COMMUNITY INPUT ELEMENT

Community Participant Program

Community input is a vital component of the RTP. Community workshops were held to solicit the community’s input for the 2008 RTP update. Workshops were held prior to the draft release of the RTP at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka, the Monday Club in Fortuna and at Azalea Hall in McKinleyville. Workshop participants were asked to prioritize regional transportation modes and areas of emphasis within each of the modes. The following goals guided the development of the public participation plan for the 2008 RTP development process:

· Construct a process that generates useful comments, adds value to the process and builds community engagement in transportation issues;

· Obtain resident and stakeholder input on all the modes of transportation;

· Obtain input from every community workshop participant; and

· Engage workshop participants in dialogue with one another to share similar and different perspectives and/or opinions pertaining to the transportation modes in order to enhance the community workshop learning environment.

Public Service Announcements (PSA) were distributed to local print (i.e., Times Standard, North Coast Journal, Arcata Eye, Eureka Reporter, EcoNews, EL Heraldo, Ferndale Enterprise, McKinleyville Press, Redwood Times, Senior News, Humboldt Beacon, The Independent, Lumberjack News, Press Democrat, ), radio (i.e., KHSU, KHUM, KIDE, KMUD, KWPT, KSLG, KAJK/KNCR/KXGO, KFMI/KATA/KRED/KKHB, KGOE), and TV (i.e., Access Humboldt, KAEF-TV 23, KVIQ-TV 6, KBVU-TV 29) media four weeks, three weeks and two weeks (to applicable media per media deadlines) prior to the community workshops. PSAs were also sent via email to agency staff, stakeholder groups, interested community members and various listserves (e.g., HUMPal, Southern Humboldt Working Together). The PSAs contained contact information for community members that could not attend the meeting, but wished to provide input for the RTP; written comments were accepted via email or the US Postal Service.

Following is a summary of information received via the community outreach process. It is important to note that the information in this element represents the views of the Humboldt County residents that submitted written comments and attended the community workshops; the information does not represent the views of all Humboldt County residents. Although the input is not representative of Humboldt County residents, it does provide valuable insights and is worthy of consideration with respect to transportation project programming and funding priorities.

Workshop Exercise Number One

The community workshops included a presentation on the RTP update process and givens, and two workshop exercises. For the first workshop exercise, participants were asked to rank four modes of transportation based on personal interest, needs or sense of importance, using the numbers one through four, with one being their first choice. The four modes of transportation included: goods movement (i.e., port infrastructure, rail service, US 101 and Highway 299, and airport infrastructure), public transit and paratransit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and highways and roads.

Participants were given five minutes to review and rank the four transportation modes, and then asked to break into small groups and move to a table marked with either their first or second mode priority. Participants were given 15 minutes for small-group discussions in order to discuss why they chose their first or second priority, and then to provide a small group discussion summary to the larger group of participants present. Below is a summary of information obtained via the prioritization exercise and small table reports.

Summary of all workshop participants

A total of fifty Humboldt County residents attended the RTP community workshops. Table CI1 illustrates the combined transportation mode ranking for all fifty participants.

Table CI1 Modes of Transportation

Modes of Transportation	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement	12%	20%	31%	37%
Public Transit and Paratransit	35%	37%	20%	8%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities	41%	20%	12%	27%
Highway and Roads	12%	22%	37%	29%

The majority of all community workshop participants ranked the four transportation modes in the following order: bicycle and pedestrian facilities (41%), public transit and paratransit services (37%), highway and roads (37%), and goods movement (37%).

Eureka

A total of 21 one Humboldt County residents attended the RTP community workshop in Eureka. Table CI2 reflects how Eureka community workshop participants ranked the four modes of transportation.

The majority of Eureka community workshop participants ranked the four transportation modes in the following order: bicycle and pedestrian facilities (62%), public transit and paratransit (48%), and goods movement (48%). An equal percentage of participants (38%) ranked highways and roads as their third and fourth transportation mode of preference.

Table CI2 Modes of Transportation Eureka

Modes of Transportation	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement	5%	9%	38%	48%
Public Transit and Paratransit	29%	48%	14%	9%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities	62%	24%	9%	5%
Highway and Roads	5%	19%	38%	38%

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups based on their first or second transportation mode priority. The small groups were asked to discuss with one another why they chose their first or second priority and to then provide a summary of the small-table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The information below was received via the small-table summary reporting:

Goods movement

· Imports comprise most of what we consume

· Necessary for local economy and quality of life

· Everything is supported by goods movement

· Humboldt County is geographically remote, goods movement connects us to the rest of the world

Public transit and paratransit

· Incentives to use public transit and paratransit for health reasons

· Silver tsunami (aging baby boomers) meets peak oil

· Incentives to get people to use public transit

· Accessibility (universal) and awareness (language, etc.)

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

· Heath reasons, reduced obesity

· Diminished greenhouse gases

· Fewer crashes

· To have fun

· Increasing costs of gas and reducing the number of cars on the road

Highways and roads

· Economic growth for Humboldt County

· We have a good system; provides good connections for other modes such as bike and transit

· Provides connections to other communities and links to goods movement

Fortuna

A total of 12 Humboldt County residents provided input at the RTP community workshop in Fortuna. Table CI3 reflects how Fortuna community workshop participants ranked the four modes of transportation.

Table CI3 Modes of Transportation Fortuna

Modes of Transportation	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement	25%	33%	42%	0%
Public Transit and Paratransit	50%	17%	25%	8%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities	0%	17%	8%	75%
Highway and Roads	25%	33%	25%	17%

The majority of Fortuna community workshop participants ranked the four transportation modes in the following order: public transit and paratransit (50%), highways and roads (33%), goods movement (42%), and bicycle and pedestrian facilities (75%).

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups based on their first or second transportation mode priority. The small groups were asked to discuss with one another why they chose their first or second priority and to then provide a summary of the small table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The below information was received via the small table summary reporting:

Goods Movement

· Humboldt County suffers economically from rural location; higher transportation costs affect us more

· Goods movement is how we deliver services and commodities in and out of the county; it is how we make money

Public Transit

· The State is and has cut money for dialysis transportation

· No volunteers for transit programs

· Public transit providers should recruit more riders and be more flexible

· Current transit times do not fit people’s schedules

· The county should provide leased vehicles for a community to use in order to set up services similar to the Ferndale Bridge the Gap Service

· Service frequency for working families – inconvenient timing of public transportation

· Regularly schedule transit for seniors

· Seniors and disabled may not request service if they think they are the only ones requesting the service; if it is already a service seniors are more likely to use it

· Transit schedules don’t fit everyone’s needs

· Advertise to let people know it is there (publicize); people will use it more

· Educate people of car alternatives to help offset high fuel costs

· Door to door service (connection points at key locations and protected locations)

· Need to offer shelter at bus stops

· Intergenerational community center

· Dual threat: funding regulations from Sacramento can cause issues, currently four busses are underutilized because of state air quality regulations (Humboldt County is different in air quality than Sacramento and should be evaluated separately)

· Ability to push back regulations if it is not contributing to what we are trying to accomplish

Roads and Highways

· Roads are the #1 basic infrastructure because all other modes are dependent on working roads

· Transit relies on roads

· Safe roads = safe transit/safe goods movement

· Roads are essential

· Internal dependency

· In some (rural) places, roads are the only option for transportation

Comments were not received for bicycle and pedestrian facilities as a result of how participants ranked the transportation modes.

McKinleyville

A total of 17 Humboldt County residents attended the RTP community workshop in McKinleyville. Table CI4 reflects how McKinleyville community workshop participants ranked the four modes of transportation.

Table CI4 Modes of Transportation McKinleyville

Modes of Transportation	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement	12%	25%	13%	50%
Public Transit and Paratransit	31%	38%	25%	6%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities	43%	19%	19%	19%
Highway and Roads	12%	19%	44%	25%

The majority of McKinleyville community workshop participants ranked the four transportation modes in the following order: bicycle and pedestrian facilities (43%), public transit and paratransit (38%), highways and roads (44%), and goods movement (50%).

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups based on their first or second transportation mode priority. The small groups were asked to discuss with one another why they chose their first or second priority and to then provide a summary of the small table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The information below was received via the small table summary reporting:

Goods Movement

· Economics

· How we can attract new businesses

· Importance of basic necessities

· Humboldt County is a resource-based economy, goods movement allows for products to be shipped out of county

Public and Paratransit Services

· Economics, gas prices too expensive

· Benefits most people with least environmental impacts

· Some people’s only choice

· Better access to transit equals more productivity for Humboldt County residents

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

· Too much emphasis on automobiles

· Want multi-modal transportation

· Exercise, health, safety, and social justice

· Environment and economics

· Increased social capital of communities

· Social engagement

Highways and Roads

· Experience in rural Humboldt County (dangers…slides…)

· No access for seniors or communities for basic services

· Without roads there are no other modes, key factor

· Rural roads not up to standard, which creates a hardships to communities

Workshop Exercise Number Two

For the second workshop exercise, participants were provided with four options for the four modes of transportation (see table CI5 below). Participants were given 15 minutes to rank the four options within each mode from a regional perspective on a scale of one to four, with one being participants first regional priority.

Table CI5 Exercise Mode Options

Goods Movement

Option 1: Develop port infrastructure to accommodate deep draft container ships and break bulk cargo.

Option 2: Reestablish rail service on the North Coast Railroad Authority railroad.

Option 3: Eliminate STAA pinch points on US 101 and Highway 299 to facilitate the movement of goods via STAA trucks.

Option 4: Expand airport infrastructure to increase the use of the county’s airports for goods movement.

Public Transit and Paratransit

Option 1: Expand the geographic coverage area of public transit to include communities that are currently not served by public transit services (for example Garberville).

Option 2: Increase the frequency of public transit service in areas already served by adding express transit service and direct routes.

Option 3: Reestablish public transit service out of the county to the north (for example Portland) and to the east (for example Redding).

Option 4: Expand paratransit (service tailored towards seniors and disabled residents) and non-emergency medical transportation services to include communities that are not currently served (for example Trinidad, Loleta, Scotia, Rio Dell).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Option 1: Develop pedestrian and bicycle trail connections among communities (for example, pedestrian and trail connections among McKinleyville, Blue Lake, Arcata and Eureka).

Option 2: Develop pedestrian and bicycle trail connections within communities (for example, within the community of McKinleyville).

Option 3: Develop and implement “share the road safety and education” campaigns. (Such campaigns typically involve radio and television adds, educational programs, and road signs to educate motorists and bicyclists about road rights and responsibilities as well as to increase user safety.)

Option 4: Develop, maintain and rehabilitate the California Coastal Trail and Pacific Coast Bike Route.

Highways and Roads

Option 1: Established funding mechanism (e.g., gas tax) will be used to maintain and rehabilitate existing major (e.g., Arterial and Collector) roadway infrastructure. New secure funding mechanism (e.g., Permanent Road Divisions, Mello-Roos Districts) would be used to maintain and rehabilitate new local / access roads.

Option 2: Increase major road capacity to accommodate other modes of travel (for example bicycle lanes, sidewalks and transit stops).

Option 3: Implement major and local road improvements that increase vehicle, bike and pedestrian safety.

Option 4: Implement major and local road improvements that relieve congestion.

Fifty percent of workshop attendees at each table were asked to move to another table and discuss the similarities and differences in how they ranked the options. Participants were given fifteen minutes for small group discussions and then asked to share a summary of the small table discussion with the larger group. Below is a summary of information obtained via the options within mode prioritization exercise and small table reports.

Summary of all workshop Participants

Table CI6 Options within Modes

Option Number	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement
Option 1	21%	44%	28%	7%
Option 2	8%	13%	18%	61%
Option 3	70%	9%	21%	0%
Option 4	7%	32%	32%	29%
Public Transit and Paratransit
Option 1	6%	40%	42%	12%
Option 2	64%	14%	12%	10%
Option 3	8%	16%	22%	54%
Option 4	22%	30%	24%	24%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Option 1	58%	27%	11%	4%
Option 2	27%	40%	23%	10%
Option 3	13%	19%	33%	35%
Option 4	2%	15%	33%	50%
Highways and Roads
Option 1	17%	2%	59%	22%
Option 2	44%	34%	18%	4%
Option 3	33%	53%	10%	4%
Option 4	6%	9%	13%	72%

The majority of all community workshop participants ranked option 3 (70%) as their first priority, option 1 (44%) as their second priority, and option 2 (61%) as their third priority within a regional context for goods movement. The majority of all participants were equally split with respect to option 4, with 32 percent of participants ranking it second and 32 percent of participants ranking it third.

Public transit and paratransit option 2 (64%) was ranked as the first regional priority by a majority of all workshop participants. Public transit and paratransit option 4 (30%) was ranked second, option 1 (42%) was ranked third and option 3 (54%) was ranked fourth by a majority of all community workshop participants.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 1 (58%) was ranked as the first regional priority and option 2 (40%) was ranked as the second. The majority of all workshop participants ranked option 3 (35%) fourth and option 4 (50%) fourth; as a result a third regional priority was not established by participants ranking.

The majority of all workshop participants ranked highways and roads option 2 (44%) as their first priority, option 3 (53%) as their second priority, option 1 (59%) as their third priority, and option 4 (72%) as their fourth priority within a regional context for highways and roads.

Eureka

Table CI7 illustrates how Eureka community workshop participants ranked the four options within the four transportation modes.

Table CI7 Options within Modes Eureka

Option Number	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement
Option 1	28%	37%	28%	7%
Option 2	21%	21%	29%	29%
Option 3	53%	12%	35%	0%
Option 4	0%	27%	13%	60%
Public Transit and Paratransit
Option 1	4%	48%	24%	24%
Option 2	80%	10%	10%	0%
Option 3	5%	33%	29%	33%
Option 4	10%	10%	38%	42%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Option 1	76%	24%	0%	0%
Option 2	14%	48%	29%	9%
Option 3	10%	19%	38%	33%
Option 4	0%	10%	33%	57%
Highways and Roads
Option 1	0%	0%	72%	28%
Option 2	67%	19%	14%	0%
Option 3	28%	72%	0%	0%
Option 4	5%	5%	16%	74%

The majority of Eureka community workshop participants ranked goods movement option 3 (53%) as their first priority within a regional context for goods movement, option 1 (37%) as second, and option 4 (60%) as fourth regional priority.

Public transit and paratransit option 2 (80%) was ranked as the first priority by a majority of Eureka workshop participants. Public transit and paratransit option 1 (48%) was ranked second, and option 4 (42%) was ranked as the fourth regional priority. The majority of Eureka attendees were equally split with respect to option 3, with 33 percent of participants ranking it second and 33 percent of participants ranking it fourth.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 1 (76%) was ranked first and option 2 (48%) was ranked as their second regional priority by a majority of Eureka workshop attendees. The majority of Eureka participants ranked option 3 (38%) third and option 4 (57%) fourth priority within a regional context for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The majority of Eureka workshop participants ranked highways and roads option 2 (67%) as their first priority, option 3 (72%) as their second priority, option 1 (72%) as their third priority, and option 4 (74%) as their fourth highway and roads priority.

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups and discuss with one another the similarities and differences between how and why they ranked the options within the four modes of transportation and then a summary of the small table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The below information was received via the small table summary reporting:

Similarities and Differences

· Imagine future and what is important

· Cannot prioritize goods movement (lack of knowledge/information)

· General sense that transportation planning is automobile dependent, disaster with peak oil

· Safety/education; public outreach campaign to help people understand safety issues

· Motor vehicle education and enforcement of laws

· Safety, people on road and awareness and access to safe modes and services as well as access to community places (shopping)

· Geography influences your options (e.g., within city centers it is easier to get around than rural communities)

· Zoning considering connectivity

· Having situations safe enough to ride (i.e., consider all members: kids, elders, etc.)

· Include education for those that can’t “conceive” of no cars; more education as to what all modes are. What are incentives?

· Important process that has quality of life impacts

· Cutting down use of cars

· Zoning for public transportation systems that get cars off the road; include public transit

· Zoning; how uses are grouped; pedestrian accessibility

· Connectivity in neighborhoods

· Change our thinking about cities, we need to consider all members of society

Fortuna

Table CI8 illustrates how Fortuna community workshop participants ranked the four options within the four transportation modes.

Table CI8 Options within Modes Fortuna

Option Number	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement
Option 1	0%	36%	46%	18%
Option 2	0%	9%	18%	73%
Option 3	100%	0%	0%	0
Option 4	0%	55%	36	9%
Public Transit and Paratransit
Option 1	17%	42%	33%	8%
Option 2	33%	9%	33%	25%
Option 3	16%	0%	16%	68%
Option 4	33%	50%	17%	0%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Option 1	70%	10%	10%	10%
Option 2	10%	40%	40%	10%
Option 3	10%	30%	20%	40%
Option 4	10%	20%	30%	40%
Highways and Roads
Option 1	55%	0%	36%	9%
Option 2	17%	33%	33%	17%
Option 3	18%	46%	27%	9%
Option 4	18%	18%	0%	64%

All of the Fortuna workshop participants selected goods movement option 3 (100%) as their number one goods movement regional priority. The majority of Fortuna community workshop participants ranked goods movement option 4 (55%) as their second, option 1 (46%) third, and option 2 (43%) as their fourth goods movement priority.

An equal number (33%) of Fortuna workshop participants selected public transit and paratransit option 2 as their first and third regional priority. The majority of workshop participants selected option 1 (42%) and option 4 (50%) as their second priority. Public transit and paratransit option 3 (68%) was the fourth regional priority for a majority of Fortuna workshop participants.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 1 (70%) was ranked first by a majority of Fortuna workshop attendees. Option 2 was selected as participants second (40%) and third (40%) option by an equal majority of workshop participants. An equal number of participants also selected option 3 (40%) and option 4 (40%) as their fourth priority among the bicycle and pedestrian facilities priorities provided.

The majority of Fortuna workshop participants ranked highways and roads option 1 (55%) as their first priority, option 3 (46%) as their second priority, and option 4 (64%) as their fourth regional priority. The majority of Fortuna attendees were equally split with respect to option 2, with 33 percent of participants ranking it as their second priority and 33 percent of participants ranking it as their third priority.

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups and discuss with one another the similarities and differences between how and why they ranked the options within the four modes of transportation and then a summary of the small table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The below information was received via the small table summary reporting:

Similarities and Differences

· Busses don’t get to destination at a time that works for basic work schedule

· Port is unique, it is halfway between Mexico and Canada and near I-5 (and power, gas, and pipelines… future integral port)

· Roads depend on definition of congestion (i.e., rural congestion on Briceland Road)

· Port has capability of handling bulking exports at cheap costs; cargo can come to port in sufficient amounts for economies of scale

· Expand paratransit

· From rural perspectives, increase geographic range of transit services

· Expanding medical transportation; provide partnership for transportation to and from hospital for medical needs (i.e., shared services)

· Understanding of transportation service on a specific day of the week; increased coordination and word of mouth

· Goods movement; widening roads to facilitate goods transit

· Railroads and containers go hand in hand

· Gravel and rock/aggregate resources (bulky resources) need rail/marine transportation

· Airports are in good shape; public funding available to improve

· More air provider choices result in cheaper costs

· Option #3 – road widening is necessary for larger trucks

· Importance of port for goods movement

McKinleyville

Table CI9 illustrates how McKinleyville community workshop participants ranked the four options within the four transportation modes.

Table CI9 Options within Modes McKinleyville

Option Number	1	2	3	4
Goods Movement
Option 1	29%	57%	14%	0%
Option 2	0%	8%	8%	84%
Option 3	64%	14%	22%	0%
Option 4	20%	20%	47%	13%
Public Transit and Paratransit
Option 1	0%	30%	70%	0%
Option 2	65%	23%	0%	12%
Option 3	6%	6%	18%	70%
Option 4	29%	41%	12%	18%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Option 1	29%	41%	24%	6%
Option 2	53%	29%	6%	12%
Option 3	18%	12%	35%	35%
Option 4	0%	18%	35%	47%
Highways and Roads
Option 1	12%	6%	59%	23%
Option 2	35%	53%	12%	0%
Option 3	47%	35%	12%	6%
Option 4	0%	6%	18%	76%

The majority of the McKinleyville workshop attendees selected option 3 (64%) as their number one regional goods movement priority among the options provided. Option 2 (57%) was ranked second, option 4 (47%) was ranking third and option 2 (84%) was ranked as the fourth regional priority by the majority of McKinleyville workshop participants.

The majority of McKinleyville participants selected option 2 (65%) as their first regional priority, option 4 (41%) as their second priority, option 1 (70%) as their third priority and option 3 (70%) as their fourth priority within a regional context for public transit and paratransit services.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 2 (53%) was ranked first by a majority of McKinleyville workshop attendees. Option 1 (41%) was selected as the second regional priority and option 4 (47%) was selected as the fourth regional priority by a majority of workshop participants. An equal number of McKinleyville workshop participants selected option 3 (35%) as their third and fourth bicycle and pedestrian facilities priority.

The majority of McKinleyville workshop participants ranked highways and roads option 3 (47%) as their first priority, option 2 (53%) as their second priority, option 1 (59%) as their third priority and option 4 (76%) as their fourth highways and roads regional priority

Workshop participants were asked to break into small groups and discuss with one another the similarities and differences between how and why they ranked the options within the four modes of transportation and then a summary of the small table discussions to the larger group in attendance. The below information was received via the small table summary reporting:

Similarities and Differences

· Goods movement option 3 is the most flexible

· A need for expanded public transit and paratransit, and increasing frequency in high use areas

· Increase public transit ridership and express routes

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, development within communities and then expand

· Share road in rural communities

· Public Transit option 2 is more efficient; improve ridership

· Expand services to those with no other options

· Develop facilities within communities

· Safety and education (bike and pedestrian safety on roadways) and across modes

· Hard to rank goods movement options

· Airport inefficient for goods movement

· Are we currently underserved?

· Who benefits from goods movement?

· Many people could benefit from goods movement for cost efficiency

· Betting on the industry coming

· Bicycle and pedestrian option 1 and option 4 are very similar

· Question education programs; do they work?

· Goods movement pinch points should be priority

· Need rail linkage with deep port; how do you develop the port?

· Bicycle and pedestrian increase frequency and service

· Small community we don’t have transit volumes and ridership

· What do we want the county to be doing in the next twenty years?

· Larger communities need to be linked within, smaller communities needs links to larger communities

additional Comments

Community workshop participants were given a worksheet to record their prioritization of the transportation modes and the options within each mode (see Appendix). The worksheet contained a page for workshop attendees to provide additional written comments; the comments received are as follows:

· Let us give up on intercounty rail

· No new roads, regional gas tax to fund public transit

· For goods movement, encourage “buy local” movement

· The ultimate in my estimation is: accessibility; safety; more awareness of what is available now; education; needs assessment and how to achieve those needs

· There are economic benefits to having pedestrian trails

· Education, drive safely motor vehicle education

· It is my hope that Caltran’s present review of the Manila Community Transportation Plan are incorporated in the 2008 RTP.

· Nothing in here about zip car renting a car by the hour so people wouldn’t have to own a car. Focus on eliminating imports so we wouldn’t need to transport so many goods. Zoning that is public transportation friendly rather than car friendly. Lowering the speed limit.

· We need more bike and pedestrian trails that are physically separate from highways that connect cities. I do not want any more funding of the North Coast Railroad Authority. I would like to see streets that are pedestrian and bicycle friendly and that through design and layout slow down motor vehicle traffic without creating more pollution, i.e., make it more convenient to walk or bike, less convenient to drive. Plan and design to encourage safe driver behavior. Video conferencing or busing of this first workshop to allow rural communities to participate, (i.e., Garberville, Willow Creek, Fortuna) for more viewpoints and interaction.

· I believe that light rail for within community transportation would be a wonderful way to think progressively about the future. So railroads do not only for movement of goods, but for movement of people. Also, I sense that HCAOG’s process is not cutting edge in order to prepare us for peak oil and the exorbitant amounts that we are and will pay in the future. It’s time to favor alternative modes to cars hooked on petroleum! And create incentives to helping people make the shift. If we practice now we’ll be ready for true change that is already under way.

· There was a comment that roads and highways facilitate economic growth. I would dispute this. Increased automobile dependency harms our economy by compelling citizens to buy imported vehicles, fuel and parts, draining money out of our economy.

· I want to see an emphasis on ped/bicycle transportation to connect communities and to connect within communities. I want to see a priority on reducing our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gases. I have a particular interest in Hwy 255 and increasing safe access. It is time to change the expressway status of 255 to a conventional highway. This will open up opportunities to respond to the current conditions and needs in Manila. We need trails, connections with recreational areas and we need to find a solution that would allow bikes and pedestrians to travel safely over the Samoa Bridge.

· What we need is a balanced, multimodal transportation system. We need current bike parking at bus stops. We need park and ride locations near bus stops. Why is there a park and ride lot at Herrick Avenue? What is the intended use of this site? Sidewalks are essential for transit riders. How can specialized transit such a casinos, non profit, be better coordinated than public transit? Why start with four modes and then arbitrarily group them? Transportation modes should consider using a triple bottom line economic, social and environmental. Using this analysis it is likely that transportation planning has overemphasized vehicular travel for too long. Other modes need investment similar to what vehicular travel has gotten till now. Non-motorized means should be incorporated into land use planning, convenient bus stops in places that do not lead to long off route travel, i.e., Bayshore Mall. Private connections from sidewalks or arterials to buildings should be improved. Why is there no pedestrian path to the Walgreens on Broadway unlike the one at Harris and Harrison? We need better data for transportation planning. The safety data is unreliable and poorly reported. People need ways to use resources better, such as car sharing, bicycle libraries, etc.

· My main interests are trails and safe roads that connect communities. The goal is to encourage a society with less reliance on fossil fuels, i.e., less cars. People should be able to get around with out their own, personal vehicle, safety and efficiently. Public transit should be more available. It’d be great to be able to go from Blue Lake, Trinidad, Manila, Arcata, McKinleyville and Eureka at any hour of the day safely, and to stores, medical, schools, etc. I found that the “modes” and “options” listed on this worksheet were difficult to “prioritize”. Everything is super interconnected, so it’s hard to differentiate. For example, I’m currently very opposed to reestablishing rail service because it would make it much more expensive (+ possibly dangerous) to implement a trail commuter system on this right-of-way. So, what I know about reality and beauracracies affects my vision/dreams of a perfect transportation system.

· “Active transportation” and public transportation would take priority and automobiles – increase safety-include lighting, separation of buses from “active transport” vehicles. “Visioning,” “Educating” what kid of future do we want? Then how can we get there?

· I want the following: (1) 9:15 p.m. bus from Eureka to Arcata, especially for ArtsAlive; (2) Sunday bus service; (3) “Jack Pass” equivalent for College of the Redwoods; (4) Allow passengers to travel between Arcata and Trinidad on Redwood Coast Transit (much faster than Redwood Transit System); (5) Trail between Eureka and Arcata on rail right-of-way; (6) Shift of freight traffic from trucks to water (shallow draft barges); (7) Add natural gas buses with long-term transition to hydrogen-natural gas mixtures (hythane) an eventually to pure hydrogen. Hydrogen to be generated from local, renewable sources; (8) Secure bicycle parking (bike lockers) in Arcata (transit center) and Eureka; (9) Bus Rapid Transit; (10) Car Share Service (zip care, flex car, etc; (11) Re-establish library bike program in Arcata and elsewhere; and (12) Automated bicycle rental.

· The county must use all its transportation development act funds for transit, bicycle and pedestrian services/infrastructure NOT roads!

· I didn’t like the options in goods movement if the railroad where in good condition it would be a good option, but it needs billions of $ to return. We don’t have a deep port to receive containers safely. I don’t favor more air traffic.

· Thank you so much for all of the people who are putting time into the plan that affects all of us. I apologize if our community is a bit hostile, but it shows passion.

· I hope that the personal preferences ranking is not used as a statistical basis for a decision to total community ranking of these modes. There were only 21 people attending the McKinleyville meeting. I’m sure the other meetings were not a large enough number to be an accurate sampling of the overall community. I would say this is a good approach but this needs to be sampled by all the Chambers of Commerce, Service Clubs, Presented to B.O.S. and other local governments (this is just a small list). All of which will be necessary to get a true sampling of Humboldt County needs and interests, or a cross sampling at Safeway, etc.

· I wonder how the RTP could better integrate with the circulation elements and the land use elements of the General Plans of each jurisdiction.

· I had difficulty ranking the “GOODS” options as they were written. The only that was close to being acceptable was Option 4. I am against developing port infrastructure so it may accommodate container ships. Also, reestablishing rail service is too expensive and impractical. An option that called for maintaining and improving existing highways would have been preferable. However, widening the highway at Richardson Grove is a bad idea.

· It’s all interconnected. Why choose one mode only. Should be equitably balanced. Not too much “over or under” on any one mode. Be realistic. Every interest group promotes their special interest passionately and it shouldn’t be a fight between the groups. Work together. Sure, a bike lane is good, but I can’t ride a bike 25-30 miles for services, especially on the days my body doesn’t function (as I age and deteriorate).

· Move transportation investment away from car-centric

· I am also very interested in air travel for individuals such as an east-bound flight

· My second choice (highway and roads) was based on my interest in improvements on 255.

· Modes must be equally valued

· Goods movement, not one of these options is a choice of mine

· Goods movement option 1 to hard on Eureka

· Goods movement option 2, for public transit only

· Goods movement option 2, kill this

· Goods movement option 2, a black hole for money

· Goods movement option 2, cost to much

· Goods movement option 2, can we get a billion dollar gift?

· Goods movement option 2, I support rail in general, but not viable and realistic to happen here with geology and keeping track open.

· Goods movement option 4: not economic, more air pollution CO2 at higher atmospheric levels

· Goods movement these all should be a 4

· Goods movement option 4, Cost? More for people?

· Public transit and paratransit option 2, make it a viable alternative for people who have cars.

· Public transit and paratransit option 2, make more usable and convenient with increase usage.

· Public transit and paratransit option 3, alternatives to air and cars.

· Public transit and paratransit option number 1 and 4 pretty close to each other.

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 1, for commuting and recreation

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 2, make easier to get to bus stops/hubs

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 2, to schools

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 3, this should go hand-in-hand with all options

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 3, teach the parents to kick the kids out of the car

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 3, rural road size and condition make it more critical to be educated

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 4, Pacific Coast Bike Route is OK as it is in Humboldt. Coastal Trail would not get uses as much as routes to school, work, stores.

· Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Option 4, if we do this, we don’t need option 1

· Highways and roads option 2, modify, do not expand/enlarge

· Highways and roads option 3, wider in order for pedestrian, bike vehicle safety

· Highways and roads option 1, could there be CFDs for non road projects, trails?

· Highways and roads option 4, less cars equal less congestion

· Highways and roads option 2, I’d rather see separate (but equal!) bike paths away from roads

· Highways and roads option 1, the roads we have are not maintained now, so nobody benefits, but more efficient maintenance, don’t need new roads.

· Highways and roads Option 4, educate to carpool, other ways to reduce car usage and more emphasis on transit.

Comments received via mail and email

The public participation plan included an avenue for Humboldt County residents to provide written comments via email or mail. An avenue for written comments was established for residents who were unable to attend the community workshops. The following written comments were received for the 2008 RTP update:

Greetings HCAOG,

Regarding the Regional Transit Plan, and as follow-up to the Eureka meeting we attended on April 21, 2008, we respectfully submit the following comments as social service providers for Humboldt & Del Norte County residents who are blind and visually impaired.

1.  Please address increased public transportation to remote, rural, unserved and underserved geographic areas, in particular: Southern Humboldt, Orick, Blue Lake, Bridgeville, Loleta, and the Hoopa Valley.  We provide itinerant services to people, particularly elders who are losing their vision loss at greater rates than the remainder of the population.  Many of them do not drive and/or should not drive for their own safety and for public safety.  Yet they drive or remain isolated in their homes not accessing medical care, community programs, or sometimes grocery stores.  Their basic needs are not met and the cost of providing services and medical care costs the community a great deal in the long run.  Their quality of life is poor and could be mediated by transit access to service hubs in more populated areas--particularly in Eureka, Arcata, and Fortuna where there are hospitals and medical professionals located closely together.

2.  Please address increased door-to-door Para transit services for elders who may not have the mobility or training to walk to the nearest bus stop in their town.  As life spans increase, as the Baby Boomer generations ages in greater numbers, and as the north coast continues to attract retirees seeking affordable housing, the number of senior citizens are on the rise.  Concurrently, the number of people with disabilities is on the rise, including vision loss, since aging often comes hand-in-hand with sensory loss be it vision loss, hearing loss, or both--dual sensory loss.

3.  Please address universal access to transportation, including increased posting of current information electronically, in braille, large print, tapes, on CDs, and in Spanish.  The local Spanish-speaking population is on the rise and will continue to rise in California, a border state long-known for its promise of employment and education for all.  Public transit information includes: schedules, maps (could be tactile maps by request), fares, bus-stops, tickets, and any other printed text generated by a public transit system.  Humboldt County residents who are deaf rely upon print communication, particularly if they are totally deaf and use American Sign Language as their primary mode of communication.  Humboldt County residents who are blind or visually impaired rely upon bus drivers to call out all (not just some) of the bus stops to help them orient themselves to their place along the route.  While some people have the presence of mind to count bus stops, most people who are blind or visually impaired benefit from audible clues as well as alternative formats providing access to printed text.

4.  Please address round-about traffic-calming measures.  Although they are useful, community-enhancing, fuel-saving, and effective traffic-calming measures, they are notoriously difficult for people who are blind and visually impaired to cross.  It is difficult to hear, predict, and negotiate the flow of traffic for pedestrians with vision loss who negotiate round-abouts and similarly configured traffic circles.

5.  Please address audible pedestrian signals for people who are blind or visually impaired.  As a rural community, rapidly developing, we have the advantage of building audible pedestrian signals into new signal installations at lower cost than it might be, otherwise, should they be an added measure down the line.  Audible pedestrian signals, for busy intersections, are not only necessary, they can be life-saving.

6.  Please address public awareness of mobility tools people who are blind and visually impaired use to negotiate Humboldt County.  Dog guides, white mobility canes, and white support canes are three necessary tools for people to safely negotiate streets, determine depth, find curb-cuts, avoid trees, and other hazards found on roadways.  The white mobility cane is also used for identification purposes, for automobile drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians to allow persons who are blind or visually impaired extra time, extra space, or extra assistance as needed to safely negotiate public transit and public spaces.  Both adults and children alike, who are blind and visually impaired, use mobility canes and receive training on how best to use it.

7.  Please address traffic-calming measures and medians to separate pedestrians from automobile traffic to increase pedestrian safety.

8.  Please address faded or missing crosswalk lines.  People with low vision often rely upon the white crosswalk lines heavily for negotiating corners, walking across the street in a straight line, and finding the traffic signal at the other end of the cross walk.  In Henderson Center, for example, many of the crosswalks are faded or missing, so pedestrians with some usable vision have difficulty orienting themselves to corners and safely crossing the busy intersections at F and Harris Streets or F and Henderson Streets.

9.  Please address the unsafe intersection at V and Myrtle Avenue.  Its proximal location to a fire station, two strip-malls, Silvercrest Residence (a low-income, senior housing complex), and its function as a primary route to hospital row, on Harrison Avenue, from Highway 101, makes this prime intersection one of the busiest in Eureka, CA.  It is a dangerous intersection, complicated to cross for sighted individuals, let alone people who happen to be blind or have low vision.  Four-way, controlled traffic, with a median strip, merge at this intersection.  Additionally, automobile drivers make right-hand turns at fast speeds, left-hand turns on yellow lights, and crosswalks run more diagonal than square to corners.  We receive numerous complaints, annually, from pedestrians who are afraid or had near-misses to cross this intersection.

10.  Please address the car-centric hospital row, not conducive to pedestrian traffic, on Harrison Avenue--between Myrtle Avenue and Harris Street.  There is only one, semi-safe crossing at Buhne and Harrison, where there is a traffic-light, otherwise, pedestrians must often run across the street between cars who pick-up speed as they journey north or south or Harrison Avenue.  Sprinkled with medical facilities and medically-related businesses, such as a pharmacy, Harrison Avenue includes restaurants, a bank, a hospital, a rehabilitation center, and Pacific Care Rehabilitation Center for seniors.  Harrison Avenue hosts pedestrian traffic, but not many safety measures are in place for those pedestrians who need to cross from east to west, or conversely west to east safely.  We have moved our office away from Harrison Avenue, to Henderson Center, for greater public transit access and for greater pedestrian safety.

For the services Humboldt County does have, we are grateful.  Transportation systems in rural areas suffer piecemeal funding and gaps in services; however, we believe Humboldt County could be the exception to the rule given its current Dial-A-Ride, Redwood Coast Transit System, Arcata-Mad River Transit System, Eureka City Bus System, and Quail System.

We look forward to communication regarding additional feedback or resource ideas should HCOAG seek specialized knowledge about the Orientation and Mobility of people who are blind or visually impaired.  Our home office, in San Francisco, now celebrating its 105th year in service regularly works with the city of San Francisco regarding transit and pedestrian planning and solutions.  For more information, please call the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired at 415-431-1481 and ask for Vision Loss Resource Center Coordinator Jesse Lorenz.

For local communication, please call me at the LightHouse or Doug Rose at the Humboldt Council of the Blind.  He, as well as I, could direct you to pertinent resources.

Thank you for addressing the above issues in regards to the Regional Transit Plan.

Respectfully,

Ali O. Lee

Vision Loss Services Coordinator

LightHouse of the North Coast

May 12, 2008

Dear Ms. Wilson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new 2008 update of the Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Planwest Partners, 2006). It is exciting to be able to provide guidance on how our regional transportation system can better meet Humboldt County’s changing needs. The increasing cost of fuel and continued escalation will cause a major shift in transportation patterns in Humboldt County that is already underway. We need to emphasize multi-modal transportation that includes bicycle and pedestrian trails that link our communities. Increased use of public transit is likely and the updated RTP needs to foster increased capacity to meet this need. I have thoroughly studied our railroad and shipping transport options and I provide some guidance on viability of both. Although I have been elected as Commissioner of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (HBHRCD) for Humboldt County’s Fifth Division, I offer the comments below as an individual.

Railroad

I believe that the updated RTP should include a realistic assessment of the prospects for reconstruction of an operating railroad in the next decade so that impediments to use of the right-of-way in the short term can be resolved. Studies commissioned by the HBHRCD (PB Marine, 2003) show that the North Coast Railroad authority stands to lose between $2-4 million annually, without shipment of on the order of 10,000-30,000 carloads of aggregate every year (Figure 1). PB Marine and Winzler and Kelly (2003) also stated categorically that large sea shipping of Asian containers or automobiles was also not feasible because of the distance from population centers and markets and the cost of trans-shipping goods. The Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA, 1998) estimated the cost of re-opening the NCRA through the Eel River Canyon at $640 million. Capital on this scale is not available to the North Coast and there is no viable business scenario under which reconstruction of the railroad is cost-feasible.

Although some in the progressive community tout light rail as the future of public transportation, funding such projects is difficult for rural areas and it would lose too much money to maintain, if constructed. Furthermore, pulling riders off buses to ride light rail would reduce the viability of what is really our community’s only viable form of public transit: buses.

Figure 1. PB Marine found that the NCRA was likely to lose between $2-6 Million per year and would only make money if greater than 20,000 carloads of aggregate are shipped annually. Chart from PB Marine NCRA Economic Feasibility Study.

Public Transit

I am happy to see that Humboldt County has new hybrid buses and I hope that this trend will continue. We should continue to focus all public transit expenditures on buses and expand the fleet to include more hybrids and maybe some powered by other alternative fuels. Continuing to provide bike racks on buses will allow people to combine bicycle commuting and use of public transit.

Bike and Walking Trails

Humboldt County has the potential to draw millions of dollars from State agencies and/or the federal government to construct a system of trails that plug gaps in the California Coastal Trail and connect our communities. There is a huge well-spring of support for this type of project, as shown by the very high use of the Hammond Trail in McKinleyville. By offering ways for people to get to the store, school or HSU without using their car. Many economically disadvantaged people will be able to travel safely without using fossil fuels and without cost, which also has substantial cumulative benefits for our economy as less money leaves the County for energy.

Short term economic benefits from construction would be followed by longer term increases in tourism and jobs as we re-brand Humboldt County as the place to come for a bicycling vacation. Studies in other areas have also proven that community health is improved as a result of increased walking and bicycle commuting, which helps decrease the cost of medical care and the burden on services in the long-term.

The most logical location for these trails is along established railroad right-of-ways because there are 1) intact easements, 2) appropriate grade and 3) there is no indication of short-term revival of the railroad as a viable enterprise over the next decade (see Railroad below). Because the North Coast Railroad Authority does not have plans in the short term future for re-opening service to Eureka, there is the real prospect that right of way will be lost or fragmented. Therefore, ironically to protect future rail options in future decades, maintaining easements through rails-to-trails makes sense. An immediate priority for establishment of a rail to trails conversion is the old Annie and Mary Railroad route between Arcata and Blue Lake. The easement for the NCRA that links Arcata and Eureka also makes sense as a priority.

The new Caltrans Highway 101 Mad River bridge project should consider including a short link along the dike downstream to the Mad River beach access road that acts as the northern extension of the Hammond Trail.

Bike trails could also be established on or adjacent to rural roads that are targeted for upgrading and trial programs established where rural residents are made aware of new sources of revenue for maintaining their access but with the understanding that they will improve efforts to share the road with bicyclists.

Healthy Rural Roads

While freeways provide quick and convenient modes of transport, they represent the homogenization of our community whereas rural roads maintain the character of our area. Additionally, many residents of remote parts of the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th Districts rely more on County roads more than State or federal highways. In the long term, maintaining and improving these roads helps keep the County connected, but if routes were well maintained, they could also be promoted as scenic drives for tourists and possibly accommodate bicycle routes where appropriate.

Specifically, instead of adding lanes or more clover leafs to Highway 101 between Eureka and Arcata, Caltrans needs to consider funding upgrades for Old Arcata Road so that it can handle traffic as an alternate to Highway 101. It would also make sense to build a bike trail parallel to Old Arcata Rd. or to expand the shoulder to accommodate a bike lane.

Shipping

Future shipping options for large scale industrial port operation with container ships or automobiles are inviable (PB Marine and Winzler & Kelly, 2003). Therefore, shipping enterprises should be shaped around meeting local import and export needs, including short sea shipping as fuel costs change costs to favor barges over truck transport.

Thanks for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Patrick Higgins

References

Federal Emergency Management Authority. 1998. Estimated cost of reconstruction of the North Coast Railroad through the Eel River Canyon. FEMA, Washington D.C.

PB Ports & Marine, Inc. and Winzler and Kelly. 2003. Port of Humboldt Bay Harbor Revitalization Plan. Prepared for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. Eureka, CA.

PB Ports & Marine, Inc. 2003. North Coast Railroad Authority Economic Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. Eureka, CA.

*** Please contact Green Wheels for a copy of the Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility study submitted to HCAOG.

To planners: 

Bike Trails: My husband and I currently work commute from Arcata to Eureka and back 3-4 days/week on our bikes. We try to carpool and use the bus the other days. We feel very motivated to continue as long as possible. We LOVE to do this--for the exercise, the beauty, the lack of climate impact. We commute the 101 corrider and have gotten over our initial fears but do not feel it is the safest experience, especially on the northbound route, due to off ramps. We are very willing and eager to do our part towards reducing global warming and would greatly appreciate your support through the creation of a separate bike trail as soon as possible. PLEASE!!!

Busses: I ride the Arcata-Eureka bus also when I cannot ride my bike. My experience is generally pretty positive but I am concerned about the rainy season. Can we have rain shelters with benches at ALL the bus stops? Encourage bus ridership with shelters to wait in. Thank you.

Cathy and Bill Chandler-Klein 

Process comments

At the end of each community workshop, participants were asked to provide comment on the process used to solicit input. The information below is result of process comments received at the community workshops, in addition to written comments received via email.

· Post notice of results and outcomes, timeline and history

· Personal conflicts about transportation priorities – no facilitator at table

· Need more information and assistance at table

· Broader dialogue desired

· Did not like categories within highway/roads and goods movement – problems with individual options

· *Good facilitator

· Not enough information (for some) – information presented was good

· Great discussion – hearing others’ priorities

· Discussions helped people become more creative

· Skewed toward public transit

· Difficulty with range of options – (goods movement) – not economically feasible

· Wording of highway and roads not clear

· How can we facilitate table conversations?

· What is HCAOG?

· How much money is at stake?

· Better understanding of rules - what are resource limitations?

· Less abstract (unclear about HCAOG funding and how much money is spent)

· Public transportation

· Would appreciate a broader range of interest groups

· Highways and roads options – new categories

· Difficulty separating theories versus realities – are fantasy options realistic?

· Don’t understand our role

· Certain interest groups are underrepresented

· Like to see HCAOG hold these meetings in underserved communities (they need it the most)

· What decisions are facing the group so we can be more helpful?

· For visioning – we need to educate about trucking system inefficiencies

· From official – if it’s focused decision makers, see what community wants

· More information

· How can you determine when you don’t know?

· Background information on website

· No real sense of how this fits into bigger picture

· 101 corridor

· Introduce previously identified priority projects

· Specific information on priorities of prior projects

· Information on website

· Outcome of previous RTP priority projects

· Reference HCAOG website in PSA

· Link to 2006 Plan in email

· More advertising (radio, and T.V.)

I’m not sure what the reasoning was behind the location selection, but I am concerned that the Fortuna and Mky locations are not close enough to distance reaches of the county, while they are both only 20min from Eureka.  I would suggest that the workshop for So. Hum be in Garberville, which is 50 min away from Island Mtn, and Shelter Cove. For No Hum, I suggest Hoopa which is an hour away from Orick and Somes bar. These might not get the numbers of people that are in the populated areas, but they would get the diversity of folks from different communities, especially since these areas are under/unserved by the county.  

Mark Schaffner - HCOE Vocational Caseworker

Please run the buses, both city and county, on Sundays.  Why are you having the community workshops in Eureka at the Wharfinger Building at a time when the City Bus is not operative? We need workshops in the morning or the afternoon, please.
Patricia Cottrell

Will there be a workshop in the Redway Garberville /Avenue of the Giants areas?

Thanks

Christina Huff

I am writing to complain that you aren't doing any workshops in So. Hum. which is almost completely unserved by our county regional transportation and I think we need to be included.  Is it too late to get a workshop scheduled for the Garberville Redway area?  Please let me know because some people have been asking why you aren't planning one.  Thanks.  Patti Rose

I read in the Eureka Reporter of your planned meetings to discuss transportation needs in Humboldt County. I would like to tell you that you have excluded a very large segment of the interested community by having all your meetings in the evenings when public transportation is not available.  How can we express our voices to your organization? Those of us who take the bus or dial a ride system have been left out.

Henry N. Willey, Far North Regional Director – California Network of Mental Health Clients

Thank you for your interest in discovering the transportation priorities for our region. I’m sure it would be helpful to have meetings closer to the Southern Humboldt portion which is underserved in public transportation.

Thank you, Stephanie Steffano-Davis

Summary of Public Participation Program

Community Workshop Exercise One

It is interesting to note that the majority of Eureka and McKinleyville participants prioritized three modes of transportation similarly; bicycle and pedestrian facilities was ranked as the number one priority, public transit and paratransit services ranked second, and goods movement was ranked fourth. However, a majority of McKinleyville participants selected highways and roads as their third priority, a majority of Eureka participants were equally divided with 38 percent ranking highways and roads third and 38 percent ranking Highways and roads fourth.

For workshop exercise one, Fortuna residents prioritized the modes in the following order: public transit and paratransit, highways and roads, goods movement and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Although the prioritization is not representative of Humboldt County residents, the results obtained from the workshop prioritization indicate that opinions regarding the prioritization of transportation modes may differ depending on their geographic location within Humboldt County.

Community Workshop Exercise Two

Eureka, McKinleyville, and Fortuna Community Workshop participants selected goods movement option 3 (eliminate STAA pinch points on US 101 and Highway 299 to facilitate the movement of goods via STAA trucks) as their first regional priority for goods movement.

Public transit and paratransit option 2 (Increase the frequency of public transit service in areas already served by adding express transit service and direct routes) was selected as the first regional public transit and paratransit regional priority by workshop participants in Eureka, McKinleyville and Fortuna.

Eureka and Fortuna workshop participants, selected bicycle and pedestrian facilities option 1 (develop pedestrian and bicycle trail connections among communities) as their first regional priority for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within a regional context. McKinleyville workshop participants selected option 2 (develop pedestrian and bicycle trail connections within communities) as their first bicycle and pedestrian regional priority.

For highways and roads, the participants at the three locations selected different options as their first priority. Eureka participants selected option 2 (increase major road capacity to accommodate other modes of travel) as their first priority, Fortuna participants selected option 1 (established funding mechanisms will be used to maintain and rehabilitate existing major roadway infrastructure. New secure funding mechanisms would be used to maintain and rehabilitate new local/access roads) as their first priority, and McKinleyville participants chose option 3 (implement major and local road improvements that increase vehicle, bike and pedestrian safety) as their number one priority.

Public Comment on Draft RTP

A second round of community workshops were held to solicit the community’s input on the Draft 2008 RTP. The second round of community workshops were held at Azalea Hall in McKinleyville, the Rio Dell Fire Hall, and the Humboldt Bay Aquatic Center in Eureka. The comments received from the second round of community workshops are as follows:

Highway and Roadway Transportation System Element

· Policy HR4 – Add transit reference to policy (with bike and pedestrian)

· How does the RTP relate/consistent to city and county general plans?

· RTP does reflect planning from city and county plans - programming roadways for their general plans

· What is the benefit to cities and counties – projects put in RTP are eligible for funding, programming benefits

· Service providers get certified by HCAOG – funding eligibility

· Policy HR 6 – Non-freeway alt’s – loss of freeway bypass – Eureka. Funds committed to Eureka

· Funds used for non-freeway improvements – 4^th and 5^th /R

· Waterfront Drive – still needs permits

· Health impacts – decrease vehicle miles – positive H. I. Set as goal

· Congestion at 14^th, 15^th, Del Norte, and Hilfiker (what about between 15^th and Del Norte?) also congestion on the 101

· Illustrative projects on Broadway/ Closing Fairfield? Aren’t there other Broadway projects?

· Other signals that create delay (e.g. two-way signal at Henderson)

Public Transit and Paratransit Service Element

· Good graphics

· Does the needs assessment influence projects; or are projects identified in the needs assessment carried out?

· Transit service in McKinleyville (example: Grange and Central) needs to be more frequent

· There needs to be an increased frequency of transit between McKinleyville and Eureka. Express bus with less stops

· It is important to look at what we have – look at stops and time corrections

· There should be no parking near bus stops.

· Need park and ride facilities

· Transit providers need to maintain ratios, which causes problems

· No transit to/out of Samoa. The development will increase population the transit needs.

· The increase in fuel costs and aging population will increase ridership. This needs to be an assumption

· Impressed with Jack Pass program – financing mechanism for transit. This concept should be expanded to large employers

· Bus rapid transit should be implemented between communities

· There needs to be Sunday bus service

· Evening service should be extended

· Illustrative projects should be implemented when feasible

· Good – A lot of what has been mentioned in this workshop is in the RTP

· Quail is an important service in southern Humboldt – only a single vehicle provides service

· Scheduling is incorrect, correct schedule is as follows:

1^st and 3^rd Tuesdays – Eureka

2^nd and 4^th Tuesdays – Fortuna

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday – Senior Center in Redway

1^st and 4^th Friday – around Redway/Garberville

No service 5^th Friday

Reservations taken for appointments; local stops

· In Fortuna – stops at library / banks

· Restrictions for riding have increased. It is hard to comply, which affects ridership

· Value of the service doesn’t always get into evaluation. Look at benefits of the service

· Service is in jeopardy. The original concept included feeder lines

· Can’t use Quail to get to HCAOG workshops

· How much money goes to publicizing service? Some flyers sent from HTA

· “Almost” seniors aren’t able to ride Quail. Minimum age has increased from 55 to 60 years old

· Use of Quail – seniors and disable – mixing of populations to be considered but could increase ridership

· Emphasis on Bike/Pedestrian may drain resources for transit

· Quail is only transit south of Scotia

· Health care providers and teachers working in Rio Dell/Fortuna areas could benefit from transit to and from southern Humboldt

· Accessibility of transit vehicles – limited. Can be deterrent to use

· Opportunities for input on services – use different media outlets

· Health districts are important entities for providing input on public transit issues

· Keep the Quail!

· Look into broadening transit service to southern Humboldt

· Get any proposal in the plan for transit

· How does this fit into Coordinated Transit Plan being prepared

· There are funds for capital expansion not operating and maintenance or increased frequency

· For 5310 funds, it used to be that you had to be in top 20% to get funded. Now you need to be in top 50% - getting funding is easier

· More coordination between three public transit providers

· Jack pass for HSU not CR!

· Looking at ways to increase ridership to increase frequency – education about transit system

· Ridership has increased

· Times that accommodate commuters

· Replacing buses due to air quality standards – CARB has not certified hybrids, but has certified clean diesel

· Working with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Caltrans to run the Redwood Coast Transit (RCT) up 199 to Grants Pass. Need to provide service to Grants Pass either by Amtrak, Greyhound or RCT

· Need transportation east on 299 also

· Try to get people out of cars – plug the holes

· Intermodal transit at HSU – 75% A&MRTS riders are HSU students/ 50% of HTA riders are HSU students – include child care center/cleaners – one stop location

· Education programs around transit/costs/limitations

· Land use is an issue – move out to periphery when you are mobile, then need/want service when you are not mobile

· Make transit convenient

· Provide transit where it is not currently provided; in areas where cars cannot be conveniently parked

· Should include a note about continuing to explore other transit options

· Difficulty for folks when HTA offices are closed from 12:00 to 1:00 pm

· Dial-A-Ride/Dial-A-Lift tickets cannot be purchased on bus

· Need to extend service into Cutten

· It would help to connect transit riders with regional transportation…especially for medical appointments out of the area

· Public Transportation Element: lack of long-term planning

· Bus rapid transit (BRT) signal pre-emption on Broadway makes sense

§ Funds from Homeland Security, make use for emergency services vehicles as well

§ Analyze stops, perhaps on leading side of intersections

§ Hard to put in queen jumps north of Wabash

· Express routes are very important; increase express service, especially from McKinleyville to Eureka (# of stops in McKinleyville is a barrier)

· Curious about how transit is included in Ridgewood Village Project – will be needed; with any development projects that don’t have infrastructure – transit requirement

· Expansion of transit service to McKinleyville: airport access should be one of the major goals in the future

· Evening service expansion could better serve social activities (example: Arts Alive, downtown outings)

§ What about just Fri and Sat as a pilot project

§ Why does last bus dead head from McKinleyville to Eureka (with no passengers)? Could they take to 4^th and V? It doesn’t seem infeasible to meet this need

Bike and Pedestrian systems Element

· Increased signage/signals for the visually impaired

· Look at specific intersections

· Make materials accessible in brail

· Increase bike racks at public facilities

· Public access as a requirement for coastal permits (myrtle Ave and Harley Store)

· Bike facility at Audubon Society/along bay access

· Bring Pedestrian facilities up to ADA requirements

· Funding for Bike and Pedestrian surveys for performance measures

· New trail between Wabash and Herrick to continue trail to King Salmon

· Bike/trail safety needs to be a top priority

· Connecting trails – bike boulevards

· Big dots – stop cars from going into bike lanes

· Bike education policy for adults and kids

· Need better pedestrian crossing between Henderson and Wabash; Perhaps an overpass from bluff or stairs?

· Overpass from library to Waterfront Drive

· Develop Vigo Street as Waterfront /trail access

· Need a separate facility on Samoa Bridges because many Somoa and Eureka residents are carless; would also be beneficial for visitors to access the beach… including safe crossing of Navy Base Road

· Need a trail between Arcata and Eureka on Rail corridor

§ Bringing back the Rail doesn’t seem realistic/feasible

§ Trans Systems study = $.5 million in hole annually

· Old Arcata Road/Myrtle need bike lanes and speed humps

· Speed reduction/traffic calming needed on Glen Street and Fairfield in Eureka; the park attracts many kids, there are many bicyclists, and many carless households in this area

· Annie and Mary = add Arcata to Glendale segment in long-term projects

· Need a solid, high quality Class I from Blue Lake/McKinleyville to Willits; it is needed as a “backbone”

Positives aspects of Element:

· Using information from PATH, policy Charrette, HIA

· Highlighting complete streets as guiding concept

· Considering health benefits of biking and walking

· Bike and pedestrian LOS

· Linking bike facility systems with transit hubs (see policy Charrette and General Plan Update to expand hub concept)

· Shared lane pavement markings or ‘sharrows’ in Arcata are a good case study to watch

· Timing is good for alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use (e.g. park and ride full) – there are good opportunities to pursue transit, carpooling, bike/pedestrian

· Long-Term Projects: It is great the Ave. School Road Projects done…can a flashing speed/radar sign be done? And expand to other Ave. Communities?

Negative aspects of Element:

· Language is soft – much stronger on roads element. Too much “could” not “shall”

· Need more clarity: what percentage of available funding is actually used for non-motorized transportation (e.g. Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding)? Policy language should utilize max funding?

· ‘Complete streets’ concept should be expanded to ‘complete neighborhoods’ in order to incorporate land use influence on non-motorized transportation.

· Bike and pedestrian LOS could be stronger – do more than provide information and encourage use - a process should be adopted

· There is a lack of attention to needs/demand for traffic calming on 255 in Manila

· Travel Demand Management (TDM) has a role - TDM is addressed in transit, but not in the Bike and Pedestrian Element - HCAOG needs to actively promote TDM, not just encourage reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

· Coordination with General Plan Update doesn’t give direction on how, instead just a list. HCAOG’s RTP should be adopted as official policy for all local governments, including the General Plan Update for Humboldt County

· North Bank Road (State Route 200) needs to be safer. There needs to be an intersection with HWY 101 and up Central Avenue – in absence of A& M trail, it is the only option – Class II (not III)

· Need improved shoulders for Dow’s Prairie Road

· Manila: social justice issue – without access to a store by bike/pedestrians, there needs to be a trail - also the Samoa development will exacerbate the need and traffic safety issues

· Consistent, annual bike safety education campaign is needed

·