US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment

[sparker]

Plain & simple: Richardson Grove -- and the 2-lane segment north of Leggett -- have needed a bypass for decades.  Both road proponents and the environmentalists have valid points -- and both point to the existing alignments as non-expandable for reasons cited by both factions.  The issue is and always will be money; freeways (even the single-carriageway-with-double/double-yellow-lines type typifying US 101 in the region) in this terrain are exceptionally costly; the 1973-era hillside alignment southeast of Leggett was and is the most expensive Caltrans project (adjusted for inflation) in Mendocino County to date.  And CA 299 via Redding is no picnic for commercial vehicles; the entire Northwest Coast is negatively affected by the functional lack of efficient access to and from the south.  Nevertheless, the assemblers of the successive Caltrans STIPs only see the area as (a) in decline due to the rollback of the logging industry or (b) simply a recreational destination.  Since they saw fit to deploy almost 50 miles of freeway north of there through the redwoods in the '60's, it's clear that a similar solution to the present situation from Leggett to Benbow was in the works at some previous point, but was likely sidetracked by both the Gianturco retrenchment of the late '70's as well as the increasing militancy of parties opposed to enhancing road access to outlying areas in general.  In short, no one's proposed spending the level of money required for such an undertaking -- or to stir up the proverbial "hornet's nest" of presumed opposition.  It's clear something could be done; the Redwood National Park inland bypass from Orick to Klamath was completed, leaving the old-growth trees alone aside the old US 101 alignment; while the quarters are admittedly a bit closer in the area under discussion here, it shouldn't be an impossible task -- just difficult.  Unfortunately, even "difficult" is problematic in today's Caltrans lexicon; avoidance of even the hint of controversy seems to be the order of the day. 

Randolph Collier is probably turning over in his grave given what it takes to get a project off the ground today!!!

[nexus73]

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.

Nah, I'm good.  If I need to get to Grants Pass, I'll stick to the freeways (80, 505 and 5).  It'll get me there faster and I won't use as much gas. 

Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.

But that's not what you said.  You said to tell them to get "behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass."  To me, that implies the starting point is San Francisco and the destination is Grants Pass, in which I correctly pointed out the preferred route is 80 -> 505 -> 5 which is far from a white-knuckle drive (unless you start during the evening commute in which case that's more of a "hair-pulling" drive).

Now, if you had made the starting point Crescent City and the destination is San Francisco *or* Grants Pass, then I guess I can see your point as you'd have to traverse the 2-lane sections of 101 and/or 199.

Okay, I guess you do not know about the "Redwood Highway", as the route between SF and GP is called.  Since Richardson Grove was the topic of discussion, I figured you were able to surmise what the deal was. 

Rick

[andy3175]

Update: http://www.redwoodtimes.com/article/NK/20180312/NEWS/180319996

Caltrans' revised Richardson Grove project under review by local judge
By Will Houston, whouston@times-standard.com, @Will_S_Houston on Twitter
Posted: 03/12/18, 8:40 PM PDT

Caltrans argued before a Humboldt County Superior Court judge on Tuesday that its revised widening project plans for U.S. Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park comply with a 2014 court order to address environmental impact concerns. Environmental groups argued that the environmental review is "inadequate"  and that the changes to the project require a more in-depth environmental review.  ...

Attorneys for Caltrans and environmental organizations made their case before a Humboldt County judge and a packed courtroom on Tuesday as to whether Caltrans has an adequate environmental review for its controversial U.S. Highway 101 widening project through Richardson Grove State Park.

Superior Court Judge Kelly Neel said she will take the matter under submission and said that she would likely not have a decision by the end of the month.

Caltrans' 1.1-mile highway widening project through the old-growth redwood park began in 2007, but has been repeatedly challenged in state and federal courts by environmental groups like the Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center and local residents Bess Bair, Trisha Lee Lotus, Jeffrey Hedin and David Spreen.

Caltrans is seeking to expand the highway to allow industry standard-sized trucks to be able to pass through, but challengers claim the project does not address potential impacts to redwood trees and their root systems.

Caltrans has repeatedly found in its environmental reviews that the project would have no significant environmental impacts under both the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

A state appellate court panel found in 2014 that Caltrans did not provide information on the impacts to old-growth redwoods and how they planned to reduce those effects. Caltrans was then ordered by the Humboldt County Superior Court to revise its state environmental document.

Caltrans released an addendum to its state environmental review in May 2017, including a revised project plan that would reduce the number of trees that would be removed – no old-growth redwoods would be removed – reduce the amount of pavement that would be added, and reduce the amount of material that will be moved and used as fill.

Like its previous environmental reviews, the agency found its revised project would not have a significant environmental impact.

On Tuesday, Caltrans deputy attorney Stacy Lau argued the changes made to the project have fulfilled the court's demands. ...

The Environmental Protection Information Center's attorney Sharon Duggan argued Tuesday the Caltrans environmental review was deemed "inadequate"  by the court. Duggan said that the only way you can create an addendum to the environmental review as Caltrans did is if they had a valid environmental review.

"It's our position that Caltrans needed to revise the [environmental impact report] and go through the appropriate process to reflect how things have changed,"  Duggan said.

Lau characterized the project changes as being "minor modifications"  and that the agency was never required by the court to recirculate the environmental review.

"Because the impacts would be less than they were in the previous project,"  Lau said.

Caltrans' revised project plans were challenged again in June 2017 as part of a separate lawsuit by the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Friends of Del Norte and the four previously mentioned county residents. The litigation calls on the court to order Caltrans to cease project operations until it complies with state laws, to cover attorneys' fees and the lawsuit's cost and provide any other relief the court deems proper.

Caltrans' challenge to these claims is set to be heard by Neel on March 28.

[nexus73]

"The litigation calls on the court to order Caltrans to cease project operations until it complies with state laws, to cover attorneys' fees and the lawsuit's cost and provide any other relief the court deems proper."

Now to see if the state will in return then try to break the bank of these activists by demanding repayment of the taxpayer dollars spent on defending the project if Caltrans prevails.

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Given that there has been a recent U.S. Appellate Court Ruling this month on the potential widening of US Route 101 in Richardson Grove State Park the topic seemed topical for highway blog.  The subject of US 101 in Richardson Grove State Park is a controversial topic between allowing STAA truck freight to reach Humboldt County and environmental protection of Coastal Redwoods lining the highway.  Notably US 101 through Richardson Grove appears to have once been planned to be recycled into a Avenue-of-the-Giants-like segment of CA 271 via a long cancelled bypass.  Whatever your feelings are regarding US 101 in Richardson Grove the segment of highway certainly is a scenic dip into a Coastal Redwood Grove. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/us-route-101-through-richardson-grove.html

[kkt]

Nice photoessay

[kernals12]

So is this just widening the section of 101, or will it be upgraded to freeway standards? Also, could they build a wildlife crossing to prevent fracturing of the ecosystem (and prevent animal collisions)?

[Max Rockatansky]

At present moment all that is being sought is expanding the current roadway to allow STAA trucks through.  If I recall correctly this would impact I believe three dozen younger growth Redwoods.  I need to update the above blog with a drawing from 2002 (which was sent to me on a Facebook page) which previously explored three bypass concepts.  I've been unsuccessful in finding the original bypass concept thus far.  Unfortunately it came after 1967 when the CHPWs ended and Division of Highways information became scarce approaching the birth of Caltrans.  Most expressway development on US 101 was heavily prioritized to the north due to the 1964 Christmas Floods.

[kkt]

Caltrans likes to express the widening in terms of three dozen or however many it is younger redwoods.  However, removing redwoods along the edges of the road also allows light shafts to penetrate down to the understory making it warmer in the summer and hurting understory plants and birds that need filtered light.  The larger trucks will be noisier and impact the peace of the park both for wild creatures and for visitors.  A wider, straighter road invites higher speeds even if the posted speed limit remains the same.

The widening of the road is not just a one-time event.  Every 30-40 years the trucking industry is successful in creating a larger class of trucks that need wider, straighter roads to hold them, and old roads just have to be widened.  Today they're just asking for a little straighter, but this will not be the end of it for long before they want a 4-lane expressway.  Let that expressway happen outside the park.

[kernals12]

Why can't truckers just take I-5?

[Max Rockatansky]

From I-5 taking CA 299 west from Redding to Humboldt is the most practical route and it doesn't permit STAA trucks either.  From there to you have an assortment of twist filled routes like; CA 96, US 199, and CA 36 which aren't happening for trucks with serious length.  In the case of US 199 there is a second obstacle from getting to Humboldt County via the Last Chance Grade south Crescent City on US 101. 

[cahwyguy]

Why can't truckers just take I-5?

There are likely multiple reasons, ranging from that's not where they are going, that's not where the loads are, differences in the weather (there are less snow closures near the coast), and much more. Often, asking the "Why don't they..." question is pointless. They do what they do for reasons we don't know, and more importantly, can't control.

Daniel

[kkt]

Anyone know if upgrading 299 to allow STAA trucks has been studied?

There can indeed be less snow closer to the coast, however flooding and landslides happen pretty regularly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyone know if upgrading 299 to allow STAA trucks has been studied?

There can indeed be less snow closer to the coast, however flooding and landslides happen pretty regularly.

Off the top of my head I believe so but I would need to research more.  Notably though, at least as of late the Trinity River on 299 between 3 and 96 has had a lot of issues.  I believe that there was a prolonged slide closure this year that was pushing traffic onto 96 via the Klamath River. 

[kernals12]

It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would say that is highly unlikely given the environmental resistance in areas that aren't up to expressway standards.  The amount of push back from Richardson Grove alone is pretty damning on two fronts; one there is fierce resistance to expanding the current highway and secondly Caltrans doesn't seem to be too keen on building an expensive bypass.  Don't forget even the bypass route would meet environmental challenges and that isn't even getting into the cost of building a new crossing on higher terrain east of the South Fork Eel River.

I can't foresee very much happening with the Last Chance Grade aside from mitigation and minor and improvement.  The terrain at the Last Chance Grade is a monster (Big Sur like if I was to draw a comparison) and isn't something that would easily permit construction of a four lane highway.  On the whole though, I would say that US 101 for the most part in Humboldt County is far better than it probably needs to be.  The expressway and freeway grades are nowhere near as prone to being wiped out by floods compared to what was in place prior.  Even the surface alignment of US 101 in Eureka isn't "too bad" even in the localized rush hour, the one-way split definitely helps ease traffic.  CA 255 gets a fair amount of localized run off traffic to really mitigate much of a need to build a full bypass of Eureka. 

Regarding Mendocino County south towards Marin County I could conceivably see those expressway gaps closed one day given there is less environmental concern and a increasingly larger local populace.

[kkt]

It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.

[kernals12]

Most of 101 in that span is already a 4 lane freeway. And once this 4 laning project is completed, it will be at least 4 lanes with only 2 at-grade intersections (that I've been able to find on google maps) for a full 80 miles south of Eureka. They've also built a freeway bypass of Willits and are planning to build a new interchange north of Eureka and close the median there. At that point, if they ever build that bypass of Eureka, you'd have a 4 lane road with just 2 at-grade intersections for 110 miles.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.

Am I having a stroke right now or simply missed your sarcasm? You say it's inevitable but then immediately state it is unlikely?

As an aside, I do wonder the likelihood of the general public in cities every changing their minds about building urban freeways again be in the form of tunnels or elevated. I suspect that could happen in the coming decades. Ripping through cities at grade seems like it will never happen again apart from maybe low density suburbs or poor smaller towns.

[kkt]

It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.

Am I having a stroke right now or simply missed your sarcasm? You say it's inevitable but then immediately state it is unlikely?

Read again.  I typed "Not only is it not inevitable but it's highly unlikely."

Sorry multiple negatives are confusing.  I should have just said it's impossible for the forseeable future.  Right now both public attitude and lack of money are against it, and I don't see either of those changing.

Most of 101 in that span is already a 4 lane freeway. And once this 4 laning project is completed, it will be at least 4 lanes with only 2 at-grade intersections (that I've been able to find on google maps) for a full 80 miles south of Eureka. They've also built a freeway bypass of Willits and are planning to build a new interchange north of Eureka and close the median there. At that point, if they ever build that bypass of Eureka, you'd have a 4 lane road with just 2 at-grade intersections for 110 miles.

No, a freeway means free of grade crossings and entrance and exit ramps making high speeds possible.  Where there's four lanes it's mostly expressway, with grade crossings and very short entrance and exit ramps.

Expect that bypass of Eureka about half past never.  No right of way for it was preserved, so it would require massive property acquisition.  No money, no public support, not gonna happen.

[Plutonic Panda]

Ah my apologies I see it now.

[sparker]

It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

I don't think that a full freeway will be constructed along US 101 -- but eventually the 2-lane sections will be bypassed by expressways or freeways, again along the order of that section of US 101 through the Redwood State Parks (where CA 254 occupies the original alignment).  But, facility-wise, it'll look more like US 101 between Santa Barbara and Gilroy -- mixed expressway and freeway sections.  Without the spectre of impeding Interstate status, Caltrans has little or no need to expand the current expressway segments north of Willits into full freeways; the benefits of full grade separation just don't approach the cost of doing so. 

That being said, it's likely that in 30 years or so -- if the wine tourism industry can rebound from the fires of the last few years -- US 101 will be a freeway north as far as CA 20 (or north of Willits if they're real ambitious!), including a bypass of Hopland.  Separating through traffic from streetside tourists is always a good idea, and the counties will drive that point home to D1 and D4 -- especially if more large trucks start heading north on 101 toward the North Coast.  And eventually the Laytonville-Cummings segment will be brought out to 4 lanes by either a widened facility or twinning, which would bring the expanded segment north as far as Leggett.

Caltrans likes to express the widening in terms of three dozen or however many it is younger redwoods.  However, removing redwoods along the edges of the road also allows light shafts to penetrate down to the understory making it warmer in the summer and hurting understory plants and birds that need filtered light.  The larger trucks will be noisier and impact the peace of the park both for wild creatures and for visitors.  A wider, straighter road invites higher speeds even if the posted speed limit remains the same.

This widening, basically a "band-aid" (albeit one that will cause more long-term damage in the process of [temporarily] solving a local economic issue) by D1 -- and one that, somewhat surprisingly, got full approval for its implementation, is manifestation of Caltrans' policy for this corridor of "kicking the can down the road" until push came to shove.  Funds should have been set aside for a bypass as soon as the freeways bracketed this section of road.  And those who opposed such a bypass should have realized that their position was incompatible with regional economic reality and worked to fashion the best bypass facility they could get without hunkering down on a "none shall pass" stance.  So the result of all this is potential environmental problems for the Grove itself.  A quasi-divided (like other sections of 101) snaking around upslope at 50 mph would have been vastly better than anything under current planning.  But Caltrans shied away from that discussion/fight and now has to bear the brunt of the results.