Home

Comments on 101 Eureka-Arcata Corridor Improvement Project DEIR

Mon, 08/20/2007 - 00:08 — Chris Rall

Rod Parsons:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 101 Eureka Arcata Corridor Improvement Project. Green Wheels is an advocacy organization committed to promoting balanced and sustainable transportation on the North Coast. Please find our comments attached.

Sincerely,

Chris Rall
Executive Director
Green Wheels

[This document is also available in other formats: download these comments as a PDF file or download these comments as a Microsoft Word file.]

Comments on the 101 Eureka Arcata Corridor Improvement Project DEIR

The Road is Safe with a 50mph Speed Limit

The draft EIR for the 101 Eureka Arcata Corridor Improvement Project makes three false assumptions in its justification for the project. It assumes the corridor is more dangerous than a typical California Highway, it assumes traffic volumes will increase by 50% in the next twenty five years, and it assumes speeds and collision rates will increase over time with the lower speed limit in place to such an extent as to justify safety improvements. The argument that this project is needed to improve safety is based on these three assumptions.

The argument that this corridor is more dangerous than other roads is based on the accident rates at various intersections along the corridor, in particular, the Indianola Cutoff and the Bayside Cutoff. This would appear to have been true based on a heuristic look at the data on accident rates before 2002 when the speed limit was lowered to 50 mph. However, no statistical test was conducted to determine whether any of these numbers were outside the limits of what you might expect for a typical road in California. In fact, the overall collision rate for the whole corridor was below average even before 2002.

Since the speed limit was reduced in 2002, accident rates plummeted to one third of the California average for the entire corridor. A χ2 Goodness of Fit analysis conducted by this researcher (Appendix A) indicates that even the accident rate at Indianola Cutoff is within the range one would expect for an average California highway intersection. Furthermore, there has not been a single fatality on this section of road since the speed limit was reduced, while there have been many fatalities on 101 in Humboldt County on sections of road that are built to a higher standard.

Caltrans suggests speeds and collision rates will increase over time despite the lower speed limit. However, data cited in the document to suggest this have been lifted from other roadways. Caltrans had the option of partitioning the collision data from the corridor to demonstrate an increase in collision rates in the three years since the designation, which dictates double fines for speeders, was lifted. We can only assume they chose not to because the data do not support this assertion. Furthermore, with no actual numbers of collisions reported in the DEIR, it is impossible for a reader to determine whether collision rates are the result of a substantial number of collisions or simply a product of stochasticity. A χ2 Goodness of Fit Test (as we have conducted with some of the data requested and received from Caltrans) or other appropriate statistical test would be able to show whether accident rates are significantly above normal. Because of lack of proper analysis, and given our subsequent analysis (Appendix A) the DEIR fails to make the case that this road is particularly dangerous.

 

Traffic Volume Projections are Overblown

The second assumption is that traffic volumes will increase by 50% in the next 25 years. This assertion is not backed up by data in the Draft EIR. Population growth in Humboldt County has been projected at 0.4% by the Department of Finance (Figure 1) and 0.6% by Caltrans. This would result in a population increase of between 10% and 16% in the next 25 years, which does not correspond to Caltrans’ assertion of a 50% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Caltrans projections of increases in traffic are steeper than the historical data (Figure 2), and much steeper than projected population growth (compare Figures 1 and 2). When accounting for population growth, Caltrans’ projections would predict a more rapid increase in per capita VMT than has occurred historically (Figure 3). This represents an increase of daily per capita VMT from 27 miles today, to 38 miles. When taking into account the fact that one third of the population cannot drive, that means the average motorist will increase their driving from 40 miles today to 57 miles per day in 2031. This scenario is both highly unlikely and highly undesirable. Increases in VMT will hamper efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and limit automobile dependency with its associated costs.1 We should spend regional transportation dollars to prevent this assault on our daily convenience instead of spending to accommodate it.

 

Figure 1 Historical and projected population of Humboldt County.2 Projections call for a 10% population increase over the next 25 years.

 

Figure 2 Historic and projected vehicle miles traveled.3 The vertical line indicates the switch from historical to projected values. Projections call for a 50% increase over the next 25 years.

 

Figure 3 Annual per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) based on data from Figures 1 and 2. A vertical line demarcates the shift from historical to predicted values.

 

 

Failure to Assess Congestion Impacts Elsewhere

This project does not deal with most congested section of 101 in Humboldt County. By building for, and therefore encouraging a 50% increase in traffic volume that is not in sync with population growth, this project threatens to cause gridlock on the already congested 4th and 5th Street section of 101 in Eureka, as well as on Broadway in Eureka. Without planning for the increases in volume dumped onto these streets that cannot carry a higher capacity, this project will actually worsen overall congestion in the region rather than relieve it.

The Broadway section of 101 and 4th and 5th Street between Eureka Slough and Myrtle Avenue in Eureka are listed in The 2004 Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as having a level of service (LOS) of F. As of 2006 the rest of 4th and 5th Streets was down rated from C to E. Contrastingly, LOS in the project area between Eureka and Arcata varies from D to B, passing grades. While this project does not add travel lanes, it does reconfigure the expressway into a freeway enabling higher speeds and safer passage of a higher volume of traffic. If the project did not increase capacity in this sense, it would be unnecessary for the DEIR to repeatedly cite the poorly supported projection of a 50% increase in traffic volumes over 25 years. Increasing the capacity of the corridor will dump huge amounts of traffic onto already failing Eureka streets.

Measures contained within the RTP to mitigate these Eureka congestion problems would cost $115.85 million (Table 1) and it is doubtful whether they would even be effective.

By doing nothing to make alternative transportation more viable, and simultaneously accommodating traffic growth that is 5 times that of projected population growth, this project promises to contribute to increased driving costs for Humboldt County citizens, road costs for various local governments, and environmental consequences, such as carbon emissions, loss of agricultural and forest lands, polluted run-off and reduction of air quality.

 

Table 1 Cost of planned 101 congestion relief projects within Eureka City Limits according to the Action Element of the 2006 Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan. An additional $46.73 million in projects is planned for congestion relief elsewhere in Eureka.

 


 


 


 


Project

Cost

Short Term

(millions)

 


 


 


 


Waterfront Drive Extension, Del Norte to Hilfiker

12.00

Waterfront Drive Extension, G to J

2.50

Waterfront Drive Extension, T to X St

5.05

Widening Broadway

59.70

Commercial reconstruct to Waterfront

1.10

Parking Structure at 3rd and F

16.50

Parking Structure at 4th and G

19.00

Total

115.85

 


 


 


 


 

 

 

There was also a failure to assess traffic impacts to the problematic 101 / 255 interchange caused by out of direction travel that closing the median crossings will cause. On a round trip excursion from Eureka to Bracut, motorists will have to use this interchange, increasing the traffic volume. The interchange can handle an increase in volume of motor-vehicle traffic, but this will have an impact on pedestrian and bicycle access across 101. This is discussed in more detail in the section on barriers to human powered transport.

 

The Lost Alternative

The Draft EIR mentions a transit-based solution to the problems of the corridor as a previously considered alternative, and estimates the cost of the hypothetical transit system to be “$90 million more that[sic] the proposed Build 2 alternative” in order to carry the 20,000 passengers needed to keep traffic volumes constant. As discussed above, this traffic volume increase estimate is five times what population data indicate.

Further investigation revealed that the cost cited in the Draft EIR was in reference to the Value Analysis of the transit alternative (Value Analysis Alternative 3.0), conducted in late 2001 and early 2002 which came up with a cost of $121.2 million (only $66.2 million more than Alternative 2) for transporting enough riders by public transit to keep traffic volumes from increasing on the corridor. This analysis made several absurd assumptions. First, the assumed increase in volume of traffic was greater than historical data suggests. In addition, 75% of new riders on this enhanced system were assumed to need a parking spot in a newly constructed park and ride lot in order to use the system. Exaggerating the park-and-ride capacity required, and the requirement that 75% of that capacity should be in expensive multi-level parking structures, resulted in the addition of $50 million to the cost, nearly doubling the cost of this alternative. The system also had a $23.4 million publicity campaign tacked on.4 Even with these add-ons, the price of this alternative came in below the cost of the Alternative 2 combined with the $115.85 million congestion relief in Eureka (Table 1) that will eventually be required with the preferred alternative.

Even though it had a 10.8% higher performance score than the preferred alternative, this mass transit alternative was dropped prematurely from consideration for several reasons: cost, incompatibility with land use patterns, plentiful parking, and concern that people would choose not to ride it. The problems with the reasoning related to cost have been discussed above.

The alternative was dropped in part because “dispersed moderately low-density housing and employment patterns of Eureka and Arcata” were thought to “limit the ability to feasibly serve travel demand with buses.” Currently, most of Arcata is within 1/3 mile of a city bus stop and the same is true for Eureka. Most of the populations of McKinleyville, Arcata, Eureka and Fortuna are within 1.5 miles of a Redwood Transit Service stop, a distance that can be traveled by bicycle in ten minutes. If we invest in improving mass transit, and in transit-oriented development, we can accommodate growing transportation demand that population growth and economic development brings. Choosing not to invest in transit and transit-oriented development will make it harder to develop a greater transit mode share in the future, which will eventually cripple Eureka with congestion.

The DEIR also states that transit has proven a more viable choice “when LOS as well as parking becomes a problem.” As stated earlier, while LOS on the corridor is acceptable, peak traffic LOS on 101 in Eureka ranges from E to F already. Increases in traffic volume will definitely be expensive to accommodate, and maybe impossible.

While parking is currently plentiful and inexpensive in Downtown Eureka, a recent study found that parking is subsidized at a rate of $80 to $580 per month per space.5 This and Eureka’s plans for $35.5 million to increase parking capacity in parking structures, indicate that parking will not be plentiful for long and continuing to subsidize it will be expensive. There is a “perceptual problem” of limited parking in downtown Arcata,6 but parking problems on the HSU campus are substantial. Parking permits at HSU are in the process of more than doubling from $67.50 per semester in 2005 to $157.50 in 2008. The HSU Masterplan calls for four multi-level parking structures, the first of which is estimated to cost over $12 million.

Meanwhile, a program called JackPass, providing unlimited rides for students on Redwood Transit Service (RTS) is likely to substantially increase student ridership on RTS buses traveling on 101. These buses are already often near capacity and have among the highest farebox recovery ratios in the county, despite headways from one to two hours and no Sunday service.7 Costly and limited parking as well as low LOS are already contributing to transit ridership growth despite limited funding. With enough investment to provide reasonable headways (e.g. 15-30 minutes), there is great potential for an increase in ridership.

Lastly, consumer choice, while affected by convenience of auto travel, is also affected by convenience of mass transit. By developing Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) features on the RTS system such as signal prioritization, dedicated streets or lanes, queue jumps and well placed stations, all elements Caltrans has built in projects around the state,8 the quality and convenience of transit could be raised to meet consumer demand.

 

An Alternative that Should be Included

While Rapid Bus and BRT were less well known when the process for design and implementation of this project began in 2000, today Caltrans provides much of the expertise for construction of this type of project.9 We suggest Caltrans work up plans for a serious mass transit alternative for this project. It might be a Rapid Bus system running from McKinleyville to Fortuna with BRT features such as dedicated lanes and queue jumping in congested parts of Eureka.

Any mass transit alternative should be compared with other alternatives weighing all costs, including congestion mitigation measures in Eureka, changes in automobile ownership and operating costs affected by the alternatives, effects on economic activity and jobs creation, health effects and environmental impacts.

We contend that such an alternative would be highly competitive with the current alternatives, especially when considering the congestion mitigation costs and external costs of the automobile centric alternatives offered in the current DEIR. While this cost would certainly be substantial, improved bus service would mitigate or solve congestion problems on the corridor in question and within Eureka City limits where there is simply no room for a substantial increase in traffic volume capacity.

There are many additional benefits to the mass transit approach. The strategy would be consistent with the Governor’s directive to reduce greenhouse gas pollution,10 while Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are not. Air quality will be substantially better than it would be otherwise. The third of our population that cannot drive will have improved access to the transportation system. A 10% reduction in car ownership and operating costs would result in an economic savings of about $40 million annually for the county as a whole.11 Since most automotive ownership and operating costs are for imported fuel, cars, parts and insurance, 70%12 of that annual $40 million which would otherwise drain out, would instead re-circulate in the economy generating greater economic vitality.

This suggested alternative may or may not be selected as the preferred alternative at the end of the process, but the public has a right to know what we are missing by passing it up. It should be fully considered in the final EIR and compared to the other alternatives based on the full suite of costs and benefits of each, including traffic-volume mitigation and lost time within Eureka City Limits resulting from Alternatives 2 and 3, automobile ownership and operating costs, carbon emissions and health effects.

 

Barriers to Human Powered Transport

The project alternatives include no improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians even though the Eureka-Arcata segment of the Humboldt Bay trail is a top priority in the RTP, and would run along the corridor. The corridor itself constitutes a barrier to human powered transportation. On May 1, 2006 several people were arrested for attempting to walk to Eureka from Arcata along 101.13 In November 2005, several cyclists, part of a large group, were arrested for attempting to ride from Arcata to Eureka in a fashion they felt was the safest.14 Surveys from the Bay Trail Feasibility study suggest that many more people would ride between the two largest cities in Humboldt County if it was possible to do so safely without riding on the expressway.15 The other roads connecting Arcata and Eureka are even more dangerous than 101 due to narrow shoulders.

The Samoa Avenue / 255 bridge over 101 represents an additional barrier to human transport. Due to the ramp banking in the tight cloverleaf design, Caltrans refused Arcata’s 2001 request for stop signs and realignment of lanes on the bridge to provide bike lanes and an ADA accessible sidewalk and crosswalks.16 Arcata has provided or plans to provide sidewalks and bike lanes leading up to either end of the bridge. The bridge itself remains dangerous for cyclists because of the disappearance of the shoulder where off-ramps merge onto Samoa Boulevard. Pedestrians have no cross-walks at off-ramps (Figure 4), and the sidewalk is not built to modern standards. The width of the sidewalk is approximately 2 feet. This limits non-motorized access for Sunny Brae residents to reach the Arcata Marsh and businesses on South G Street. The alternative route which is safe for pedestrians and cyclists, the 7th Street Overcrossing, entails walking nearly an extra half mile,17 hardly a reasonable and convenient alternate route. The ten to fifteen minutes required to walk that distance is 13 to 20 times the delay resulting in a Caltrans LOS rating of F for automobile traffic.

Out of direction travel caused by median closures of the three build alternatives will certainly increase motor vehicle traffic volumes on the bridge, worsening the situation. This researcher was unable to find projections of changes in traffic volume on the Arcata 101 / 255 interchange within the DEIR.

 

Figure 4 The 255 / Samoa Boulevard Bridge over 101 in Arcata has sidewalks approximately 2 ft. wide, no bike lanes, and no crosswalks where 101 off-ramps enter the boulevard, creating dangerous conditions for non-motorized travelers.

 

Two sections of the California Highway Code indicate that CalTrans is obligated to eliminate these two barriers to non-motorized transportation:

 

“887.8. (b) Where the traffic safety or capacity of the highway would be increased, the department shall pay for the construction and maintenance of nonmotorized transportation facilities approximately paralleling the highway.”

 

“888. The department shall not construct a state highway as a freeway that will result in the severance or destruction of an

existing major route for nonmotorized transportation traffic and

light motorcycles, unless it provides a reasonable, safe, and

convenient alternate route or such a route exists.”

 

Due to the passive voice used in rule 887.8.(b), there are two possible interpretations. Because the build alternatives would increase capacity and safety of this section of 101, they obligate CalTrans to “pay for the construction and maintenance of nonmotorized facilities approximately paralleling the highway.” The cost of this addition to the project has been estimated at $31.2 million, although a $14.8 million alternative may be possible through an agreement with the North Coast Railroad Authority.18 This cost should be added to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.

The other interpretation of this rule is that if the bike facility itself would add to the safety and capacity of the highway, “the department shall pay for the construction and maintenance...” The Humboldt Bay Trail Feasibility study found that such a trail would replace 36,388 car trips annually. The current fatal + injury collision rate for bicyclists was not quantified in the DEIR or compared with the state average, but a trail separated from the 50 mph traffic would almost certainly improve safety for cyclists. Since the build alternative of this project would likely raise the speeds to 60 or 65 mph, a separate facility for cyclists would become even more important.

In addition, the design of the 255 Samoa Avenue / 101 cloverleaf interchange is a violation of Highway Code since it has been constructed in such a way that results severance of the Samoa Boulevard Bicycle Route.19 We recommend that as part of this project, this intersection be re-worked into a dumbbell-type diamond interchange similar to the 101 / Giuntoli interchange in North Arcata. This would enable the change of the 255 bridge to two auto travel lanes possible, allowing for bike lanes and sidewalks to be constructed according to best management practices.

 

Consistency with Caltrans’ Mission

A review of Caltrans’ strategic goals is helpful in examining if this project is consistent with Caltrans’ mission. These were lifted from Caltrans’ website.

 

Strategic Goals:

- SAFETY -
Provide the safest transportation system in the nation for users and workers.

- MOBILITY -
Maximize transportation system performance and accessibility.

- DELIVERY -
Efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services.

- STEWARDSHIP -
Preserve and enhance California's resources and assets.

-SERVICE-
Promote quality service through an excellent workforce.”

 

The first goal, Safety, is to provide the “safest transportation system.” The system we now have as a result of emphasis on automobile-dependency kills more young people aged 1-35 than anything else.20 The auto-accident death toll exceeds the equivalent of a 9/11 attack each year in California,21 but could be substantially reduced by deemphasizing personal automobile use. Focusing on fixes here and there to marginally improve safety for motorists will not change the reality that automobile dependent transportation systems are inherently dangerous. Mass transit is 10 times safer per passenger mile than private automobile.22 Regions that are less automobile-oriented have fewer transportation-related deaths.2323

Nowhere in these goals is the word car mentioned. Despite this, over the last fifty years Caltrans has created a transportation system tailored almost entirely to cars and trucks, and this project is no exception. The second goal, Mobility, includes maximizing transportation system accessibility. This system is not “accessible” to over one third of our citizens who don’t drive,24 whether they are too old, too young, or cannot afford a car.

The fourth goal, stewardship, is called into question with this project. Given the weak justification for this project discussed above, permanently filling 3.78 (Alternative 1) to 15.3 (Alternative 3) acres of coastal wetland does not represent good stewardship of our natural resources. These wetlands serve as fish and wildlife habitat, and act to improve water quality of Humboldt Bay.

Deputy Directive 64 clarifies the importance of planning for all users:

“The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project development activities and products.” There has been little to no planning in this project for the needs of non-motorized travelers. An expressway is not an appropriate facility for bicyclists and pedestrians, yet this is the only direct route between the two largest cities in Humboldt County. This project does nothing to fix the most significant problem with the corridor.

 

Consistency with Local Transportation and Land Use Plans

On page 76, the DEIR states that “no inconsistencies with local adopted goals and policies of the Cities of Arcata and Eureka or Humboldt County were identified.” We believe Caltrans failed to identify many inconsistencies. Furthermore, the DEIR cites no-build alternative inconsistencies with the 1984 Humboldt County General Plan policy 4231.3. This General Plan was meant to serve for 20 years (until 2004) is out of date and in the process of being revised, therefore any inconsistencies with this plan are subsidiary to current plans.

 

Arcata

Arcata General Plan, Transportation Element:

The project is inconsistent with the Arcata General Plan. The Transportation Element of the General Plan has a heavy emphasis on alternative transportation (Appendix B). It emphasizes alternative modes of transportation, and sets forth the goal of reducing the percentage of trips that are made by automobile as well as vehicle miles traveled. These goals are inconsistent with a project that plans for increases in motor-vehicle traffic without improvements for other modes of travel. The loss of connectivity caused by closing median crossings will increase vehicle miles traveled by forcing visitors to the Bracut Business Park to travel several miles out of their way to complete a round trip. More specifically, the plan states that Arcata does not support “any new interchanges, on State Route 101.” This represents a major inconsistency for Alternatives 2 and 3 which propose the construction of a new interchange.

 

Arcata Bike and Pedestrian Plan

The Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan clearly cites the corridor between Eureka and Arcata as a route in need of bicycle improvements. This project, while not preventing the construction of a trail, fails to balance transportation improvements by providing a trail.

 

The project also fails to accommodate two proposed non-motorized routes in the Arcata plan. First, Route 255 / Samoa Boulevard / Old Arcata Road in its entirety is an existing or proposed Class II bike route within Arcata City Limits (Figure 5). Banking the turns on the hook ramps of the cloverleaf interchange precludes reducing the bridge to 2 lanes to allow for the proposed bike lanes. Instead of reworking the ramps to deal with this problem, the project eliminates sidewalks from the on and off ramps and creates additional motor vehicle traffic at the interchange due to out of direction travel. Second, the Arcata plan proposes a pedestrian trail from South G Street to Old Arcata Road near Jacoby Creek Road (Figure 5). The project constitutes major resurfacing without providing pedestrian access over or under the freeway required by this plan.


Figure 5 Map of existing and proposed bike and pedestrian routes from the Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Areas in conflict with the 101 improvements are circled.

 

 

Eureka

Eureka Strategic Visioning 2004

The council goal statement in this most recent plan for the city of Eureka calls for pedestrians and bicyclists to come first. The strategic vision also calls for expanded transit opportunities (Appendix D). Because this expensive project incorporates no transit, bicycle or pedestrian improvements it is inconsistent with these goals and policies.

 

Humboldt County

2006 Regional Transportation Plan

The 2006 Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan contains policy for the reduction of single occupant vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, by creating a balanced multimodal transportation system and emphasizing transit-oriented land use policies (Appendix E). There is a large array of policy within the RTP which promotes balancing our modes of transportation, providing for all modes, reducing single occupant vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled and peak traffic volumes. These goals and policies are at odds with a project designed for a 50% increase in traffic volume and a project which only provides improvements for a motor-vehicle travel.

 

Conclusion

The 101 Eureka Arcata Corridor Improvement Project has been proposed as vital to the safety of the corridor. However, the data suggest that the speed limit reduction was adequate to improve safety. There have been no fatal collisions since the speed limit was reduced, and the corridor as a whole is three times as safe as an average California roadway of this type, length and traffic volume. The expense of this project will draw regional transportation dollars away from projects that can more cost-effectively deal with more pressing transportation problems, such as Eureka congestion, under-funded transit and the lack of safe non-motorized access between Eureka and Arcata, the two largest cities in the county.

Projections for increased traffic volume on this roadway have been exaggerated, and all relevant local plans call for reductions in driving or a balance of multiple modes through alternative transportation improvements. This puts local plans at odds with the traffic projections, and at odds with a project that provides no improvements for the very modes that are in need of improvement to achieve a more balanced transportation system.

We recommend the “No Build Alternative.” In the 2008 regional transportation plan, we have an opportunity to look at better options to accommodate more realistic increases in travel demand, through bicycle and pedestrian improvements and transit improvements such as “Rapid Bus” or “Bus Rapid Transit.” We welcome Caltrans’ expertise and involvement in researching and developing projects along these lines.

Appendix A
I conducted a χ2 Goodness of Fit Test on the number of fatal + injury collisions that took place at Indianola cutoff, the intersection of greatest concern, both before and after the 50 mph speed limit was applied. I used MS Excel’s “chidist” function to calculate the P-value.
Ho: O (Observed number of collisions) = E (Expected number)
Ha: O unequal to E
alpha = 0.10
1997-2002 (60 mph):
O = 12 (number of fatal + injury collisions at Indianola)
E = 5.6112 (Average rate of 0.08 * 70.14 million vehicles)
χ2 = (O-E)2/E
χ2 = 7.2416
P < 0.007 < alpha therefore reject Ho
There were significantly more collisions than would be expected at an average California intersection of this type when the speed limit was 60 mph.
2002-2005 (50mph):
O = 5
E = 3.935 (0.08 * 49.19 million vehicles)
χ2 = 0.288
P = 0.591 > alpha therefore fail to reject Ho
There were not significantly more collisions than would be expected at an average California intersection of this type when the speed limit was 50 mph.
Appendix B
Transportation Element of the Arcata General Plan Excerpts
POLICY T-1 BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WITH CHOICE OF MODES
Objective. Create and maintain a balanced transportation system with choice of bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian as well as private automobile modes. Reduce the percentage of trips that are made by automobile and provide the opportunity and facilities to divert trips from automobiles to other modes.
T-1a
Investment in alternative modes. In order to provide a realistic and cost-effective balance between travel modes, the City shall emphasize investment in alternative modes (bikeways, etc.) as a priority over increasing vehicular capacities of streets.
T-1c
Intercity travel. The City shall coordinate with Humboldt County and Caltrans to provide adequate facilities for vehicles, buses, and bicycles to serve intercity demand. Joint efforts may include transportation improvements outside of Arcata which serve intercity travel, such as bicycle links, timed-transfer bus stops, park-and-ride lots, and regional transit service and development of park-and-ride lots in Arcata to reduce intercity vehicular travel.
POLICY T-2 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Objective. Reduce the percentage of automobiles and reduce the annual vehicle-miles of travel.
POLICY T-3 BUS TRANSIT POLICY
Objective. Maintain a bus transit system which connects and serves major commercial and employment areas within Arcata, Humboldt State University, public schools, and higher density residential areas. Increase average citywide transit mode share of daily person trips to 5% from the 1998 level of 1%.
T-3b
Regional transit service. Short- and long-range transit plans shall be coordinated with the regional transit service provided by the Redwood Transit System. The City supports regional transit plans which improve service and timed transfers, and reduce headways for intercity travel.
POLICY T-4 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PLAN AND POLICY
Objectives. Plan an internal street system consistent with Arcata's small-town, non-metropolitan character and which: 1) efficiently utilizes existing facilities and reduces need for investment in new or expanded street and highway facilities or capacities; 2) improves connectivity of streets to provide for direct routes between origins and destinations; 3) has a high quality of regular maintenance and repair; and 4) maintains a level of service which minimizes delays, but allows for higher levels of congestion during the short peak periods on weekdays.
T-4a
Freeways and Highways. State Routes 101 and 299 are designated as freeways for their entire length in the City. State Route 255 is designated as both an arterial and a highway within the City. The following standards shall apply to these classifications:
1. Function. The function of freeways is to provide for high speed automobile and freight movement for intercity and regional travel. Freeway access is highly controlled to achieve this function. Freeway operations, design, and maintenance are under the jurisdiction of the State. Highways (Route 255) also function to move automobiles and freight at relatively high speeds with little friction from intersections and conflicting traffic. Access is controlled on highways, but not as restrictive as freeways. [See functional classification map in Figure T-a.]
2. No additional travel lanes. The City does not support development of any additional through-travel lanes to State Routes 101, 299, or 255 in Arcata or nearby areas. Existing and projected traffic volumes do not warrant additional lanes on these facilities.
3. Auxiliary lanes. The City does not support construction of auxiliary lanes between existing interchanges, or any new interchanges, on State Route 101.

 

 

 

Appendix C

Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (Relevant Excerpts)

Objective G

Provide bicycle connections outside of the city limits, linking important destinations like Eureka with Arcata.

Objective G Policy Actions

1. Work and coordinate with neighboring City and County agencies to provide integrated bikeways.

2. Integrate with trails outside of the city limits, for example: Arcata - Eureka and Arcata – McKinleyville 101 Corridor, SR 255, Hammond Trail, Annie & Mary Rail-Trail, and Pacific Coast Bike Route.

Appendix D

Eureka Strategic Visioning 2004 (Relevant Excerpts)

“The City of Eureka supports a creative approach to traffic engineering that puts pedestrians and bicyclists first, encourages a safe, walkable downtown, and builds community and character in our neighborhoods. To maintain these qualities as our city moves into the future, we plan to undertake the following action.”

Planned actions include:

“07/10 Incorporate walkability concepts into all community plans and projects”

“Encourage increased use of Public Transportation”

“06/06 Provide expanded transit opportunities to reduce vehicle dependency in the Downtown

and Oldtown districts to encourage and facilitate pedestrian mobility once they arrive”

 

 

 

Appendix E

Humboldt County 2006 Regional Transportation Plan Excerpts:

 

“The overall goal of the Regional Transportation Plan for Humboldt County is:

To develop, operate and maintain a well-coordinated, balanced, regionwide multimodal transportation system that is safe, efficient, and provides good access to all cities, communities, and recreational facilities, and into adjoining regions. A balanced multimodal transportation system includes but is not limited to highway, public transit, aviation, marine, railroads, recreation, bicycle, pedestrian, and utility systems.”

 

Goal A:

“Goal: Build, maintain a safe and efficient highways, roadways, and streets system that will accommodate and balance multiple modes of transportation.”

 

“A-12 Policy: Promote equity, cost effectiveness, and modal balance in programming processes.”

“Objective: Program all funds based on multi-modal transportation needs and priorities as established in the RTP. Prioritize and balance projects based on cost effectiveness as well as need.”

 

Goal D:

“Goal: Create a transportation system that provides inter-community and intra-community nonmotorized pedestrian, bicycle travel throughout the region.

D-1 Policy: Develop a cohesive system of regional bikeways that provide access to and among major activity centers, public transportation, recreation, and other destinations eliminating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel.”

“D-9 Policy: HCAOG recognizes the high level of public support for provision of a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility between Arcata and Eureka.”

 

Goal G:

“Goal: Minimize traffic congestion, reliance on single occupancy vehicles, and maximize awareness of travel options through Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques (Intelligent Transportation System (ITS); Advanced Transportation System (ATS)).”

“G-2 Policy: Promote a balanced multimodal transportation system that provides equitable levels of access for all travel modes.”

“Objective: Support land use policies that encourage intermodal transportation connections, such as encouraging development near existing transportation services, integrating transportation improvements with infill developments, and allowing medium- to high-density development and mixed land uses.”

“G-3 Policy: Promote Transportation System Management (TSM) Measures.

Objective: Encourage the use of public transit, as well as ride-sharing, carpools, vanpools, bicycle commuting, walking, and telecommuting.”

“G-4 Policy: Implement Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies where clear opportunities and benefits exist.

Objective: Implement strategies of transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) to conserve energy, improve air quality, and to provide congestion relief, as an alternative to capacity improvements.”

 

Goal H:

“Goal: Continue to meet the County's needs for water, natural gas, and electricity through safe, reliable, and environmentally compatible transmission systems. Plan and operate transportation systems to reduce energy consumption and its environmental and social impacts.”

“H-6 Policy: Consider energy conservation in transportation decisions.

Objective: Analyze and consider energy consumption impacts when planning both new transportation facilities and the maintenance or expansion of existing facilities. Caltrans and HCAOG member preference will be given to projects that:

• Reduce the need for vehicle trips (for example, giving preference to mass transit, improved air and overland bus service, electronic information transmission);

• Reduce per-trip energy consumption (for example, encouraging use of efficient vehicles or pedestrian travel, improving traffic flow) and;

• Promote energy-efficient patterns of residential and commercial development.

Energy conservation is also a key objective of transportation system management policies.”

 

Goal I:

“Goal: Promote energy efficient and environmentally compatible land use patterns that foster accessibility using appropriate modes of transportation.”

“I-2 Policy: Encourage Cities and County to plan for land use patterns that reduce automobile miles traveled.

Objective: Promote and favor development and redevelopment plans that minimize the energy used for commuting, such as higher density and mixed land uses, infill development, bicycle, transit and pedestrian oriented developments, and increased job-to-housing balance, maximum street interconnectivity, and minimization of cul-de-sacs.

Objective: Higher residential densities shall be encouraged in areas that are served by public transit routes and are close to major employment or commercial centers.”

“I-3 Policy: Encourage major Commercial, Business, Industrial, or Mixed-use facilities to develop transportation management plans.

Objective: Transportation management plans should address energy conservation measures such as connectivity to alternative transportation modes; preferential parking for carpools, vanpools, motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles; shuttle services; alternative fueling stations; transit passes; bike lockers; and locker room facilities.

Objective: Management plans should include policies to encourage local employers to offer flex-time and/or shifting work schedules which minimize employees’ impacts on peak hour traffic and to provide incentives for employees to use alternatives to the single-occupancy automobile mode of travel.”

“I-6 Policy: Encourage transit-oriented development.

Objective: Reduce automobile travel by encouraging cities to allow high density residential and mixed land uses (i.e., residential and commercial) in urban and urbanizing areas, integrated with public transportation.

Objective: Reduce vehicle trips and trip lengths by encouraging a better job-to-housing balance in land use planning and development.”

 

Goal J:

“Goal: Reduce transportation related air pollution through reductions in single occupancy vehicle trips, increased pedestrian, bicycle and public transit use, and conversions to low emission vehicles.”

“J-2 Policy: Reduce levels of PM10, a pollutant for which the air basin is in non-attainment, through programs to reduce vehicle emissions and reduce vehicle trips.”

 

1 Todd Litman. 2002 Automobile dependency and Economic Development. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute: http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf.
2 Historical data is from the U.S Census (http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/usac/usatable.pl), projected data is based on population projections from the US Department of Finance http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E1/E-1text.asp.
3 Historical and projected data are from the 2006 “California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast” report from Caltrans: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/otfa/mtab/MVSTAFF/MVSTAFF06.pdf Appendix B, Table 2.
4 Value Analysis Report: Route 101 Eureka to Arcata Corridor Improvements, February 2002. Prepared by Value Management Strategies, Inc.
5 HCAOG. 2003. Parking Needs Study. Submitted by Dowling Associates, Inc. http://www.hcaog.net/docs/Regional_Parking.pdf.
6 See footnote 5.
7 HCAOG’s 2006 Regional Transportation Plan, Needs Assessment: http://hcaog.net/docs/RTP.2006/pdf/Needs%20Assessment%202006.pdf.
8 Caltrans. 2007. Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/DOCS_PDFS/BRT/BRT_Handbook_0307.pdf.
9 See footnote 6
10 Executive Order S-3-05: http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0825965329.1186779186@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdaddljehkekmcfngcfkmdffidfng.0&iOID=69591&sTitle=Executive+Order+S-3-05&sFilePath=/govsite/executive_orders/20050601_S-3-05.html&sCatTitle=Exec+Order.

11 $3943 per car-year * 2 cars per household (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, estimates $7887 per year spent on the average two vehicles owned per household from

http://www.bls.gov/ro7/cexwest.htm) * 128,330 people / 2.39 people per household (BLS 2006 estimate for Humboldt County) = $423,435,305, 10% of which is approximately $40 million.

12 Todd Litman and Felix Laube. 2002. Automobile Dependency and Economic Development. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute: http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf.
13 May Day meltdown. May 9, 2006. Arcata Eye Newspaper: http://arcataeye.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&tid=2&topic=3&func=viewpub&pid=91&format=full.
14 See previous footnote.
15 Humboldt Bay Trail Feasibility Study, 2007. Alta Planning, PlanWest, and HCAOG: http://hcaog.net/docs/trail_study/final_feasibility_study/Humboldt%20Bay%20Trail%20report.pdf.
16 Doby Class, Arca