At last week’s meeting of the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG), Caltrans Project Manager Kim Floyd shocked some big-time local decision-makers. She told the assembled League of Extraordinary Officials that, back in June, the state repossessed roughly $15 million in transportation funds that had been slated for safety and maintenance work along the Hwy. 101 corridor between Eureka and Arcata.
County Supervisor Mark Lovelace (who attended the meeting but is not an HCAOG board member) said this was the first he’d heard about the missing money. Humboldt County Director of Public Works Tom Mattson said he, too, was taken by surprise.
In a phone conversation yesterday, Floyd explained that the $15 million had been set aside back around 2000 through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). It was supposed to finance safety improvements between Eureka and Arcata, including repaving, bridge replacements, tide-gate replacements, new lighting and more. Eleven years later, that work hadn’t started, and with so many other transportation projects shovel-ready around the state, officials at Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento took the money back. And there’s no guarantee that we’ll ever see it again.
Why was the project delayed so long? In part because it was hitched to another project along the same stretch of road: the Eureka-Arcata Route 101 Corridor Improvement project. You’ve probably heard about that one. It aims to install a traffic signal at Jacobs Ave. and an overpass at the Indianola cutoff, among other modifications to the six highway intersections between the two cities.
Rather than perform separate environmental impact studies, Caltrans and HCAOG opted to combine the two projects in hopes of streamlining the permitting process. Now, that plan seems to have backfired. And the County Board of Supervisors is thinking twice about whether local governments should authorize the funds for the surviving half of those conjoined projects (close to $24 million).
Those funds come from a separate pot of state money called the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). STIP money gets allocated to local districts every other year. Humboldt County’s allowance is about $12 million per cycle, so the 101 corridor project, with its $24 million price tag, would use two full years cycles (four years) of STIP funding. Lovelace, for one, isn’t sure that’s a good idea. He and his fellow supervisors are looking for some community input.
The board has called for a special meeting next Monday, Nov. 14, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the pros and cons of spending so much scarce money on the project. The ultimate authorization is up to HCAOG, so the board is seeking input on how to direct its representative on the association’s board, Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen.
Here are the confusing details: STIP funds come in two-year cycles, but they’re programmed in five-year increments. So the next increment will cover the five fiscal years of 2012-13 through 2016-17. The $24 million at stake here — the money HCAOG is considering spending — are tied to fiscal years 2015-16 through 2018-19.
Lovelace said that money could be used for a variety of other much-needed projects across the county: a roundabout at Murray Rd. and Central Ave. in McKinleyville; another roundabout at the “three corners” intersection of Old Arcata Rd. and Freshwater Rd.; new traffic signals in Eureka; and pedestrian improvements in southern Humboldt, among other projects.
“This is a huge issue,” Lovelace said. He suggested that if a decision of this magnitude had been presented to the board with such little notice in the general plan update process, “people would scream, and someone would be fired.”
The board of HCAOG is also taking its time with the decision. It elected to continue the decision on the project to its Dec. 1 meeting. If you have an opinion about how our county’s limited transportation dollars should be spent, show up to one or both of these meetings and make your voice heard.
As for the lost $15 million in state funds, Floyd said that once the environmental clearances come through — a step that will require sign-off from the California Coastal Commission — we can ask for it back. But she acknowledged that state transportation funds are “very financially constrained.”
This article appears in Why Do People Hate Kirk Girard?.
Let’s not forget Caltrans is always begging for money yet they spend every penny they’re given while stiffing their own field labor employees of benefits, hours and wage increases.
$15 million better spent somewhere else. Now Caltrans has every reason to rescind the $10+ million they were going to waste making the freeway bigger through Richardson Grove. Half their ‘projects’ aren’t exactly met with open arms to begin with.
Is it any surprise Caltrans’ happy go lucky PR crew and project managers kept EVERYBODY in the dark about this? They’re a self interested tool for state government.
Note to Supes: recalibrate available funds to repair existing roads before spending it on round-abouts.
Turtle, funds are received for specific purposes. Funding for safety improvements cannot be shifted to maintenance or road rehabilitation. Funding-wise, it’s easier to build new roads than to maintain old ones.
Makes no sense to me, either.
Sorry, but it seems crazy to spend $24 million on overpasses and stoplights on Hwy 101, when shaving 10 mph off the speed limit has made a big difference already.
HCAOG, please don’t throw our local funds behind this boondoggle. We may not be able to re-purpose the state funds, but we have better ways to spend our own money, thanks very much.
First of all, the state didn’t abscond with the money, that headline is misleading. They took back when Eureka/Arcata refused to use the funds in a timely manner. Too many protests with no plan, too much stalling from our citizenry–of course they took it back! Eureka/Arcata had 11 years to work out a plan and figure it out. No one’s fault but Humboldt County’s.
The 101 corridor seems fine the way it is. If memory serves, there have not been any fatal accidents since the speed limit was lowered to 50 mph. The money is better spent on other projects like the ones mentioned at Three Corners.
Gary Indianola wrote: “Too many protests with no plan, too much stalling from our citizenry—of course they took it back!”
That’s a blatant falacy, Gary.
Round about? Seems to me that a four way stop sign is the best for safety purposes. it may be slower, but seems hard to argue that keeping vehicles on the move is safer then stopping them.
@Todd:
“…used in place of stop signs and traffic signals…(w)here roundabouts have been installed, motor vehicle crashes have declined by about 40 percent, and those involving injuries have been reduced by about 80 percent. Crash reductions are accompanied by significant improvements in traffic flow, thus reducing vehicle delays, fuel consumption, and air pollution.”
– Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/roundabouts.html