Lake Tahoe Boulevard’s future in El Dorado County’s hands
By Kathryn Reed
Doing nothing is not an option. That was the message delivered Friday night by El Dorado County officials when it comes to Lake Tahoe Boulevard.
More than 80 people sat or stood through a two-hour meeting about the proposed changes on this stretch of road on the South Shore between Clear View Drive and D Street.
Lake Tahoe Boulevard may not be four-lanes in coming years. Photo/LTN
Issues are whether the road will be reduced to two lanes from four, what types of bike trails and/our routes would be developed, and if the speed limit would be altered.
While some bemoaned not knowing about the April 29 meeting, others had been giving written input for weeks. Lake Tahoe News reported on the meeting April 10 and had posted an item on the Events page prior to that.
More information about the alternatives is online.
What was new is a sixth alternative was announced, which will be online next week. Comments will be taken until May 6.
The meeting was a bit of a free-for-all, with people shouting from the audience, engaging speakers in a bit of a debate, applauding, booing and everyone being passionate about their stance.
It was a much less contentious meeting than fall 2008 when county officials were caught off-guard by the overwhelming backlash to keep the status quo. At that time the emotions from the 2007 Angora Fire were still raw. Lake Tahoe Boulevard is one of the main routes to the burn area.
While some still spoke of the need to keep four lanes for emergency vehicles, that did not dominate the conversation.
The project is billed to reduce sediment flowing into Angora Creek and the Upper Truckee River. Water quality is a major impetus for doing the project. This includes decreasing sediment runoff and storm zone restoration.
Safety is another overriding concern – for motorists and cyclists.
John Runnels said a long ago settlement requires the road to stay four lanes. While county officials disagreed with this after the meeting, they said legal counsel will resolve issues like the one Runnels raised.
Brendan Ferry, project manager for the county, also dispelled the falsehood that this environmental improvement project has anything to do with compensating for the Tahoe Keys debacle of paving over the most sensitive marsh in the basin in the 1960s.
Now it’s up to county officials to decide which alternative is preferred. Scales are tipping toward Alternative 4 – which is in detail on Page 18 of the draft that is being discussed. It would maintain two lanes of striped 4-foot Class II bike lanes from Clear View Drive to Tahoe Mountain Road. From Tahoe Mountain Road to Sawmill Road it would go from four to two lanes with 4-foot Class II bike lanes. It would remove 6 feet of pavement on each side of the road. The forest trail from Lake Tahoe Boulevard at Sawmill Road to D Street would become a paved 8-foot Class I bike path.
The county expects to pick a preferred alternative this summer. Then begins the environmental document phase. During that time the public will have more opportunities to comment. That could be completed by fall 2012. Design would be in 2013. Construction would be that year or in 2014.
It’s expected to cost between $880,000 and $1.5 million. Although not all the money is in hand, what is secured is from grants. None is from the county’s general fund.
Why all the fuss over bike lanes? They can only be used for half the year anyway. A good bus system to Meyers would be cheaper and of use all year around.
The present 4 lanes of Lake Tahoe Blvd were designed to hold the traffic at buildout of Angora Highlands. Are the present planners saying that the original design was faulty?
Environmental advantages? I don’t think so. Just stop using sand on it!
Jim Hildinger
With the limited funds that area available for road construction and repair, is this really something that we should be doing? Priorities should be examined carefully before any more discussion of this project is undertaken. “Grant funds” do not come free, they usually require matching funds. Wouldn’t the dollars be better spent elsewhere? There must be some other reason why this project still is being discussed. Anyone have any ideas about the motivation?
It’s just to grab bank hard coverage. On each erosion control propject they narrow the road way to gain hard coverage to bank for their pet projects.
I’d say doing nothing was not an option because the young man who wrote the grant would be out of a job if this project didn’t go forward. I thought more people wanted option 3 personally although alt 4 would work just as well because it’s rare to see 2 cars going thru the curve at the same time. I actually chose alt 2 because since there was not an NO option the est cost was only $880,000. This would make one lane of each direction into a bike lane. One of the attorneys anticipates more lawsuits due to any lane changes which could just happen. In this case alt 3 or 4 would probably be the best alt. It was interesting to hear Runnels story though about the road’s history. I hope the county digs into this issue further so as not to have another lawsuit pop up. But knowing gov’t and their arrogance I imagine they don’t care.
I really don’t understand why drivers are in a hurry on that stretch of road? If the roadway was reduced to one lane in each direction and the speed limit was dropped to 45 mph, you would arrive to your destination less than a minute later. What’s the hurry? The traffic volumes don’t e even warrant the four lanes. Do you actually need to pass a driver going the speed limit to arrive 20 seconds earlier? Slow down people! Just Confused?!?
I am a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” What is wrong with that stretch of road? How about fixing the roadways that are overrun with potholes? Playing ‘dodge the pothole’ on Hwy 50 and Pioneer Trail can be dangerous. Just because there is grant money does not mean we have to change the road. How about getting a grant for something useful?????
My two cents:
I drive this road everyday. Traffic volume does not warrant four lanes. Plus, two lanes will reduce O&M costs in the long-term (a good thing).
Bike lanes should be Class I for safety, and to further promote the South Lake region as a bicycle friendly town. Some day, it would be great to tie these bike trails into a FS trail system to places like Angora Resort, Camp Richard area, etc; and to a Washoe Meadows State Park system to places like Meyers.
Has anyone given any thought to how that road was used during the Angora Fire? Let’s think about an evacuation of that area without the road, during a fire.
In response to dumbfounded: the County is not removing the road! LTB is not the only road to access that area. Also, emergency services access that area via North Upper Truckee because they come from Meyers, not LTB.
Playing ‘dodge the pothole’ on Hwy 50 and Pioneer Trail can be dangerous.
“just gives the cops a reason to pull you over for bad driving”.It makes money.
Confused, During the Angora Fire emergency services accessed the area from ALL directions, especially LT Blvd. I know…I was there! And I firmly believe the evacuation and emerg. services would have been hampered if the road had been only two lanes. A lot of people live in that area.
TL: And so were a lot of others! Yes, I understand they came from all directions. Do you actually think emergency services would totally block an escape route? Their number priority is the safety of the public, and yes that means allowing people to safely evacuate.
Priorities amiss?
I have lives on Cochise circle just off of N. Upper Trukee for over seven years and make the drive to my business and for other reasons at least two to four times a day. I dont believe the lack of bicycle riders has much to do with the number of lanes as it does to the fact that few people ride on that stretch period? Adding a few feet on either side would be better than tearing up one of the only good roads up here ! During snow storms imagine locked behind a plow at ten miles per hour? To me 55 mph is a blessing. If I was retired and had no where to be I would cruse along and not care. Anyone ever heard about moving people more efficiently makes for better business? I say leave well enough alone and as far as the thousands of people that live in the county like me, LET US VOTE on city elections and issues that we have a right to an opinion!
Sorry Mr. Blowney, I would love to vote in NV but I just don’t live there. While we are at it, I would love to vote on goings on at the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the TRPA, STPUD, the LTVA, the CA house of Representatives, the US senate and the US budget committee.
Good point however all I want is a voice in the city I have worked for 32 years and owned a business for 25. We seem to have less of a voice thruout the world we live. If I could be on the LTVA or any other board thats where my thoughts could be shared about things that may be important to me like the promotion of events like HAN you commented on. I realize to do it “right” takes twice the time and the participation of many. There is always a small core of people that reject apathy even in our service clubs. Fact is few show up but many ***** a plenty.
Pioneer Trail is only 2 lanes. Between Elks Club and Black Bart, Pioneer Trail is the only access for vehicles. There never seems to be a problem for emergency vehicles here. And a large number of bicyclists ride this road every day.
Especially in this economy – I’de prefer to see public agencies cut back on unnecessary projects or divert existing funds to projects that actually benefit the public. Our county roads and streets are in “horrible shape” and have had been chip-sealed and patched to a point where many are in desperate need of re-paving. Our property values are directly related to this state of neglect and disrepair. I’de like to see efforts and any exisiting funding directed to making these repairs first.
I also agree that we should leave the road alone! If anything raise the speed limit to 65. I use this road several times per day as well as many residents of the Angora/North Upper Truckee area and cutting it down to two lanes is nothing less than STUPID! 8 months of the year we have snow, four months we have summer, (or less snow). If we have to have a bike path, let’s make a scenic path behind the trees, and leave the road for the people that use it, and need it to be left as it is. We don’t need less access, we need more!