Sierra Club and Environmental Council of Sacramento Sue Caltrans over Environmental Deficiencies of Yolo I-80 Freeway Widening Project
May 31, 2024
(From press release) On May 29, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) filed a lawsuit against Caltrans alleging legally inadequate environmental analysis of the I-80 freeway widening project through Yolo County.
The lawsuit’s goal is to stop Caltrans from widening 17 miles of the I-80 freeway from six to eight lanes between Davis and Sacramento through the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area until Caltrans conducts a valid analysis of adverse environmental impacts threatened by the project and implements appropriate mitigation for these harmful effects.
Caltrans’ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) grossly underestimates increased vehicular travel, which would emit far larger quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants than claimed. The EIR fails to consider viable alternatives, such as increased public transit or alternate tolling strategies. Therefore, the project neither adequately manages demand nor produces adequate revenue to fund needed transit alternatives. Also, Caltrans’ proposed mitigation is woefully inadequate to offset the resulting increased GHG and air pollutant emissions.
Caltrans violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to acknowledge that freeway widenings do not produce less congestion but, in fact, result in increased traffic -- leading to worse congestion and pollution - due to “Induced Demand”.
Proven by decades of research, including studies at UC Davis’ famed National Center for Sustainable Transportation, Induced Demand recognizes that as more freeway lanes are added, traffic will disproportionately increase so that 5-10 years later, congestion will be even worse.
For years, Caltrans’ answer to congestion has been to simply widen freeways. However, landmark California legislation (SB 743) requires that major roadway projects must be analyzed using “Vehicle Miles Traveled” that includes the impact of development projects on vehicle use.
Additionally, SB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by 40% by 2030. However, this freeway widening project would substantially increase GHG emissions, pushing California further towards irreversible climate change.
According to the Sierra Club Yolano Group Chair, Alan Pryor, “The EIR for the I-80 widening shows Caltrans is stuck in reverse when we need to move our region forward by investing in real alternatives to congestion that don’t just put more cars on our roads and smog in our air. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars laying down concrete and asphalt that locks us into a future of car dependency at the expense of community health and our environment, Caltrans needs to get serious about real alternatives such as improved frequency and access to public transit."
ECOS’ Climate Committee Chair, Ralph Propper, added, “The Sacramento metro area is consistently in the top ten worst in the country for unhealthy levels of ozone and particulate matter – more traffic will make this even worse! Furthermore, the increased pollution will especially impact West Sacramento residents, where almost a quarter of the population is below the poverty line. The EIR does not consider tolling existing lanes - which could be based on income - with funds used to provide clean public transit and bike/ped options along the corridor, facilitating affordable infill development. Caltrans must be called to task for its legally deficient actions. This lawsuit’s goal is to require Caltrans to change its ways, by providing sustainable transit options instead of just more pavement.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), representing the Planning and Conservation League along with the Center for Biological Diversity, also filed suit to challenge the Yolo I-80 highway expansion project.
__________________________________________
About the Sierra Club - The Sierra Club is a California nonprofit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California in 1892. It is the nation's oldest and largest environmental organization with more than 1,000,000 members. The Sierra Club functions to educate and enlist people to protect and restore the natural and human environment, to practice and promote responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources, to explore, enjoy, and protect wild places, and to use all lawful means to achieve these objectives
About ECOS - For over fifty years, ECOS has worked in the Sacramento region to achieve sustainability, livable communities, environmental justice, and a healthy environment and economy for our residents - by working with individual and organizational members, neighborhood groups, businesses, and regional agencies and governments.
Sounds like this will delay the inevitable.
But regarding public transit, they can't even keep it funded in the (dense) Bay Area. Ridership has not recovered after the pandemic. And with more people working from home, it doesn't seem likely to recover.
Seems like "building it" (public transit) is no guarantee that people will actually use it. Ultimately, public transit is only good for commuting to work. And even then, it has to be subsidized to make it attractive.
Public transit is generally not practical in places such as the entire valley. There's actually a bus stop outside of Costco in Woodland, which causes me to chuckle whenever I notice it. Try bringing a 100-roll toilet paper package home via the bus.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bart-transit-funding-tax-measure-19488205.php
But I do applaud the Sierra Club for "punishing sprawl" by temporarily restricting the only way that it "works". It's unfortunate that it punishes everyone else (already living in sprawl) in the process.
Not much can be done about existing sprawl.
Posted by: Ron O | May 31, 2024 at 12:01 PM
The article says:
> The lawsuit’s goal is to stop Caltrans from widening 17 miles of the
> I-80 freeway from six to eight lanes
If we go from six to eight lanes we will have 33.3% more lanes.
Google says:
Electric vehicles in California made up 25% of the new car market last year, up from nearly 19% in 2022.
> Caltrans’ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) grossly underestimates
> increased vehicular travel, which would emit far larger quantities of
> greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants than claimed.
I bet that over 33% of new cars in Davis are already electric (it is over half for people I know) and we will soon be up to 33% statewide so the extra lanes (full of Teslas) will not add greenhouse gases to the causeway.
> The EIR fails to consider viable alternatives, such as increased public transit
We don't (and never will) have public transit that works for most people to get the to stuff on the other side of the Causeway. I just typed in Cal Expo into Google and it says I can get there from "South of Davis" in half hour by car, but public transit will take 2 hrs and 20 minutes (a half hour longer than if I rode my bike)...
Posted by: South of Davis | May 31, 2024 at 12:25 PM
Hey South of Davis:
Just wondering what you think of the concept of "induced demand", and if anyone might have a reaction to that. (Just kidding.)
Posted by: Ron O | May 31, 2024 at 12:44 PM
To South of Davis -
Re: "I bet that over 33% of new cars in Davis are already electric (it is over half for people I know) and we will soon be up to 33% statewide so the extra lanes (full of Teslas) will not add greenhouse gases to the causeway." - Claiming Davis use of electric vehicles is a good reason to widen the freeway is not a very good example to prove your point. Studies show about 95%+ of the afternoon commute traffic heading east is commuters going home from working at UCD and (particularly on Friday afetrnoons) Bar Area folks fleeing to Tahoe in big, beefy SUVs.
And your example of travel times to CalExpo is a perfect example of why we are tring to fix our public transit system, in part, by demanding substantially more mitigation funding from this project. But saying that we need more freeway lanes because we have a broken public transit system is the type of circular argument that has pushed our CO2 levels to an average of 425 ppm - well above the 350 ppm that scientists consider the maximum safe level.
Try thinking of how you will explain to your grandkids in 30 years what you did to try to reduce our GHG emissions as our CO2 levels top 500 ppm, sea levels are 18+" higher, and natural weather-related catastrophes are a dime a dozen; all of which some experts predict will happen if we don't stop driving and flying everywhere in this country.
Posted by: Alan Pryor | May 31, 2024 at 01:16 PM
The induced traffic issue has been known for decades, since the economist Anthony Downs wrote “Why You’re Stuck in Traffic,” followed by his book “Why You’re Still Stuck in Traffic.”
Guess Caltrains has not read those books!
Posted by: Greg Rowe | May 31, 2024 at 01:25 PM
Over Memorial Day Weekend I was up at Tahoe (that is "full") with the lake level exactly the same level it was when I was a kid 50 years ago and California had about half as many people and a LOT less freeway lanes.
I hope clicking the link below does not scare Alan, but "sea levels" are going to be more than 18" higher in just a couple "hours" (he won't need to wait 30 years):
https://www.usharbors.com/harbor/california/san-francisco-ca/tides/
A friend's family has had the same slip at the St. Francis Yacht Club for over 50 years and when he was in High School ~40 years ago there was a big rainstorm the day of a real high tide and he marked where the dock was close to the top of the posts the dock goes up and down on each day with the tides. He has not seen it that high in 40 years (I'm wondering if Alan thinks the new lanes will make the see rise so high that the docks will float over the top of the posts?)
I understand that some people love public transit (they are often the same people that love getting robbed and love the smell of homeless people) and I understand that some people hate cars and freeways so much that they want to make I80 a dirt trail so they can mountain bike to Tahoe, but anyone who says they "follow the science" can't deny that if adding close to 20 million people to the state in the past 50 years and adding and thousands of miles of new lanes has not not noticeably changed the climate (or sea levels) a new lane on each side of the causeway probably won't doom us...
P.S. Does anyone have any idea why "induced demand" does not work with public transit?
Posted by: South of Davis | May 31, 2024 at 02:09 PM
P.S. Does anyone have any idea why "induced demand" does not work with public transit?
I think you answered it yourself:
I just typed in Cal Expo into Google and it says I can get there from "South of Davis" in half hour by car, but public transit will take 2 hrs and 20 minutes (a half hour longer than if I rode my bike)...
I understand that some people love public transit (they are often the same people that love getting robbed and love the smell of homeless people)
(Also, there's not enough of the "latter".)
Posted by: Ron O | May 31, 2024 at 02:18 PM
Pretty sure that I've experienced "induced demand" whenever I get a palette of chocolate chip cookies from Costco.
But for some reason, this doesn't occur if I get a pallet of brussels sprouts.
So my proposed solution would be to get a second palette of brussels sprouts, since obviously not enough funding went into the first palette.
Posted by: Ron O | May 31, 2024 at 05:34 PM
Or, maybe you need better skill at preparing your Brussel sprouts, or maybe get them from a local farm rather than Costco. I am speaking metaphorically of course -- we need not just more of the same public transportation, but better transportation -- faster, more reliable, cleaner, safer, more convenient. Other places in the world manage it, and we can too. If we can induce demand for cleaner forms of transportation, that would be a good thing.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 31, 2024 at 05:50 PM
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of things that cause induce demand via increased availability, unless they're bad for you and/or the environment. (God's sense of humor, I guess.)
You WILL eat your brussels sprouts, live in dense housing and take public transit, and you WILL like it!
Now, go do your homework and put the cell phone away.
Posted by: Ron O | May 31, 2024 at 06:24 PM
In regards to the other suit mentioned in the article:
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-california-highway-expansion-project-2024-05-30/
and the also active...
"Whistleblower" suit (from this angle I refer to the I-80 Perpetual Highway Congestion Project as the "Stealth Widening Project") : https://www.eenews.net/articles/former-caltrans-official-sues-agency-over-alleged-retaliation/
... if you can imagine Lucas Frerichs or Glorida Partida jumping up and down in the airborne and sonic pollution of a rainbow-striped freeway, ask them about the now three lawsuits, including into the sexual discrimination claimed by Jeannie Ward-Waller https://www.davisite.org/2024/05/past-honored-in-10th-year-of-davis-pride.html
It's the Grand Davis Legal Suit(e) against Fakequity!
Posted by: Tuvia is Not Selling Out | May 31, 2024 at 06:24 PM
Along the lines of the comments by South of Davis and Ron O, soon after I began working as Senior Environmental Analyst for the the Sac County Dept of Airports in 2002, I thought it would be a good idea to take the bus to my office at Sac Int'l Airport. I quickly found out that taking the bus in the AM and return trip in the PM took a LOT longer than driving, even with the bus stop being right in front of Terminal A (where my office was at that time).
The worst part, however, was the "transfer station" at Country Fair Mall in the evening. The driver would turn off the bus and stand outside the bus smoking for the 10 - 15 minutes it took for another bus full of transferring passengers to arrive. We would have to open the windows of our bus because there was no AC while the engine was off. That meant, however, that we had to inhale the driver's toxic cigarette smoke that was wafting in through the open windows.
Having started my career as a health educator for the American Lung Association, I realized of course that inhaling second-hand smoke was not a good thing for my respiratory health. I quickly decided that I was not going to sacrifice my health just to avoid driving to work. That was unfortunate, but also a rational decision.
Early in my career, while living in Cincinnati during the late 1970s through mid-1980s, I was able to ride the bus to work in downtown Cincy most days. The Queen City Metro bus system was excellent with frequent service, except the route had to change when there was snow and ice on the roads in the hilly area where I lived, which meant a long slippery walk to the alternate bus stop. Even in good weather, however, with excellent service, the bus was often crowded with standing room only; not a good thing in hot humid weather.
Not to be a naysayer, but I think it is quite possible that some of the most vocal advocates of using public transit have seldom used such transportation themselves. Having ridden a bus regularly in Cincy for 7 years and taken BART to work in the Bay Area for 3 years in the 1990s, I can say with assurance that in many ways there are a lot of downsides to riding on public transit. Anyone who has waited on a cold, windy and rainy BART platform for a late arriving train will know what I mean. And riding BART at night after the gangs boarded was not fun, either.
Posted by: Greg Rowe | May 31, 2024 at 08:13 PM
Like Greg I rode public transit for years (SamTrans when I was a kid and didn't want to ride my bike miles in the rain and the Muni 30X from the Marina to Downtown to meet hot single women when I was a good looking well dressed single guy in my 20's and living in a cool apartment with a GG Bridge view a block from the Marina Safeway).
Public Transit made sense when most people worked 9-5 in the "city center" and transit workers had modest wages, but in a world where more and more people work from home and transit janitors make $270K it does not make any sense any more:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-janitor-pay-270000-Powell-St-questions-10911932.php
BART is doomed after the federal funds run out (see link below that is from BART) and if it keeps going it will be just as a jobs program and mobile homeless shelter more than a way for people with jobs to get to work I know a priest in Oakland that still rides BART because his life's work is to help the poor and he says not a month goes by when he does not have a gun pointed at him buy someone that does not believe at first that he is a priest and that he does not have a wallet (he does not carry a wallet when ridding on BART)...
https://www.bart.gov/about/financials/crisis
P.S. The extra lanes on I80 are a done deal and will all be fine after they open...
Posted by: South of Davis | May 31, 2024 at 09:28 PM
In case anyone's interested, I happened-across the video below (from KTVU, I believe). The video describes the extensive public transit rail system that existed in the Bay Area, prior to being torn-out.
It also describes a passenger line that went from (Oakland?) to Sacramento and Chico. (I think they said that BART uses some of the same route today, through the Walnut Creek area.)
It was interesting to learn of the extended pier in the Oakland area, to integrate/facilitate travel to/from S.F.
And that even Marin had a robust rail system, despite its relative lack of population at that time.
I already knew that rail cars used to travel on the Bay Bridge, as well.
They also briefly touch on how several large companies (who benefit from increased auto usage) essentially conspired to destroy the passenger rail system. (These companies paid a minimal fine, per the video.)
The video was obviously created for broadcast on TV, in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObOLGzSnNHI
Posted by: Ron O | June 02, 2024 at 11:35 AM
ECOS has a long history of suing Caltrans over previous HOV projects on Highway 50 in Sacramento, then settling after extracting millions of dollars for transit, bike and pedestrian improvements. Sierra Club and ECOS state their goal of this lawsuit is to stop 17 miles of widening. But history tells us the real goal is to follow ECOS’ playbook to extort millions in tax dollars for transit improvements that will likely be underutilized, then allow the HOV lane to be built, which will be popular and heavily utilized.
I’ve explained my experience with public transit in previous posts. I tried to make it work whenever I could, and stuck with it long past when most people would have given it up. It is rarely a pleasant experience, it rarely saves time, it’s inconvenient, it’s inflexible, it can be uncomfortable and it can feel unsafe at times. No amount of money will overcome all these shortcomings.
Transit does save passengers money, but requires giant subsidies to stay in business. When the buses and trains run full it is better for the environment than single occupant passenger vehicles, but I frequently see Unitrans buses with just a few passengers (and sometimes only the driver) and can’t help but think in that situation an empty bus getting 5 miles per gallon is canceling out some of the benefits earned when it’s full. I haven’t ridden the Capitol Corridor since the pandemic, but it did carry loads of commuters pre-Covid. Not sure how the move to remote work has affected that, and if more capacity is warranted.
Ron O and South of Davis have expressed by thoughts pretty well, so I’m not going to repeat those.
Posted by: Jay | June 02, 2024 at 09:00 PM