Article

April 11, 2016

Dear Editor,

I read with considerable interest your article Trail Nix by Jessica Lyons Hardcastle. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the author’s sources are pro “rail and trail,” and I think it’s important for there to be an open and candid discussion about various alternatives. As someone who cares deeply about environmental and transportation issues in our region, I’d like to offer a different perspective on this issue—one that looks at the facts fairly and that gets beyond the hype (and bureaucratic intransigence). That’s what the democratic process is all about!

Let’s be clear about the political backdrop to the story: The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)—along with other public agencies—were able to secure “rail funds” from Proposition 116 passed by California voters in 1990, more than a quarter-century ago. Note that it was a full 22 years from the passage of this measure to the purchase of the rail corridor in 2012. Think back to 1990—Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Saleforce.com and Amazon did not exist! The world and transportation technologies have changed dramatically since then!

Once the $11 million of “rail funds” were expended, it has led to many awkward and problematic decisions driven by a lack of local funds to move the project along. For example, when the RTC specifically commissioned a study of the corridor, it prohibited a “trail only” option from even being considered. The Great Santa Cruz Trail Group—a broad-based coalition of concerned transportation advocates in Santa Cruz County—is now privately conducting that study with a reputable national transportation consultant, and it is expected to be finished in June. Unfortunately the RTC never considered all the options because of the initial “rail funds” they accepted. Many people in the county actually believe that we can only get a trail if we build rail because of this initial decision. That’s simply not the case.

Recently, some RTC Commissioners requested clarification of the use of those funds from the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the CTC letter stated that we could certainly pay back the $11M if we decide not to implement rail. The key question for our community should be: what is the best use of the corridor within an overall transit system for the county and region? Certainly we would not want to invest in a billion-dollar rail system (and that’s what it will cost for capital and operating subsidies over 30 years!) if the ridership benefits are minimal (projected in the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study [PRFS] as 2,750 round trips per day). Think about it.

The article points out the “massive amounts of public input” provided to the RTC. Given that options have never been clearly articulated with associated costs and ridership (when you go on vacation, don’t you usually compare transportation modes, schedules, costs, and the most effective means of traveling?), it is difficult to assess the validity of the input.

One thing that is clear is that many voters in Santa Cruz County are opposed to the rail plan outlined in the RTC’s PRFS (which the author could have easily discovered by going to the RTC website and reading the 200+ pages of emails and written correspondence received by the RTC). The RTC requested public comment on the PRFS, and the majority of letters received, many by prominent and thoughtful members of our community, were opposed to the rail plan.

The RTC often cites its survey (even though they said it was not scientific and would not be used to campaign for the rail plan), but the survey was designed assuming you were for rail and wanted to provide your input on various rail service options. I think we are sadly seeing from the current presidential campaign that the “establishment” does not always reflect the will of the people, so the listing of many groups who are pro-rail does not influence the common sense of the voters, who want to know things like how much will it cost, what ridership, what alternatives have been examined, have we done a thorough analysis of all options, what plan actually does reduce greenhouse gases the most, etc.?

In our unscientific survey of young people, they overwhelmingly favor a trail-only approach. Perhaps our elders should listen more closely to the voices of those that will actually be using this corridor when it is finally built (remember, similar train projects in other communities have taken about 20 years to build!).

Stephen Slade of the Land Trust (and thank you for the disclosure that the Land Trust sponsors Hilltromper; and in good faith I would also like it known that Miles Reiter and I contribute to other Land Trust campaigns and Miles is on the Land Trust’s Advisory Council) states that “…there is no reason to suppose that there would be a different outcome than the first time we went through the public process….”

Well, since all options have never been explored, it’s hard to understand how this statement can be credible. We still don’t have reliable source and destination data on Highway 1 commuters, which seems critical to either a rail or trail plan. Many proponents of rail cite its salutary effects on Highway 1 traffic. But there is no factual data to back it up. With ridership of 2,750 roundtrips per day, it definitely won’t have any impact on Highway 1 traffic!

In fact, the community as a whole (including the RTC) never explored a trail-only option. It’s clear that the public process did not evaluate important information, so I don’t know where it will ultimately come out, but to state that it’s a foregone conclusion is definitely erroneous. There is even more irony to this statement since it’s evident from reading responses to the Land Trust’s own blogsite that many of its members are for the trail-only option.

The author states that a “feasibility study is not a plan.” It certainly sounded like one when George Dondero, Executive Director of the RTC, and many surrogates wrote op-eds for the Sentinel and began an extensive set of meetings with community and business groups touting the diesel rail option. Since solid opposition to the plan has emerged (e.g. Trail Now has over 3,000 people following its Facebook page) many advocates of rail have changed their story. They aren’t for rail, but only for “preserving the option.” They want electric trains, but aren’t willing to mention that electric trains are double the cost of diesel, which was why diesel was recommended by the RTC consultants and deemed “feasible.”

Even the plan itself used to be called the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study (PRFS), but after vociferous objections to the plan, the name was changed to the Rail Transit Feasibility Study. These political machinations do not change the underlying facts. The fact is the PRFS is the only “plan” we have to evaluate at this point. The pro-rail organization Friends of the Rail Trail (FORT) and others have started talking about electric trains, trolleys, battery-powered trains, and other modalities, but these ideas have all been pushed forward since opposition to 60 diesel trains per day through our community proposed in the PRFS was made. I think all of these ideas are worth evaluating in a comprehensive look at our transit strategy.

Finally, it’s worth commenting here on the likely half-cent sales tax measure facing county voters in November. I hope everyone agrees that it would be optimal if Santa Cruz was a Self-Help County, which is one of the byproducts of the tax measure. The final allocation of the tax measure proceeds has not been determined and won’t be made until the ballot measure is submitted in August. Besides the overall percentages for 1) METRO, 2) Highways, 3) Roads, 4) Trail and 5) Train, the public deserves to know what specific improvements will cost and therefore what the actual figures for the five “buckets” should be.

For example, as it relates to the train allocation (which the article quotes as $63M,) we certainly don’t need $63M for “corridor preservation and maintenance.” Throw in $5 to $7M for an EIR (an exorbitant amount, but what I’ve been told by the RTC it will cost), we still don’t need $63M. And let’s not forget that any money from this measure allocated to the train will not move one person in the next 20 years.

I am certainly in favor of long-term transit planning, and some money should be allocated to analyze and present various transit scenarios—but I am adamantly against ideologically driven percentages that have no basis in the costs of the actual items being proposed. That type of planning is how we’ve gotten into this mess in the first place.

If we can’t learn from the past, we are destined to repeat it. So rather than attempt to discredit Trail Now, which seems to be the intention of some of the quotes in your article, perhaps actually listening to, and understanding, the objections of thousands of county residents would be a more productive strategy. I believe there is a win-win approach that involves allocating enough money to study ALL the options for a countywide transit strategy without committing a priori to one direction. That way we can get broad public support for whatever conclusion is reached.

—Bud Colligan