|
A broad coalition of transportation stakeholders, including CalAPA, continues to raise concerns about the project-hindering climate plan being circulated by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). The plan, known as the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), is currently being updated and the agency is accepting public comments until Dec. 13. Written comments can be sent via e-mail to: CAPTI@calsta.ca.gov .
California voters, meanwhile, appear to be losing patience with elected officials and bureaucrats who neglect basic quality-of-life issues that impact their daily lives. We'll get to that in a minute. But first, the bureaucrats.
CalSTA, which oversees the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), among other agencies, first adopted the CAPTI plan in July of 2021 to a chilly reception among transportation improvement advocates. The intent of the document is to provide planning guidance to support the state's overall climate goals via transportation-related actions, including broad project selection criteria. CalAPA was one of many organizations who submitted formal comments criticizing the original CAPTI from straying from the road-repair intent of SB1, the $50 billion Road Repair & Accountability Act passed by a super-majority of the Legislature in 2017 and favored by voters in a 2018 ballot initiative.
A previous Asphalt Insider article published June 7, 2021 on the topic is HERE. The original CalAPA comment letter is HERE.
Since then, CalAPA and other like-minded organizations have closely monitored how Caltrans is delivering its transportation improvement program aligned with CAPTI goals. Transportation California, a federation made up of construction industry and labor groups, including CalAPA, has also picked up the banner of CAPTI overreach in numerous forums at the Capital and with the California Transportation Commission.
In November, Transportation California was among the first to offer up detailed comments about the proposed revision of CAPTI, and on Friday followed up with another letter zeroing in on key areas of the proposed plan that are most troubling from a transportation system improvement point of view. That letter (along with the November letter) is HERE.
The overarching criticism is the state's continuing infatuation with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and how projects that may be perceived as increasing highway capacity are at a disadvantage when competing for transportation-improvement dollars, even when they clearly are aimed at improving smog-inducing congestion or improving safety.
The Dec. 6 Transportation California comment letter took aim at this trend, noting the feedback on the CAPTI update "is grounded in fundamental concerns with the state's broader decisions over the last decade ... including the choice to analyze roadway capacity projects for induced vehicle miles of travel (VMT)." The Transportation California letter, joined by CalAPA and other like-minded organizations, urged the state to re-evaluate how it has "exercised discretion" in this area. More pointedly, CalAPA has produced analysis that bread-and-butter road repairs, as evidenced by asphalt and concrete consumption, have remained flat while overall dollars devoted to transportation have soared. The VMT battle is nothing new. The 2001 CalAPA comment letter, in part, said the association's members had concern "with various components of the report that promote VMT reduction for VMT reduction's sake, but little connection to if it is consistent with the reality of how people, goods and services move around our communities and our state."
If all of this sounds like pedantic technobabble, well, it is. But these debates in windowless conference rooms do have real-world consequences. Once such example is the controversy that erupted last year over a $400 million widening of Interstate 80 in the Sacramento area. A demoted Caltrans executive manager claimed that CAPTI guidance was flouted as the project came to fruition, potentially jeopardizing a routine project with many safety and congestion-easing attributes. A review by the California Transportation Commission found no transportation funds were used improperly. CalAPA's official comments to the commission said the association supports "the efficient delivery of transportation improvement projects for efficiency, safety and a careful prudent environmental review, which in the case of the Yolo I-80 projects were done following all laws and guidance." A 2023 Asphalt Insider story about the I-80 dustup is HERE.
Casting a rather large shadow over the wonky but nevertheless serious policy debate is once again the California electorate. When SB1 raised pump prices in 2017 to fix roads and bridges, voters were given an opportunity to repeal the new law in 2018 and declined. But in the presidential election last month, voters clearly have sent a message to politicians and bureaucrats alike that quality-of-life issues and government inaction will have consequences.
The Democratic Biden-Harris administration was denied another term, and Republican Donald Trump will be returning to the White House with Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. Even in deep blue California, Trump performed better against home-grown Kamala Harris than he did against Joe Biden in 2020, nine California counties flipped from blue to red in this year's presidential race, and Republicans flipped three Democratic seats in the California Legislature. Democrats remain firmly in control in Sacramento, but the trend at the ballot box is unmistakable. Continued spending on unused bike lanes and wildlife corridors while commuters idle in congestion or bounce along pothole-filled roads will be noticed by voters, and they have shown they will exact punishment accordingly. Somewhat surprisingly, this has created a fair amount of hand-wringing among the political illuminati. If this is starting to sound familiar, it is. Cue a quote from another famous Californian, Ronald Reagan, when he was president: "Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." An actor couldn't have delivered the line better.
A new session two-year session of the Legislature will convene in January, and thanks to term-limits there will be more than 30 new members heading to Sacramento in the 120 member body, many of whom campaigned on pragmatic "kitchen table" planks, such as the cost of living and other quality of life issues. It should be noted that one of the new arrivals is Carl DeMaio, who was a prominent backer of Prop. 6, the gas-tax repeal of 2018. A Republican with an anti-tax megaphone, he will represent the 75th Assembly District in the San Diego area.
State bureaucrats, meanwhile, led by the California Air Resources Board, continue to pile on regulations that are costing more pain at the pump, and also in utility bills, for tens of millions of Californians. Perhaps, as the Dec. 6 Transportation California CAPTI letter suggested somewhat diplomatically, these issues "are worthy of re-evaluation." Worthy indeed.
| 
