Will City & County Prioritize Yet More money for I-80?
August 02, 2024
Missing funds may continue to compromise transit
By Alan Hirsch
This is a report on the untalked about short falls in funding on I-80Yolo projects (plural), changes to the freeway from Dixon across the Sacramento River bridges for both US 50 and I-80. We are told the freeway here is in crisis (Like the climate crisis?)
Other have noted the short thinking of funding highway widening continue to “crowd out” funding of substantial transit improvements and that keeps us from addressing climate change and providing travel choices to driving.
For example, on I80 Yolo the total bill is a jaw dropping $745 million- 40 times the Yolobus budget.
Caltrans and freeway proponent all through the decision-making process on I80 have not make clear its full cost and long term impacts. They have instead levered an initial $86 Million federal grant – which we are told we dare not give back - to lock us into spending hundreds of million more. A sum that effectively crowd out investment in transit.
- Construction Project 1: Drivers on US 50 to and from Sacramento currently face a changing and frustrating experience. Caltrans is just 1/2 of the way through finishing the Road Surface Rehab project ( $280 Million) that began in July 2023 and won’t be completed until May 2026. This paved the way (excuse the pun) for a simple restriping to add a toll lane on the causeway and into Davis in the next step.... .
- Construction Project 2: On July 8th YoloTD Board approved funding $200 million for Phase I: restriping the causeway to convert the center shoulder to one toll lane in each direction. Because these new lanes will only be to the 50/80 split to Mace (eastbound), this will likely create “new” bottlenecks. Construction will begin October 2024 and continue until winter 2028-29.
- Construction Project 3 (and 4?): Funding and thus the timing for $265 million phase II to add the missing 17 miles of toll lanes both in west Davis and from the 50 and 80 split to the two Sacramento River bridge are unknown and undescribed in any official document- and Caltrans has not returned my calls. It is likely that construction, if funding can be obtained, won’t be completed until the mid-2030s. This is the first part of Sacramento region’s 20-year plan to spend over a billion on build more lanes and convert currently free HOV lane to toll lanes. Thy market these toll lanes by labeling them “express lanes” in the Bay Area.
- Long term Vision: UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies estimates that the I-80 freeway will recongest within 10 years due to induced demand and cut through traffic in Davis likely will reappear.
- $10 Commutes in Your future. Even though the 3 existing lanes will recongest in ten years, 10-20% of the drivers who can afford to pay the toll will still be able to enjoy I-80 congestion free. The toll will be raised and lowered dynamically to ration use—and are estimated by YoloTD in 10 years to be $1 a mile for a trip to Sacramento at peak hour/$10 for a one-way commute to Sacramento. Lucky Tahoe travelers, who typically go 3+ in a car, will have free use of the congestion free toll lanes under current plans. Prioritizing their free use of lane will drive up tolls for others as the reduced remaining road capacity is “auctioned off” to the highest bidder in the dynamic tolling setup. This is in the plan for the entire Sacramento region freeway system, allowing the richest to opt out of congestion via a region-wide toll lane network that Davis City and other Yolo County leaders are proud to be doing on I-80.
- Additional Funding Uncertainty: YoloTD and Caltrans have yet to identify ongoing funding for the 50% GHG mitigation promised in the EIR, a core issue for the lawsuit. Caltrans has a onetime payment of $28 million for phase 1 of the mitigation, but the funding of GHG mitigation must go on into perpetuity. Who will pay? Who is accountable if there is insufficient money as toll revenue is forecast to fall woefully short, a funding shortage because of the decision to allow 3+ Tahoe travelers to ride toll free.
So, at this point we are left with two unfunded financial liabilities for the I-80 widening: a) $265Mil to complete construction b) and an unfunded liability for the ongoing GHG mitigation. These will be added to the climate crisis legacy we leave our children and grandchildren, particularly if Davis & Yolo County elected officials continue to look for yet more funds for the I-80 widening project rather than invest in transit.
But there is an alternate vision.
Local officials should resurface a Caltrans plan to upgrade the Capitol rail corridor to 110 mph and every 30-minute service that they themselves said would be 15 times as cost-effective as freeway widening. The SACOG MTP Plan for 2040 affirmed this vision of improving rail transit in concept, but it will be forgotten if we commit additional funds to freeway widening instead.
In a way, I-80 is on the ballot this November in Davis. Ask the candidates running for city council if they prioritize finding the still missing $265 million to lengthen toll lanes into West Sacramento and support more widening to build a toll lane system through the Sacramento region. Or do they prioritize funding improved transit.
The Davis Council has been split on this, at it’s March 5, 2024 meeting ignored 30+ letters and public comment and let stand its March 2021 written policy to “strongly support” funding for the widening of the I-80 freeway.
Alan wrote:
> For example, on I80 Yolo the total bill is a jaw dropping $745
> million- 40 times the Yolobus budget.
Does anyone have any numbers for Yolobus riders per year compared to the estimated people that pass Davis on I80 in cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles and busses? I bet it is at least 40x the number of people that ride Yolobus (that has been low post covid):
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/016fe9a5d00140d2b718d74dcf325a02
P.S. I was up in Tahoe all weekend and saw a bunch of TART busses (that were ALL 100% empty except for the driver) but the new TART Connect busses seemed to be doing well.
https://tahoetruckeetransit.com/tart-connect/
I don't know if Alah H. had a "party line" like my parent's did in the 1940'a in SF where many families shared a phone line (and most rode the bus and streetcar), In the 60's when we moved from SF to the Peninsula we had a single phone line that the just our family chared (and a single car that we all shared). Today almost everyone in a modern family has their own personal phone and phone line (and either drives their own car or takes an UBER or LYFT). I thinl Alan H will have better luck getting moder families to share a single land line phone line than he will have getting them to ride Yolobus...
Posted by: South of Davis | August 04, 2024 at 09:42 PM
You don't have to "thinl", this can all be modeled. Models aren't perfect, but they do give an idea of human behavior. And when they modeled local buses across the causeway to mitigate I-80, the elasticity of the curve quickly spiked at a very low number, even with free, frequent buses, because the market is limited as to who would even consider this as an option.
What does show significant diversion of drivers from their cars is with longer tripis - regional trains from the Bay Area with frequent (30-60 min headways) faster run times, on-time, and direct service to San Francisco, etc. This is extremely costly, but will eventually be necessary and is the norm is most developed countries. Also costly: expanding freeways.
What is so insidious about the 'local bus' unicorn is that people throw it out like it's a real solution. What it is mostly is an excuse for a developer to get a tax break for 'transit oriented development' for being near a bus stop. Doesn't matter if few or no residents actually end up using the bus. Happy unicorns! Our council recently talked about talking with Yolobus about expanding the bus network so every parcel was near a bus stop. Was this for better transit, or so developers could get a tax break at taxpayers expense? I'll give you two guesses.
And by the way SofD, in San Francisco, which you cited, a large percentage of people still do use the public transit there. It's urban. Big difference.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | August 05, 2024 at 10:13 AM
The "... near a bus stop..." thing is either abused - or designed to be abused. If the criteria was serious and applied to newer rental housing construction in Davis... It would mean a max. 10 minute walk or ride to the train station, or buses synchronized with the train schedule (with a synchronizable train schedule).... and frequent trains as mentioned by ACM.
And somehow the developers would be required to prove that transit was being used.... right.
I've also belatedly looked at the proposed mitigation involving the Putah Creek Parkway - or whatever it's called on the Arboretum side of the Union Pacific tunnel. The proposal is to widen it or create an alternative wide path... BUT the undercrossing itself won't be widened. At peak times in the direction of Promenade, Olive Drive and south Davis this will likely create a problem similar to eastbound I-80 where it meets 113... Capacity will increase and then decrease and then it's worse because the undercrossing is at the bottom of a moderate gradient. Union Pacific won't allow a widening or a new undercrossing to Promenade, Caltrans won't allow a reduction of lanes in that interchange, and Caltrans won't support improved rail service.... And so a completely unnecessary widening of I80 will supposedly be mitigated - their VMT projections claim that people will be walking or cycling instead of driving along this route to and from campus if the section between the undercrossing and Olld Davis Road is widened! - by a useless widening of the multi-use path - that when necessary during peaks eastbound - won't improve capacity and may decrease safety and westbound won't improve capacity.
I fully realize that this analysis is contrary to the one created by the consultants Fehr and Peers (and the City and UCD). Perhaps they will chime in here to tell me why I'm wrong.
Posted by: Tuvia | August 05, 2024 at 02:28 PM
I think Weird Al said it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZkouut-9RQ
Posted by: Ron O | August 05, 2024 at 04:42 PM
It sounds ludicrous on the smell test, TE
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | August 05, 2024 at 04:48 PM
I had a meeting in downtown Sac this monning and I passed a Yolo Bus on I80 (it seems like "public transit advocates" forget that busses also use the freeway) and it was hard to see in with the dark limo tint on the windows but I'm pretty sure the bus was 100% empty except for the driver. SInce I was already in my car I drove rather than rode my bike to my office and when passing a Unitrans bus in town (with lighter tint so it was easier to see in) the bus was also 100% empty other than the driver.
P.S. After I read this on SF Gate this morning I'm expecting the "public transit advocates" to propose a "cable car" for Davis (since it seems like the bigger the taxpayer subsidy the more "public transit advocates" like a system:
"Cable cars in San Francisco lose more money than they make, so it would be unrealistic to expect that enhanced safety straps or other features are coming anytime soon. According to a Cato Institute report, it cost $70 million to run the cars in 2019, and the attraction collected only $24 million in revenue."
Posted by: South of Davis | August 06, 2024 at 11:19 AM