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

<

>

Tonight at City Council: Weigh in on I-80 widening

By Roberta Millstein

Just a quick heads up to let folks know about an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed I-80 widening project.  The subcommittee of Councilmbers Arnold and Neville have drafted a letter for City Council consideration that recognizes the objections raised by many Davisites to the project and expresses concerns.  See proposed letter here: Download 04-Subcommittee-Recommendation-Transportation-Letter

I think it is a fairly weak letter, and would urge something stronger, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that it is at least more of a stand than the City Council has been willing to give prior to this.  So a comment on the order of, "thanks, this is good, but we can do better" seems appropriate.

As a reminder:

  • In person public comment: This is item #4 on the agenda, tentatively scheduled for 6:55 PM.
  • Submit written public comments to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org. Emails are distributed to City Council and staff. To ensure the City Council has the opportunity to review information prior to the meeting, send emails by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
  • Submit comments by voicemail prior to the meeting: Call the city’s dedicated phone line (530) 757-5693 to leave a voicemail message for public comment. Staff will play comments during the appropriate agenda item. Comments will be accepted from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Voicemail public comments will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m. Speakers will be limited to no more than two minutes.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

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 “Tonight at City Council: Weigh in on I-80 widening”

  1. Roberta L. Millstein

    Here are the comments I just left on the City’s voicemail, to be played at the meeting:
    I want to begin by thanking the Subcommittee of Coucilmembers Arnold and Neville for their draft letter expressing the broader policy concerns raised by many Davisites concerning the I-80 widening. As this affects Davis and its climate goals directly, it is important that our voices be heard by the governor and others in the state. The concerns are real and serious, and have been echoed by the California Air Resources Board, to give one example.
    I also appreciate that the letter cites and agrees with relevant state policy that acknowledges the phenomenon of induced traffic and its contributions to climate change, that acknowledges that we cannot continue with our failed car-oriented policies of the past, and that acknowledges that we must invest in alternative public transportation options.
    So I hope that at a minimum that the City Council agrees to approve this letter and transmit it.
    However, I think the draft letter can be a bit better than it is. The letter states that the widening of I-80 “is expected to reduce vehicle delays and improve travel time reliability.” Importantly, though, this is only by a small amount and only for a short time. Before long we will have the same delays again, only with more cars on the road. I think acknowledging that the widening proposal is just a temporary and small fix for a large hit to our climate goals is a crucial point that the letter should make.
    As for raising money for transit, a toll lane with congestion pricing would do that more effectively and more equitably than the current proposal does. This is another point that the letter could make.
    Indeed, as the letter says, “we cannot continue the same pattern of highway expansion investment in California and expect different results.”
    Please approve the letter, or, ideally, a stronger version of it as I have suggested.

    Reply
  2. South of Davis

    I don’t have an engineering degree, but a friend who is an engineer (that has worked with internal combustion engines for decades) tells me that a car is stuck in traffic for an hour driving from Davis to Downtown Sacramento emits more greenhouse gasses than a car going the speed limit and getting to Sacramento in 15 minutes. To my non engineer mind it seems to make sense to me and that adding a lane would actually be good for the environment (reducing Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions from cars). If this is not the case and cars in stop and go traffic for an hour going from Davis to Sacramento is actually better for the environment than cars making the drive in 15 minutes I would be interested it reading about it.

    Reply
  3. Roberta L. Millstein

    What you say is true as far as it goes, South of Davis, but adding one lane won’t improve things nearly that much, and it won’t improve things very long. After more traffic has been induced — a phenomenon that you eventually acknowledged previously in our conversations — things will be worse than they ever were. A small temporary gain for long term worse harm. I point this out in the comment just above yours.

    Reply
  4. South of Davis

    Adding one lane to a three lane road is a 33% increase in road capacity (I would call a 33% improvement in anything a BIG improvement). When you say “it won’t improve things for long” are you aware that every day more and more people work from home and the number of families with kids (driving out to the Legacy fields multiple times a week) keeps shrinking (see the charts on the parcel tax article). If we close a school in town we will have less traffic from people driving in with kids who want to go to school here but have a backyard in Woodland (a bigger cheaper home without a parcel tax). It is not just Davis schools KQED just wrote: “In San Francisco, roughly 4,000 fewer students are enrolled in the current school year compared with the 2012–13 school year, according to district data. The district projects it will lose an additional 4,600 students by 2032 based on declining birth rate trends and other demographic shifts.” Davis had a great run but with ~$500K homes ten years ago selling for $1.5mm today not as many people (of any age) can afford to live here. With the ~$500K Tahoe cabins from a decade ago selling for $2mm (and renting for $1K a night) and a single day lift ticket costing $279 it is only a matter of time before “Tahoe Traffic” drops. A late 30 something friend that lives on the Peninsula (in a “modest” $2mm home) said that almost none of his 8-10 year old kids friends (or their parents) ski today (compared to “every” family knew on the Peninsula in the 70’s). The State of CA is making it harder and harder for young people to stay here with high crime, high income tax, high insurance cost (our cabin insurance is up 500% in the last ten years), high energy cost (more than double most states) and high gasoline cost (Gas Buddy shows gas in Davis well over $5 most places that is almost double the under $3 gas in TX). P.S. The number of lanes on I80 has nothing to do with development in Davis and if the city gave the OK to develop the site between the Cannery and Wildhorse it would be developed if I80 gets a new lane to West Sac “or” if I 80 was reduced to two lanes…

    Reply
  5. Roberta L. Millstein

    Unevidenced speculation that serves your pre-existing beliefs, in contrast to the evidence that transportation experts have given.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply