The Coastal Commission staff report released on Friday, June 28, recommends against the proposed interchange at Indianola Cutoff. It is inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s wetland fill policy, since the proposed interchange would increase traffic capacity.
Other conflicts with the Coastal Act are described, including failure to address bicyclist and pedestrian safety, the potential to induce growth, and lack of planning to address sea level rise. A final decision on the project will be determined by the Coastal Commission at its Sept. meeting in Eureka.
According to Humboldt Baykeeper Policy Director Jennifer Kalt, “the Coastal Act limits filling wetlands within the Coastal Zone to very specific purposes – and an interchange isn’t one of them. This is something Caltrans has been informed of before, and yet they have continued to pursue the interchange.” According to the Coastal Commission staff report, road improvements only qualify “if they are 'necessary to maintain existing capacity' and where there is 'no other alternative.'”
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is seeking approval of the estimated $45-65 million project, which is supported by the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG), with the cities of Arcata and Fortuna opposed.
Caltrans proposed six alternatives, including no project (leave as is); closure of all medians; traffic signals at six intersections; and their Preferred Alternative, a half signal at Airport Boulevard and an interchange at Indianola Cutoff. The project was proposed to address safety problems at the Indianola Cutoff and Mid-City Motor World intersections. However, many community members continue to speak out against the interchange for reasons ranging from its enormous cost, impact on coastal wetlands, and safety concerns relating to a likely increase in the speed limit on the corridor.
Representatives from Humboldt Baykeeper and the Northcoast Environmental Center also expressed concerns about growth-inducing impacts an interchange could trigger, hazards to bicyclists, wetland losses, and the expenditure of significant funds without planning for sea level rise or safe bicycle-pedestrian access. “Public funding is scarce and should be leveraged to the greatest public benefit and consideration of long-term needs,” said Kalt. “We hope that Caltrans will go back to the drawing board and come up with something that will protect our precious coastal resources while improving safety and bike/ped access along the 101 Corridor. In the meantime, Caltrans should move forward with a stand-alone project to put a half-signal at Airport Boulevard.”
Dan Ehresman, Executive Director for the Northcoast Environmental Center, expressed his group’s concern about the possible impacts to open space between Arcata and Eureka. “This project does not address the very real threat of increased development pressures on forest and farmland along Indianola Cutoff and Old Arcata Road.” Ehresman also cautioned that the closure of the medians and the resulting increase in traffic speeds would threaten the safety of cyclists. “In Caltrans’ attempt to solve a safety problem for automobiles, they could in fact be making it more dangerous for those who travel by bike. Caltrans’ project proposal fails to address this significant concern that has been raised by members of the public time and time again.”
In May, Humboldt Baykeeper urged Caltrans to postpone the hearing until it could be held in September in Humboldt County. The project is currently on the Commission’s July agenda, but was formally postponed by Caltrans on July 1.
Ckick HERE to download the Commission’s staff report.
Caltrans postpones 101 corridor hearing: Coastal commission staff find issues with project
Times-Standard, July 10, 2013
State commission report snubs Hwy. 101 interchange
McKinleyville Press, July 10, 2013
Caltrans’ Safety Corridor Improvement Project Dealt a Blow in Coastal Commission Staff Report
Lost Coast Outpost, June 29, 2013