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

<

>

Response to I-80 update piece by Alan Hirsch

Note: The following email was sent to the Davisite, asking for a correction to Alan Hirsch's recent articles.  As the email contains some misunderstandings about the nature of the Davisite, a new article has been written that tries to correct these misunderstandings and other common misconceptions – see More about the Davisite.  Just as with Alan Hirsch's articles and with any other article on the Davisite, the volunteers who operate this blog do not vouch for the correctness of what is written below.

The Davisite has recently posted a series of guest-authored pieces by Alan Hirsch about the Yolo 80 Managed Lanes project containing a pattern of significant inaccuracies, potentially causing confusion about the project among the general population. Providing a forum for vigorous policy debate is an important role of blog-based local media, however, informal media should aspire to post accurate information, even from guest authors.

As Caltrans’ partner on the Yolo 80 Managed Lanes project, the Yolo Transportation District (YoloTD) responds to two inaccuracies in Mr. Hirsch's most recent July 24, 2023 article posting titled, "I-80 update: Caltrans proposes cutting mitigation for Phase I".

               Article Title and Article List Item #1: Mr. Hirsch's title “I-80 update: Caltrans proposes cutting mitigation for Phase I” is inaccurate. Caltrans has not proposed in any way to cut mitigation for Phase 1 of the Yolo 80 Managed Lanes project. Any version of the project that moves forward will be subject to CEQA. The Draft Environmental Impact Report has not yet been released, and any speculation about its contents is just that — speculation. Mr. Hirsch has speculated that funding will not be available for mitigation, which is an opinion, not a fact.

               Article List Item #2: YoloTD's statement that an HOV lane would be congested on day 1 requires additional background. The comment refers to "peak" hours at bottleneck locations under a specific HOV2+ scenario where high-occupancy vehicles with two or more people (HOV2+) are allowed access to the lane, which is one of several scenarios that could advance. Other scenarios with higher occupancy requirements could result in lower congestion levels on the new lanes.

The CEQA process is designed to provide thorough analysis and transparent decision-making about a project’s potential impacts. YoloTD is committed to ensuring robust public participation and a thorough vetting of the issues through the CEQA process. I would encourage all interested parties to visit our website (https://yolotd.org/planning-projects/freeway-roads/) or Caltrans’ website (https://deavpm.wixsite.com/yolo80corridor) for the most up to date and accurate information about the project.

The public's interest is best served when the media provides accurate information to its audience. YoloTD extends an offer to the Davisite to review Yolo 80 Managed Lanes-related articles for accuracy prior to publication. While YoloTD has not itemized in this message Mr. Hirsch’s inaccuracies from past Davisite postings, we will bring future articles to your attention as we've done here, with the confidence the Davisite will post corrections.

Please feel free to contact me or our Acting Planning Director, Brian Abbanat (530-402-2879) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Autumn Bernstein [she/her/hers]

Executive Director, Yolo Transportation District

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, , ,
Davisite logo

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

Comments

27 responses to “Response to I-80 update piece by Alan Hirsch”

  1. Alan C Miller

    Speaking as a denizen of Davis,
    AB: “Other scenarios with higher occupancy requirements could result in lower congestion levels on the new lanes.”
    Yes, if you have higher vehicle occupancy requirements, i.e. more people in a car, fewer cars will qualify for that lane, and therefore there will be less cars in that lane “lower congestion levels on the new lanes“.
    What about everyone else? Festivus, for the rest of us.
    And I think what RM was saying about the nature of the Davisite can be summarized in seven words, “The Davisite is for Entertainment Purposes Only.”

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    ACM: Thanks for a perfect demonstration of why we can’t be in the business of fact-checking. Of course, clear-cut facts do exist (the earth is not flat, etc.) but a large number of purported facts are subject to interpretation and counter-argument.
    As for the Davisite being for entertainment purposes only, of course many authors aspire to provide more than just entertainment. But not all aspirations succeed. On the other hand, we can’t guarantee entertainment either. 😁

    Reply
  3. Alan C. Miller

    ” . . . a large number of purported facts are subject to interpretation and counter-argument.”
    Speaking as a Davis denizen:
    When predicting the future, there are no facts. Even modeling is an artistic science. Virtually all models failed with the pandemic. As did state predictions on the future of state population, model outputs which feed model inputs.
    At its core, this is about policy. Do we believe that continuing the American 1950’s+ policies of highway building and widening is the solution? Do we believe that mitigation to increased pollution to a highway widening is state investment in the infrastructure to build on specific denser new developments in a town along the highway? Do we believe massive investment in intercity rail instead of highway spending could actually lower air pollution emissions? [Hint: read the appendices, it’s in there] What if state policy belies ‘do as I spend, not as I say’.
    “On the other hand, we can’t guarantee entertainment either. 😁”
    Now that IS a fact!

    Reply
  4. Roberta L. Millstein

    When predicting the future, there are no facts. Even modeling is an artistic science.
    I agree with this, but certain models show a very very high probability. Not the ones under discussion here, however. And in any case, they are still not facts.
    At its core, this is about policy.
    Ding ding ding!! We have a winner.

    Reply
  5. Alan Hirsch

    FACT: Three members of Yolotd board spoke out about concern lack of funding for mitigation when tolling on new lane was removed so can do build cut-rate widening. Readers of this blog can fact check by watching meeting video I-80 begin 33 minutes in but see statements Lucas Ferichs and Jesse Loren at about 1:10 or so at end of item.
    https://youtu.be/O7odnLgxuF4
    Phase II funding may have mitigation/ opinion: but after caltrans gets their added lanes we will see if phase 2 is ever funded.
    Brian has stated publicly they he believes caltrans will not be able to mitigate even with funding, and will in end just issue a statement of “overriding consideration“ opinion: want to biuld the lanes even if they hurt climate change. Fact: Brian said this in public presentation to Breathe California policy board in May.
    3.Fact: funding was earmarked in Congress to only be useable for widening. My opinion: from day one widening hardwired, so the EIR process of study alternatives and mitigation is in fact mostly theater.
    Fact: YoloTD inself-long before eir is out or mitigation attempted issued at promotion flier claiming the freeway widening was “sustainable” project.
    Opinion: This Shows any eir analysis is colored my motivated reasoning, i.e. decide on your solution and come up with report that justifies it.
    I hope Brian Abanatts, director of planning at YoloTD can respond to these facts if they are incorrect as they I’ll continue to resurface as evidence of the back story.

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    Fact: The freeway will be widened, regardless of anything written on here or elsewhere.
    Opinion: Especially if those protesting it are “denizens of Davis”.
    Fact: Public transit ridership has plummeted in the Bay Area, due to a shift toward telecommuting.
    Opinion: Those hoping for improved public transit (when they can’t even keep current systems funded) are living in an alternative reality – one in which they think they can keep the climate from changing.
    Fact: The weather has been cooler-than-average, lately.
    Opinion/fact: The climate change activists don’t like it when this occurs.

    Reply
  7. Larry D. Guenther

    Here is some information gleaned from the web. All numbers come from the website of the Agency who’s numbers are quoted.
    YoloTD I-80 widening: $387 mil, completion 2027
    Unitrans 23/24 total budget: $9.0 mil
    Yolo Bus 22/23 total budget: $23.4 mil
    Capitol Corridor 21/22 operating expenses: $56.2 mil
    So, for the cost of the widening project, the budgets of Unitrans, YoloBus, and the Capitol Corridor could be doubled for the expected construction time, with $32.6 mil left over for the Sacrament Area Transit District.
    We choose to continue building an automobile-centric world while we are – quite literally – burning.

    Reply
  8. Roberta L. Millstein

    Thanks for this information, Larry. It really highlights our electeds’ unwillingness to do what is necessary. We all pay for that with floods, droughts, fires, and other extreme weather events — which will all get even worse as the years go by. What a foolish species we are. Or at least a foolish society.

    Reply
  9. Keith

    “We choose to continue building an automobile-centric world while we are – quite literally – burning.”
    ” We all pay for that with floods, droughts, fires, and other extreme weather events — which will all get even worse as the years go by. ”
    Actually fires have been decreasing for the last two decades:
    “Climate Change Hasn’t Set the World on Fire”
    “It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.”
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6

    Reply
  10. Roberta L. Millstein

    I don’t have a subscription to be able to read that, but I can say that in California, fires have been getting much worse — bigger and hotter. See, e.g.,
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-has-made-californias-wildfires-five-times-bigger/
    “A new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that California’s summertime burned area has increased fivefold since 1971.”
    If the WSJ is correct that fires have been decreasing globally (I am a little skeptical), then CA’s dramatic increase has been someone else’s decrease. That doesn’t make things any less apocalyptic for us here in CA.
    CA is predicted to have wild weather swings in the future (“weather whiplash”). Our wet years will be wetter. Our dry years will be drier and hotter. The average might not change all that much. We’re seeing that already.
    It’s often misleading to look at averages/overall trends. I suspect that is what is going on with the WSJ article, but I will also keep an eye out for responses to the article since I can’t read it myself.

    Reply
  11. Keith

    “It’s often misleading to look at averages/overall trends. ”
    Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing with your citations here:
    “A new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that California’s summertime burned area has increased fivefold since 1971.”

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    Although the state of California does not experience exactly the same weather patterns, often the weather it experiences is either linked or covers large swaths of the state. That is, sometimes up here in NorCal we can get wet weather while SoCal gets dry, or vice versa, but often we get similar weather patterns, and in any case you’re not generalizing over so many, widely divergent regions, as you are if you look globally.

    Reply
  13. Keith

    Aren’t we talking about global climate change?
    Not climate change by cherry-picked by regions.
    I would think the global numbers are much more important than pinpointing regions which might only serve to boost an agenda.

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    We are talking about a global increase in temperatures, which will affect different regions differently at different points in time. The models have always shown this and scientists have been consistent on this point. Really, it would be weird if increased average temperature had the same effect everywhere, given the way that increased temperatures can affect a variety of things like wind, water currents, moisture in the air, sea level rise, etc. etc. The planet isn’t uniform and so the effects aren’t uniform either. That’s why when people point to one particularly cold winter in one location as evidence against global climate change, they are missing the point.

    Reply
  15. Keith

    Roberta, I’m not the one that cited “burning”.
    Then I find that “burning” is actually on the decrease over the last 2 decades.

    Reply
  16. Roberta L. Millstein

    Personally, I am not at all comforted by what that WSJ article seems to be saying, given the amount of known increases in fires here in CA. Come on, Keith, this isn’t controversial — we’ve been living it. The fires and smoke have increased noticeably in size and intensity since I moved to CA in 1995. Hell, they’ve increased since I moved to Davis in 2007. But if you find it comforting that other places may have fewer fires while we have more and larger ones, then I guess I can’t disagree with you.

    Reply
  17. Keith

    “We choose to continue building an automobile-centric world while we are – quite literally – burning.”
    The reference here is to the “world”.
    So no, the world has actually had a decrease in fires over the last 22 years according to the WSJ.

    Reply
  18. Roberta L. Millstein

    Asked and answered. Enjoy the smoke.

    Reply
  19. Keith

    “Any reader of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlet would be forgiven for believing that fires globally are on the rise, but they aren’t. In reality, there was a whopping 25 percent decrease in the area burned from 2003 to 2019, according to NASA.”
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-detect-a-global-drop-in-fires

    Reply
  20. Roberta L. Millstein

    Keith, that NASA article came from a Science article. (It says so). And that Science article says: “The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification…. Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity.”
    So, yeah, I guess you can say that if we destroy our savannas and grasslands and put in ag land instead, climate change will cause fewer forest fires. Yay?
    https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aal4108

    Reply
  21. Alan C. Miller

    As I have stated here many times, I don’t doubt climate change. I have a degree in Geology from UC Davis. The climate is always changing. I remember as well that just 40-50 years ago the news was filled with doom reports on the impending ice age, also caused by humans (aerosols) and also confirmed by scientists as promulgated by those on the left politically and the press. I’m sure that can be explained away. How much is human-created is much more up for debate than if warming is happening.
    Oh the hubris of those who believe they can change the course regardless! Such as taking away my gas stove. F y’all. Come get it with your turret-less MRAP. Global warming, if significantly human-created, which I believe it probably is, is the result of two centuries of the industrial revolution, not the last decade or two. Of years of open burning of coal en masse. Of jets burning fuel and slicing through our upper-atmosphere en masse. And the jets continue to slice, and India and China are increasing their dirty coal burning for decades to come, while the US has backed down a bit – and warming is global – so that decrease is helpful, but overall don’t mean a hill of beans.
    And what Davis does isn’t squat. But it sure makes people feel like they can control the planet, like they can make a difference, like they can control the weather.
    But you can’t.
    The best course of action is to accept that we have fucked ourselves and fucked the climate and other countries are going to continue to fuck the whole planet, on high, and change the discussion away from tiny symbolic gestures and on to the important task of how to keep large numbers of people from dying. Like migration patterns from places no longer habitable to places that can and will take people in. Like not building houses among the giant matchsticks we call trees in forests. The insurance industry seems to be taking care of that one — except the government is still subsidizing stupidity when the insurance industry is saying ‘hell no’ to rebuilding, um, Paradise.
    And how to end building more forest/grassland-adjacent suburbs, and how to keep those we have built from burning like forests, something that until recently we believed impossible, until the events of Redding and Santa Rosa changed that.

    Reply
  22. Roberta L. Millstein

    ACM writes: The best course of action is to accept that we have fucked ourselves and fucked the climate and other countries are going to continue to fuck the whole planet, on high, and change the discussion away from tiny symbolic gestures and on to the important task of how to keep large numbers of people from dying.
    But what if continuing to fuck the planet (whoever does it — and the U.S. is the #2 contributor after China with India after us) means that it isn’t possible to keep large numbers of people from dying as conditions become worse and worse over time? Shouldn’t we try to prevent that now, somehow, any way we can?

    Reply
  23. Ron O

    Regarding forest fires, I suspect that they’ve been drastically-reduced ever since they made it “illegal” for doctors to “assign gender” at birth – thereby eliminating outdoor gender-reveal parties – which often involved incendiary devices.
    🙂

    Reply
  24. Ron O

    “Oh the hubris of those who believe they can change the course regardless! Such as taking away my gas stove. F y’all. Come get it with your turret-less MRAP.”
    So you’re saying that they’ll have to pry the stove knobs from your “cold, dead hands”.
    (Or perhaps they’ll be “still-warm hands”, from that wonderful gas heat?)
    Or perhaps, “get your paws off my stove knobs, you damn dirty climate change activists”!

    Reply
  25. Alan C. Miller

    RM: Shouldn’t we try to prevent that now, somehow, any way we can?
    Yes, and no. I’ve always been an environmentalist. And we should continue to initiate significant, practical and cost-effective strategies to lower air-pollution levels. But now once we talk about ‘climate change’ it becomes political and everyone starts pooping their pants. We must not only do something, we must do everything. Even stupid things. That is what I am against.
    This to me peaked when I read an article that claimed that a power plant in southern california was converting from natural gas to hydrogen. The problem is – natural gas is a power source, and hydrogen is a secondary fuel that has to be made. But nowhere in the article was the rather basic issue addressed. Leading to everyone reading this article becoming stupider.
    Another example is claiming that a freeway widening is ‘sustainable’, or that funding infrastructure to build developments is a mitigation to the harm done by a (NOT) sustainable freeway widening. Attempting to lead people to believe shit like this should be a criminal offense.

    Reply
  26. Roberta L. Millstein

    Well, yeah, I am against doing the stupid and self-serving things too. So we agree on that. I also agree that the main focus should be to “continue to initiate significant, practical and cost-effective strategies.” But we have to do that now.
    And of course I am on the record as agreeing w/respect to the I-80 widening (you brought us back on topic!)

    Reply
  27. Alan C. Miller

    Yes I did.
    But regarding “we have to do that now”: WE are the planet, and WE aren’t going to. Maybe WE should, but WE don’t control WE. We can’t even control Caltrans –> how can we hope to control China?
    That’s why I say, we should do practical things, like banning jet aircraft worldwide.
    Take a ship.
    Barring that, we need to start thinking ‘OK, we fucked this planet up, and are going to continue to for a long, long time (until an effective virus gets our human-selves-virus population down below 1-billion again) and then maybe we’ll start to see improvements. For now, we gotta start moving people from the Equator towards the Artic.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Alan Hirsch Cancel reply