Humboldt County Planning Commission and Staff:

We are a coalition of environmental groups who would like to see parking policies in Humboldt County reconsidered. We hope a final Circulation Element, Community Design element, and other General Plan elements will address our concerns regarding parking policy in Humboldt County.

Humboldt County Planning Commission and staff:

We would like to offer comments on the Circulation Element to suggest a planning basis that will maximize investment in existing roadways, help to minimize future congestion and emissions issues, and potentially contribute to telecom infrastructure and services development in Humboldt County.

This letter appeared as a guest opinion editorial on 30 September 2007 in the Eureka Reporter, and in the Times-Standard.

To the California Department of Transportation and Humboldt County Association of Governments,

We are a coalition of North Coast groups representing diverse interests in our community.

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.

Journal Editor:

I'd like to offer some corrections to Matt Jackson's "On the bus" story [appeared in The Journal, 16 August 2007].

Editor,

In his Op-Ed piece last Sunday (Let's reframe trail-rail discussion, 7/22) Dave Meserve got most of the story right. “Mount Indianola,” the proposed interchange at the Indianola cut-off on route 101 between Eureka and Arcata, part of a $55-62 million project, is not justified given the effectiveness that reducing the speed limit has had on reducing accident rates. The safety corridor has 1/3 the number of accidents as your average California roadway of similar length and traffic volume. Given Eureka’s plans for over $130 million in traffic congestion relief projects over the next 20 years, investment in mass transit and bicycle infrastructure is starting to look like a better alternative.

Meserve has it wrong, however, with the idea that light rail will fulfill our mass transit needs. Light rail is not compatible with the other planned uses for the rail, would require two tracks so trains could move in opposite directions (there is only one) and is inappropriate for our small dispersed population.

To: Transportation Safety Committee, City of Arcata
Re: Bike Lane to disappear on K St. @ 11th

Dear City Representatives,

Letter to Eureka Reporter, 7/7/2007

Dear Editor,

In Nathan Rushton’s article about the Harbor District (“New hire has Harbor District hopeful for a revenue, port shipping increase” on July 2), the North Coast Railroad Authority is described as “beginning in earnest this year to restore its defunct rail service.”

This letter appeared in the Arcata Eye.

June 28, 2007

Roy Curless, President
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District
Startare Drive
Eureka, CA 95501

Commissioner Curless,