Update on the 101
The 101 Eureka-Arcata Improvement Project is probably the largest transportation infrastructure investment planned for the Humboldt Bay region over the next decade.  The scale of this highway project, which includes a new highway interchange at Indianola Cutoff will influence the way we travel between and within Eureka and Arcata for decades and will affect the availability of funding for other street improvements.

Unfortunately, the project presents many problems. The purpose of the project is flawed, the process is flawed, and the public comment period inadequate.  Draft Environmental Impact Report and subsequent analysis showed an increase in greenhouse gas emissions with reduction goals outlined in Assembly Bill 32, the project doesn’t address sea level rise, the project doesn’t account for coastal access required by the coastal act, the project doesn’t outline any substantial mitigations for the loss of non-motorized connectivity it would cause, and the project has not developed a full plan for accommodating the Humboldt Bay Trail (HBT).

With such fierce popular support expressed for the HBT – trail champion Mike Wilson won re-election to the Bay District with over 70% of the vote – the project’s failure to ensure that the HBT will be accommodated could stymie a project that has been a top priority for trail proponents.

In the grand scheme of regional non-motorized connectivity between cities, the 101 is at the top of the list. If built, the 101 Eureka-Arcata Corridor Improvement Project has the potential to negatively impact trail development between Arcata and Eureka. Designing “improvements” for the 101 without certain accommodation for the Humboldt Bay Trail--- a future portion of the California Coastal Trail (SB908)--- could potentially hem us in. The proposed Humboldt Bay Trail will likely fall on either Caltrans right of way or the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) right-of-way. So, any development along the 101 that increases the width of 101 could impact our ability to have a Rail-with-Trail. This leaves us with our other option, Rail-to-Trail, not only a harder sell among railroad stalwarts, but a cue to Caltrans that this issue cannot be talked about in isolation from the HBT.

The NCRA and Caltrans share another issue in common---sea level rise---which goes hand in hand with trail design as well. To protect the highway from rising sea levels, either the entire highway needs to be elevated, or the railroad prism needs to be enhanced to act as a levy. If Caltrans chooses to enhance the railroad prism as a levy, it makes fiscal sense to do it in a way that accommodates the proposed Class I multi-use trail on the levy. If they choose to raise the level of 101, either gradually as it undergoes maintenance, or as part of this project, Caltrans mustⁱ establish that a Class I multi-use trail is fully feasible outside the Caltrans right-of-way in the face of wetland constraints and sea level rise challenges to the trail, or must accommodate the trail within its right-of-way and protect it, along with the highway facility from sea level rise. This will require Caltrans to conduct design, engineering and permitting for the trail to fully establish its feasibility.

Caltrans representatives have indicated their preference for the second most expensive alternative, 3A. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors who seem to recognize the connectivity and safety implications regarding to cyclists, declined to endorse Caltrans’ preferred alternative in October 2009. A survey conducted in 1999 by the Redwood Community Action Agency recorded an average of 60 cyclists per day using the road shoulders. Those 60 bike commuters a day (may) represent 60 less cars on the 101. Ten years later, we still don’t have data on how many non-motorized users will be inconvenienced if not discouraged and endangered by the 3A alternative.

I say endangered because we’re going to see all kinds of dangerous behavior like wrong way riding and unsafe crossing because of the loss of connectivity for cyclists. 3A will close the median and prevent southbound travel from Bayside Cutoff and Airport Road. Closing the median will prevent all users from making a left turn to head south on the 101 from Bayside Cutoff. Under 3A, in order to head south from Bayside Cutoff you’ll need to drive north to the Samoa Boulevard clover-leaf interchange and turn around. For a cyclist wanting to take the 101 south to Eureka from Bayside Cutoff they will need to travel approximately 6.8 mi out of their way. Adding 6.8 miles to a cyclist’s commute is unrealistic, we will see unsafe behaviors by cyclists trying to cross the closed off median and/or biking in the southward direction on the northbound shoulder. Because the collision data that are cited to justify this project describe a highway with above average safety and approximately average safety at the at-grade intersections, Green Wheels still contends that the No Build option is the most rational approach. This will free up transportation money for more pressing needs such as safety and operational improvements on Broadway, and prevent negative impacts of the project.

Despite the weak justification, decision makers may opt to move ahead with this project in some form to meet the goal of improved intersection safety simply because so much investment has already gone into the planning, design and environmental documentation.  If this turns out to be the case, Alternative 1A with mitigations for impacts to non-motorized connectivity is the most cost-effective build approach to meet the project’s goals. Mitigations would need to include full planning for the Eureka Arcata Humboldt Bay Trail, an additional Class I trail from Bayside cutoff to Bracut, a non-motorized under-crossing at Bracut, a class one multi-use trail connecting the west end of Jacoby’s Ave. to Sixth Street and a non-motorized bridge over 101 at Indianola Cutoff.  This approach would meet Caltrans’ goal of improving safety at the at-grade intersections, save millions in transportation funding that could be put to use on other projects in our community, minimize wetland and other environmental impacts on the project, protect non-motorized connectivity with the mitigations listed, and allow for the timely development of the Humboldt Bay Trail.

Deputy Directive 64 was updated as part of California’s complete streets legislation (Senate Bill 375) in 2008 to require Caltrans to provide “for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State highway system. The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.”