Take Action on the 101 Corridor Project at the Coastal Commission!
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Green Wheels
Apr 13, 2012, 12:02:18 PM4/13/12
to green...@googlegroups.com
Hello Green Wheelers –
The Caltrans’ Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Improvement Project will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission for consistency with the California Coastal Act at a hearing in San Rafael, CA May 9-11 – and this means sustainable transportation advocates have the opportunity to let Commissioners know that this project does not meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians for safety, would diminish coastal access to Humboldt Bay per the Coastal Act and is detrimental to connectivity to adjacent communities.
Thank you all for the tremendous turnout of transportation advocates to meetings last fall at the Humboldt County Association of Governments, at which HCAOG voted to allocate regional funding to the 101 Corridor Project should the project pass all regulatory hurdles, including review by the Coastal Commission.
We still have the opportunity to speak out about this project through letters to the Coastal Commission seeking for denial of the project in its current form.
Local Coastal Commission staff from the North Coast District have voiced concerns about this project (e.g. letter to Caltrans dated December 19, 2008 and letter to Board of Supervisors dated October 5, 2009) regarding the lack of adequate coastal access and safe accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians along this vital link between Humboldt County’s two largest population centers.
North Coast District staff have reiterated that the Caltrans project did not analyze an adequate range of alternatives, including an alternative with a separated non-motorized pathway. Other comments include lack of full consideration of sea level rise impacts, coastal viewshed issues with the proposed overpass and potential service/development expansion along the Corridor.
Please help voice your concern on the 101 Corridor Project by sending/emailing letters by Friday, April 20th directly to the Coastal Commission staff lead Mark Delaplaine (contact info below). Coastal Commission staff will include written letters in Coastal Commissioners’ packets and also will consider local comments to incorporate into staff recommendations. A sample letter is below and attached – Commissioners will be looking to understand how the local community views the proposed project so personal testimony is highly encouraged!
Thank you all for speaking out for sustainable transportation considerations along the 101 Safety Corridor!
Best,
The Green Wheels Team
Sample 101 Corridor Project comment letter
April 20, 2012
Mark Delaplaine
Manager, Energy, Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Mark.De...@coastal.ca.gov
(415) 904-5289
Re: Comments on the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project
Dear Coastal Commission,
Opening Paragraph
Here you will want to identify yourself and your interest as a stakeholder. Personalizing the letter with information specific to your situation will help draw the reader in.
Example: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Consistency Review of the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project. I am a resident of the Humboldt Bay area and daily user of the Corridor – by bike, car, and bus – and recognize the importance of this Corridor in connecting the two largest population centers in Humboldt County. I am writing to highlight the missed opportunity of this project to better serve the needs of local residents, protect coastal resources and enhance coastal access along the diverse coastline of Humboldt Bay. The lack of safe accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor in this project is not only a coastal access issue but also an issue of equity in planning, design and implementation of this critical transportation link in our community.
Second Paragraph
Identify why the 101 Corridor Project is an important issue for local Humboldt County residents, touring cyclists, coastal access, and adjacent communities. It is helpful to address what impacts this project could have on users and potential users of the corridor.
Example: Our Humboldt Bay area communities have strongly voiced the need for safe, separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor, and many grassroots advocates have continued to speak out for this need at local hearings on the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project and other venues.
Third Paragraph
Provide specific considerations for why the 101 Corridor Project as proposed does not meet the needs of non-motorized users nor adhere to Coastal Act guidance for coastal access.
Example: The project as proposed does little to improve access for bicyclists and effectively denies pedestrian access along this coastal route, in direct juxtaposition to the California Coastal Act Section 30212, in which new development projects shall provide for public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast.
While the proposed vehicle overpass at Indianola may increase safety at this intersection, the closing of other key medians along the 101 Corridor will cause extensive out-of-direction travel for non-motorized users, impact traffic through adjacent communities and prohibit the use of a very well-frequented place of accommodations (KOA campground at Bracut) for cyclists touring the Pacific Coast Bike Route and multiple users traversing the California Coastal Trail, in direct juxtaposition to Coastal Action section 30213 ensuring ‘Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.’
In addition, the project as proposed does not meet the guidelines of Caltrans’ own Deputy Directive 64-R1 which states that ‘The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers…This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all the Department’s practices.’
The current project as proposed does not analyze an adequate range of alternatives, including an alternative with a separated non-motorized facility as continually recommended by local Coastal Commission North Coast District staff in letters to Caltrans and the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors dated December 19, 2008 and October 5, 2009, respectively. A separated multipurpose path (e.g. guard-rail separated as recommended by North Coast District staff) on the west side of 101 would ensure coastal access for all users and a separated bike-way on the east side of 101 would ensure connectivity for cyclists in both travel directions.
Closing
Example: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the federal consistency review of the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project. In conclusion I feel this project does not improve access or safety for non-motorized users and hope the Commission considers denial of the project as currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Judy Walksalot
The Caltrans’ Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Improvement Project will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission for consistency with the California Coastal Act at a hearing in San Rafael, CA May 9-11 – and this means sustainable transportation advocates have the opportunity to let Commissioners know that this project does not meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians for safety, would diminish coastal access to Humboldt Bay per the Coastal Act and is detrimental to connectivity to adjacent communities.
Thank you all for the tremendous turnout of transportation advocates to meetings last fall at the Humboldt County Association of Governments, at which HCAOG voted to allocate regional funding to the 101 Corridor Project should the project pass all regulatory hurdles, including review by the Coastal Commission.
We still have the opportunity to speak out about this project through letters to the Coastal Commission seeking for denial of the project in its current form.
Local Coastal Commission staff from the North Coast District have voiced concerns about this project (e.g. letter to Caltrans dated December 19, 2008 and letter to Board of Supervisors dated October 5, 2009) regarding the lack of adequate coastal access and safe accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians along this vital link between Humboldt County’s two largest population centers.
North Coast District staff have reiterated that the Caltrans project did not analyze an adequate range of alternatives, including an alternative with a separated non-motorized pathway. Other comments include lack of full consideration of sea level rise impacts, coastal viewshed issues with the proposed overpass and potential service/development expansion along the Corridor.
Please help voice your concern on the 101 Corridor Project by sending/emailing letters by Friday, April 20th directly to the Coastal Commission staff lead Mark Delaplaine (contact info below). Coastal Commission staff will include written letters in Coastal Commissioners’ packets and also will consider local comments to incorporate into staff recommendations. A sample letter is below and attached – Commissioners will be looking to understand how the local community views the proposed project so personal testimony is highly encouraged!
Thank you all for speaking out for sustainable transportation considerations along the 101 Safety Corridor!
Best,
The Green Wheels Team
Sample 101 Corridor Project comment letter
April 20, 2012
Mark Delaplaine
Manager, Energy, Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Mark.De...@coastal.ca.gov
(415) 904-5289
Re: Comments on the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project
Dear Coastal Commission,
Opening Paragraph
Here you will want to identify yourself and your interest as a stakeholder. Personalizing the letter with information specific to your situation will help draw the reader in.
Example: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Consistency Review of the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project. I am a resident of the Humboldt Bay area and daily user of the Corridor – by bike, car, and bus – and recognize the importance of this Corridor in connecting the two largest population centers in Humboldt County. I am writing to highlight the missed opportunity of this project to better serve the needs of local residents, protect coastal resources and enhance coastal access along the diverse coastline of Humboldt Bay. The lack of safe accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor in this project is not only a coastal access issue but also an issue of equity in planning, design and implementation of this critical transportation link in our community.
Second Paragraph
Identify why the 101 Corridor Project is an important issue for local Humboldt County residents, touring cyclists, coastal access, and adjacent communities. It is helpful to address what impacts this project could have on users and potential users of the corridor.
Example: Our Humboldt Bay area communities have strongly voiced the need for safe, separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor, and many grassroots advocates have continued to speak out for this need at local hearings on the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project and other venues.
Third Paragraph
Provide specific considerations for why the 101 Corridor Project as proposed does not meet the needs of non-motorized users nor adhere to Coastal Act guidance for coastal access.
Example: The project as proposed does little to improve access for bicyclists and effectively denies pedestrian access along this coastal route, in direct juxtaposition to the California Coastal Act Section 30212, in which new development projects shall provide for public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast.
While the proposed vehicle overpass at Indianola may increase safety at this intersection, the closing of other key medians along the 101 Corridor will cause extensive out-of-direction travel for non-motorized users, impact traffic through adjacent communities and prohibit the use of a very well-frequented place of accommodations (KOA campground at Bracut) for cyclists touring the Pacific Coast Bike Route and multiple users traversing the California Coastal Trail, in direct juxtaposition to Coastal Action section 30213 ensuring ‘Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.’
In addition, the project as proposed does not meet the guidelines of Caltrans’ own Deputy Directive 64-R1 which states that ‘The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers…This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all the Department’s practices.’
The current project as proposed does not analyze an adequate range of alternatives, including an alternative with a separated non-motorized facility as continually recommended by local Coastal Commission North Coast District staff in letters to Caltrans and the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors dated December 19, 2008 and October 5, 2009, respectively. A separated multipurpose path (e.g. guard-rail separated as recommended by North Coast District staff) on the west side of 101 would ensure coastal access for all users and a separated bike-way on the east side of 101 would ensure connectivity for cyclists in both travel directions.
Closing
Example: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the federal consistency review of the Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor Project. In conclusion I feel this project does not improve access or safety for non-motorized users and hope the Commission considers denial of the project as currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Judy Walksalot
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages