Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Reject Caltrans So-Called Mitigations to I-80 Widening & Support Rail Transit Investment Instead

I urge residents to attend the City Council meeting this evening to speak against the Davis City Council supporting the widening of I-80, and instead supporting investment in the parallel intercity rail corridor.  [The item comes up at 8:15 pm]

An Open Letter to the Davis City Council

2023-06-06

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today as a citizen of Davis.

You are being asked to approve three letters of intent with the State of California, regarding supposed 'mitigation' for the increased air pollution resulting from the widening of I-80.  I urge you not to sign these letters and instead send a strong message to the State of California opposing the widening of I-80, and instead to actively support a massive investment in intercity rail transit.

Davis lies on the Capitol Corridor rail line between Roseville and San Jose.  Plans are being developed for a new rail crossing between the East Bay and San Francisco that would allow Capitol Corridor trains to access the Peninsula directly.  Plans are in the works for a new tunnel between Martinez and Richmond to allow the removal the curvy section of the rail line along the Bay to protect the corridor from sea-level rise and speed up that section by ten minutes.  Plans are in the works for hourly and half-hourly rail service within an 18-hour service window.  Plans are in the works for 110 m.p.h. trains using hydrogen, overhead electric, or battery-hybrid electric equipment.

What these plans lack is funding and state commitment.  The State of California's stated policy is to fund alternative transportation and reduce VMT & GHG.  Yet actual State policy speaks through its funding allocations in expanding highways under the guise of adding 'managed lanes' which the State admits will add to air pollution in the case of the I-80 widening project.  Under what reasoning can Davis support this?

The so-called mitigation to fund infrastructure for Davis developments is called 'support' in the documents.  That any given development will actually contribute to a reduction in pollutants is a theoretical exercise based on models that are not specific to Davis.  The true effect can only be known once such developments are occupied and the transportation choices of residents known.

The so-called transit mitigation is to fill a need that may or may not exist.  The need for a micro-transit program in our small town, or the need for a vague 'increase' in public transit has not been studied, nor has the overall effect on pollutants.  Davis is being asked to support questionable, theoretical and insufficient mitigation for a project that the State admits will increase pollution.  This goes against Davis' values.

Transportation is the #1 cause of air pollutants.  This is largely because of automobile dominance.  It can be difficult as City Councilmembers to turn down 'free' State money, but in this case you indeed must turn that money down.  To give support to the I-80 widening would be to support the continued mass funding of road widening and automobile supremacy.

Instead, I urge the City Council to make a strong statement to the State of California against growing the auto-centric transportation status quo.  I urge rejecting the mitigation and 'partnership' in highway-widening and instead writing a letter to the State in support of massive investment in intercity rail transit. 

Tell the State to leave I-80 over the Causeway as it is, retaining two shoulders on each side in each direction for safety.  Then ask the State of California to divert the billions of dollars in current and future highway funds intended for Interstate 80 expansion to instead fund the expansion and improvement of the parallel Capitol Corridor passenger rail service from Roseville to San Jose.

I thank you for hearing me,

Alan C. Miller

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

25 responses to “Reject Caltrans So-Called Mitigations to I-80 Widening & Support Rail Transit Investment Instead”

  1. keith

    Good letter Alan.

    Reply
  2. Ron O

    It is a good letter.
    Also, rejecting freeway widening increases the chances that folks (throughout the region) will reject sprawl.
    This is also a lot of the reason that folks in Marin county rejected a freeway out to Pt. Reyes, years ago.
    https://blog.bayareametro.gov/posts/throwback-thursday-housing-almost-was-built-bay-area
    http://whatmighthavebeen.squarespace.com/
    I’d also highly recommend watching “Rebels with a Cause”, from PBS.
    Truth be told, traffic congestion is one of the “punishments” resulting from the pursuit of sprawl.

    Reply
  3. Roberta L. Millstein

    Here are (more or less) the comments I made in oral comment at the meeting.
    Caltrans is proposing to add traffic lanes to I-80, starting around Dixon and extending all the way to I-5. Since this would have serious environmental impacts, Caltrans needs to mitigate those impacts and is looking give Davis an unspecified amount of money for local projects.
    But Davis should not sign letters of intent for these mitigations. It should not be supporting widening I-80 in any way.
    The traffic studies from UC Davis that the Davis Enterprise has reported on show why. Adding lanes induces demand. What does “induced demand” mean? Here is an intuitive explanation. Have you ever avoided going somewhere because there would be traffic? Would you be more likely to go if you thought there would be less traffic? That is the rough idea behind induced demand. The lanes are added, things get a better for a little while, but there are more cars on the road overall, and eventually, we have gridlock again, just with more cars.
    Adding lanes would add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and increase our contributions to the climate crisis. Davis has declared a Climate Emergency and is supposedly enacting plans get us to carbon neutrality by 2040. Supporting the Caltrans proposal takes us in the opposite direction.
    Staff insists that these letters of intent for unspecified funding amounts are not an endorsement of the Caltrans project, but it looks like tacit approval to me. We would be aiding and abetting the project and thus its damaging impacts. And what do we get in return? One proposal is to help fund the overpass portion of the Nishi project that voters were specifically led to believe the developer would be paying for. That seems like something we shouldn’t be selling our souls for.
    Let’s not greenwash this environmentally harmful project. I call on the City Council not to sign the letters of intent and to oppose the Caltrans project altogether.

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    Thanks, Roberta.
    I would include “additional sprawl” under the category of “induced demand”.
    There’s reasons that additional development “follows the freeways”.

    Reply
  5. Walter Shwe

    Ron Oretel: I would include “additional sprawl” under the category of “induced demand”.
    There’s reasons that additional development “follows the freeways”.
    Walter Shwe: I would include that demand is usually real and not induced. Keeping up with demand is just good freeway and city planning. That’s been the American way for decades.

    Reply
  6. Walter Shwe

    I was unable to attend last night’s City Council meeting, but was glad to hear that the Council overwhelmingly approved submitting the letters of support with a few edits.

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    WS, your support of continuing to expand our auto-centric culture is perplexing, and you seem to be nearly alone on this among the engaged public. You are seemingly left-wing, but you are not even slightly an environmentalist? You made comments several weeks ago in support of widening the entire I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento, and have shown no interest in alternate forms of transportation that would be beneficial to the goal of reducing GHG gases that virtually every left-leaning person I know supports. What is the basis for your strong support for continued highway expansion and auto supremacy?

    Reply
  8. Roberta L. Millstein

    Walter Shwe writes, “Keeping up with demand is just good freeway and city planning. That’s been the American way for decades.”
    And that’s brought us bad air, health problems, global warming, and sprawl. Yay? Go American way! Let’s keep repeating our mistakes!
    And yes, Ron, agreed, adding lanes induces sprawl, even though I think that technically that is not what “induced demand” referred to. Even the representatives of the Caltrans project admitted last night that increasing freeway capacity changes where people live. They also admitted that it increases cars on the road. And yet…

    Reply
  9. Walter Shwe

    I consider myself a progressive Democrat, but a reasonable, practical and non-hypocritical Democrat. The opponents of widening I-80 I find possess none of those qualities. Below is the email I sent early this morning to the City Council.

    Dear Honorable Davis City Council Members,
    I realize that I am late to the party, but I was unable to attend your June 6, 2023 meeting due to unforeseen last minute circumstances.
    I fully support the City of Davis signing letters of intent in support of a partnership with Caltrans regarding the widening of I-80. The widening of I-80 is essential to ease rush hour traffic between Sacramento, Davis and the Bay Area. What the opponents of widening I-80 fail to realize is the enormous cost of upgrading Amtrak service and rail tracks to reduce freeway congestion. I believe that Amtrak trains still have to give the right of way to freight trains. This usually results in delays to Amtrak service. There is also the issue of the inadequate Capitol Corridor weekday westbound and eastbound train schedules. There is a 3-hour gap in weekday westbound service between Trains 531 leaving Sacramento at 8:55 a.m. and 541 at 11:55 a.m. On the eastbound weekday schedule there is a 2 hours, 32 minutes difference between Trains 524 and 528 leaving Martinez.
    https://www.capitolcorridor.org/schedules/

    Reply
  10. Walter Shwe

    One thing for sure. I am not hypocritical Roberta. I don’t want to take Amtrak to either Sacramento or the Bay Area on a regular basis. Neither do I want to ever bike or walk long distances. I always try to be reasonable, practical and first and foremost non-hypocrital.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    Same here. When I first got my job at UCD, I was living in the Bay Area and took Capitol Corridor. I love taking the train, but it was getting exhausting (3 hrs each way). My partner and I later moved to Davis so that I could bike to work. I won’t say that I never drive to Sac but I try to limit my trips as much as possible (UCD Health, I am looking at you — would be nice if there were more specialists here in Davis). I would gladly use public transportation for that if it were more feasible, which it typically isn’t. I think most people would use public transportation more if it were more convenient and reliable, which is why we should be investing in that rather than in more freeway lanes that will just worsen our climate crisis.
    I commend Bapu Vaitla for being the lone voice on the City Council who was willing to stand on principle and advocate for the transit option of the Caltrans proposal.

    Reply
  12. Alan C. Miller

    “One thing for sure. I am not hypocritical Roberta.”
    You are correct, you are not hypocritical Roberta. You are hypocritical Walter. I am rolling on the floor laughing.
    “I don’t want to take Amtrak to either Sacramento or the Bay Area on a regular basis.”
    No one cares what you want.
    “Neither do I want to ever bike or walk long distances.”
    No one cares what you want.
    “I always try to be reasonable, practical and first and foremost non-hypocrital.”
    Have you ever heard the phrase, “Thou Dost Protest Too Much!” ?
    What is this obsession with declaring yourself non-hypocritical ?

    Reply
  13. Walter Shwe

    It’s not an obsession so much as a intrinsic belief and a willingness to lead by example. Other intrinsic beliefs of mine including being a diehard Democrat and an enthusiastic supporter of the LGBTQ community.

    Reply
  14. Alan C. Miller

    “I consider myself a progressive Democrat, but a reasonable, practical and non-hypocritical Democrat.”
    You consider yourself ‘non-hypocritical’. Ironic that you have to state that 😐
    “The opponents of widening I-80 I find possess none of those qualities.”
    Many of them do posses the qualities of being non-hypocritical progressive Democrats.
    “Below is the email I sent early this morning to the City Council. Dear Honorable Davis City Council Members, I realize that I am late to the party,”
    Yup.
    “but I was unable to attend your June 6, 2023 meeting due to unforeseen last minute circumstances.”
    You mean I missed getting to see you in person? I am crestfallen.
    “I fully support the City of Davis signing letters of intent in support of a partnership with Caltrans regarding the widening of I-80.”
    You and . . . no one else who spoke.
    “The widening of I-80 is essential to ease rush hour traffic between Sacramento, Davis and the Bay Area.”
    I guess you not only missed the City Council meeting, but the entire community discussion on induced demand.
    “What the opponents of widening I-80 fail to realize is the enormous cost of upgrading Amtrak service and rail tracks to reduce freeway congestion.”
    I am very well aware of it. Are you aware of the enormous cost of widening I-80?
    Freeway widening becomes also becomes incrementally more expensive with additional lanes when the freeway reaches the limits of the state right-of-way and has to purchase/condemn land.
    “I believe that Amtrak trains still have to give the right of way to freight trains. This usually results in delays to Amtrak service.”
    There are delays due to freight traffic, but on time performance is usually in the 80-90% range.
    “There is also the issue of the inadequate Capitol Corridor weekday westbound and eastbound train schedules.”
    The weekend north and southbound schedules are doing fine 😐
    “There is a 3-hour gap in weekday westbound service between Trains 531 leaving Sacramento at 8:55 a.m. and 541 at 11:55 a.m. On the eastbound weekday schedule there is a 2 hours, 32 minutes difference between Trains 524 and 528 leaving Martinez.”
    All true, but here you resort to the odd argument of ‘the service isn’t adequate, so let’s not fund improvements’. My stance is: if the service is inadequate, let’s fund improvements and make the service better.

    Reply
  15. Alan C. Miller

    “It’s not an obsession so much as a intrinsic belief and a willingness to lead by example.”
    Does leading by example include encouraging your followers to call people they disagree with ‘bigots’ instead of engaging them on the issues?

    Reply
  16. Roberta L. Millstein

    Not too many “diehard Democrats” or “progressive Democrats” believe in continuing to add freeway capacity in the face of a climate crisis. Certainly the 20-some Davisites (statistically, these would be mostly Democrats) who spoke at the Council meeting last night — with none in opposition, a rarity in Davis — were in favor of it. But I am sure you have inside knowledge that every single one of them is a hypocrite. 🙄

    Reply
  17. Walter Shwe

    I find it very likely that the people that opposed the widening of I-80 are indeed hypocrites and utterly fail to lead by example. 😂

    Reply
  18. Walter Shwe

    I have 3 final points to make on this page.
    1. Despite all of the opponents present Tuesday night, it only resulted in 1 lone dissenting vote.
    2. To eliminate Amtrak delays, Amtrak trains must be always have the right of way over freight trains. Good luck making that happen.
    3. There are questions regarding the long term financial and political viability of Amtrak. If what this article says is true, Amtrak isn’t doing well financially. There is also the matter that many Republicans believe Amtrak should either be privatized or shut down in their drive to reduce the size of the federal budget.

    Amtrak Concedes Perpetual $1 Billion/Year Operating Losses
    <a href="https://www.enotrans.org/article/amtrak-concedes-perpetual-1-billion-year-operating-losses“>https://www.enotrans.org/article/amtrak-concedes-perpetual-1-billion-year-operating-losses

    Reply
  19. Walter Shwe

    To answer Roberta I would need to ask the people opposed to widening I-80 a few questions to determine if they are indeed hypocrites.
    1. Do you or any members of your household own vehicles? How often do they drive them and to where?
    2. When they need to venture outside of Davis do they almost always use mass transit, bike or walk instead of drive? Those places include Woodland, Winters, Sacramento and the Bay Area.

    Reply
  20. Roberta L. Millstein

    Walter, at least you have stopped trying to pretend that you are omniscient. But you are asking the wrong questions. Someone can live a mostly car-free lifestyle and still occasionally need a car, especially because transit options in this area are not what they should be. That’s why we should be focusing on improving transit and in the meantime provide ways for people who do want to be mostly car-free to take the occasional car trip.
    Yes, the CC, with the exception of Bapu, utterly failed to listen to citizens, just as they did with DISC. They were told “act now or you miss your chance — act now if you want a seat at the table” and they bought that snake oil like it was some sort of hot commodity.

    Reply
  21. Keith

    I think Alan’s comments here have scored a touchdown.
    I think Roberta’s comments have scored the extra POINT.
    Well done, I agree with Alan and Roberta 100%.

    Reply
  22. Alan C. Miller

    You agree with us 100% ? But that’s impossible, because you are a conservative. So you must want Amtrak to be defunded 😐
    It amazes me that WS obsessively badgers you with the fact that you must be a conservative Republican, despite what you say, because of the views that he believes that you hold. Yet, if we would to say that WS must be a Republican because of the views he holds regarding public transit and funding, he would say he was not.
    I think that makes him . . . the “h” word. Which he would also, ironically, deny.
    You can’t make this stuff up, with mustard and ketchup on top.

    Reply
  23. Keith

    “So you must want Amtrak to be defunded :-|”
    Actually I travel Amtrak a lot. I frequent FNO and SJC. Have family close to both stations. The thing is I can fly for free, I’m a retired airline worker. But Amtrak is often easier than dealing with airports.
    This might blow WS away, I’m also a union member. Whhhhaaaat?

    Reply
  24. Alan C. Miller

    WS say: “I find it very likely that the people that opposed the widening of I-80 are indeed hypocrites and utterly fail to lead by example. 😂 “
    Is the fact that you ‘find it very likely’ evidence-based? How is it that you ‘find it’, like you found it in your own mind? I do not know what all others who spoke do, and neither does WS. I drive, bike and use the Capitol Corridor as per the ability to make my travels using the modes available. As possible, I use active or public transit.
    To answer Roberta I would need to ask the people opposed to widening I-80 a few questions to determine if they are indeed hypocrites. 1. Do you or any members of your household own vehicles? How often do they drive them and to where? 2. When they need to venture outside of Davis do they almost always use mass transit, bike or walk instead of drive? Those places include Woodland, Winters, Sacramento and the Bay Area.
    I don’t know in what situation you would conduct this survey or why anyone would submit to it. The result of such a survey would be that you could judge people based on your own values and ego. I have no intention of feeding that animal.
    That fact that people do not take many of these trips via public or active transit is largely because, unlike most developed countries, we have a skeletal mass transit system. That makes the option to travel to many places currently impossible without an automobile, or by spending a large and impractical amount of time traveling. My bent is to make regional transit more convenient by investing in it. Yours appears to be to defund transit and leave only the automobile as an option.
    I have 3 final points to make on this page.
    And yet after you said this you posted two more points.
    1. Despite all of the opponents present Tuesday night, it only resulted in 1 lone dissenting vote.
    True
    2. To eliminate Amtrak delays, Amtrak trains must be always have the right of way over freight trains. Good luck making that happen.
    The way to make that happen is to invest in sufficient rail infrastructure so as to have sufficient capacity for both passenger and freight modes.
    3. There are questions regarding the long term financial and political viability of Amtrak. If what this article says is true, Amtrak isn’t doing well financially.
    Politically, support for Amtrak has been consistently high, which is why it remains after 50 years. What has not been done is allowing for flexibility in modal preference in federal infrastructure grants, resulting in the US having a highly imbalanced transportation system centered on highways. Financially Amtrak had been steadily improving its cost/revenue ratio right up until Covid-19 struck. Amtrak is actually recovering far better than local transit because longer-distance trips have recovered much stronger than local trips due to the decrease in commuting and business travel due to telework and communication technologies. The world over, rail transportation is subsidized, both in infrastructure and in most cases in operations.
    There is also the matter that many Republicans believe Amtrak should either be privatized or shut down in their drive to reduce the size of the federal budget.
    This has been the case ever since Amtrak was formed May 1, 1971, and yet the only substantial cuts in Amtrak service during those 52 years took place under President Carter.
    Amtrak Concedes Perpetual $1 Billion/Year Operating Losses
    True. Highway infrastructure is also heavily subsidized, far more so. The way these modes are funded are so different that to compare them is nearly impossible. It’s a matter of national values and what is funded and prioritized. That $1 billion, though a big number, is for the entire United States, including funding the NE Corridor where Amtrak owns the tracks and runs multiple trains per hour at high speeds under centenary.
    Your article cited are the same talking points I’ve heard for 50 years, and mostly attributed to the ultra-conservative sector of Republicans usually associated with big oil. Many Republicans support Amtrak.
    In 50 years, you are the first left-leaning person I’ve heard of who espouses these same almost-exclusively-far-right-conservative values. Congratulations on being either unique, or a skilled troll. You said you don’t use passenger rail much, nor do you bike or walk long distances. Is that something you are proud of? Do you only support transportation investments that you perceive to make life easier for WS, or those investments that may be better for society as a whole?

    Reply
  25. keith

    Great post Alan, I fully agree.
    Skwaaaak, skwaak, says this parakeet.

    Reply

Leave a comment