Dear Mr. Parsons:

This letter reflects our concerns regarding the alternatives under consideration for the Eureka-Arcata Corridor, as stated in the Draft EIS/EIR.

The Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Association has worked for the last 25 years toward its goal, which is “to improve and encourage bicycle commuting.” In applying that goal to thealternatives currently under consideration for the Eureka-Arcata Corridor, we find that none ofthe alternatives helps work toward that goal, and in fact, each would have an adverse impact onthe needs of those who choose to use a bicycle as a mode of transportation.

The Arcata/Eureka corridor is the most heavily used state highway section for bicyclists inHumboldt County. This is a critical facility for bicycle commuters, and accommodating cyclistshelps reduce motor vehicle trips, reduces maintenance needs, reduces air pollution, and improvesthe health of the community.

Increasing the speed limit from 50 to 65 will likely increase average speeds by about 20 mph. Most traffic currently is traveling close to 50 mph. If the speed limit is increased to 65, we canexpect the average traffic to be near 70 mph based on what has occurred on other sections offreeway on the north coast. With speeds near 70 mph, bicyclists in this heavily traveled corridorwill be more likely to be involved in a collision due to inattentive motorists. This certainly willnot encourage more bicyclists to consider commuting along the corridor. The shoulder currentlyused by cyclists is the first place disabled motor vehicles park, and is often littered with debris.Cyclists must occasionally maneuver into the travel lane to negotiate around shoulder blockageor hazards. With a 65 mph speed limit, the ability to do this safely is reduced, and the reactiontime of motorists is significantly reduced.

All alternatives, except the No Build, result in median closures and create out-of-direction travel,which is stated to be “less than 10 percent of total travel in the corridor” and is deemed“insignificant” in the Draft EIR/EIS. If the total is near 10 percent, all being made up ofmotorists who work, shop or seek services in the corridor, this is significant. In fact, a 10percent increase in traffic would be equivalent to five years of expected traffic growth occurringon Day 1 of the new highway. This will increase rather than decrease congestion. A purpose ofthe project is to “Reduce delay at intersections”, yet all of the “Build” alternatives will requiresignificant out-of-direction travel, resulting in longer trip times.

For bicyclists, the impacts are very significant. Consider bicyclists who had been commutingfrom the Bayside area to Eureka daily via Route 101. They would now be faced with a 4-mileout-of-direction trip north to the Samoa Boulevard Interchange. After negotiating thecloverleaf, they would then begin their trip to Eureka. While that would be significant for amotorist, adding 5 minutes to a regular trip, for a bicyclist the added time for the commute wouldbe more like 20 minutes! Remember the controversy with the campaign “Give up a minute forsafety”, when the issue of 50 mph versus 60 mph was debated? Some motorists weren’t willingto accept that kind of delay. By closing the median to crossing traffic, bicyclists will be facedwith giving up 10 to 20 minutes on their trips.

The alternative for bicyclists would be to use Old Arcata Road, currently with no pavedshoulders from Three Corners to Bayside. Even when widened, one cannot look forward to anadequately maintained roadway for bicyclists as evidenced by the roadway from Three Cornersto Eureka for which Mother Nature has reclaimed at least half of the shoulder. Bicyclists mustnegotiate rocks, berry bushes, potholes and a ragged pavement edge along the edge stripe inmany areas. When having to take the traffic lane to avoid debris, bicyclists must worry aboutheavy traffic and poor sight distance. The Ryan Slough Bridge on Old Arcata Road is alsooccasionally icy, resulting in a hazardous commute for cyclists. In addition, Old Arcata Roadenters Eureka about 2 miles from the Hwy 101 corridor, which will also add time to a cyclist’scommute to downtown locations.

Some end points do not allow for the use of Old Arcata Road. Consider bicyclists who commuteto Mid City from Eureka. With Alternatives 2 and 3 the return trip would require them to gonorth to the Indianola Interchange before going south, adding another 2 miles to the trip.Similar situations would occur for those traveling from Arcata to the Mill Yard; from Arcata orEureka to Bracut; and to the Farm Store or Carl Johnsons (if no traffic signal were provided).It should also be anticipated that closing the medians could result in more cyclists riding thewrong way on the highway shoulder to get to their destination rather than riding miles out-ofdirection. For example, a cyclist riding from Arcata to The Mill Yard would be tempted to rideback to Arcata on the wrong side to avoid riding to Indianola. If the Airport Road signal is notconstructed, a Eureka resident riding to Jacobs Avenue would be similarly tempted to ride backthe wrong way. This would certainly reduce safety for all users, including other cyclists. We are also concerned about the proposal in Alternative 3 to add a continuous third northboundlane between Cole Avenue and Mid City Motor World. This auxiliary lane would be hazardousto cross, and would likely reduce the available shoulder for cyclists. The current accelerationlane at Mid City results in a very narrow shoulder.

We believe that Caltrans is obligated under its own policies to provide equal or better service tobicyclists in conjunction with new highway construction. In the absence of provisions forimprovements, such as a separate bike path, the Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Associationmust reluctantly endorse the No Build Alternative. A parallel Class 1 bike path will encouragemany more cyclists, and potential cyclists, to commute the corridor by bike. If a project isundertaken, we believe serious consideration should be given to maintaining the 50 mph speedlimit from Indianola to the Eureka Slough Bridge, especially if a traffic signal is to be installed at Airport Road.

For bicycle commuters, all of the “build” alternatives are a disaster, and set the accommodationof bicycles on the corridor back 30 years or more.

Sincerely,
Scott Kelly, President, Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Association

cc: Board of Directors, Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Association; Humboldt County Board of Supervisors; Eureka City Council; Arcata City Council; Humboldt County Association of Governments