More Road Construction

Three transportation agencies are circulating the initial (Tier 1) DEIR for a proposal to build a new four- or six lane road connecting State Route 70/99 in Sutter County with State Route 65 in Placer County, near Lincoln. Just for laughs, they've given the project an amusingly pseudo-conservationist monicker: "Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation."

The agencies-- the Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority-- estimate that building such a road would involve converting between 676 and 990 acres of farmland, and the agencies dryly report that all the alternatives considered "could present similar potential inconsistencies with General Plan policies involving preservation of agriculturally designated areas."

The Executive Summary to the DEIR also notes that loss of agricultural land, growth inducement from the construction of the new road, and conflicts with Placer County's proposed Natural Communities Conservation Plan are all "areas of controversy."

The DEIR estimates that the construction of the new road could increase total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) by anywhere from 441,000 to 505,000 by 2040, when compared to the "no build" scenario in 2040. The Executive Summary also mentions that the new route would produce significant impacts on Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx).

Those with long memories may recall that Angelo Tsakopoulos has proposed to build a new Placer County college town along the "parkway."

The deadline for submitting written comments is August 20, 2007.

HOV lanes & Toll lanes

SABA's Walt Seifert was kind enough to send along a link to this opinion article by Heather MacDonald in today's L.A. Times:

CALTRANS' crusade to add more carpool lanes to Southern California freeways continues unabated; too bad the department doesn't know how many real carpools use them. Unless the department can show that the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes are actually reducing the number of cars on the road, its multibillion-dollar plan to add hundreds of miles of new HOV capacity around Los Angeles will be a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.

The article goes on to point out that HOV lanes have a "negligible" effect on true carpooling rates, once you account for all the freeloaders who incidentally qualify as 'carpools'-- limos with passengers, parents transporting children, friends with a common destination who would have been riding together anyway, etc.

MacDonald's proposed solution is toll lanes. Unlike so-called carpool lanes, the premise of a toll lane is that everyone who uses the lane pays. Bona fide, employer-sponsored carpools could be exempted, but families and other 'circumstantial carpools' would have to pay just like everyone else. And single-occupancy cars could use the lane as well, if they're willing to pay to do so.

MacDonald's solution seems geared at preventing further public subsidies for automobile commuters. That's a laudible goal. But she doesn't directly address the question of whether a toll lane would more effectively encourage carpooling, thereby reducing the number of vehicles and the pollution they cause.

Then, of course, there's the question of whether a toll lane would be an equitable transportation solution, or whether it would simply allow a free pass, for those who can afford it, out of one of the most bothersome aspects of life in cities designed around the automobile.

Caltrans Approves Highway 50 expansion

On June 25, Caltrans filed its Notice of Determination indicating that it had completed environmental review of the proposed Highway 50 expansion and approved the project. This is the so-called "bus/carpool lane" project that would increase the freeway's carrying capacity by 20 to 25 per cent. By approving the project, Caltrans started the 30-day clock for legal challenges to the project's environmental impact report (EIR).

Two days later, Caltrans got around to notifying the public who had commented on the project that the Final EIR had been released. By delaying public notification, they foreshortened the effective window of opportunity for citizens to file suit. Gotta love our intrepid public servants' deep commitment to transparent public process...

Global Warming & the Attack on CEQA

Global warming has become something of a cause celebre in the U.S. recently, and California has been a leader among states in passing legislation that attempts to address the issue in the wake of the federal government's years of neglect of the issue under the Bush administration. AB 32 codified the state's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by phasing in an emissions cap that will drop the state's production of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

But AB 32 is not the only state mandate that requires project proponents to examine their impact on global warming. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of almost any project approved by a state or local agency, also requires analysis of greenhouse gas impacts. Recently, both the California Attorney General and the nonprofit organization Center for Biological Diversity have been aggressively holding local agencies' feet to the fire regarding the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now comes the pushback from the building industry. A coalition representing a broad swath of business and construction interests has petitioned Arnold Schwarzenegger for relief from the duty to analyze greenhouse gas impacts as part of CEQA review. Ironically, they cite AB 32 as support for the proposition that they don't need to take any steps to identify or mitigate global warming impacts before the implementation of AB 32 measures. You can read their letter to the governor here.

The Planning and Conservation League has submitted a response, and they are also encouraging others to call or write the Governor and the Democratic leadership in the legislature. Read more from PCL here.

News flash!

Does this item surprise anybody?

The Federal Highway Administration has notified the state its carpool lanes are too slow – slower than an average of 45 miles an hour during peak periods. The lanes have been under the agency’s oversight since the state started allowing solo hybrid drivers to use them.

The short news byte also adds a delicious bit of dramatic irony when the Caltrans spokesperson notes, with a hint of incredulity, the impact of continued highway expansion in a growing region:

“Vehicle miles traveled actually increases faster than population growth,so as we continue to get more people driving on our highways, that’s obviously going to impact the congestion.”

Obviously. Obviously and inevitably, when you build a transportation system that facilitates continued use of the automobile and gives people few alternative choices.

It's more than a little disingenuous for Caltrans to imply that population growth alone drives the increase in VMT. The rate of increase is exacerbated if we continue to build freeways that induce traffic demand, rather than pursuing strategies that reduce both congestion and traffic.

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.

Bike Festivities!

This Saturday is shaping up to be a great day to be on a bike. For starters, head over to the Mercy General Hospital & E. Sacramento Community Spare the Air Transportation Fair. Looks like they'll have free lemonade, free ice cream, free bike tune ups, and free banjo music from 10 AM until 2 PM at 40th and J Streets. Who can beat free ice cream and free banjo music?

Later that evening stop by the Sacramento Bike Kitchen in Oak Park to help them celebrate their one year anniversary. Cover is $5 with a bike, $7 without. Festivities start at 5. They'll have music too, but it's uncertain whether they'll have banjos.

Update: Mercy General is also offering free rides on its neighborhood light rail shuttle- an idea that was very popular among participants in SACOG's recent "Tall Order" workshops.