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

<

>

Arnold calls $465mil I-80 Widening “Insanity”

Council Member & Former Caltrans Employee’s Remarks on I-80

Will arnold picture

Submitted by Alan Hirsch

Below is a transcription of Councilperson Will Arnold remarks on the I-80 widening for the video of the 1/9/24 Davis Council meeting. Arnold was the Manager of Media Relations at Caltrans HQ until August  2023.  His testimony adds to that of the Hi level whistle blower Jeanie Ward-Waller  She accused Caltrans of violations CEQA in moving ahead freeway widenings and I-80 project in specific. YoloTD Board has never asked their staff or Caltrans a single question about that in any open board meeting.

 (Link to city website with video see time stamp  3:51:29)

 

“Thank you,  Mayor Chapman.

There is an important note I want to read:

‘Highway investments over the years have contributed to a dependence on automobiles and supported development patterns that have made walking, cycling and transit use inefficient, challenging and sometime dangerous in many parts of the state.  Highway investment have also contributed to the displacement and division of some neighborhoods and imposed noise and safety hazard on many others.

Further research over the past several decades had demonstrated that highway  capacity expansion has not resulted in long term congestion relief and in some cases has worsen congestion, particularly in urbanized regions. (ed note: all emphasis his)  Projects in urban area that add travel lanes result in changes in travel behavior due to a short-term reduction in travel time and improvement in reliability. This phenomenon known as “Induced travel” explains why adding capacity has rarely succeed in reducing congestion over the long term or supported alternatives to driving and more transportation efficient land uses.

Finally, highway expansions are costly. Expansion of the existing highway system means less available funding for other transportation needs and priorities as well as continued increase to long term maintenance costs for the existing system. As a result, we cannot continue the same pattern of highway expansion investment in California and expect different results.  3:52:52

Rethinking our approach to highway expansion programs will be a critical part of insuring we are working toward equitably meeting our climate change goals.  3:53:01 ‘

This is part of the state Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, known as CAPTI. This is a document passed in 2021 by the state transportation agency signed by Davis Hi Alumnus David Kim, former (CA) Secretary of Transportation 

 They Know. THEY KNOW (Arnold emphasis), They know what we are saying it true. 

This isn’t a secrete in Sacramento, this it isn’t a secrete in any of the 12 Caltrans districts, even District 12 in Orange county. They know.

And yet, we reach these inflection points where it’s time to put our money where our mouth is as a state in how we invest our limited transportation dollars, and we each these inflection points and the same thing keep happening when we invest in what we know, which is more freeways, or lanes expecting a different result. 

Which we know is the definition of Insanity.” ends 3:54:18

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

5 responses to “Arnold calls $465mil I-80 Widening “Insanity””

  1. Time for Change

    This is actually funny to listen to…….no one is addressing the greater need for increased transportation options “beyond the Davis bubble”!
    Davis is all about …me, me, and more of me.
    Increasing/widening lanes not working (induced travel) is not the result of increasing/widening but of poor planning for the future due to ego driven societal change engineering by mostly self interested activists. Maybe the transportation engineering system has too much DIE hiring?
    What about flow from along the whole 80 corridor from SF to New Jersey …it is after all, an “interstate”!

    Reply
  2. South of Davis

    When Wil said “highway capacity expansion has not resulted in long term congestion relief” he forgot to add “when an area is still growing”.
    When I was 12 I told my family that my ski boots were tight and they bought me bigger boots but the result was not “long term” relief and two years later I needed bigger boots.
    Once I stopped growing I bought some nice high end boots fitted by a pro (shout out to StartHaus in Truckee) and have had “long term” relief from tight boots.
    P.S. I bet Highbeam would have caught the extra “e”s on “This isn’t a secrete in Sacramento, this it isn’t a secrete in any of the 12 Caltrans districts”…

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    “When I was 12 I told my family that my ski boots were tight and they bought me bigger boots but the result was not “long term” relief and two years later I needed bigger boots.”
    Yeap.
    But one difference (in regard to freeway expansion) is that the “bigger boots” will actually cause your feet to grow bigger (metaphorically speaking).
    That’s why it’s fortunate that they didn’t build a freeway out to Pt. Reyes, as they initially hoped to do.
    The creation of the freeway system itself was the enabler of sprawl.

    Reply
  4. South of Davis

    Ron says: “The creation of the freeway system itself was the enabler of sprawl.” It is the change in zoning that causes “sprawl”. Even if Marin and Sonoma never made a single road wider they would get “sprawl” to the west if they changed the zoning and let any farmer sell to developers who had the automatic OK to build up to a half dozen homes on every acre. If Sir Francis Drake Blvd. was changed to four lanes in each direction between Hwy 1 and Hwy 101 we would not get any “sprawl” without changes in zoning (a developer can’t just buy five acres in Lagunitas and build 20 homes without a change in zoning).

    Reply
  5. Ron O

    Even if Marin and Sonoma never made a single road wider they would get “sprawl” to the west if they changed the zoning and let any farmer sell to developers who had the automatic OK to build up to a half dozen homes on every acre. If Sir Francis Drake Blvd. was changed to four lanes in each direction between Hwy 1 and Hwy 101 we would not get any “sprawl” without changes in zoning (a developer can’t just buy five acres in Lagunitas and build 20 homes without a change in zoning).
    Definitely true, though the freeway was proposed in conjunction with massive development in that area.
    https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/review-saving-point-reyes-gerald-f-warburg-18429233
    Below is a link to an inspiring video, produced a few years ago by PBS:
    https://www.pbs.org/video/rebels-with-a-cause-g718xi/
    Another word for maintaining (or creating) agricultural zoning (and agricultural easements – which have helped protect that land from development) is “impediment to housing”.
    The same could be said for the state’s own Williamson Act – another “impediment to housing”.
    And to paraphrase Martha Stewart, “it’s a good thing”.
    I hope that I’m personally an “impediment to housing” at this point.
    Freeway expansion is perhaps better-described as an “enabler” of sprawl. All across the country, sprawl follows freeways.
    Unfortunately, we apparently “can’t have nice things” (such as freeways that don’t become immediately clogged with traffic), since it ultimately subsidizes development.

    Reply

Leave a reply to South of Davis Cancel reply