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

<

>

Open Letter to Davis City Council: Regional Rail Corridor is the Only Way to Reduce VMTs

Davis City Council Members,

The travel corridor connecting the Bay Area and the greater Sacramento Area could continue to expand as an automobile corridor, or alternately as a greatly-improved rail corridor. Caltrans is steering Davis towards accepting a new lane to further expand the highway, but as developers continue to build out and densify the region, the increasing population will strain our ever-busier freeways.

Yolo County Transit District has stated that toll revenue from a new Causeway HOV lane could fund more public transit. Yet Caltran’s own modeling shows that frequent buses Sacramento-Davis would barely dent VMTs. This is because local travel destinations are too spread out to make local transit a viable option, with many trips requiring hours and multiple buses.

However, most I-80 Causeway auto travel currently consists of longer trips between the Bay and Sacramento areas. Caltran’s own data shows that electrified, frequent, fast rail service would attract significant interregional travelers away from autos, reducing traffic and VMTs significantly.

Caltrans will only change focus if municipalities pressure the agency to incrementally improve the Capitol Corridor rather than incrementally adding lanes to I-80. Transportation is the largest contributor of air toxins and gases that warm the Earth. Expanding our regional rail system is the most effective solution.

The EIR is a distraction. The City Council should take a stand: northern California should build its transportation system to resemble Europe, not Orange County.

Sincerely,

Alan C. Miller  (Writing as a Resident of Davis)

Note:  Item is scheduled to be heard at 8pm tonight at January 8th City Council Meeting.  Please write or call or better yet attend!

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

14 responses to “Open Letter to Davis City Council: Regional Rail Corridor is the Only Way to Reduce VMTs”

  1. Roberta L. Millstein

    Indeed, ACM. This is the bigger picture and the important issue at hand. Let’s not fund a project that largely serves Bay Area folks traveling to Tahoe for (winter or summer) fun. Or rather, since trains are more fun anyway, let’s make sure they start their journeys out right.

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    RM, I’ve never known a politician to turn down ‘free money’, no matter the consequences. I am holding out little hope for integrity. Surprise me, anyone? Surprise us, all? One thing that AH mentioned awhile ago, and I was at same meeting, TWO former mayors — both of whom I have worked with, or at least talked to positively about, transportation issues — came to the Yolo County Transportation District meeting and #gasp!# supported #gasp!# the I-80 highway widening. WHY???!!!

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    If only developers and cities would “behave themselves”, we could have nice things (such as freeways that aren’t immediately congested).
    But as it is, increased freeway capacity subsidizes even more sprawl.
    I say, “punish them” by not expanding freeways. (If only there was a way to do so without punishing myself.)

    Reply
  4. Alan C. Miller

    RO say: “If only there was a way to do so without punishing myself.”
    There is. It’s called RAIL.

    Reply
  5. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Mayor Josh Chapman supports the I-80 expansion, yes?
    Let’s look at In & Out as a kind of indicator of the mess and Mayor Chapman’s position on these issues: From what I can see a significant majority of visits by motor vehicle are pass thru traffic from I-80 (this is based – anecdotally, okay – on how most vehicles leaving turn left onto Richards, something which I’ve observed repeatedly over the years).
    The In & Out traffic creates chronic safety issues on Olive Dr, principally by blocking the eastbound bike lane with an entrance queue.
    I directly challenged Chapman on this when he was just a Councilperson and he never, ever responded. Over 18 months ago Staff said – at a public meeting about the 80-Richards Project – that they would “look into it”. I’ve gotten vague promises that Davis PD would do enforcement.
    Crickets.
    This all makes it clear to me that Chapman and the majority of the Council have some interest in increasing capacity on I-80 in order to stimulate the economy in our city — has this been studied in any detail? Both this belief and the objective situation? The majority seems to be willing to sacrifice safety and sustainability for possible money, and a narrow manner of solutions.
    A better solution would involve bundling visits to Davis along with improvements to regional rail. It should be normal for at least some people to get off the train in Davis – eat at a restaurant or visit Mondavi etc – and then get back on the train on the way home. Perhaps even in the morning, e.g. for breakfast with a locally-based friend. Is this even possible to do without buying two tickets? Would restaurants and venues be willing to give some discount for people who present evidence that they passing through Davis on the train? Can train travel and visits to venues be bundled, similar to how they are in other places with huge sports or music events?
    This is obviously only an additional benefit of rail travel improvements – the most important is what’s emphasized above in the article.

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    There is. It’s called RAIL.
    The only way I’d use that is if it went exactly where I wanted to go, along with whatever I needed to carry. At a reasonable price, and frequent schedule. And (most-importantly) provided a place to park, near the train station.
    (And that’s coming from someone who used public transit REGULARLY, to a job in Sacramento.)
    But I’m not traveling that much anywhere regardless, these days. So if the rest of you would just stay off the road during the few times I want to use it, everything would be fine. Instead, I believe you’re all conspiring against me, when you know that I’m headed out. (I still haven’t figured out how/when you’re watching me.)
    🙂

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    There are models that figure out how much diversion can be expected. For a certain number of people, with fast and frequent service, they will switch to rail. Those people won’t be on the road, and thus this will reduce the capacity needs on I-80. Some people’s origins and destinations won’t allow this and they, as you, will drive.
    Of course none of this matters as the youngest person reading this will be long dead before any of this happens. Unless, maybe, some liberal city west of Sacramento takes a stand, and starts the change.

    Reply
  8. Ron O

    Alan M: Definitely – some would be diverted.
    However, I don’t hold out much hope in the long run, unless pursuit of sprawl comes to an end. And there’s no sign of that.
    See destruction of Lagoon Valley in Vacaville, for example. Along with the ugly new storage facility in a previously-scenic setting on the other side of the freeway. This is progress?
    And the “new city” that tech bros are pursuing, on Solano county farmland. The same type of interests that are funding the YIMBYs.
    Along with what is occurring throughout the entire region.
    As such, the main benefit of not expanding the freeway is to “punish” those who pursue sprawl, anyway. Unfortunately, even the punishment itself does not seem to cause folks to wake up.
    Truth be told, I’d look at places like Davis as “being in the way” of my destination, if I lived in the Bay Area and wanted to go to the Sierra once-in-awhile.

    Reply
  9. Greg Rowe

    Alan’s article is the most sensible commentary I’ve read to date on this project. Busses entail too many transfers and are not always the most comfortable mode of transportation. Who wants to wait at a bus stop in 100 degree heat or pouring rain? (Although in an earlier life I had many a wet wait on a cold, windy and wet BART station platform.)
    The Sac train station is ideally located near many downtown destinations. Anyone needing to continue their travels beyond downtown can use UBER, taxi, etc., to reach their final destination. Plus, those traveling beyond Sacramento (Tahoe for example) can continue on the train.
    What’s more, the train infrastructure is already in place. Adding more trains could potentially serve the projected increase in I-80 travel simply by adding more trains, probably at a fraction of the cost of putting more lanes on I-80.
    The Caltrans proposal continues to ignore the groundbreaking research by economist Anthony Downs in the 1960s (Why You’re Stuck in Traffic), which showed that after lanes are increased, traffic subsequently grows to fill the new capacity. This is a proven fact, as recently pointed out by UCD’s transportation researchers.

    Reply
  10. South of Davis

    Greg says:

    The Sac train station is ideally located near many downtown destinations.
    Anyone needing to continue their travels beyond downtown can use
    UBER, taxi, etc., to reach their final destination.
    I just opened the UBER app on my phone and I can get my family of four from “South of Davis” to the Kings arena in Sac for $28 ($7 each) in less than 28 minutes (UBER wait time + UBER drive time) Google found “The average price for a train ticket from Davis to Sacramento is $8.49” (and I would bet that with two UBER rides and waiting for a train it would take over an hour on Amtrack).
    Plus, those traveling beyond Sacramento (Tahoe for example) can
    continue on the train.
    I’ve taken the train from Davis to Truckee twice, I was not in a hurry either time and it was fun, but both trips took a little OVER 4 hours each way (vs 1.5 to 2.0 hours in a car with no traffic). Google found “A train trip between Sacramento and Truckee is around 3h 29m”. Google also found “getting from Davis to Truckee is budget-friendly, with train tickets starting at just $34.” so a round trip for a family of four will cost $272 (over $300 if they need to use UBER on each end) vs about $25 for round trip gas in the family minivan.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    I had to miss the meeting. Can anyone report what happened? (ACM, your summaries are great, but even a short summary would be appreciated).

    Reply
  12. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    The I-80 should be diverted around Davis and the rail line should be fully electrified. The former will result in possible high-density development in the ex-freeway space — this would complement an additional partly-underground rail service that could stop in Davis near Mace Blvd, probably two places in West Sac, Sac Valley Station, Midtown, UC Med Ctr, Sac State, other Sac stops, etc… perhaps a long-distance service or the future high speed rail towards L.A would connect as well. (The existing Sac Valley Station location is only good for the eventually-developed Railyards and if it connects much more directly to light rail and cyclepaths).
    Peripheral de-population and re-wilding in Davis would have to be voluntary and is a problem – the idea is that people would move towards the center – but probably transit wouldn’t be worse than now: the idea here is to move people more than to strictly add people, though there needs to be way more affordable housing.
    This IS the way forward AND yes it will be very expensive! If you call me crazy I will take it as a compliment.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    So, what’s the result?
    Did Davis stop the freeway expansion, or even challenge the EIR? Did the effort convince anyone on the council to change their position?
    (Snicker.)
    I call “dibs” on the additional lane. (I’d suggest that the first 100 or so who claim it get “free” lifetime passes.)

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    The Davis City Council submitted a very detailed critique of the DEIR that was very much informed by the comments of two commissions, which were likewise informed by comments made at those commission meetings. It seems pretty clear that community discussion has had an effect in raising the profile of the issue (and pressure to act) and there have been multiple DE articles about it, including one recently by Dunning (so then you know it’s getting airplay, both because Dunning commented and as a result of Dunning commenting).
    Unfortunately, they stopped short of stating a definitive position on what should happen. Here is a petition on the Davisite that speaks to that issue: https://www.davisite.org/2024/01/sign-the-petition-to-block-i-80yolo-widening.html
    See details on the City Council meeting in the DE article here: https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/chapman-sworn-in-as-mayor-council-tackles-i-80-project-comment-letter/article_9e36ff1a-affd-11ee-b641-dbdcded0164f.html

    Reply

Leave a comment