Newsom vs Newsom. Air Board, Caltrans clash on 80/50 widening plan. Who is in charge? | Opinion
The environmental wing of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration is telling its transportation wing that it has failed to properly analyze the proposed widening of Highways 50 and 80 between Sacramento and Solano counties, a potential death blow to this version of the project.
In a blistering commentary of the California Department of Transportation’s review of its Yolo Corridor Improvement Project, the California Air Resources Board says Caltrans underestimated greenhouse gas emissions and overstated the benefits of adding a lane each way for carpools and single-occupancy vehicle paying tolls. More importantly, CARB noted that Caltrans failed to even analyze a the plan by the Sacramento region’s transportation planning agency to convert existing lanes into carpool/toll lanes, a move it had previously told CARB was essential to reducing local emissions.
We’re about to find out if Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency will behave as if they are truly part of this administration. Ignoring some damning advice from a sister agency on climate change only invites litigation, failure and even more delays.
The new goal in California isn’t simply to add more and more lanes to a road. The goal to increase mobility, the rapid movement of people on a road that inevitably has only so many lanes. That is the smart regional strategy being advanced by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, our primary transportation planner.
To achieve the mobility goal on this stretch of 80/50, SACOG planned for two express lanes each way where carpoolers of three or more ride for free and single motorists pay to help fund climate-friendly transit. That’s a big difference from the status quo. But it’s also a big difference of whether the future highway can quickly move a lot more people or not.
Numerous state policies and guidelines “call for reimagining or deprioritizing roadway projects that increase (vehicle miles traveled) to create a more sustainable transportation system,” CARB Executive Director Steven Cliff in his Jan. 10 letter to Caltrans Director Tony Tavares. “Reducing VMT also benefits health, traffic safety, equity, and the environment. By expanding capacity while improperly assessing and insufficiently mitigating impacts, the Yolo I-80 project is inconsistent with these State plans.”
Caltrans proposes to add about 20 miles of toll lanes between Davis and downtown Sacramento on 80/50 as well as on I-80 to West El Camino Avenue. Caltrans released its draft environmental impact report on the $465 million project in November.
Caltrans has planned to start construction on this project in the fall, in part to avoid forfeiting $86 million in federal funding that is set to expire. But that would require the department to complete its environmental analysis this year. And that can only happen if Caltrans chooses to ignore the feedback from CARB.
CARB charges Caltrans with getting the key analysis completely wrong. Basically, Caltrans used a faulty planning formula that underestimated how much pollution a single new lane would emit and overestimated how much congestion it would relieve.
But perhaps the biggest flaw that the air regulators found was how Caltrans chose to ignore the local/SACOG plan for two express lanes each way during rush hour. As reported earlier, Caltrans said it did not analyze the regional plan because the regional agency did not make the request.
Failing to look at the regional plan is a big deal. It runs the risk of Caltrans violating environmental law by not looking at a wide array of alternatives. And it jeopardizes the six-county region from meetings its state-mandated target to reduce emissions.
SACOG has to meticulously demonstrate to the Air Board how it plans to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions by 19 percent by 2035 (compared to a 2009 baseline). In detailed math presented to CARB in 2020, SACOG assumed the toll revenue of two lanes on 50/80 for congestion-relieving transit projects and the reduced emissions created by two express lanes rather than just one.
Asked for comment on CARB’s letter, Caltrans spokesman Dennis Keaton said, “Caltrans will carefully review all comments it received during the public comment period and will address in the final EIR.”
Translation: Caltrans is not going back to square one as suggested to analyze the local plan. It is trying to move forward as if everything is under control when it most definitely is not.
The CARB part of the Newsom Administration deserves credit for weighing in on this project and defending the state’s climate change goals.
Our regional leaders at SACOG, on the other hand, are wrong to stay silent and have failed to put Caltrans on notice that it is endangering a key local plan to lower emissions. This is no time in history for the region to become silent and passive when it comes to climate change and sound transportation decisions.
As for the Caltrans part of the Newsom administration, this blunder does not appear to be an isolated incident. A similar fiasco is unfolding with a freeway project in the Fresno area. And Caltrans faces a complaint by a local internal whistle-blower who alleges that she was demoted from a key planning job after criticizing how the department was conducting the environmental reviews in the Yolo corridor.
This instance of botched transportation planning may end up with a silver lining. Caltrans should officially abandon the current environmental review process, start anew and work with the Biden administration to use that $86 million in federal money on some local projects to have a lot bigger bang for the transportation dollar. Improvements to Amtrak’s popular Capitol Corridor service between Sacramento and the Bay Area are one idea.
We simply can’t afford to spend close to half a billion dollars on a freeway widening project that solves nothing.
This story was originally published February 5, 2024 at 5:00 AM.