See also:
Part 1:  Sunset and LK Wood / Highway 101 roundabouts — Where are the bike lanes?
Part 2:  Sunset and LK Wood / Highway 101 roundabouts — Will this work? Is this safe?

This article was first published  on February 19, 2024. It is being “bumped up” with a newer date so that it shows up on “New Articles.”

What I don’t like about this interchange design

• I don’t like that bicyclists are riding Class I bike paths — 8 feet wide and shared with pedestrians. In a low-volume location this could work. This area has too many bikes and too many walkers for this to be feasible here.
• I don’t like that the bike-path / motor-vehicle traffic lane crossings — with only flashing lights (no stop signs) and with cars just exiting an off-ramp, likely going too fast. There are ten of these pathway crossings.
• I don’t like that bicyclists are required to make a choice between two bad alternatives:  Either get onto a shared pathway, or merge into car/truck traffic.

Letter to the City Council

To:         Honorable Mayor Matthews, Arcata City Council

              City Engineer Netra Khatri, City Manager Karen Diemer

From:     Fred Weis

Subject:   The U.S. 101 and Sunset Avenue Interchange Project

 

Synopsis:

The overall design of this interchange does not seem safe.

If you are tight on time, scroll below and just look at the images.

 

Each place where there is a gray strip (a pathway) that crosses a motor-vehicle traffic lane is where pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, etc. interact with cars and trucks. There would be no stop signs there, just flashing lights. There are 10 of these crossings.

 

When cars are stopped to let pedestrians and cyclists cross, just 2 or 3 vehicles (or one bus) will back up into the roundabout, potentially causing that traffic flow to stop too.

 

See:  “My suggestions for this evening” below.

 

————————————————–

 

Good morning —

 

This evening’s City Council agenda packet shows three renderings of the U.S. 101 and Sunset Avenue Interchange Project. (Page 74)

 

In looking at these “Preliminary Plan Overview” images, I was struck that there are no bike lanes in this interchange. From Netra I learned why this is so. 

The overall design of this interchange does not seem safe — not safe for bicyclists, for pedestrians, and not even safe for cars.

 

Here’s the L.K. Wood roundabout, with cars and trucks added. The red arrows show where bikes would ride.

The vehicles are bunched up because pedestrians and cyclists are crossing at the pathways in front of them.

 

This design also does not seem well-suited to handle the population from the 2,000 dorm rooms that are being added to that area, the further 5,500-6,000 student/faculty/staff increase at Cal Poly, or the rest of the anticipated growth of Arcata.

 

That is to say:  It does not seem safe now, and this will get worse in the future.

 

From correspondence with Netra, it seems that a) there is limited right of way available, and b) riding in a bike lane on the outside of the curve of a roundabout is not preferred. 

 

Cyclists going through this intersection have a choice. 

• Ride out into the road and merge into the stream of motor-vehicle traffic.
  
• Ride on the shared pathway, with pedestrians.

The shared pathways are a minimum of 8 feet wide. They are “Class I” bike paths — The pathways are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, etc.

 

Where these pathways cross a motor-vehicle traffic lane, there will be a button-actuated flashing light sign, such as we see  on K Street now. There will not be a stop sign. 

 

A pedestrian or cyclist who is coming from the north side of L.K. Wood and wants to go across 101 on Sunset Avenue — to the skateboard park, say,  or to Foster Avenue apartments — needs to cross motor-vehicle traffic lanes 8 or 10 times. They need to stop, press the button for the flashing lights, and wait until the cars stop. And the cars have to stay stopped until all pedestrians/cyclists have crossed.

 

So we will have vehicles heading north on 101 and getting off at the Sunset exit — taking the exit ramp and approaching the roundabout. About 30 feet before those vehicles would be merging on to the roundabout, there’s a pathway that crosses the traffic lane. And every time a pedestrian or cyclist wants to cross that traffic lane, there’d be flashing lights.

 

Coming off the roundabout, it’s worse. If 2 or 3 cars have to stop to let pedestrians/cyclists go through on their pathway, the vehicles back up into the roundabout traffic flow. One bus or semi-truck, when stopped, would clog up the roundabout.

 

Netra likened this design to that of the roundabout at Foster and Sunset (Open Door Clinic, skateboard park). The complexity of the two US 101 roundabouts is vastly greater than the Foster and Sunset roundabout. They are not comparable. 

 

A better comparison would be the two roundabouts at Valley West, at the 101 off-ramps and on-ramps there. But even those are less complex than this, and are larger. You can, however, imagine coming down the off-ramp from 101 to get off at the Guintoli Lane exit, and coming to a full stop 30 feet before you get to the roundabout — while dozens of walking, biking, and skateboarding Cal Poly Humboldt students use the crosswalk in front of you, effectively stopping traffic. 

 

 

I understand this is a difficult set of design criteria that we have here. But it seems a better solution than this can be found.

 

 

The Environmental Review and CEQA exemption

 

The report says that there will be 2,000 new units of Cal Poly student and multi-family residential housing, and that this “Could contribute to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic through the interchange.”  Could contribute?  Not:  Will contribute?

 

The Cal Poly Humboldt prospectus shows an increase of 5,500-6,000 students and faculty/staff — perhaps as soon as 2030, just six years from now. This will result in a further large number of people who will be going through this interchange. This is not mentioned in the report. The Cal Poly Humboldt prospectus is referenced in the General Plan 2045 draft EIR — so we know that it is acknowledged.

 

The further anticipated growth of Arcata over the next 20 years is also not mentioned. Since that does not involve specific projects, I understand its absence — but I do not agree with the omission of even mentioning Arcata’s planned growth.

 

The Cal Poly dorms and prospectus figures represent a true condition that this report is ignoring. Who are we trying to fool here? Of course there will be a large increase in the usage of this interchange.

 

 

My suggestions for this evening:

• In my view, you cannot approve this project as it is.
• If you can give a tacit approval, with future reconsideration of the design, perhaps that is possible.
• I needn’t remind everyone:  This has to work. It’s not going to be redone.
• The Transportation Safety Committee should be involved. Not just one meeting — perhaps an intro meeting and a special meeting to discuss this.
• My opinion is that GHD can do a better job than this. Arcata needs a better solution than this.
• What’s shown here is better for cars. In my view, it is far more cumbersome for people. This design is safer in some ways, but introduces a large number (20 or 30) of thoroughly unsafe locations and conditions. It is not acceptable.

 

Thank you, and thank you for your work.

 

— Fred Weis

 

———————————————–

 

Articles on Arcata1.com

 

The “Part 2” article was included with the letter to the Council. reprinted below. 
The URL is:  https://arcata1.com/sunset-lk-wood-101-roundabouts-part-2/

The “Part 1” article has more background and further images. It’s at https://arcata1.com/sunset-lk-wood-101-roundabouts-bike-lanes/