Santa Cruz County will get some sort of trail on at least some of the old rail corridor. How did we get here and what will we get?

For 30 years train supporters and county bureaucrats have been trying to get a train. They have failed. Last year, after decades of studies¹ and millions of dollars, the RTC (who owns the rail corridor) found a train to be financially infeasible.² The cost estimate was well over $1B.³

The Santa Cruz Branch Line is a freight rail corridor over 100 years old.⁴ It has been out of service since 2017⁵ and the RTC estimates that it would require $50M-$65M⁶ in repairs to be able to run a freight train. Since the County (via the RTC) decided to purchase the corridor in 2010, two freight operators have bailed. A third, which began operating in 2018, gave notice in 2021 of its intention to abandon rail service.

The corridor is single-track, narrow, extremely winding, and traverses over 25 gullies, creeks, and rivers. There is extensive erosion along the corridor including a section on the bluffs above Manresa Beach.⁷ A number of bridges need repair or replacement including the Capitola Trestle (estimated $30M to replace⁸).

The corridor is also stunningly beautiful and connects neighborhoods throughout the county. It passes towns, parks, schools, beaches, wildlife areas, and much more. It easily surpasses Monterey’s coastal trail⁹ which was laid on top of a similar single track.

After the corridor was purchased, a rough plan for a trail on the corridor was drawn up. At the time, freight trains were running and the plan added a trail beside the tracks.¹⁰ But it wasn’t long before people realized that a trail next to the tracks (rail-with-trail) would not work in many critical sections of the corridor due to major issues including:

• Detours off the trail onto dangerous streets¹¹

• Narrow sections that do not allow both rail and trail

• Much higher trail cost¹²

• Fences on the entire length to separate people from the tracks¹³

• Massive earthworks with concrete retaining walls, new bridges, and floating viaducts¹⁴

• Hundreds of heritage trees removed

As it became more obvious that freight was not successful on the corridor,¹⁵ a popular movement arose to create a Greenway on the corridor.

Greenway uses the space of the unused tracks. As such, it is substantially simpler to build and yet wider. Current plans drawn up by the City of Santa Cruz, the County, and the RTC confirm this.¹⁶

D for Democracy

There is strong public support for a trail. We are also already paying for a trail via the tax funds generated by the transportation sales tax approved in 2016.¹⁷ But there has never been a public vote to determine what the voters prefer: Greenway or rail-with-trail. Hence the current Measure D which, after gathering over 13,000 validated voter signatures,¹⁸ will be on the June 7 ballot.

Measure D changes the County General Plan to reset the priority for the corridor from a train to a trail, specifically Greenway.¹⁹ The RTC owns the corridor and the General Plan does not force the RTC to do anything. It does not prevent a train and it does not guarantee a greenway. But that does not mean it does nothing. County General Plans set a direction. The officials who serve on the board of the RTC are well aware of the General Plan and reference it for guidance when making decisions.

Measure D suggests railbanking as the way to protect the corridor for trains while allowing Greenway to be built. When a rail corridor like ours is not being used for freight, the danger is abandonment where the right to run trains is removed and land owners on the corridor can reclaim their property.²⁰ Railbanking prevents abandonment. The primary reason for railbanking is to protect the right to run a train even though the tracks are no longer in use. While most railbanked corridors do not return to service, that is not the fault of railbanking but rather because freight train service had failed on that corridor.

A very short section (1.2 miles) of rail-with-trail has been built on the westside of Santa Cruz. It is too narrow for people on bikes and walking (some with kids and dogs) to mingle safely except at very slow speeds, and is too narrow to allow for safe active transportation (i.e. commuting via ebike or bike). It is complex and in various spots has to detour from the corridor onto streets. It has fences on both sides. It ran into unanticipated land use issues because there was not enough space. The last 0.75 miles, which has not yet started, requires a 30ft concrete retaining wall even though there is plenty of space on the tracks just 12 feet away. It is extremely expensive with the cost for the last mile rising from $4.3M²¹ in 2016 to the current $12.2M contract.²² All this while the tracks remain unused on a prime piece of land.

The next 5 segments of the rail trail from the San Lorenzo River to Aptos are being studied, both rail-with-trail and Greenway. Rail-with-trail (no train) costs twice as much, $151.2M vs. $76.1M.²³ Rail-with-trail is complex. Rail-with-trail is narrow. Rail-with-trail needs excavation and concrete. Rail-with-trail has fences that block access to neighborhoods and points of interest. Rail-with-trail removes more trees. Rail-with-trail will detour from the corridor and turn onto unsafe streets (e.g. down and through Capitola Village rather than using the trestle, and onto 5 miles of San Andreas Rd and West Beach St in south county instead of going through Harkins Slough).

Would you really make a bet on the future where you spend $75M extra now in the hopes that someday the county will locate over $1B to build a passenger train on our complex, narrow, single track corridor?

YES on Measure D

Voting YES on Measure D means saving money, preserving future rail options, and building a trail that works for transportation now.

Article submitted by Will Mayall. Santa Cruz Works welcomes articles from all sides of this community issues with the condition that facts are footnoted.

Footnotes

¹ The RTC has funded four major passenger rail studies: 1998 “Major Transportation Investment Study”, 2015 “Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Rail Transit Feasibility Study”, 2019 “Unified Corridor Investment Study”, 2021 “Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis & Rail Network Integration Study” (https://sccrtc.org). Other passenger train options such as the 2005 “Capitola to Aptos Recreational Rail Service with Extension to Seascape”. An additional 20-plus studies were done addressing a wide range of topics specific to the Santa Cruz Branch Line ranging from rail bridge integrities, local short-line freight demand, to rail line demolition;
² The RTC stated it is unlikely to secure sufficient funds for neither rail freight nor commuter rail services. “Preservation of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line” Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission meeting agenda (Sept. 2, 2021), Item 20;
³ Thirty-year cost estimates for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed commuter train between Santa Cruz and Watsonville exceed $1.2 billion. “2021 Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis & Rail Network Integration Study”, Table 5-1;
⁴ The existing standard gauge tracks were placed in 1883, Wikipedia “Santa Cruz Railroad”;
⁵ Reference 2, p.20-2;
⁶ Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission meeting agenda (Nov. 2, 2021), p.19-7;
⁷ Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission meeting agenda (Jan. 13, 2022), p.22-1;
⁸ Repair estimates range from $26.2M to $41.2M. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission meeting agenda (June 3, 2021), p.31-3;
⁹ Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail;
¹⁰ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Study (MBSST), 2014;
¹¹ The MBSST routes five miles of trail onto San Andreas Rd. at Buena Vista Dr. through to W. Beach Dr. at Lee Rd. The speed limit is 45 mph for the full distance. In Capitola the MBSST is restricted from use of the Capitola trestle which limits passage through and above Capitola Village on 0.4 miles of pedestrian walkways.
¹² Estimated construction costs of a 2.3-mile section of trail next to the existing railroad tracks in Santa Cruz would cost $15M more than its comparable trail-only counterpart, City of Santa Cruz, 2022;
¹³ Many rail crossing points would be located close to one mile apart, causing large route detours between neighborhoods and beach access.
¹⁴ For example, see presentation on Segment 12, (Feb. 2020);
¹⁵ No rail freight has moved north of Watsonville since 2010.
¹⁶ Ref. 13 and ref. 16;
¹⁷ 2106 Measure D Sales Tax not to be confused with the 2022 Measure D, The Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative;
¹⁸ “Greenway Measure Likely set for June Ballot”, Goodtimes (Feb. 3, 2022);
¹⁹ Santa Cruz County, California, Measure D, Branch Line Rail Corridor Greenway Trail Initiative (June 2022), Ballotpedia;
²⁰ For example, see “Alloy Property Company, Llc—Adverse Abandonment—Chicago Terminal Railroad In Chicago, Ill.”, Surface Transportation Board, April 30, 2018;
²¹ The cost of the 1.2-mile section called “Phase 1” was originally estimated at $2.18M (City of Santa Cruz “City Council Agenda Report”, 10/18/2016). Final construction cost was $6.4M (“Rail Trail Segment 7/Phase I Awarded with Completion Slated for Summer 2020”;
²² Ibid;
²³ Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission TPW meeting agenda (Apr. 4, 2022), p.5-4 Table 1;