Rural Road Funds Versus Climate Projects in California

Overview

Decision Situation

The Context

Californians elected Governor Gavin Newsom on the promise that he would tackle climate change in a meaningful way. Climate activists were pushing his administration continuously and publicly to invest public dollars in projects that would make a difference. Given that nearly 40% of the stateʼs greenhouse gas emissions came from the transportation sector, a huge focus was put on where state transportation dollars were spent and whether they were helping to drive down vehicle miles traveled and carbon emissions. There were also several laws in the state that compelled state agencies to address climate change and prohibited roadway expansion.

Soon after coming into office, the new administration directed the stateʼs transportation agencies to do what was within their power to reduce carbon emissions. Specifically, Governor Newsom ordered “a focus for transportation investments near housing, and on managing congestion through innovative strategies that encourage alternatives to driving (Dawid 2019).”

It was in this context that Caltrans announced a halt to a series of transportation widening projects through the heart of the stateʼs agricultural center, with no indication of when or if they would proceed. All three notable projects were in the Central Valley, a vast inland stretch of farmland that produces nearly a quarter of the countryʼs food (USGS n.d.). With an annual value of $17 billion, moving food from the farms of the Central Valley to the rest of the country was a big business that relied on big trucks.

Rural Backlash

When local officials found out about the halting of the widening projects, they disagreed with the decision. Several elected officials from the region publicly railed in the media against the decision and the administration (ABC News 2019):

While state officials insisted there was no connection between the governorʼs executive order to invest in carbon-reducing projects and the decision to stop these widenings, critics disagreed. In the growing narrative, the public perception was that the new administration and Caltrans were pitting climate progress against the “Heart of California.”

The Decision

When all this began, Toks Omishakin was just entering his role as Director of Caltrans, one of the eight transportation agencies in California overseen by CalSTA. As the agency responsible for highways, Caltrans was the lead for the cancelled highway projects. From Omishakinʼs perspective, it seemed that the general sentiment was, “There goes another DOT director who doesnʼt care about the Valley.”

People began to ask him, “What are you going to do about this?” While Omishakin was not involved in the original decision to postpone the Central Valley projects, it would fall to the new secretary to manage the situation and decide whether the agency would cancel the projects altogether or work to identify alternative funding sources.

Listening and Learning

As a recent transplant from Tennessee, the first thing Omishakin knew he needed to do was get to know the region better. He began making trips to the Valley and found opportunities to sit down and talk with area leaders. He got to know the congressional delegation, and soon he had the cell phone numbers of all the mayors and state legislators. He participated in a statewide effort called Regions Rise Together, a program with a stated mission to advance “inclusive and sustainable economic development across Californiaʼs diverse and interconnected regions.”

I want to hear you out, and I want to see how we can do better.
—Toks Omishakin
Secretary, California State Transportation Agency

Through a series of meetings hosted by the group, he came to understand that Highways 46 and 99, on which the widening projects were cancelled, were some of the biggest concerns in the Valley. Truck traffic is central to the lifeblood of the region, as fresh produce is shipped out daily from millions of acres of farms. The 99 is one of the most heavily traveled non-Interstate highways in the country, connecting the Valley to the huge markets of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

As truck volumes have increased, so have congestion and safety incidents on the corridor, with several well-publicized fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles and tractor trailers. The stateʼs Complete Streets policy of no more road widenings made sense for the stateʼs dense urban areas, but the secretary was beginning to think that maybe that was not what was right for this region.

From these conversations, Omishakin began to understand and was soon repeating a common theme: you cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach to solve our transportation problems and needs. At issue was not just the economics of the agricultural industry, but also the quality of life for the whole region. He had reached his decision: Caltrans had to find a way to get these projects funded so they could proceed.

DESK Approach to Decision-Making

The method that Omishakin reports using for this and other major decisions is something he calls a DESK review. “I made it up,” he reports. DESK puts the focus on the people involved in

a given decision situation and how each of them is likely to feel about or relate to the decision being made. The acronym stands for

• Dissatisfied—the individuals who are going to be burdened by, object to, or work against a course of action. Omishakin creates a list of the people who may be upset by the decision and thinks about how they should be approached before any action is taken.
• Enthusiastic—the people who can be counted on to be vocal supporters of the course of action. Omishakin approaches these individuals to seek their support as active cheerleaders.
• Stakeholder—anyone who may be tangentially affected by the action but is not likely to directly object to or support it. Ideally, stakeholders should include more than “the usual suspects,” for example, families who use a daycare center along a corridor being worked on.
• Key players—the people needed to help deliver or implement the decision. For example, key players may include major employers affected by travel demand management efforts. Omishakin works with this group continuously.

Omishakin started using this approach after a situation erupted when he was the planning director for the Tennessee DOT. He needed a way to think through all the dynamics of the situation, and this was what made sense to him. He has since made this method a standard part of his teamʼs strategizing at both Caltrans and CalSTA every time there is a major policy shift in the agency.

Decision Resolution and Reflection

Since the widening projects were removed from Caltransʼs 2020 list of funded projects, the agency has worked with local partners to find other funds to complete them. These efforts were successful, and all projects are currently underway.

When Omishakin reflects on the series of decisions made in this situation, the most salient point is this: “We are much smarter now than we were in 2019.” Specifically, they now know to be more alert to and proactive in addressing unintended consequences of policy decisions: “In California, one of the largest voices is environment. But you never want to govern or lead in a way that makes people feel underserved and marginalized, giving them ammunition that you donʼt hear the plight.”

In this case, there was a law on the books in California that says transportation agencies must move away from highway expansion. The secretary may agree with that policy completely, but says we must allow for major safety, economic, and way-of-life issues to be managed in the near term, which at times may necessitate strategic widening: “We tried something big. We went back and revised the approach to acknowledge different needs.”

We tried something big. We went back and revised the approach to acknowledge different needs.
—Toks Omishakin
Secretary, California State Transportation Agency