Keeping the rails in place is currently costing over $10,000,000 per mile in the easy section of the “Rail with a Trail” construction being performed now and explodes to over $30,000,000 per mile as you get into the more challenging sections.

Removing the rails help reduce the cost selling the steel and ties as scrap. Less excavation, retaining walls and tree removal is required with a trail only design.

Alternatives have already been approved. Bus On Shoulder/Bus Rapid Transit (BOS/BRT) has already been approved by the RTC. BOS/BRT can be tuned and scaled as required as demands change. Rail cannot.

Rail is an obstacle to transportation in Santa Cruz, not an accelerator.

David (who appears to frequently not use his full name to reply to rail subjects on this site) is incorrect. Railbanking preserves the rail easement while making it possible to convert the abandoned rail line to a trail. Progressive Rail has absolutely no issue with the process of rail banking north of Watsonville and it makes perfect economic sense.

Rail banking has been used on thousands of miles of abandoned track. https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/acquisition/railbanking/

Let’s stop chasing good money after bad and work to restore our bus system that has faced years of neglect by the same people that say they promise to get transportation right if you gives us hundreds of millions of dollars for a train.

We are at a critical point in decision making, it’s time to send a message this November in District 1 to remove the incumbent John Leopold from District 1 that continues to make a mess of the RTC.

Based on that logic, we can’t afford the trail, either.

It will cost money to build and maintain. Some trails have come in close to $1 million per mile; that’s if you’re going to reengineer things as you should and put some sort of paved surface on there so something other than a mountain bike or a hiker in really good shoes can use it.

Besides, we’re not going to be able to drive our way out of congestion. We’re going to need alternatives. Besides, who finds driving enjoyable anymore?

May as well keep the rails in place.

But I will point out something he didn’t address or just brushed over. That’s the subject of easements and the ownership of this railroad.

For those who are not familiar with what easements are, they are a type of property lease, allowing one person or entity to cross the property of another person or entity. They are pretty common for things like pipelines, power lines, and railroads.

They are also usually pretty specific. If the use for the easement is removed, the property reverts to the owner.

In this case, the easement agreements are for a railroad. The agreements do not say they are for a corridor, or a trail. Take up the tracks, the property goes back to the owners or designated parties in the original agreement. The right of way, the right for the railroad or the trail, legally goes up in smoke.

In short, no railroad, no easement, no trail.

Be careful what you wish for–especially if you keep wishing for it after things have been laid out in plain language, as here.

Especially when it’s been pointed out that easement issues can get expensive.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/was-public-railroaded-in-trail-deal/

1. Multiple transportation studies were required to make the best investments and were requested by trail-only proponents. The claim of cost over $1Billion is simply unsupportable.

2. The SMART bike path places the trail right next to the tracks where space is limited and this is 100% acceptable to the Federal government when conditions require it. Also, the corridor is not 27 feet wide. 96.5% of he corridor is 32 feet wide or greater. 58% is 51 feet wide or greater.

3. Rail banking is risky and not practicable without consensus of the rail operator and the county and we need to keep the tracks for transit, not take them away. We have a legal rail line, let’s improve and use it today while continuing to build the trail.

4. Either plan, trail only or rail with trail, would divert the trail to San Andreas road. The Capitola “diversion” is temporary until the bridges are modified to permit cyclists and pedestrians. This is under study, with $50,000 in reserve for an engineering investigation which should commence once the current Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis concludes.

5. Any rail bridge or trestle that needs repairs will need them regardless of the ultimate use. Bus or rail or trail only, repairs will be needed. The timber trestles are capable of carrying extremely heavy loads and the claim of replacing these with concrete is simply not supported by the facts.

6. Environmental concerns are best served by providing rail transit and the trail in our corridor. This was proven in past studies, most recently in the Unified Corridors Investment Study published in January 2019.

7. The Santa Cruz County share (by population) of the projected Caltrans State Rail Plan fund is just over $1 Billion. These are moneys we contribute that will go to counties that apply for them. There is no such fund for buses on the corridor, neither are such funds available for a trail only use. We should use our own money to provide smart light electric rail transit.

8. Claims of safety concerns using a 79 mph heavy commuter train like SMART to the neighborhood friendly rapid street car or ultra light rail system appropriate for our county are not legitimate arguments against transit. Transit vehicles will go slower through populated areas and not traveling at 45 miles per hour in Aptos Village.

9. Trail Now compares trail-only use with rail-only use to make a point, but should compare trail-only to rail plus trail usage because we are building both. Obviously, when you add two sets of users, the sum is greater than either one alone. Rail plus Trail will serve more than either one alone.

10. $20 daily tickets is a fabrication. The 2015 study suggested $2.50 fares each way. The prices will be competitive with Metro and affordability to students and low-income households will be guaranteed. People who can give up the cost of car ownership, insurance, fuel, parking, etc., stand to save many thousands of dollars per year, money that can be spent on investments, education, health care, etc.

We are about to find out from the Regional Transportation Commission where the best return on investment will be for the rail corridor, and I’m confident that modern wireless electric rail service integrated with Metro routes and including the trail will be the winner.