plan only suggest it will provide 24 CENTS a mile. So how can Yolo80 count 100% of VMT reduction is generate as offset. This is concept of additivity. See Caltrans document ****.
Who will guarantee additional funding if these uncorroborated cost/ effectiveness number are wrong?
Or will this just be another unpaid environmental debt we pass on to our children?
As a former teacher, I consider it helpful to have an example of key points to include in our emails re: widening of I-80. Maybe it will help others compose their email. (IF you decide to use the one below, please consider opening in your own words.)
As Alan notes: deadline for emailing brief comments is this coming Tues, 5/14. We're urged to write in large 14-16 point-- ( hold down command key and click the + to enlarge)--then send to
[email protected]
Thanks to all who do send in an email.
_____________________I just sent this _____________
Widening I-80 ? Stop it, please.
Why?
Some of my concerns:
1. Current plan causes more congestion... NOT less.
2. TOLL LANES to relieve congestion ?
A.-- EACH regular lane must shrink in width, by 1 ft ---increasing danger.
B. ...Rush hour toll? One estimate says it'll be $1 per mile, EVERY work day. -- Hard to pay $10-15 daily (approx $200 month as a new debt) if working in a restaurant.. and/or supporting a family.
(NOTE: Will it be one-way or a round-trip charge?)
C. MASS transit? Where is the impartial, scientifically researched plan (with start date) for dependable, low-cost, clean transit ?
3. Toxic air: Sadly, toxic air will mushroom in size IF this I-80 widening is allowed to happen-- as "planned".
4. Why isn't there a mitigation plan?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Kz Roesler | May 11, 2024 at 08:06 AM
I don't know what Alan H is trying to accomplish, at this point.
I knew that the freeway expansion was a "done deal" the moment I heard about it.
As far as toll lanes are concerned, assigning a cost to them LOWERS demand. That's how supply/demand works - when prices rise, there's less demand. And if there's less demand, there's less greenhouse gasses created.
Same thing would occur if the price of gas rose to $100/gallon.
Yes, for wealthier people - it's not an issue. So what? Doesn't our entire capitalistic system work that way? Do we actually want to make it "cheap to drive" to accommodate less-wealthy people?
The freeway doesn't belong to Davisites. Stakeholders include those "passing through".
The reason I was opposed to freeway expansion (as if it made any difference) is because it promotes and accommodates continued sprawl in the region and beyond.
Posted by: Ron O | May 11, 2024 at 09:04 AM
I doesn't lower demand because the toll is only on the Lexus Lane, and that is an additional lane to what is there now.
(spoken as my opinion as a citizen of Davis and not representing any organization)
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 11, 2024 at 11:41 AM
I thought I would clear some things up for Kz Roesler
> 1. Current plan causes more congestion... NOT less.
More lanes mean less congestion (if you don't believe me drive out on I80 and put on your hazard lights under the bike crossing in one lane and see if traffic moves faster or slower through Davis)
> 2. TOLL LANES to relieve congestion ?
If people have the option to pay to use another lane it will make traffic move faster in the lanes they were in (I'm not a fan of toll lanes but they do make traffic flow better for the rest of us that have never paid for a toll lane in CA).
> A.-- EACH regular lane must shrink in width, by 1 ft ---increasing danger.
Few deaths occur on narrow crowded highways (most people die at intersections or in high speed crashes) so a narrow road is not that "dangerous" but this might make traffic gets even better as the people that are still wearing masks when they drive alone decide the risk of having cars 6' closer on each side is not worth the risk and stay in Davis.
> B. ...Rush hour toll? One estimate says it'll be $1 per mile, EVERY work day. --
> Hard to pay $10-15 daily (approx $200 month as a new debt) if working in a
> restaurant.. and/or supporting a family.
There are plenty of restaurants on the other side of the causeway and maybe this will get people to realize that a long commute in a crappy old car to a low paying restaurant job is not only bad for the environment (and your mental health) but a bad idea financially.
> C. MASS transit? Where is the impartial, scientifically researched plan (with start > date) for dependable, low-cost, clean transit ?
Maybe we can get the guy that did the original estimate of the SF to LA "bullet train" study to do another "impartial, scientifically researched" (funded by the construction unions) study so we can get started on something that will end up costing 10x more (that nobody will want to ride).
> 3. Toxic air: Sadly, toxic air will mushroom in size IF this I-80 widening is
> allowed to happen-- as "planned".
Do you have an electric car? About one in 4 new cars in CA is electric (even higher in Davis) so more cars does not mean more "toxic air" anymore.
Posted by: South of Davis | May 11, 2024 at 05:03 PM
SOD writes, "More lanes mean less congestion (if you don't believe me drive out on I80 and put on your hazard lights under the bike crossing in one lane and see if traffic moves faster or slower through Davis) "
Can we skip to the part where you eventually admit that induced traffic is a real phenomenon, as you have done in several previous conversations we've had on this topic?
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 11, 2024 at 06:32 PM
Please let Roberta know that there's no such thing as "induced demand". :-)
Obviously, more lanes mean better traffic flow. Just as adding more housing reduces fake housing shortages.
Induced demand is "fake news", like collusion with Russia or hiding hush money payments in regard to a married, faithful husband who held the highest political position in the world. Also, elections are rigged.
And the current occupant of the White House is obviously not showing signs of senility.
Yeap, just trying to amuse myself.
Posted by: Ron O | May 11, 2024 at 07:19 PM
In the past in CA when "most" families moved to a bigger home they had more kids just as in the past in CA when freeways got bigger "most" cities built more subdivisions. The world is different today and while I'm sure there will be "some" "induced demand" if a young family moved from a 2 bedroom condo to a 4 bedroom home they may have another kid or if we get an extra lane on I80 we may have "some" "induced demand" get some more homes in Davis (does anyone think the new lane will turn Davis into Elk Grove?), but I don't think we will have the same "induced demand" as in the 1950's when most families in 4 bedroom homes had 4+ kids and when Orange County built tens of thousands of homes after turning county roads into multi-lane freeways. P.S. I was at a big Mother's Day party yesterday and a bunch of us 60 something people were talking about how few "kids" (under 35) have kids today and it seems like close to half of the people were convinced that they would never have a grandkid since they had kids in same sex relationships and/or did not seem to have any interest in marriage and/or kids (less family formation means less traffic and as the DJUSD has learned less kids in school)...
Posted by: South of Davis | May 13, 2024 at 07:25 AM