Old Arcata Road bike lane construction shown here in green.
By summer’s end, 7-foot wide bike/pedestrian lanes will flank Old Arcata Road from Three Corners to Stephens Lane.
The construction, which got underway last month, is the final phase of a project that began in the late 1970’s, according to Chris Wentworth, Deputy Director of Humboldt County Public Works. He told KHUM last week the project will connect with existing lanes running through Bayside to Arcata.
Construction will continue thru August.
But that’s not the end of the trail. Work begins summer 2009 on a similar shoulder-widening from 3 Corners to Freshwater Park, Wentworth said.
Also down the road are plans to extend the multi-use lane toward Eureka to Myrtletown. Wentworth beat out other projects around the state to secure grant funds for that arm of the extension, according to trail advocate Jen Rice, co-host of the “Happy Trails” show on KHUM.
Listen to the show here. Catch Happy Trails every Tuesday at 8am.
RSS - Posts
July 4, 2008 at 6:57 am
Fantastic news! With a such great trail all along Old Arcata Road and even out to Freshwater park there is now no reason to tear up and give away the right away along 101. Hooray.
July 4, 2008 at 7:27 am
It IS good news, especially for folks in Kneeland who now have to swerve into the other lane when driving on Myrtle/Old Arcata Rd to avoid bicyclists.
And as long as we’re improving the commute between Arcata and Eureka, how about leasing the tracks from the railroad for a commuter train/tourist draw? I’ll bet you could fund it, fix it, and run it with volunteers, like they do in England. (or at least the Bleanau-Ffestiniog Railroad in Wales).
July 4, 2008 at 7:37 am
I thought we owned the tracks. Isn’t NCRA a public entity? Doesn’t NCRA own the tracks? Or have they given them away to their “private partner?”
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 4, 2008 at 8:49 am
Good news! A sensible trails project that someone might actually USE!
July 4, 2008 at 9:16 am
Peace be with you
When gas hit $2 a gallon I mentioned how glad I was to be out of the car culture. It is good to make a bike lane on old Arcata road, but seems weird that adding extra miles to the ones who peddle seems logical. It might be the prudent thing to do to go so far out of your way to avoid the cars, but it also seems with a little forethought a more direct route might be found.
love etenal
tad
July 4, 2008 at 9:20 am
There’s still a need for a bike trail along 101 in the Eureka-Arcata corridor. The tracks are still a public right-of-way. We need to use it or we will lose it.
July 4, 2008 at 9:41 am
Yes, it could take the overflow bicycle traffic off of old arcata road. ha ha.
July 4, 2008 at 9:47 am
Good news, I sometimes wonder if CalTrans is not controlled directly by the Automaker/oil company alliance. when you look at the way roadways are designed it is so anti-human, carless human that is. why is it that the roadways, wherever possible, have no open lane running along side the main drivers lane. same with the bridges, in Hoopa, the bridge’s sidewald is so narrow that people have to push their baby strollers in the road, the sidewalk is too narrow for a baby stroller? and of course the roadway itself is only wide enough for a car, barely, they really take their lives in their hands trying to cross that bridge in traffic.
It seems the roadways have been designed to discourage as much walking/biking/skating as possible. I mean really, a walkway that is only 30″ wide?
July 4, 2008 at 10:24 am
What’s the legal holdup with simply expanding 101 for a pedestrian lane and installing a crash barrier? There is room. If not two car lanes and one pedestrian today, we’ll have four car lanes tomorrow.
July 4, 2008 at 11:02 am
This is great news, and if done properly and if eventually extended all the way between Eureka and Arcata will provide a reasonable alternative for experienced cyclists to get back and forth. But keep in mind I said “experienced cyclists”. You probably will not want your eight year old out there.
A bike path along the “inactive” railroad right-a-way would be usable by even inexperienced cyclists and children. It is still a useful idea.
As far as moving the southbound lanes over and narrowing the median to allow for a bike path between the traveled way and a possible bike path, this is indeed feasible, but Caltrans has a misguided notion that the median is wetlands that need to be protected. It is true that once and in a while you see a suicidal egret in there, but if you get past this nonsense this would be a good alternative.
So while I applaud this sensible more toward improving the abysmal bike transportation system in this region we need to keep projects like the 101 bike trail on the table. The automobile era may be coming to an end even within the lifetime of an old codger like me. As our gas prices climb to look more like those in Europe, our future may look more like theirs where bike paths parallel nearly every highway and rural road.
July 4, 2008 at 11:09 am
This bike lane on Old Arcata Rd. is great news! That section is the worst one, with the white “fog line” crumbling off the side of the road. It’s particularly harrowing when the big log trucks go barreling by. So many thanks to along the Wentworth and County Public Works, as well as those who have been relentlessly advocating for more bike lanes, including bike commuters and Green Wheels. This project will definitely save lives and injuries, so you all deserve a lot of credit for making this a priority.
Yes, we should also have a bike lane along the 101 corridor for those who are just trying to get from point A to point B by the shortest, flattest route possible, such as daily bicycle commuters. Whether it should be on the side of the highway or on the rail bed is a debate I’ll leave to others, as there seems to be a whole lot more behind the respective opinions on that, namely the railroad vs. railbanking/trail issues.
July 4, 2008 at 11:43 am
And trains. Don’t forget Europe’s extensive passenger rail service.
July 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Don’t forget they don’t have many, if any, train lines that service small populations over long distances similar to ours. If they do then it is not served by a highway. You can’t afford both.
July 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“how about leasing the tracks from the railroad for a commuter train/tourist draw?”
Go ahead, lease it. What is stopping you?
July 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm
But if we had a successful commuter train, all the trail activists would complain about the constant noise of a train running through Old Town.
July 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Um no. But what on earth makes you think a commuter train would be “successful”?
July 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The big difference between trail supporters and commuter rail advocates is that the trial people can point to real examples of where their vision has been implemented in the United States, can point to real funding sources to get it done and can show how we are competitive for that funding.
All the commuter rail people can hope for is some multinational container port interest to take over the rail line and then pray that this out of area interest will allow for commuter rail on its single track. Yea right!
July 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
As Yogi Berra put it, “It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.
But in my hazy crystal ball I see a world with electric and hybrid cars, more energy efficient and comfortable buses, bike lanes everywhere, and maybe even additional rail service.
Contrary to the comment earlier, European rail service, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, service many small towns, and connect with bus service to others. It is a world we can at this point only dream of, but it is not out of the question for our future.
Meanwhile until we can reinvent ourselves for a sustainable future, I think we should keep our options open, and that means hanging on to valuable future transportation right-a-way we may someday need. That even includes the Eel River Canyon rail corridor. While currently it does not pencil out, it may in the future.
July 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Contrary to the comment earlier, European rail service, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, service many small towns, and connect with bus service to others.”
They’re communities are not more than 15 miles apart. We can’t even get bus service to our out lying communities much less rail.
July 4, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“Meanwhile until we can reinvent ourselves for a sustainable future, I think we should keep our options open, and that means hanging on to valuable future transportation right-a-way we may someday need. That even includes the Eel River Canyon rail corridor. While currently it does not pencil out, it may in the future.”
That is exactly what Railbanking was designed for.
July 4, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“That is exactly what Railbanking was designed for.”
And what selling it to Goldman Sachs isn’t.
July 4, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Regarding railbanking. Couldn’t agree more.
July 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Good thing no one has suggested selling it to Goldman Sachs. Good thing the plan calls for complete local control.
July 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Ha Ha. Show us where “the plan” is for “complete local control”.
A 99 year concession is way beyond anything railbanking would tie up our rail right of way for.
July 5, 2008 at 12:36 am
Again, please show us “the plan” and where in it we will have “complete local control”.
July 5, 2008 at 7:13 am
Yes, 99 years is a term of an agreement. You don’t get anyone to invest tens of millions of dollars in you without some guarantee you won’t drop them tomorrow, aka take the money and run. So, I guess 99% local control would be a better statement. If you’re going to take that sort of stipulation and twist it into a control issue, geez, there is NO agreement you would ever be satisfied with. That speaks volumes. You are for no development at all. It doesn’t matter who the funder is or what they’re offering, you want none of it.
Oh no, they want us to agree to 99 years to use it for precisely what we’ve wanted all along. Oh no! We don’t want you doing precisely what we’ve been trying to achieve! We’re afraid of success!
OK, no point trying to argue the point with you.
July 5, 2008 at 7:24 am
If you are asking the public to invest a billion dollars or two into a railroad scheme then the railroad better be owned by the public, not some private enterprise. That pig don’t fly anymore.
We are tired of public money going into the pockets of greedy corrupt capitalists.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 5, 2008 at 7:26 am
It is and would continue to be owned by the public. Local control. You seem to be confused on the facts. If I lease you my house for 99 years under my explicit terms, it doesn’t mean I stop owning the house and give up all my rights for 99 years. You simply are being completely, utterly unrealistic.
July 5, 2008 at 7:33 am
Sorry, bad example. If I lease you my house for 99 years under my explicit terms AND have you give me tens of millions of dollars or billions of dollars to make permanent upgrades to my piece-of-**** house so it’s the nicest frickin’ house I’ve ever seen, it doesn’t mean I give up control of my house. You see, I have the lease agreement with my terms stipulated. Break our agreement and I evict you, but that’s not going to be necessary because then you’d lose your ridiculously huge investment.
July 5, 2008 at 8:29 am
“they want us to agree to 99 years to use it for precisely what we’ve wanted all along”
The last I heard we wanted a railroad for local freight, commuter rail and a tourist train. That is not what this “plan” is about.
July 5, 2008 at 8:30 am
A better example would be you lease your house which is being turned into a business and your payment will be a share of the profits. If there are no profits you get no money and you can’t evict for violation of the lease.
July 5, 2008 at 8:59 am
and you are none the worse off
July 5, 2008 at 9:08 am
Or how about the example already set by the NCRA. They have a 99 year lease with the “operator” NWP wherein the NCRA (the public) pays for all the capital cost of rebuilding the rail line and all repairs from future storm damage and receives no payment until NWP makes $5 million in a year. Any and all repair work on any of the NCRA’s (the public’s) property must be approved by the NWP. The public is saddled with all the risk, all the cost and no control.
What a deal! Can’t wait to have more of that.
July 5, 2008 at 9:25 am
My point exactly. If we (the people) take the risk, we (the people) own the railroad, and we (the people) get the profits, if any.
ALL of the profits.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 5, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yes Bill, if you fork over a billion dollars, you are taking the risk. Are you forking over a billion dollars?
July 5, 2008 at 9:31 am
Please Bill, figure out a way to incorporate Eureka Main Street,Reaganism and enterprise zones into this one. You’re just not hitting the mark today. You’ll never get your own sitcom at this rate.
July 5, 2008 at 9:32 am
The railroad all by itself will certainly cost a billion or two. Probably just fixing the bridges on the railroad will cost a billion.
Who is going to pay for it? The public is penciled in I see.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 5, 2008 at 9:37 am
I don’t think Reagan is going to end up on Mount Rushmore now, but that was a concern a couple of years ago.
His reputation is rapidly dimming just like his memory of the treasonous Iran Contra deal did.
Or how about that wonderful immigration amnesty of his? Or how bout getting a couple hundred marines killed in Beirut and then cutting and running? How soon we forget. Not to mention bankrupting the federal government.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 5, 2008 at 10:52 am
Wrong 8:59. You are worse off for it because you aren’t getting anything for it and you can’t do anything else with it.
July 7, 2008 at 2:29 am
Why don’t any of you people have motors attached to your bikes. Saves time and is still more environmentally friendly than a car.
July 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
There need to be physical barriers on all the major bike paths. There needs to be an effort made to educate the public on the CVC pertaining to bike travel on the roads. Bogus fixes such as the painted bike symbols on K st. in Arcata (on the right half of the right lane) aren’t helping anyone. The number of folks who would ride would grow by 10X if they felt safe.
July 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I wish this community was in as much of a hurry to make the enviromental changes that we need to make to provide our own staple products with hydro $ wind power so that we don’t need as many fuel barges as they are in Code Enforcement operations to catch those who are trying to do such by living simply and naturally to the best of their ability. Seems backwards to me, so I guess that’s how I seem to those who are stuck in the old version of modern. There’s a disconnect in cultures here that could connect were people brave enough to make bold and decisive changes. Seems we’re always looking to other counties for an example before we do what we know is right. There are some brilliant minds in this county, have a symposium, a county wide think tank on the subject of alternatives to out dated mainstream future planning, don’t let working profesionals or professors, etc. join the discussions but collect retired people, working non-professionals, the common person and ask them what they would like to see for the future of Humboldt County. Do it during the county fair and get lots of participation. We could make this county an exceptional eco-friendly place to live and visit if we just trust that as a community we can all come together for the common good.
July 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Kate, An interesting thought, but for a process such as you suggest to work there has to exist within the parties an open mindedness, a desire to see other perspectives and above all a willingness to compromise. Without these elements your proposal is destined to fail. As it stands, our community is polarized and moving further apart. Anyone who has attempted to work to the middle to build on commonalities has been condemned by one side or both. I fear we have many, many more years of fighting and wasted energy (and funds) that could be better spent building (figuratively). The bigger question is will we fight and bicker so long that we all end up with nothing as we lose sight of the true goals that we all share in common.
July 9, 2008 at 10:12 pm
well said!
July 10, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“By summer’s end, 7-foot wide bike/pedestrian lanes will flank Old Arcata Road from Three Corners to Stephens Lane.”
…And which year would that be?
I’m just sayin’…
July 10, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Today I rode the whole portion that’s supposed to be completed “by summer’s end.” No sign of any work on a 7 foot bike lane anywhere.
Can somebody explain what’s going on here?
July 11, 2008 at 7:26 am
Old Arcata Road has been open to one-way controlled traffic for a month between Ole Hanson and Indianola cut-off. As of Wednesday they were also working north of the cut-off. Giant signs on both ends of the construction say it will go on until the end of August. How did you miss it?
July 11, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“How did you miss it?”
I was on a bike, trying to survive the trip to Eureka. Went back this morning in a truck and yes, there were chalk lines on the road. So you”re right; something could be happening.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we will end up with something more than chalk lines…