Senate Bills 9 and 10, and their Impact on Transportation

Senate Bills 9 and 10, take effect Jan. 1, 2022. Signed into law by Governor Newsom in September 2021, these bills would make it easier for Californians to build up to six additional housing units on many properties previously reserved exclusively for single-family homes. This approach gained credence in Sacramento because of heavy pressure from housing developers, but also because some State Legislators came to believe that placing housing units near transit stops would lead to more transit use and therefore less traffic congestion.

This conclusion was reached despite MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050 projection that adding 1.54 million new housing units between and 2015 and 2050 would do little if anything to improve transit’s dismally low percentage of commute trips, much less non-commute trips. In fact, despite PBA 2050’s emphasis on affordable housing and expansion of transit services, its projections show that by 2050 there will be at least 2.5 million additional personal vehicle trips a day on the region’s roadways and that even with a 110 percent expansion in transit miles operated, only about 3% of the region’s jobs would be accessible within 45 minutes by transit; versus 18 percent within 30 minutes by personal vehicle. Under the circumstances it seems evident that higher residential densities created if the two bills are left to stand will inevitably lead to more congestion in the region’s urban neighborhoods and communities and more barriers put in place of good transit travel.

Senate Bills SB 9 and 10 are among the most contentious bills to ever get through the California legislative process. They face broad opposition because they largely override local government’s zoning and land use decision-making, disrupt established and stable neighborhoods and yet provide no assurance that they would either create more affordable housing or significantly increase transit use. It appears that in 2022 these highly controversial bills will face one or more State ballot propositions designed to rescind them.

 

Getting Real About Seamless Transit

There’s been a lot of recent talk in the Bay Area about seamless transit. Different people and groups seem to have different opinions of what the term means.

To get this straight, it is necessary to start with an objective. In the first place it is obvious that traffic congestion has gotten out of hand in many places. In addition most scientists now agree that man’s excessive use of fossil fuel energy is causing global warming, including such disastrous “byproducts” as hurricanes, habitat destruction, ocean rise, fresh water shortages and wild fires. In as much as 45% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions comes from transportation, seamless transit can be regarded as an effort to reduce transportation’s share of the problem.

To cut greenhouse gases and ease traffic congestion will require in part that our bus, train and ferry boat systems become convenient enough to convince many travelers to drive less and use transit more. So what would it take to actually bring this about?

Continue reading

Caltrans’ I-205 “Managed Lane” Project: A Classic Example of what Happens when Highway Planners Ignore the Big Picture

Excerpts from BATWG’s 11.4.21 letter to Mr. Scott Guidi of Caltrans respond­ing to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the I-205 Caltrans/SJCOG project.

NOP: The goal is “….to improve local, regional, and interregional circulation for all modes of travel between the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area” by addressing the following problems:

  • Increased commute times and corridor congestion on I-205
  • Increased use of I-205 as an intercity and interstate truck or freight route
  • Need for alternative [non-automotive] modes of transportation between San Joaquin County and the San Francisco Bay Area.

BATWG: The project proposes to examine a “no build” and four “build” alternatives – three of which would add freeway lanes and a fourth that would convert an existing I-205 mixed flow lane in each direction into a multiple-occupant vehicle (HOV) lane.

Currently five westbound lanes converge at the I-205/I-580 junction: three westbound from I-205 and two westbound from I-580. Three of the four NOP build Alternatives would add a fourth westbound lane on I-205. It is obvious that six westbound lanes funneling into four I-580 lanes would make the already bad congestion problem even worse. Under no circumstances should I-205 be widened in a manner that would add either traffic or congestion on I-580. The fourth build alternative would reserve an existing I-205 lane in each direction for multiple-occupant vehicles. Arranged with proper traffic controls, Alternative 4 could achieve the three stated NOP objectives listed above, but is probably a non-starter.

Continue reading

SPECIAL BULLETIN: Avert I-580/I-680 Gridlock in the Tri-Valley

Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin residents have until November 1st to protest the dumping of thousands more Central Valley “cut-through” commuters onto local streets.

(See: https://205managedlanes.com/ and https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-10/district-10-current-projects/10-1h170.  The “Notice of Preparation” is found here: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-6/documents/d6-environmental-docs/10-1h170/10-1h170-nop-1021-a11y.pdf)

Caltrans has issued a “Notice of Preparation” of environmental reports for widening of the entire 15-mile length of I-205, from I-5 through Tracy to I-580, into an eight-lane freeway.  It now has six lanes.

Five westbound lanes presently narrow into the four westbound lanes of I-580 through congested Altamont Pass (three from I-205, two from I-580). This project would add a sixth lane funneling into Altamont Pass.  As I-580 through Altamont Pass would not be enlarged, the new traffic would seek alternatives via Altamont Pass Road, Patterson Pass Road, and Corral Hollow/Tesla Road and traverse Livermore and Pleasanton neighborhood streets to return to I-580 or to gain access I-680 or SR 84 (Vallecitos Road), which itself is planned to be widened to a four-lane expressway.

To compound the impending traffic tsunami, SR 120 will be widened into a six-lane freeway between I-5 and SR 99, adding more Lathrop and Manteca traffic to I-205.

A widened I-205 would dump thousands of additional cars onto Tri-Valley streets.  Why haven’t local politicians (e.g., Supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley; Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore City Councils) alerted their constituents about the impacts of the impending project?  Perhaps it is because they will be out of office long before the voters of Tri-Valley feel its negative effects. Therefore, to fend off the destructive effects of the Caltrans plan, citizens must themselves be heard now. 

Comments are due by November 1st by email to scott.guidi@dot.ca.gov, or by mail to Scott Guidi, Caltrans, District 10, 1976 East Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Stockton, CA  95205.

BATWG also encourages citizens to contact local city councils to ask them to take positions on the I-205 expansion: cityclerk@cityoflivermore.netcitycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.govcouncil@dublin.ca.gov.

Special Note to the BART and CCJPA Boards, Directors Powers and Padgette and the Link 21 Team

Subject:  Golden Opportunity for Early Link 21 Action

The purpose of this letter is to ask that your two Boards and the Link 21 team become champions of linking the Salesforce Transit Center to Market Street and the Embarcadero Station via a subsurface moving-ramp pedestrian connection.

At the September 9, 2021 BART Board meeting your Link 21 Team made an excellent presentation outlining its progress to date. During the meeting there was much enthusiasm expressed by all concerned for developing a truly integrated rail and bus network such as those commonly found in other advanced countries.

Continue reading