Frequently Asked Questions
|
What is being done about the I-80 bottleneck through Roseville?
|
|
The bottleneck on I-80 in Roseville is a top priority for the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, and we’ve been working hard to address it.
This project was fortunate to receive an earmark of federal funds that has allowed us to start improvement on I-80 to alleviate one of the merge movements just east of the Riverside exit on the eastbound side (Phase 1, completed August 2007). The remainder of this earmark along with State Proposition 1B funding approved for this project will allow us to construct eastbound and westbound carpool and auxiliary lanes from the Sacramento/Placer County line to just west of Miners Ravine (between the Lead Hill Blvd overcrossing and Eureka Road) along with westbound improvements at the Auburn/ Riverside Blvd, Douglas Blvd, and Atlantic/Eureka Road interchanges to allow continuous carpool lanes from Miners Ravine to the Sacramento/Placer County line (Phase 2, construction begins May 2008).
If you are wondering why we’ve chosen these improvements, versus adding “regular” or non-carpool lanes, it is because of the air quality in the Sacramento area. Under federal law governing areas with air quality problems like ours, if we are going to add any pavement at all to I-80, it will have to be carpool or auxiliary lanes. |
Westbound carpool and auxiliary lanes will be constructed from where Phase 2 left off (just west of Miner's Ravine) to SR 65 beginning in spring 2009 (Phase 3A). However, using existing funding sources, it will take many more years before we’ve amassed enough money to construct the remaining improvements on I-80 through Roseville, including the extension of auxiliary and carpool lanes eastbound from Miner's Ravine to Highway 65 (Phase 3B).
|
Why don’t you just stripe the median to add a lane on I-80 between Riverside and Douglas?
While the median is paved, it is only constructed to handle the occasional broken down car or CHP stop. It doesn’t have the base underneath or “substructure” to handle the more than 100,000 cars that go through the area each day. Opening up the median to daily car and truck traffic would cause the pavement to disintegrate almost immediately. |
What about light rail?
Light rail can be a terrific alternative, but there are better choices for Placer.
First, some background: Light rail is extremely expensive to build, at $45-50 million per mile, plus vehicles, plus the cost to operate. It also does not work for grades above 4%, which makes it unsuitable for most of the foothills.
In 2001, Sacramento Regional Transit issued a Multi-Corridor Transit Study that concluded that Regional Rail – an enhancement of the existing Capitol Corridor rail service to provide service every 30 minutes during peak periods using existing conventional rail track – was a more cost effective and appropriate option for rail service between Placer and Sacramento Counties. Some reasons include:
- would use existing Union Pacific rail and right of way, rather than trying to acquire new land in developed areas (Union Pacific lines roughly mirror the potential right of way of a new light rail extension)
- eliminates the need to construct new overhead electrical lines
- heavy rail can be extended into the foothills, to Auburn, Colfax, and beyond
- provides economies of scale by integrating with existing Capitol Corridor service, including existing stations
|
PCTPA strongly concurred, and has been leading the effort to make Regional Rail a reality. Placer is also pursuing bus rapid transit (BRT) for western Placer County. Contrary to the belief of many, BRT is not necessarily the same bus you see running around your neighborhood. BRT, in its higher forms, can mimic light rail at half the cost. No overhead wires. No metal tracks. And because it uses rubber tires, there is the flexibility to use existing roads in
some circumstances, or use separate right of
way in others.
|
 |
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Vehicle |
Can’t you just issue bonds and get these projects built?
Bonds need a revenue stream to back them up. School bonds, for example, are backed by an additional assessment on property taxes. Local entities cannot use state funds, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program, as a backup for bonding. We could issue bonds and build transportation projects faster if backed by a locally controlled revenue stream.
|
Won't the State transportation bond (Prop 1B) solve our transportation problems?
Infrastructure bond measures totalling $20 billion for transportation (Proposition 1B) were approved by California voters in November 2006. In February 2007, the California Transportation Commission awarded the first portion of these funds (Corridor Mobility Improvement Account), which included $73.715 million for the Lincoln Bypass and over $46 million for the I-80 Capacity and Operational Improvements project (Roseville Bottleneck) - Phases 2 and 3A. However, while these bonds provide specific benefits to Placer County, they will not solve our long-range transportation problems.
PCTPA estimates approximately $3.3 billion of existing and future funding against a list of transportation needs that has been pared down to $5.6 billion over the next thirty years. The infusion of bond proceeds will definitely help with our transportation needs, but we will still be facing a $2.3 billion funding gap.
Furthermore, while approval of Proposition 1B will benefit transportation projects statewide, the deficits that have plagued the State budget have not abated. As a result, the 2007/08 State Budget diverts a total of approximately $1.3 billion from transportation.
|
Doesn't the gas tax pay for our transportation needs?
Most people think the gas tax pays for transportation, but that is far from true. The gas tax is a flat rate – 18 cents per gallon state, 18.4 cents per gallon Federal. That stays the same whether gas is $1 a gallon or $10 per gallon. Moreover, the state gas tax was last raised in 1990, and the Federal in 1994. If you look at what $1 bought in 1990 or 1994 versus today, and consider the skyrocketing cost of steel, asphalt, and concrete, you see why our transportation projects are getting further and further behind. Construction costs for transportation projects went up 72% between 2001 and 2006.
Right now, the federal and state gas tax combined pays for less than 70% of the money needed to simply maintain the state highway system, and less than 50% of the money needed to maintain local roads, let alone address any needed improvements. More info...
|
What's going on with the proposed local transportation sales tax?
The previously proposed Placer Transportation Expenditure Plan included a combination of additional developer impact fees and a transportation sales tax and leverages future State and Federal funding to fund 14 critical projects and programs. A transportation sales tax would require a 2/3 majority approval of voters at a general election.
Taxpayers for Traffic Relief and Safety (TTRS), a group of community and business leaders formed to educate the public on the need to fund transportation improvements, did polling on the transportation sales tax proposal as part of their private education and outreach effort. On November 26, TTRS distributed a press release to announce the results of their polling. It showed that, although voter support for a transportation sales tax was substantial at 58-60%, it was still far short of the 2/3 majority needed for passage. The TTRS group recommended that PCTPA defer placement of the sales tax on the ballot until at least 2010.
On November 26, the Funding Strategy Steering Committee met to consider the updated Expenditure Plan that takes into account all the most recent information from the extensive public outreach conducted over the past several months. Much of the discussion centered around the results of the polling done by the TTRS, the relationship to the Expenditure Plan, what can be done to increase public awareness of the issues, and implications for the future of transportation in Placer County. It was the consensus of the Steering Committee to recommend that the PCTPA Board defer placement of a transportation expenditure plan on the countywide ballot; use the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan as a starting point for continued discussions on transportation funding needs; work with the Steering Committee and other key leaders to implement a more strategic public outreach effort; and do polling on an annual basis to help guide the transportation funding strategy effort. The Board approved this recommendation on December 6, 2007.
|
|
|
|
