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

Category: Transportation

  • Transparency is Part of Inclusivity & Diversity

    YoloTD cac false equity 1

    What message will the CTC send Thursday?

    By Alan Hirsch

    Letter to California Transportation Commission CTC@catc.ca.gov

    Chair Carl Guardino and Members,

    CC  CTC Equity Committee  Chair William Walker

    Re: Disagreeing Better on Transportation Projects

     

    Mr. Guardino:

     

    Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say:

        “You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

    The California Public Records Act (and the Brown Act) were designed so we work from the same facts—that there is sharing of information – so in dialog agencies don’t strategically withhold information to put electeds official as well as the public at an unfair disadvantage in reviewing projects.

    Transparency is Inclusivity.

    However, I want to bring to your attention a situation where Caltrans seems to be strategically withholding information from the public on a $1/2 billion project.

    In June 2023 the CTC staff report recommended NOT to fund Yolo80 toll lanes out of TCEP funds, rating it medium priority. In that staff report CTC staff rated Yolo80 31st out of 48 projects.   Caltrans rated Yolo80 last in priority (24th) out of 24 of their projects. (extract from June 2023 staff report attached)

    This of course raises question why it is now rated a priority for advance funding. In the CTC discussion on 5/16. Would not you and other commissions like to know? 

    In fact 11 months ago, I tried to find out.

    (more…)

  • Yolo officials like Diversity & Inclusion– except when big money is Involved

    YoloTD cac false equity
    By Alan Hirsch

    DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is given lot of lip service in progressive circles in Yolo County. But it can turn performative – especial if those in power have already made up their mind on a solution and don’t want to be contradicted- i.e. surface and take in to account diverse opinions.

    That is what has been at play for Yolo County on Yolo80 widening with local electeds having made up their mind 3 years ago to add toll lanes to a 17 mile stretch of I-80.  After that they have worked to turn the legally required public process into a  check the box exercise, excluding diverse view point from being considered– even when the diverse  viewpoints are backed by top transportation experts from UC Davis.

    We are now at the end-stage where Davis Mayor/Yolo Transportation District Chair Josh Chapman is overtly discouraging public participation: he said openly it don’t matter what members of Davis public think — hiding the fact the project is not yet fully funded and public input to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) can still make a difference.

    This DEI hypocrisy in Yolo County will continue unless people call out the hypocrisy. The  public can be heard at the CTC’s Equity Committee meeting Wednesday. It is especially focused on this behavior like this by  in local transportation jurisdictions.

    Emails are needed to the “CTC-EAC” (California Transportation Commission- Equity Advisory Committee) to note the performative nature of Yolo80 Environmental process (Caltrans District 3 and YoloTD) – and also to oppose funding the new toll lanes  until the process is made truly diverse and inclusive in the search for a solution.

    Write to  CTC@catc.ca.gov   Subject: Equity and: Funding widening Yolo80 with Toll Lanes.

    Issues to note to the Equity Committee: (cut and paste into email?)

     

    (more…)

  • Final I-80 EIR released – an embarrassment of errors that sets up Caltrans for Legal challenge

    I-80- causeway narrower lane cross section
    By Alan Hirsch

    On Wednesday May 1, the 1971 page (plus 345-page appendix)- final EIR for yolo80 was released. The 139 comments take up nearly 71% of the pages.   – 108 of the 139 were from individuals, not government agencies, cities or  environment groups with paid staff.  This highlights the  fact this science-defying proposal from Caltrans has become “the most controversial freeway project in the state.” 

    ———————–
     NOTE: The last chance to comment on the funding will be at California Transportation Commission Meeting Thursday May 16, By Tuesday send any comments. (esp inadequately funded mitigation plan, induced demand negates any congestion relief, no environmental justice plan for tolls)
    to CTC@CATC.CA.GOV
    Subject: Widening I-80 with a Expensive Toll lane.
    Pro-Tip: use 14 or 16 pt font for short email.

    ————————–

    The EIR concluded that despite the widening the freeway will generate 158M more miles of driving (VMT) a year…equal to adding over 11,000 more cars to the road and should be built based on “Statement of  Overriding concern” as it has benefit to reducing congestion- Even  though everyone agree this is wrong as congestion will return within less than ten years.  It is also strange given  their VMT Mitigation plan only offsets 55 Mil VMT miles year of the additional driving and ignores the nearly 50Million of additional a truck.

    Adding capacity via toll lanes only guarantee richest member of community- and groups of Tahoe travelers  never faces congestion.

    The EIR also ignores any analysis of increased danger from narrowing lanes and permanently removing shoulders. (see diagram)   

    The ability of the proposed mitigation plan to provide a carbon/VMT offset is taken to higher degrees of absurdity to somehow claim the project tolls will fund adequate mitigations- and have money left for a social equity/environmental Justice  program into perpetuity.

    Public not told about public hearing on toll levels.

    (more…)

  • The I-80 Whistleblower was clearly Right

    I-80 causeway 4th lane done 2024 04 14 sketch 2

    By Alan Hirsch

    The Caltrans whistleblower Jamie Wald-Waller accused Caltrans district 3 to beginning widening the causeway illegally- using  SHOPP-money   i.e.  funds reserved to maintain pavement surfaces. If you drive California freeway you know how short we are here on money to maintain what we already  have.

    But not only does this action by Caltrans a the misappropriation of funds,  it is wildly illegal to widen a road without going thru the environmental process.

     You can see it happen in this picture of the causeway= the have repaved the center shoulder it already is a new 4th travel lane. This picture was on West Sac End of the causeway east bound on Sunday  4/14/24.  You can also notice I-80/ Reed Ave  bridge in West Sac is  being widening for the new toll lanes with money that was supposed to be only used for road maintenance.

    Caltrans official I District 3 will likely get away with no consequences.

    Even if you think we need the widening, should it not go thru the legal process—that has enabled added thousand of miles of new lane in the past?

    This reflect a culture of corruption: If Caltrans District 3 is institutionally willing to do, why should anyone trust them on any report or application?

    It seems if you have enough money the law is not an impediment to accomplishing your goals. One can also question who the elected officials in Yolo County who have said not a word as this illegal behavior works to accomplish their goals.

  • Little Publicized Hearing on I-80 Tolls

    $10+ at rush hour  - but Tahoe Groups go free!

    By Alan Hirsch

    Cartoon- induce demand can't wait for road to be widenedPolicies that will  decide how hi the tolls will be on new I-80 lanes will be discussed at little publicized hearing Tuesday April 9th  5:30 at the  West Sacramento Public Library.  Zoom will be available. This may be the first – and maybe last- chance for most members to make oral public  comments as future toll agency meetings will be held during the day in DT Sacramento SACOG offices, where zoom-in comments are not allowed.

    Staff for this new agency members have also shared they believe, under the proposed policies, they expect tolls on I-80  for Davis commuter  may typically be $10 each way at congestion times– or even more when congestion is worst -even $40). But they are proposing 3-in-a- car will go toll free- a policy that seems to differentially favor Tahoe recreational travelers over commuters.

    The hearing by the California Transportation  Commission (CTC) will take input on  setting up a new agency and making policies for the proposed 17 miles of new toll lane that run from I-80 in Dixon to both I-80 and I-50 Sacramento River Bridges. The agency will decide how  tolls are set, who get  discounted tolls,  and how the toll revenue will be used. The Agency sponsors are SACOG and  Yolo Transportation District. YoloTD is  chaired  by Davis Mayor Josh Chapman who is also the Davis’s representative on SACOG.

    (more…)

  • Reply from city staff concerning Sierra Club’s downtown housing recommendations

    The following email was received by members of the Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee yesterday (Apr 4, 2024) in response to the email outlining the recommendations of the Sierra Club Management Committee for Davis downtown housing projects:

    Thank you for taking the time to send us your thoughts on the downtown Davis housing projects.  While your email has been received by the City Council members, I want to take this opportunity to respond to your comments.

    1. As you have correctly noted, both the Lumberyard project and the project at 240 G have a 5% affordability requirement. Both of these projects applied for approval when our housing element was not certified and our new inclusionary ordinance had not gone into effect and were therefore afforded the ability to lock in the previous affordability rate of 5%.  Our new inclusionary housing ordinance, which complies with State Law, limits the affordable housing cap to 15%.  The City of Davis cannot require more than 15% as we are unable to demonstrate that it is financially feasible to construct a project with more than 15% affordable units included.    The project at 4th and G, which proposed 20% affordable units under a different provision of the law, is not moving forward as it has been withdrawn.
    1. As you know, parking is not required in the downtown Davis specific plan area. The Lumberyard project has no associated parking while the 240 G project has some underground parking.  Both projects are providing a space for a shared car and pick up space for a ride share car.  Disabled parking is not required if no parking is required. Therefore, the 240 G project will have some ADA accessible parking.
    1. Both of the referenced projects have provided large, indoor bike storage rooms within their projects. Charging stations will also be provided.
    1. Both of the referenced projects have planned for large recreational spaces. 240 G has space planned on the roof of the building.  The Lumberyard includes more traditional space planned for the interior courtyard areas of the project.
    1. Both projects are being conditioned to plant and maintain landscaping in accordance with city standards.

    Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.

    SHERRI A. METZKER

    Community Development Director

  • Recommendations to the Davis City Council for Downtown Housing Projects

    Submitted for consideration by the Davis City Council from the Sierra Club Yolano Group (email sent 4/2/2024)

    March 30, 2024

    Recently, several housing projects have been proposed for downtown Davis: one at the site of the former Hibbert Lumberyard at the intersection of G Street and 5th Street (“The Lumberyard”), one at the site of the former Regal Cinemas Davis Stadium 5 at the intersection of G Street and 4th Street, and one at 240 G Street. 

    We write to express our strong support of these sorts of infill projects, projects that would increase housing density in Davis, allowing for more efficient use of land and creating the potential for reduced-carbon lifestyles. However, we have concerns about the details of the projects and urge that they be addressed prior to approval:

    1. Increase affordable housing. Davis’s greatest housing need is for affordable housing, yet only the 4th and G Street project provides for a reasonable percentage of affordable housing (20%, in accordance with the “Builder’s Remedy” that they are applying under). The other two projects are only proposing 5% affordable housing, which does very little to address Davis’s affordable housing needs.  Equity demands that a higher percentage of affordable housing – at least 20% – be included in all future downtown housing projects. 5% is totally unacceptable. If Proposition 1 funds become available, the minimum required percentage should be increased to 25%.
    2. Increase feasibility of a car-free lifestyle for all potential residents. Two out of the three projects (the Lumberyard and 240 G Street) provide for very little parking. We commend the attempt to foster a car-free lifestyle that could be possible in the downtown, especially if increased numbers of residents are able to attract more retail businesses.  However, the units should be feasible for all, and car-free lifestyles can be difficult for those with mobility challenges, including but not limited to some elderly seniors.  Thus, the housing projects need to facilitate other ways of getting around by including, for example, an area for taxis/Uber/Lyft/DoorDash/etc. to pick up and drop off.  Projects should provide a minimum percentage of parking spaces for people who have Disabled Person (DP) placards.  Putting funds toward improving public transportation in the downtown (including microtransit) – or having dedicated vans are other options that we strongly recommend; developers should work with the City and UCD on this, with subsidized passes provided for people with low incomes.

      We understand that some members of the community think that there should be parking minimum requirements for downtown housing projects. However, to create a walkable, active transit oriented lifestyle (which many younger people in particular have been asking for), we need fewer, not more, cars downtown.  This is the best way to achieve our climate goals. We have suggested a variety of ways to try to make it easier for everyone to live downtown, but other solutions may be possible and feasible; the City should consult with relevant experts, such as disability access professionals.

    3. Support use of vehicles other than cars. Car-free lifestyles can be facilitated with bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters. To that end, projects should be required to set aside a sufficient number of covered spaces for these vehicles relative to number of bedrooms and units.  Moreover, San Francisco’s recent experience (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bike-scooter-battery-fire-17869505.php) has shown that some of the batteries for e-bikes and e-scooters can be fire hazards.  Davis should look to NYC’s ordinances (they are ahead of other municipalities) as a way to mitigate the risk of fire when e-bikes and e-scooters are brought indoors.  To further facilitate the use of these vehicles, charging stations should be provided.
    4. Ensure a high quality of life for residents. Living in a dense environment can be physically and psychologically challenging if it is not done correctly. This can be ameliorated by providing greenspace, rooftop gardens, etc.  The City of Davis should work with developers to identify community garden space and/or spaces where residents of these housing developments can grow food or plants (e.g., on balconies or window boxes).  Again, this is an equity issue.
    5. Require planting and maintenance of trees and landscaping. One of the goals of the Davis Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is to “…create a cooler city with more urban forest and green space for people and habitat.” To help further that goal, developers should fund the planting and maintenance of trees in internal plazas and along public sidewalks, using best practices for producing a street canopy developed in concert with Tree Davis and the Davis Tree Commission.

    Thank you for your consideration of these recommended changes.

    Respectfully submitted,

    The Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee

    The Sierra Club Yolano Group is comprised of over 1,400 Sierra Club members from Yolo County, a portion of eastern Solano County, and a portion of southern Colusa County.

  • Council’s Non-Scientific Reasoning on I-80

    Why Didn’t  YoloTD share the facts?

    By Alan Hirsch

    Congestion photo old car_texas59_traffic_jam_1962My beloved Davis has failed to accept the science out of UC Davis on climate change.  I worry for our future if even Davis  can’t face the urgency of our situation.

    I urge everyone to watch the March 5th video of Davis City council and listen to their rationalization not to align city policy with UC Davis scientists on the freeway I-80 policy. The city council discussed sending a letter to state officials noting the city’s agreement with Caltrans’ own policy that freeway widening is contrary to the State’s climate action plan and won’t solve congestion. The city council rejected sending the letter, even though no one challenged its substance.

    I know a few readers here still might think freeway widening works to fix congestion–  for them  I wonder who they are listening  to if Caltrans policy itself accepts UC Davis research? 

    Begin watching council rationalize the “settled science” away beginning at 1:07:41 as Councilmember Donna Neville withdraws her letter and offers two unscientific  reasons: 1) there was no community consensus, and 2) the letter would not make any difference.

    Is consensus the way to measure scientific validity in Davis? Should we accept at face value Councilmember Gloria Partida’s argument that her survey of people she talked to on her walks takes precedence over findings from the UCD Institute of Transportation Studies?   Or Neville’s statement that until we have consensus, we “should not speak to the highest level of government.”  I note the council managed to take a position on the Israel Gaza war before a polarized audience.

    (more…)

  • Davis Chooses Popularism over Science

    YoloTD is going to CTC for I-80 money

    By Alan Hirsch

    Image001 1656

    YoloTD Chair/Mayor Chapman

    On Tuesday March 5, Davis Council let stand a 2021 policy to “strongly support” I-80  widening for cars—ignoring 34 letters and public comments asking for  reversal of  city policy adopted with no commission or other input.

    The city council, at least temporally, seems to have joined the science deniers on freeways with a majority of members  claiming we need “consensus” before simply accepting UC Davis research, affirming settled science, or even simply adopting policy that  just restated Caltrans and the state climate plan on sustainable transportation.

    This also means science supporting Davisites must turn their  attention to a more sympathetic body to stop I-80: the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This body once in the  past  blocked funding Yolo80, rating it 24 out of 24 in priority and might do it again next week. Emails  on CTC agenda item 19 are needed ideally  by Monday to ask them to block a $105 Mil grant  for more I-80 auto widening in Yolo County.  They, unlike YoloTD seem concern with induced demand’s climate impact, as  described in this article “Managed Lane Expansion Project  Not Approved by California Transportation Commission “

    Who spoke in favor of the Widening in Davis?

    (more…)

  • The Ever-Changing Justification for Widening I-80

    Why can’t Caltrans Tell Yolo County the True Cost?

    By Alan Hirsch

    On Tuesday March 5th the Davis City Council will review and hopefully reverse the current city policy that endorses I-80  freeway widening for cars. This policy was set quietly in 2021 as two line buried  a 10 page policy  statement  on thing the city would lobby by an ad hoc committee of Lucas Frerich and Dan Carson.  But now I-80 has surfaced before council as a threat to the City Climate Change Plan its clear the current council needs to reexamine it if it want to be taken seriously on climate change.

    The January 9th ye open staff report to reviewing the I-80 Draft EIR also heighten interest.. At that meeting,  Councilmember Will Arnold the former Caltrans Director Of Media Relations, shared Caltrans policy  which he  summarized:  believing  freeway widening will fix anything is the definition of insanity. (Link to transcript of Arnold’s remarks)

    Every-changing Justification for I-80 Widening

    (more…)