Home > City of Eureka > DING-DONG: The Waterfront Drive extention project is dead

DING-DONG: The Waterfront Drive extention project is dead

The Eureka City Council voted 3-2 to kill the Waterfront Drive extension project. Councilmembers Marian Brady and Mike Newman dissented.

Speakers opposed to the project but strongly supported the idea of bike and pedestrian trail development through the area.

Assistant City Manager Mike Knight said the city spent $558,000 on the project in the last decade.

Tonight’s decision means the city will cease further work on the Environmental Impact Report, and will meet with the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) to look at other ways to relieve traffic congestion on Highway 101 in South Eureka.

Read the blow by blow here.

  1. Brady and Newman
    April 17, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Hey, we were just voting how Rob paid us to vote.

  2. Cappy
    April 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    This is huge historic news for Eureka, and our City Council should be commended for the foresight they displayed in killing this project. It appears that we will now have a beautiful all purpose trail through the marsh connecting with the Iksori trail to the south. And don’t forget the City’s waterfront trail plan which will connect our trails all the way north to the Target trail and beyond. What a bitchen idea and public space this will be! This is such a positive step in the right direction for the city and I only hope that those on this blog who have consistently bashed the city will find the grace to give our leaders the praise they deserve.

    Heraldo deserves her high standing and praise for orchestrating the premier political blog in Humboldt County. It serves our community as a wonderful forum for discussion of issues of the day. I hope this blog can show some leadership and lead the way in finding some middle ground to move our city forward. The divisive antagonistic comments here only serve to drive a wedge between us. Let’s use this decision tonight as a mechanism for goodwill. Good politics and decision making demands compromise.

  3. Marshie
    April 17, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Well, 3 of the council should be commended anyway. It is a very positive step in a new direction to hear the Eureka City Council talking about public workshops to get input on what sorts of trails/road improvements we want to see! There is so much work to be done in Eureka. The waterfront trail that was recently approved is the first step. Here’s to the new trail through the Eureka Marsh! And hopefully a plan for South Broadway as some of the environmentalists spoke about–that is desperately needed!

  4. Werner
    April 17, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Well said Cappy. The City Council members that voted should be commended for their forward thinking. I heard the word ‘trail’ far more than ‘road.’ Here’s to a public trail around Humboldt Bay!

  5. April 17, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Wow!

  6. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 12:09 am

    The waterfront trail should connect to King Salmon ASAP.

  7. Gil Yule
    April 18, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Whew! Dodged that bullet. I regret the 1/2 million we squandered in the process but am happy about the outcome.

    Now, would someone please explain to me why Marian Brady would vote against this project? My impression of her is that this is exactly the sort of misguided project she would support. Apparently I’m wrong. Gasp!

  8. April 18, 2012 at 7:50 am

    By voting no, Brady voted for the project. Linda Atkins made the motion to scrap the project, Brady and her side kick Mike Newman voted no in hopes of continuing to throw money down the Arkley hole.

  9. Gil Yule
    April 18, 2012 at 8:51 am

    Ahh, thank you Heraldo. My perceptions of our Board of Superviors has been restored to their original positions.

  10. Hmmm...
    April 18, 2012 at 9:33 am

    Gil, do you work for the local media? More than once they have shown “video” of an empty Board of Supervisor’s chambers while telling a story about the Eureka City Council.

  11. April 18, 2012 at 10:14 am

    $558,000?
    We could have spent that money producing a feasibility report for a railroad over the Trinity Alps!

  12. Ecobird
    April 18, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Marion Brady tried to justify her vote by pretending to have concerns that even the trail might not be approved due to the sensitive habitat and that maybe the city should consider a road “like at the Arcata Marsh”. Never mind that the Arcata Marsh road was in way before the Coastal Act and that trails have already been approved through sensitive habitat in Eureka. To bad she did not have the courage to either change her mind in the face of facts or just shut up and vote. On the other hand, to change one’s mind, one has to have one.

    Mike Newman said he likes to ride his mountain bike between Monterey and Pebble Beach right next to Highway One. Uh, the Highway was there first, also way before the Coastal Act. Perhaps my mind just does not grasp the logic of how this justifies building a new road in Humboldt County. Maybe because Mike prefers to ride his bike on trails that are next to roads? That’s not the preference of any of the people commenting.

  13. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Excellent! and thumbs up to making the trails happen!

  14. April 18, 2012 at 10:34 am

    We could have spent that money producing a feasibility report for a railroad over the Trinity Alps!

    Not in California.

  15. High Finance
    April 18, 2012 at 10:50 am

    I support the vote last night but tell me why you all think Arkley was behind it ?

  16. April 18, 2012 at 11:09 am

    I was being facetious, Fred. The railroad fantasy is another opportunity to squander money.

  17. Gil Yule
    April 18, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Doh! I, of course meant Eureka City Council…not BoS! Thanks for calling it to my attention Hmmm. Just me being bone-headed.

  18. Plain Jane
    April 18, 2012 at 11:46 am

    HiFi has forgotten whose property this waterfront traffic diversion was meant to benefit. Or maybe he forgot the promises of traffic diversion to change the zoning of the balloon track?

  19. Vladimir Segunda
    April 18, 2012 at 11:54 am

    While watching the City Council last night the thought struck me- “Who writes Marian Brady’s lines?”

    I don’t have an answer so maybe some of you Heraldites can take this quiz and we can drill baby drill for anwers to this conundrum.

    Poll: Who writes Marian Brady’s lines?

    1. Dave Tyson
    2. Rob Arkley
    3. J. Warren Hockaday
    4. Fred Mangels
    5. Matt Owen
    6. Ronald Reagan’s astrologer
    7. Marian makes up this shit herself.
    8. You can’t make this shit up.

    Please post up your answers I am adrift.

  20. What Now
    April 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Vladimir, from the 45 or so minutes that I could stomach watching that fiasco last night and from observing a couple of other meetings I can confidently cast my vote for #8 on your list.

  21. A-nony-mouse
    April 18, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Gee, two councilmembers voted to keep dumping money into this white elephant when told point-blank by the Coastal Commission that it would not fly. Remember that one next election, folks. Fiscal responsibility? I think not!

  22. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    When I saw that the vote talley favored dropping the EIR for the Waterfront Drive Extension project, I had to pinch myself. Was I dreaming or had a miracle just occurred?

  23. What Now
    April 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Exactly, 1:48.
    Those two “ee-jits” are spending OTHER people’s money, not their own. THAT’S the neocon (NON)-thinking process these last dozen or so years.

  24. Thirdeye
    April 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    This puts the kibosh on the proposal for a short-sea shipping terminal on the Eureka waterfront, unless the traffic impacts of large trucks accessing 101 from Waterfront Drive can be resolved.

  25. Thirdeye
    April 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Actually Joel, the route surveyed during the early part of the last century does not cross the Trinity Alps and it is being studied by the private sector.

  26. April 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Good point. Probably puts the kibosh on other things we haven’t thought of yet, too.

  27. Thirdeye
    April 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    PJ, the Waterfront Drive extension was proposed when the 101 freeway through Eureka was killed, long before Marina Center was a twinkle in Arkley’s eye. The traffic assessment of that project was not predicated on the Waterfront Drive extension. Stop making stuff up.

  28. April 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Thirdeye, if the “private sector” is studying the rail route over the coastal rage, why does the city need to invest resources?

  29. April 18, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    “coastal range,” sorry. I just don’t see why we should invest municipal resources into this boondoggle.

  30. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Joel Joel Joel, you just don’t get how the private sector works. How dare you attempt to hamstring the job creators? Apologize!

  31. Thirdeye
    April 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    The move towards a City-sponsored study was made before the private effort was acknowledged. The City may well decide that it is redundant with a private effort in the works, much the same way it decided that a publicly funded study of the Balloon Track is redundant.

  32. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    The City didn’t care about the redundancy of Tyson’s legal settlements, what makes you think they had a change of heart now iii?

  33. Thirdeye
    April 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    6:52 I wil, after this post, only respond to posts from you that are worth responding to.

  34. April 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Anonymous is right. I don’t get how the private sector works. I apologize. Sniff.

  35. April 18, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Reality is that the Waterfront Drive extension served no purpose. It couldn’t work as a “bypass” since it would be encumbered by a 25mph speed limit, very narrow 2 lanes, entrance to Bayshore Mall, and a stop light at Truesdale among others. The “others” was it was in conflict with the City’s Coastal Plan, the Coastal Conservancy and the Coastal Commission.

    It would be quicker to take Del Norte to Broadway (the trucks do that now). It had possibilities as a concept but didn’t pan out because the RR track right of way pinched it. I saw the plans in detail while on the Eureka City Trails Committee back in 2003. Everything about it was a compromise. And yes it predated the Marina Center.

    And all that without considering the impacts on PALCO Marsh and the fact Parcel 4 is unbuildable for many reasons.

    This is one case where a trail really makes the most sense.

  36. Anonymous
    April 18, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    “much the same way it decided that a publicly funded study of the Balloon Track is redundant”

    That worked out great.

  37. April 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    As for short sea shipping there are a lot more opportunities on the north spit than Shnieder’s dock on the Eureka side. We are not by any means short on viable docking sites with good access.

  38. wurking stiff
    April 18, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Mike- thanks for some FACT in counterpoint to the knee-jerk corporate welfare response from the repeating recitation classes of the developmentary/industrial hemp complex

  39. Ecobird
    April 19, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Thirdeye: Your comment about waterfront drive extension cancelation putting the kibosh on short sea shipping misses the point that large truck traffic will be reduced by short sea shipping.

  40. retired guy
    April 19, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Originally, I had heard that the proposal had this road going all the way to Pound Road, where there is ingress and egress already in place to 101. This route would have taken this boondoggle through the Elk River sanctuary, for what? The proposal would benefit a few people with well known names. As far as saving time or reducing traffic congestion, it sounds like that’s BS. Is anyone else aware of the original route taking the extension all the way to Pound Road?

  41. Thirdeye
    April 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Ecobird, you mean all the freight that gets barged in would somehow levitate to its destinations? A shipping hub will result in a concentration of truck traffic. Get it?

  42. Anonymous
    April 19, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    Left unsaid in all of this is that a future council can bring it forward again, should they so desire, should circumstances change.

  43. Anonymous
    April 20, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    That future council could be as soon as November, once the heat’s off Melinda.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s