January 30, 2026
Chris Barney, Senior Transportation Planner (
Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities
Re: Comments on Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Dear Mr. Barney:
Save Our Sonoma Roads (SOSroads) is an all-volunteer citizens’ group that advocates for an improved allocation of public funds to Sonoma County roads. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 218-page draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan. We focus on its guiding principles, the implementation of which will negatively impact Sonoma County’s roads. As discussed below, we think this would be a terrible mistake and could repeat history.
The overarching vision is to transition our transportation network to zero-emissions by 2050 (p. 11) by prioritizing funding for zero-emissions strategies and taking “bold steps to achieve a zero-emission transportation network” (p. 12). Achieving zero emissions within 24 years is not going to happen. Goal 4 embodies outdated and unrealistic assumptions. See, e.g., Bill Gates, A New Way to Look at the Problem: Three Tough Truths About Climate (October 27, 2025).
A zero emissions vision and goal will dictate which projects to implement. The SCTCA should explain how zero emissions could possibly be achieved, including the assumptions. Goal 4 would require massive federal and state subsidies which have recently diminished and seem unlikely to resume. Zero emissions would require banning every single gasoline-powered car and truck (including those based elsewhere) from our roads by 2050. This would face massive political and legal resistance. Despite generous federal subsidies, car manufacturers have lost about $100 billion making electric vehicles (EVs). This is unsustainable. Many consumers like EVs, but most do not. Polls indicate that almost half of EV purchasers regret doing so. Many who own an EV use it only for short drives and prefer gasoline-powered cars for longer trips. Forcibly retiring gasoline-powered cars would especially disadvantage people of limited means.
Setting an unachievable vision and goal is harmful. Decision makers will squander precious transportation funds on projects that reduce emissions by minuscule amounts (“prioritize zero-emissions strategies,” p. 12) and avoid practical, cost-effective projects. The SCTCA should require a cost-benefit analysis (dollars per ton of CO2 avoided) for every major project and explain its benefits, if any, on climate change. Our road system deteriorated greatly from 1990-2010 when County supervisors foolishly and negligently stopped maintaining it. SOSroads was founded to correct this very expensive mistake regarding the County’s $2 billion asset.
Because the plan focuses on public transportation (“emphasize strategies that incentivize transit” p. 12), it should provide information on transit’s financial costs. For example, what is the actual cost of a SMART train ride (total expenditures per year divided by the number of passengers)? It seems to exceed $100 per ride. Decision makers may think this is reasonable, but the public might not. Typically, such information is hidden. In the post-COVID era, many people avoid public transit for health and other reasons. BART is an example of this nationwide trend: ridership collapsed in 2020–2022, and by late 2025 it has recovered only to about half of the pre-pandemic ridership. The plan does not seem to account for this.
We strongly endorse Goal 2 (p. 11) with respect to spending maintenance dollars efficiently and effectively to achieve a safe and well-maintained transportation infrastructure. Similarly, we support the plan’s efforts to “maintain and upgrade existing transportation infrastructure.” The Go Sonoma Act revenues must be spent at least 38% on smooth and maintained roads and 27% on moving traffic and improving safety. We trust this will not change.
The SCTCA should undertake a statistically-sound survey to rank priorities. The plan (pp. 19-20) justifies many of its actions by citing a web-based survey of 668 participants. Surveys using self-selected respondents with low response rates are notoriously inaccurate. Especially suspect is the survey’s finding that driving “was the lowest priority, with over 70% ranking it 5th or 6th.” We believe that most residents, especially rural residents and older adults (22%-27%, Fig. 3-8), prefer to drive when they shop for groceries, attend medical/dental appointments, go for a hike, or enjoy a restaurant. We doubt that for 5-mile trips they will want to use “non-auto and active modes of transportation” (p. 13). While Sonoma County often enjoys good weather, rain, cold, darkness, and excessive heat limit the practicality of walking or biking. Young ideologues who live in city centers should not foist ineffective transportation policies on the elderly (see Goal 1).
We hope the SCTCA will revise its goals to focus on an excellent road system and not sacrifice our transportation future by promoting unrealistic climate change goals that accomplish little, if anything. We agree that “actions that are made today will impact future generations,” p. 12.
Sincerely,
Craig S. Harrison
President