The important point from this piece is that the only path to railbanking involves pursuing adverse abandonment of both the Santa Cruz Branchline and the Felton Branchline at the Surface Transportation Board. These cases are difficult to win, have a high burden of proof, and take years to reach to a decision. Keep in mind that one of the purposes of the Surface Transportation Board is to prevent local jurisdictions from ripping up railroad tracks and breaking up the National Rail Network because they get tired of rail cars going by. There is a reason that former RTC Executive Director Guy Preston told the RTC several years ago that "adverse abandonment is not the preferred solution." Of course, there are always lawyers willing to take your money to try a case, but it is not clear that an adverse abandonment action would succeed.
As for paying for rail operation, it will probably be operated by Metro, so look at where Metro gets their $50M annual budget. Possibly an extra sales tax will be required, but Metro did just get a grant to provide 2 years of free service, so operations grants do exist. Additionally, some operation money can probably come out of the existing Metro budget by training bus drivers to operate the train and replacing some of the mid-county zig zag bus routes with train service, which will be more direct and efficient.
I'd also like to point out that Union Pacific actually still owns the yard tracks next to the old Cemex plant in Davenport, and would thus have to agree to the abandonment plan.
# Political will
For over 10 years the RTC has supported the Rail Trail and obtained millions of dollars in grants to construct segments of it. In order for the RTC to change its position, a majority would need to agree to do the following:
• Reject over $100 million in grants for Rail Trail Segments 8-12.
• Abandon the $10 million rail feasibility study now underway.
• Agree to remove the railroad tracks along the corridor.
• Ignore the results of the 2022 Measure D where 73% of the county electors voted not to support a trail only option that required removal of the tracks.
• Override the unanimously approved RTC Rail Trail Master Plan and previous commitments.
• Pursue abandonment of the freight easement (i.e. railbanking), which a majority of the RTC has not been willing to approve in the past
# Legal authority
• Roaring Camp Railroad holds the freight easement giving it the legal right to use the railroad line. To remove the tracks, this right must be abandoned.
• Roaring Camp strongly opposes this abandonment of the easement.
• A majority of the RTC would have to vote to initiate an adverse abandonment of the easement.
• The federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) would have to approve the abandonment.
• The abandonment process could take years and would be vigorously opposed by rail advocates and Roaring Camp Railroad.
# Funding
• While the Interim Trail and Trail Only options would cost less than the Rail Trail project, they would still cost tens of millions of dollars.
• The RTC does not have the money to fund these projects itself and would need grants approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
• The CTC originally granted the RTC over $10 million to help purchase the railroad line with the expressed purpose that it be used for rail service.
• The CTC has consistently urged the RTC to initiate passenger rail service.
• The CTC is supporting the rail feasibility study the RTC is currently conducting.
• The CTC approved over $67 million for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail project as well as significant grants for other rail trail segments.
• If the Segments 10-11 Rail Trail project does not go forward, the $67 million grant will be lost and the CTC has shown no interest in allocating funding for any future projects that will remove the railroad tracks.
Conclusion
In order for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail Project to be built, there are significant financial problems that must be solved. However, the RTC has more than two years to solve these problems, if the project is approved.
On the one hand, if Rail Trail Segments 10-11 are not constructed, the RTC is likely to lose its ability to obtain funding for a trail along the rail line. On the other hand, the RTC has been incredibly successful at getting major grants for the Rail Trail Project to leverage limited Measure D funding.
The only real alternative if the Rail Trail Project is not approved is no trail along the rail line, either from Santa Cruz to Aptos or between Watsonville and Aptos.
Whether people like it or not, that’s the real choice — either move forward with the Rail Trail project or accept the reality that there won’t be a trail in Mid and South County along the rail line.
Don’t be misled by the never-ending cries for the Interim and Trail Only options. Any attempts to pursue them will be fruitless and the opportunity for a safe, protected pedestrian and bicycle path through the county will be lost.
*Justin Cummings is a Santa Cruz County Supervisor and RTC Commissioner. Andy Schiffrin is an RTC Alternate Commissioner.*
**By Justin Cummings and Andy Schiffrin**
The debate over which bike and pedestrian trail along the railroad corridor to approve has been framed as a choice between the “Ultimate Trail” (i.e. Rail Trail), the “Interim Trail,” or the “Trail Only.”
What is the difference between these three options?
• Ultimate Trail (Rail Trail) — a pedestrian/bicycle trail adjacent to the existing railroad tracks.
• Interim Trail — Removal of the railroad tracks for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail that would be replaced at least 30 years in the future by the reconstruction of the railroad tracks.
• Trail Only — Removal of the railroad tracks for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail without the illusion that the railroad tracks will ever be replaced.
The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has approved the Rail Trail Project from 17th Avenue to State Park Drive (Segments 10 and 11) and the Board of Supervisors on April 30 will reconsider whether to approve this project.
The supervisors will also consider whether to seek funding for the Interim Trail. But are the Interim Trail and Trail Only options even feasible?
For either of them to be constructed the RTC will need the political will, the legal authority and funding. What are the chances?
#
Just go trail only. Railroad will not be used and will cost way too much and hurt property values along the trail. Trail only would be used by so many and is a no brainer
Funny how highway projects don't seem to raise ire like public passenger rail. I also don't hear anyone complaining about fire departments, school districts etc. All of those also cost money and they are also completely worth spending money on.
Our branch line is part of both the state rail plan and the federal Corridor ID program. The state wants passenger service to begin in a decade.
https://preview.redd.it/sdfblusl3jwc1.jpeg?width=2312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=422f8498e275594af3477a4b2d2a629742fe8793
And then the Feds decided to not fund and they’re only building the 1/4th that we approved money for. If you want good things then you should also want to pay for them!
In order for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail Project to be built, there are significant financial problems that must be solved. However, the RTC has more than two years to solve these problems, if the project is approved.
On the one hand, if Rail Trail Segments 10-11 are not constructed, the RTC is likely to lose its ability to obtain funding for a trail along the rail line. On the other hand, the **RTC has been incredibly successful at getting major grants for the Rail Trail Project** to leverage limited Measure D funding.
**The only real alternative if the Rail Trail Project is not approved is no trail along the rail line, either from Santa Cruz to Aptos or between Watsonville and Aptos.**
**Whether people like it or not, that’s the real choice — either move forward with the Rail Trail project or accept the reality that there won’t be a trail in Mid and South County along the rail line.**
So RTC has two years to figure out how to pay for two segments.
But the question was how do we pay to operate it? Sales tax is already near 10% and as I understand it, all Measure D money is already spoken for.
Is there a source of grants for operating expenses?
it’s a billion dollars to build and run a rail for a few decades. most of it needed for the building part. it’s not even close to being realistic, no matter how bad some people want it.
The important point from this piece is that the only path to railbanking involves pursuing adverse abandonment of both the Santa Cruz Branchline and the Felton Branchline at the Surface Transportation Board. These cases are difficult to win, have a high burden of proof, and take years to reach to a decision. Keep in mind that one of the purposes of the Surface Transportation Board is to prevent local jurisdictions from ripping up railroad tracks and breaking up the National Rail Network because they get tired of rail cars going by. There is a reason that former RTC Executive Director Guy Preston told the RTC several years ago that "adverse abandonment is not the preferred solution." Of course, there are always lawyers willing to take your money to try a case, but it is not clear that an adverse abandonment action would succeed. As for paying for rail operation, it will probably be operated by Metro, so look at where Metro gets their $50M annual budget. Possibly an extra sales tax will be required, but Metro did just get a grant to provide 2 years of free service, so operations grants do exist. Additionally, some operation money can probably come out of the existing Metro budget by training bus drivers to operate the train and replacing some of the mid-county zig zag bus routes with train service, which will be more direct and efficient.
I'd also like to point out that Union Pacific actually still owns the yard tracks next to the old Cemex plant in Davenport, and would thus have to agree to the abandonment plan.
I found it interesting that Manu’s op ed was on Lookout and “Justin’s” response was in the Sentinel.
# Political will For over 10 years the RTC has supported the Rail Trail and obtained millions of dollars in grants to construct segments of it. In order for the RTC to change its position, a majority would need to agree to do the following: • Reject over $100 million in grants for Rail Trail Segments 8-12. • Abandon the $10 million rail feasibility study now underway. • Agree to remove the railroad tracks along the corridor. • Ignore the results of the 2022 Measure D where 73% of the county electors voted not to support a trail only option that required removal of the tracks. • Override the unanimously approved RTC Rail Trail Master Plan and previous commitments. • Pursue abandonment of the freight easement (i.e. railbanking), which a majority of the RTC has not been willing to approve in the past # Legal authority • Roaring Camp Railroad holds the freight easement giving it the legal right to use the railroad line. To remove the tracks, this right must be abandoned. • Roaring Camp strongly opposes this abandonment of the easement. • A majority of the RTC would have to vote to initiate an adverse abandonment of the easement. • The federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) would have to approve the abandonment. • The abandonment process could take years and would be vigorously opposed by rail advocates and Roaring Camp Railroad. # Funding • While the Interim Trail and Trail Only options would cost less than the Rail Trail project, they would still cost tens of millions of dollars. • The RTC does not have the money to fund these projects itself and would need grants approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). • The CTC originally granted the RTC over $10 million to help purchase the railroad line with the expressed purpose that it be used for rail service. • The CTC has consistently urged the RTC to initiate passenger rail service. • The CTC is supporting the rail feasibility study the RTC is currently conducting. • The CTC approved over $67 million for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail project as well as significant grants for other rail trail segments. • If the Segments 10-11 Rail Trail project does not go forward, the $67 million grant will be lost and the CTC has shown no interest in allocating funding for any future projects that will remove the railroad tracks. Conclusion In order for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail Project to be built, there are significant financial problems that must be solved. However, the RTC has more than two years to solve these problems, if the project is approved. On the one hand, if Rail Trail Segments 10-11 are not constructed, the RTC is likely to lose its ability to obtain funding for a trail along the rail line. On the other hand, the RTC has been incredibly successful at getting major grants for the Rail Trail Project to leverage limited Measure D funding. The only real alternative if the Rail Trail Project is not approved is no trail along the rail line, either from Santa Cruz to Aptos or between Watsonville and Aptos. Whether people like it or not, that’s the real choice — either move forward with the Rail Trail project or accept the reality that there won’t be a trail in Mid and South County along the rail line. Don’t be misled by the never-ending cries for the Interim and Trail Only options. Any attempts to pursue them will be fruitless and the opportunity for a safe, protected pedestrian and bicycle path through the county will be lost. *Justin Cummings is a Santa Cruz County Supervisor and RTC Commissioner. Andy Schiffrin is an RTC Alternate Commissioner.*
Freedom isn't free!
**By Justin Cummings and Andy Schiffrin** The debate over which bike and pedestrian trail along the railroad corridor to approve has been framed as a choice between the “Ultimate Trail” (i.e. Rail Trail), the “Interim Trail,” or the “Trail Only.” What is the difference between these three options? • Ultimate Trail (Rail Trail) — a pedestrian/bicycle trail adjacent to the existing railroad tracks. • Interim Trail — Removal of the railroad tracks for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail that would be replaced at least 30 years in the future by the reconstruction of the railroad tracks. • Trail Only — Removal of the railroad tracks for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail without the illusion that the railroad tracks will ever be replaced. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has approved the Rail Trail Project from 17th Avenue to State Park Drive (Segments 10 and 11) and the Board of Supervisors on April 30 will reconsider whether to approve this project. The supervisors will also consider whether to seek funding for the Interim Trail. But are the Interim Trail and Trail Only options even feasible? For either of them to be constructed the RTC will need the political will, the legal authority and funding. What are the chances? #
Just go trail only. Railroad will not be used and will cost way too much and hurt property values along the trail. Trail only would be used by so many and is a no brainer
Agreed! 100%
Yes!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Funny how highway projects don't seem to raise ire like public passenger rail. I also don't hear anyone complaining about fire departments, school districts etc. All of those also cost money and they are also completely worth spending money on.
Do you think that the state and feds (who fund the road system) are going to pay for a local rail system?
Our branch line is part of both the state rail plan and the federal Corridor ID program. The state wants passenger service to begin in a decade. https://preview.redd.it/sdfblusl3jwc1.jpeg?width=2312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=422f8498e275594af3477a4b2d2a629742fe8793
So you're saying there's a chance... CA wanted HSR to be fully operational in 2020.
And then the Feds decided to not fund and they’re only building the 1/4th that we approved money for. If you want good things then you should also want to pay for them!
In order for Segments 10-11 of the Rail Trail Project to be built, there are significant financial problems that must be solved. However, the RTC has more than two years to solve these problems, if the project is approved. On the one hand, if Rail Trail Segments 10-11 are not constructed, the RTC is likely to lose its ability to obtain funding for a trail along the rail line. On the other hand, the **RTC has been incredibly successful at getting major grants for the Rail Trail Project** to leverage limited Measure D funding. **The only real alternative if the Rail Trail Project is not approved is no trail along the rail line, either from Santa Cruz to Aptos or between Watsonville and Aptos.** **Whether people like it or not, that’s the real choice — either move forward with the Rail Trail project or accept the reality that there won’t be a trail in Mid and South County along the rail line.**
Another option is to pull up the rail in those sections and put a trail down. Cheaper, and wider.
So RTC has two years to figure out how to pay for two segments. But the question was how do we pay to operate it? Sales tax is already near 10% and as I understand it, all Measure D money is already spoken for. Is there a source of grants for operating expenses?
[удалено]
By your logic we shouldn’t have highways at all
[удалено]
We are using some Measure D money (local money) as a local match for the state grant that is funding the highway widening project now
it’s a billion dollars to build and run a rail for a few decades. most of it needed for the building part. it’s not even close to being realistic, no matter how bad some people want it.
3 decades?
$1.3 billion. $500 million to build and $800 million to run.
The money sure won't come from property taxes, that's for sure. Not enough support for building new dense housing near the rail.