July 14, 2023
Board of Directors
Yolo County Transportation District 350 Industrial Way
Woodland, CA 95776
Dear YCTD Directors:
We write to express our concern about Caltrans’ plans to add a lane to Interstate 80 between Dixon and Sacramento, referred to as the “Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project.” Such freeway capacity expansion will raise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the I-80 corridor while inducing motor-vehicle-dependent suburban sprawl. It is contrary to GHG-reduction goals set by the State of California, the Sacramento region, Yolo County, and many local cities. Any congestion relief will be short-lived due to induced demand, as shown by many past freeway expansion projects.
At your meeting on July 17, 2023, we request that you ask Caltrans to study additional options for this project that would substantially improve transit, keep freeway capacity within current limits, stabilize or reduce VMT, reduce GHGs and local air pollution, and improve equity.
Such options might include
1) Improved regional transit service. This would develop high-quality regional transit in the I-80 corridor such as bus rapid transit (BRT) combined with better stations, ramps, and connections.
2) A bus queue-jump alternative. This would restripe lanes to allow buses to bypass the most- congested locations, using the $86 million in federal funds already in hand.
3) An existing-lane high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane alternative. This would use an existing lane for transit as well as HOV3+ or toll-paying vehicles.
4) A congestion pricing alternative. This would add congestion pricing to all lanes and use the funds for an I-80 corridor transit and smart growth program aimed at reducing VMT and GHG emissions.
Since the California Transportation Commission on June 28 turned down Caltrans’ request for state money for the project, now is an opportune time for the YCTD and other stakeholders to ask that the project’s goals be expanded and the list of alternatives reconsidered. A flawed public engagement process, hampered in part by Covid, is another reason to reconsider the project now.
Of the 8 alternatives Caltrans is currently studying for the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 6 involve adding a lane. A seventh is the “No Build” alternative required by law, and an eighth proposes restriping an existing travel lane for HOV 2+ vehicles, a step unlikely to make a significant difference in terms of congestion or other goals.
Caltrans appears to have designed the project from the start as a freeway expansion. The agency’s stated goals (“ease congestion,” “improve freeway operation,” “support reliable transport of goods,” “improve modality,” and “provide expedited traveler information and monitoring systems”) do not specifically mention i) improvements to public transit, ii) GHG reduction, iii) VMT reduction, or iv) social equity. We believe these four goals should be prioritized by the project as a whole as well as by environmental evaluation. In particular, the Sacramento/West Sacramento Mayors Commission on Climate Change report sets a goal of reducing driving by 40% in those communities by 2045, and any project must help meet this key policy objective of two main cities along its route.
Extensive academic research has documented that expanding freeway capacity induces additional motor vehicle use, suburban sprawl development, and GHG emissions. It also undercuts the market for public transit. UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies researchers have estimated that adding a lane to I- 80—tolled or untolled—will create 178 million additional miles of VMT year, a large and unmitigatable impact. Caltrans’ own data shows that VMT and VMT/capita have risen statewide over the past decade, providing evidence that existing transportation policies, based heavily on freeway expansions, are not working.
In a May 4, 2022 letter to Caltrans the YCTD specifically requested a multi-laned tolled alternative, as well as “An updated Purpose and Need section that identifies climate change, VMT reduction, and transportation equity as key considerations, consistent with state law and policy.” That letter argues that
“Both statewide and regional planning documents assume user pricing such as tolled facilities and/or congestion pricing. At the state level, the California State Transportation Agency’s 2021 Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure states with no ambiguity that 1) VMT reduction is required to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, 2) roadway pricing will be required to achieve VMT reductions, and 3) challenges and barriers therein will require strong coordination between state, regional, and local agencies (Strategy S6). At the regional level, the 2020 SACOG MTP/SCS relies on highway pricing and reinvestment of tolling revenue in transit to meet GHG targets (Policies 9-16).”
This guidance is clear and unambiguous, and we ask you to reiterate to Caltrans the need for cooperative study of such alternatives. If the agency continues on its current path contrary to state, regional, and local policy, we respectfully ask that you cease coordination with Caltrans on the I-80 project, and seek ways to reprogram the existing $85 million in federal money to support better public transit in the corridor.
We know that convincing such a large agency as Caltrans to change course will not be easy. But doing so would be perhaps the single largest GHG-reduction action Yolo County could take. Thank you in advance for your leadership on this important topic.
Respectfully submitted by the following residents of Yolo County:
Stephen M. Wheeler
Alan Pryor
Roberta Millstein
James Zanetto
Rob Thayer
Lisette van Vliet
Judy Ennis
Milton Kalish
Colin Walsh
Judy Corbett
Jonathan London
Mark Huising
Lynne Nittler
David J. Thompson
Russell Reagan
Anthony Palmere
Vera Sandronsky
Alissa Kendall
Michael Corbett
Margaret Ferguson
+ Indivisible Yolo
+ Sierra Club Yolano Group
Davisite 
Leave a comment