Caltrans says the case for lifting the ban is about relieving pollution on I-880. But its own modeling shows keeping the I-580 ban in place would result in lower diesel pollution overall by 2035.
880 is a commercial corridor mostly populated by businesses whereas 580 is a residential and park corridor mostly populated by Parks and homes. Why would we move trucks from a commercial corridor to a residential corridor? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
absolutely not ! I and many other humans own homes along 880. We in fact bought homes closer to our work places and bike to work because the IPCC put forth mixed use walkable communities and car free living as a climate solution. We all live close to the BART and take it instead of driving for our commutes.
No one wants to live in an environmentally degraded neighborhood. But the CTA, pushing the spread-the-misery solution, does not have your best interests at heart.
Because people live there… and trucks primarily provide last-mile distribution. The foods and products that everyone depends upon for modern life aren’t teleported onto store shelves or front porches.
It doesn't take a big rig to deliver milk to your grocery store. The people who live there don't want big rigs invading their residential neighborhoods. This is a spread-the-misery mission, plain and simple. Delivered right to your doorstep by the CTA.
Pretty much every Safeway store I’ve ever visited in the Bay Area (or anywhere else) was supplied exclusively and frequently by big rigs. Maybe tiny markets can get by with smaller trucks, but transport severely constrains their selection and raises prices. Grocery stores only maintain 24-36 hours of inventory onsite. If big rigs stopped running, their shelves would be empty before nightfall. Large, dense cities like the Bay Area depend upon continuously-operating surface transportation networks, which means big diesel trucks on roads 24/7. If you don’t want to be bothered by trucks, live in Alpine County.
This article is built around the impact of diesel pollution, especially along the I-880 corridor. Spreading the pollution, and probably increased pollution, to other neighborhoods is not a viable solution.
A far better long-term solution, and consistent with State goals, would be electrification of the trucking fleets. Cal Trucking Association has deep ties to old school carbon powered vehicles and represents only equity big businesses, not Californians nor especially Oakland. For Cal-Trans, Oakland in an impediment to get through, not a city to be served equally.
Electrification is a nice idea, but it’s mostly moving the pollution somewhere else. Renewables have been proven to be unworkable, so until we start building nuclear reactors again, we live in a world that burns carbon.
I was under the impression that the original footprint of Mills College was impacted when 580 was built, and the concession was that no trucks would be allowed on that stretch of the freeway.
Hi Katy, thank you for your comment. The freeway was indeed built next to the northern border of the Mills College campus, but we found no source indicating that campus acreage was taken or built over. However, we did find this contemporary 1962 article about the MacArthur Freeway project during its construction, from the journal, "California Highways and Public Works" (Vol. 41, Nos. 7–8, July–August 1962, pp. 2-7), which describes the massive scale of the project and includes several photos that show the scope of property displacement where it cut through already-developed areas: https://docs.oaklandreport.news/california-highway-and-public-works-vol-41-nos-7-8-1962.pdf
As if it isn’t enough that the City of Oakland can’t get its act together, we now also have to contend with the possibility of big rigs taking over 580. As Josh Bersin noted, this section of 580 runs through residential areas. Only residential areas. 880 section is predominantly industrial. Oakland isn’t a large city and it puzzles my mind that ANY effort and money is being poured into lifting this truck ban! What other small cities have 2 freeways running through them, full of trucks?
Quality of life, safety of other drivers, more gridlock, pollution all over the city, AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE AT STAKE! Please people, the truck ban must stay in place.
This article is very detailed. Thank you. But the health impacts are only measured by cancer cases. There are many more health impacts besides cancer, with asthma topping the list. Are there any figures on the broader health impacts of truck traffic on 880 beyond projected cancer diagnoses?
So, apparently, the logic for keeping the truck ban on 580 is, more people live along the 580 (and most of the wealthy neighborhoods), and those poor people in West Oakland, Chinatown, Eastlake, Fruitvale, and all along the International Boulevard...well, too bad. The "fact" is that the truck ban was originally "justified" by saying 580 was "scenic" and the flatlands, along our waterfront somehow is more deserving of the traffic. The elitism and, yes, racism in the origins of the ban is so pervasive, I don't know how people deny it. The "fact" is that its very rare for trucks to be banned off of any interstate. For some reason, only the people along 880 in the San Francisco Bay is deserving of this "special treatment". Its NIMBY at best, and, at worst, keeping a racist policy in place.
Should the ban be lifted, there will be ~4K big rigs on I-580 a day on the 8.7 mile span of 580 from Grand Avenue in Oakland to Foothill Blvd where the ban presently exists. And H-13 will have ~400 big rigs a day as well not to mention all side streets being impacted. Almost 250K Oakland and San Leandro residents live within 1/2 mile of the freeway. Sign the petition at nobigrigs580.org. The website also has links for locally elected officials. Sent an email to your representatives! Let them know where you stand. Your voice matters. Thank you,
As someone who has lived in the flatlands my entire time in Oakland, it's really offensive to hear the argument that nobody lives in the 880 corridor. The most dense parts of Oakland, including WEST Oakland, Chinatown, fruitvale, and the international boulevard corridor are full of Oakland residents. For all the arguments about why there's no reason to change, there's no discussion about why the truck ban was instituted in the first place...to direct trucks to where people of color and the poorest of us live. To argue for keeping the ban in place is to perpetuate and keep in place a system of redlining and racism. I agree that trucks need to get cleaner...and they are. But,that is not an argument for continuing a system rooted in racism. Its reminiscent of arguments made in favor of keeping Jim Crowe in place...if everyone gets to drink from a drinking fountain, what's the harm in keeping them separate?
Let's focus on the facts and keep racism out of the discussion, as it is not relevant. Nearly twice as many people live along the 580 corridor compared to the 880 corridor. The majority of students at Oakland High and other public schools along the 580 are economically disadvantaged Black and Brown children. There are also many more schools and hospitals along the 580 corridor than along the 880. In contrast, the 880 is primarily an industrial highway, surrounded by various commercial and industrial businesses. The 580 serves as a residential corridor. This, plain and simple, is the reason for the ban.
Agree! There are lots of residents close to 880. Plus, in West Oakland alone, the incidence of crippling childhood asthma is extremely high. People who think there aren't residents haven't been there. Traffic on that stretch of freeway is often at a standstill, compounding the level of toxic exhaust fumes. The residents there are severely affected by that as well as by many kinds of crime, lack of access to grocery stores and medical facilities. They are Oakland's and they deserve better!
Hi Danny and C.R. -- Thank you for your comments, which are well-taken. However, I don't see any statements either in the article or in the reader comments (so far) claiming that there are no residents near the I-880 corridor. There are some reader comments noting that the I-580 corridor lacks major industrial or commercial destinations, whereas the I-880 corridor does have those types of destinations -- but that's not exactly the same thing as saying there are "no residents" on I-880.
Regarding other health issues (such as asthma) that are associated with diesel pollution, the Caltrans study so far hasn't offered any estimates or data related to those issues (it only reports on cancer risk, and levels of diesel particulate matter). That said, Caltrans probably should examine those other health issues, which are real and documented, and one hopes that they will do so in future revisions.
Thank you again for your comments; the discussion is very much appreciated.
Hi C.R. -- Thank you for your additional comment. Of course, residents who live near I-880 matter just as much as residents who live in other areas. In Caltrans' defense, that is exactly their stated reason for conducting this study and for considering the possibility of lifting the I-580 ban. And, the health data they have chosen for their study so far reflects that concern. That said -- and as others have pointed out -- Caltrans would do well to examine other contributing health factors (such as asthma) in order to gain the fullest picture of diesel pollution's effects on nearby residents and institutions, and how best to reduce and eliminate those effects, especially for people who live in the most heavily burdened area, meaning I-880. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts; the discussion is helpful, productive and enlightening.
880 is a commercial corridor mostly populated by businesses whereas 580 is a residential and park corridor mostly populated by Parks and homes. Why would we move trucks from a commercial corridor to a residential corridor? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Precisely!
absolutely not ! I and many other humans own homes along 880. We in fact bought homes closer to our work places and bike to work because the IPCC put forth mixed use walkable communities and car free living as a climate solution. We all live close to the BART and take it instead of driving for our commutes.
No one wants to live in an environmentally degraded neighborhood. But the CTA, pushing the spread-the-misery solution, does not have your best interests at heart.
Because people live there… and trucks primarily provide last-mile distribution. The foods and products that everyone depends upon for modern life aren’t teleported onto store shelves or front porches.
It doesn't take a big rig to deliver milk to your grocery store. The people who live there don't want big rigs invading their residential neighborhoods. This is a spread-the-misery mission, plain and simple. Delivered right to your doorstep by the CTA.
Pretty much every Safeway store I’ve ever visited in the Bay Area (or anywhere else) was supplied exclusively and frequently by big rigs. Maybe tiny markets can get by with smaller trucks, but transport severely constrains their selection and raises prices. Grocery stores only maintain 24-36 hours of inventory onsite. If big rigs stopped running, their shelves would be empty before nightfall. Large, dense cities like the Bay Area depend upon continuously-operating surface transportation networks, which means big diesel trucks on roads 24/7. If you don’t want to be bothered by trucks, live in Alpine County.
This article is built around the impact of diesel pollution, especially along the I-880 corridor. Spreading the pollution, and probably increased pollution, to other neighborhoods is not a viable solution.
A far better long-term solution, and consistent with State goals, would be electrification of the trucking fleets. Cal Trucking Association has deep ties to old school carbon powered vehicles and represents only equity big businesses, not Californians nor especially Oakland. For Cal-Trans, Oakland in an impediment to get through, not a city to be served equally.
The "Clean Ports" project looks towards electrifying the port - and it is community led. More information here https://www.portofoakland.com/cleanports and from the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, one of the community partners here https://woeip.org/featured-work/clean-ports/
Electrification is a nice idea, but it’s mostly moving the pollution somewhere else. Renewables have been proven to be unworkable, so until we start building nuclear reactors again, we live in a world that burns carbon.
I was under the impression that the original footprint of Mills College was impacted when 580 was built, and the concession was that no trucks would be allowed on that stretch of the freeway.
Hi Katy, thank you for your comment. The freeway was indeed built next to the northern border of the Mills College campus, but we found no source indicating that campus acreage was taken or built over. However, we did find this contemporary 1962 article about the MacArthur Freeway project during its construction, from the journal, "California Highways and Public Works" (Vol. 41, Nos. 7–8, July–August 1962, pp. 2-7), which describes the massive scale of the project and includes several photos that show the scope of property displacement where it cut through already-developed areas: https://docs.oaklandreport.news/california-highway-and-public-works-vol-41-nos-7-8-1962.pdf
As if it isn’t enough that the City of Oakland can’t get its act together, we now also have to contend with the possibility of big rigs taking over 580. As Josh Bersin noted, this section of 580 runs through residential areas. Only residential areas. 880 section is predominantly industrial. Oakland isn’t a large city and it puzzles my mind that ANY effort and money is being poured into lifting this truck ban! What other small cities have 2 freeways running through them, full of trucks?
Quality of life, safety of other drivers, more gridlock, pollution all over the city, AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE AT STAKE! Please people, the truck ban must stay in place.
This article is very detailed. Thank you. But the health impacts are only measured by cancer cases. There are many more health impacts besides cancer, with asthma topping the list. Are there any figures on the broader health impacts of truck traffic on 880 beyond projected cancer diagnoses?
So, apparently, the logic for keeping the truck ban on 580 is, more people live along the 580 (and most of the wealthy neighborhoods), and those poor people in West Oakland, Chinatown, Eastlake, Fruitvale, and all along the International Boulevard...well, too bad. The "fact" is that the truck ban was originally "justified" by saying 580 was "scenic" and the flatlands, along our waterfront somehow is more deserving of the traffic. The elitism and, yes, racism in the origins of the ban is so pervasive, I don't know how people deny it. The "fact" is that its very rare for trucks to be banned off of any interstate. For some reason, only the people along 880 in the San Francisco Bay is deserving of this "special treatment". Its NIMBY at best, and, at worst, keeping a racist policy in place.
Should the ban be lifted, there will be ~4K big rigs on I-580 a day on the 8.7 mile span of 580 from Grand Avenue in Oakland to Foothill Blvd where the ban presently exists. And H-13 will have ~400 big rigs a day as well not to mention all side streets being impacted. Almost 250K Oakland and San Leandro residents live within 1/2 mile of the freeway. Sign the petition at nobigrigs580.org. The website also has links for locally elected officials. Sent an email to your representatives! Let them know where you stand. Your voice matters. Thank you,
As someone who has lived in the flatlands my entire time in Oakland, it's really offensive to hear the argument that nobody lives in the 880 corridor. The most dense parts of Oakland, including WEST Oakland, Chinatown, fruitvale, and the international boulevard corridor are full of Oakland residents. For all the arguments about why there's no reason to change, there's no discussion about why the truck ban was instituted in the first place...to direct trucks to where people of color and the poorest of us live. To argue for keeping the ban in place is to perpetuate and keep in place a system of redlining and racism. I agree that trucks need to get cleaner...and they are. But,that is not an argument for continuing a system rooted in racism. Its reminiscent of arguments made in favor of keeping Jim Crowe in place...if everyone gets to drink from a drinking fountain, what's the harm in keeping them separate?
Let's focus on the facts and keep racism out of the discussion, as it is not relevant. Nearly twice as many people live along the 580 corridor compared to the 880 corridor. The majority of students at Oakland High and other public schools along the 580 are economically disadvantaged Black and Brown children. There are also many more schools and hospitals along the 580 corridor than along the 880. In contrast, the 880 is primarily an industrial highway, surrounded by various commercial and industrial businesses. The 580 serves as a residential corridor. This, plain and simple, is the reason for the ban.
Agree! There are lots of residents close to 880. Plus, in West Oakland alone, the incidence of crippling childhood asthma is extremely high. People who think there aren't residents haven't been there. Traffic on that stretch of freeway is often at a standstill, compounding the level of toxic exhaust fumes. The residents there are severely affected by that as well as by many kinds of crime, lack of access to grocery stores and medical facilities. They are Oakland's and they deserve better!
Hi Danny and C.R. -- Thank you for your comments, which are well-taken. However, I don't see any statements either in the article or in the reader comments (so far) claiming that there are no residents near the I-880 corridor. There are some reader comments noting that the I-580 corridor lacks major industrial or commercial destinations, whereas the I-880 corridor does have those types of destinations -- but that's not exactly the same thing as saying there are "no residents" on I-880.
Regarding other health issues (such as asthma) that are associated with diesel pollution, the Caltrans study so far hasn't offered any estimates or data related to those issues (it only reports on cancer risk, and levels of diesel particulate matter). That said, Caltrans probably should examine those other health issues, which are real and documented, and one hopes that they will do so in future revisions.
Thank you again for your comments; the discussion is very much appreciated.
Just not enough residents to matter, apparently.
Hi C.R. -- Thank you for your additional comment. Of course, residents who live near I-880 matter just as much as residents who live in other areas. In Caltrans' defense, that is exactly their stated reason for conducting this study and for considering the possibility of lifting the I-580 ban. And, the health data they have chosen for their study so far reflects that concern. That said -- and as others have pointed out -- Caltrans would do well to examine other contributing health factors (such as asthma) in order to gain the fullest picture of diesel pollution's effects on nearby residents and institutions, and how best to reduce and eliminate those effects, especially for people who live in the most heavily burdened area, meaning I-880. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts; the discussion is helpful, productive and enlightening.
Spreading the misery is not the answer.