What Works?

A good transportation policy must provide an effective way of moving people and goods around. But, given the potentially crushing impacts of poorly designed transportation systems on our land, our air, and on the lives of the people who live in the region, there are a variety of other objectives that must guide the decisions we make. In the Sacramento area, one of the key objectives is that our transportation plan must contribute to an improvement in air quality. It must also support the conservative land use policies like those adopted in SACOG's Blueprint. And, to further complicate the situation, the transportation policy choices we make will affect area residents differently, depending on their income level.

Carolyn Rodier published a paper comparing the effectiveness of a variety of transportation strategies towards meeting these goals. (It’s available thanks to the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC-Davis). Although part of the purpose of her paper is to compare the output of different models that project the effects of transportation policy decisions, she also makes some interesting observations concerning the policies that are most likely to help us meet our objectives. Most interesting to me is the information summarized in Table 2 of her paper and explained on pages 6-8. It appears that the most effective policy across the board is one that combines increased gas taxes, investment in “advanced” light rail (better transit information systems and/or local paratransit service), and a solid urban growth boundary (UGB) to centralize future land use and development. Enforceable land use controls, investment in transit, and disincentives for fuel consumption would seem to be the winning combination for addressing congestion, air quality, and land conservation.

Rodier also notes that, without aggressive investment in transit, the costs of strategies like gas taxes and urban growth boundaries tend to fall on the poorest in the community. Transit is the great equalizer in spreading the hidden costs of transportation policy equitably across the entire community.

SACOG recognizes the importance of land use policy to meeting transportation goals. The Blueprint process, whereby the agency facilitated a regional consensus among the community and local jurisdictions on future land use, was a real breakthrough in transportation policy. Nevertheless, the fact that Blueprint land use scenario is voluntary (read: unenforceable against any municipality that makes land use decisions) is a significant source of concern.

As SACOG rolls out its long-term Metropolitan Transportation Plan, we have other reasons to be concerned. Too often in the past, the mix of projects included in the MTP were heavily weighted towards road projects that encourage rather than discourage automobile traffic. Transit has traditionally been the stepchild of Sacramento transportation planning. Rodier’s paper is a great reminder that policies that encourage people switch from low-density automobiles to transit, and discourage them from continuing to commute in low-density vehicles, ultimately provide the greatest benefit to everyone in the community.

Ontario gets it!

Courtesy of the Walkable Neighborhoods blog, here is a bit of encouraging news from our neighbors to the North.

In a surprise announcement before the fall provincial election, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty unveiled plans Friday to spend $11.5-billion over 12 years on a lengthy list of public-transit projects in what the government boasted was the largest such investment in Canadian history.

[snip...]

He said that work would start on the projects next year, and that the plan, called MoveOntario 2020, is proof his government is serious about taking on the economic and environmental effects of traffic congestion, which he said is "choking" the GTA.

Note to state and local officials: when Ontario completes its "MoveOntario 2020" transportation plan, SACOG will be less than halfway through the term of its decidedly more modest MTP 2035.

Ideals and Actions

It's hard not to be impressed with the lofty goals in SACOG's MTP, the long-term transportation plan for the Sacramento region. It includes such laudible goals as:

3. AIR QUALITY

Develop a transportation system and related strategies that contribute to achieving healthy air in the region...

9. HEALTH AND SAFETY

Improve the health of our residents by developing systems that would encourage walking and biking, and improve the safety and security of people on all modes in all areas...

10. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Develop the transportation system to promote and enhance environmental quality for present and future generations.

These principles sound like the foundation for a progressive, transit-oriented transportation plan that will move us away from relying on automobiles, right?

Think again!

Too often, the individual projects funded by the ostensibly progressive MTP are the same old solution to our transportation woes-- they spend our money to build roads and encourage still more automobile traffic. This approach does nothing to improve our air quality, ensure our health and safety, or promote environmental solution. On the contrary, continued expenditures on projects to increase highway capacity promote increased traffic and exacerbate the environmental woes that come with reliance on the automobile.

Take, for example, Caltrans' current proposal to expand Interstate 80 by adding a lane-- a so-called "bus/carpool lane." Caltrans has recently admitted that their "bus/carpool lanes" increase traffic rather than promoting sustainability, health or improving air quality. Check out the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed expansion of I-80. The project would add a "bus/carpool lane" to the freeway with the objective of encouraging carpooling and decreasing congestion. It sounds good, until you comb through Caltrans' own environmental impact studies. Buried deep in the DEIR is the admission that the addition of a "bus/carpool lane" to the freeway will increase traffic along I-80 in the eastbound direction during rush hour by 13% (compared to the 'no-build' alternative). That means 13% more vehicles on the freeway, solely as a result of the induced demand that results from freeway expansion.

This fact-- one of the most important impacts of the proposed expansion-- barely merits mention in Caltrans' DEIR. You have to look closely at p. 43 in Chapter 2 of the DEIR to notice that the additional lane will increase eastbound traffic during rush hour from 53,000 vehicles to 60,000 vehicles. That's a major increase in traffic, and it will result in important environmental impacts. Still, Caltrans apparently doesn't think a 13% increase in traffic is "significant."

What part of this project protects air quality, community health and safety or sustainability, as the MTP promises?

SACOG's MTP, like many planning documents developed through political processes, fails to follow through on the laudable goals it sets for itself. We're promised better air quality, better health, and a more sustainable system. What we get, when all is said and done, is more cars. It's easy to see why people are cynical about politics.

A River Runs Through It...

Do new bridges in an urban area give commuters shorter routes and encourage neighborhood residents to walk, bike or use transit more? Will they save gas and ease freeway congestion? Or, will bridges, built mainly for cars, encourage more driving and clog nearby neighborhoods? According to city planners it's the former and environmentalists contend the latter. This is a big question facing the Sacramento Region as it expands and tries to develop waterfront areas.

The first new bridge in decades is currently in the planning stages. It will link Sacramento and West Sacramento from Broadway, just south of downtown, to South River Road. According to a recent Sacramento Bee article, Sacramento has a dearth of bridges compared to similar river cities. There are now six bridges spread over six miles on the Sacramento and American rivers, four of these are elevated freeways. Downtown Portland has eight bridges in just half that distance, while Austin, Texas, has eight bridges in a four-mile stretch.

According to Mayor Heather Fargo, a Broadway Bridge will be a conduit for cultural and economic cross-pollination.

"It'll bring more people to eat at 40-plus restaurants and to the Tower Theatre," she said. But, "it has to be built on the same scale as Tower Bridge, walkable and friendly."

Many of the Region's bridges are concrete eyesores packed with cars, not the least pedestrian or bike friendly. Frank Cirill of the Save the American River Association says their philosophy is, 'Don't build new bridges.' So what will it be? The bridge question is one of the many vital transportation issues facing Sacramento Area Council of Government (SACOG) planners, as they put together the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) for the Region.

The ECOS Air, Transportation and Climate Committee will be providing comments on the MTP to SACOG. If you would like to be involved in this effort, email co-chair Eric Davis.