Initial reactions to Koenig-Keeley rail trail ‘peace deal’ are divided

Initial reactions to Fred Keeley and Manu Koenig’s “peace deal” to help solve cost overruns and construction delays on the Coastal Rail Trail are already divided. One rail advocate opposes the plan, while a trail-only supporter believes residents will back the proposal if it gets a trail built faster.

For months, Segments 8 through 11 of the Coastal Rail Trail, to run from the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf to State Park Drive in Aptos, have been the subject of anxious discussion due to cost increases and construction delays. The project’s price has skyrocketed to $228 million, and the 8-mile stretch of trail still faces a shortfall of more than $70 million.

More changes or delays could risk losing a state $96.6 million grant already awarded to complete the segments. The California Transportation Commission, which awarded the money, requires those four segments to start construction in 2027. Missing that deadline could mean the state could take away the entire grant, so Koenig and Keeley plan to propose building the trail over the tracks to keep the project on budget and on schedule. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission – of which Koenig, District 1 county supervisor, and Keeley, Santa Cruz mayor, are members – and the county had committed to a design for the trail that would build the path next to the tracks. 

The two politicians have also agreed not to suggest railbanking — taking a rail line out of service while still preserving the rail corridor for possible future train use. Instead of railbanking, which some train supporters worry would become a way to permanently kill plans for a passenger train, Keeley and Koenig’s plan relies on federal processes that would take the rail line out of service only temporarily in order to build the trail over the tracks. However, that temporary solution would have to last at least two decades, as the state grant requires the trail to have a 20-year lifespan.

Transit advocate Barry Scott said he is opposed to Keeley and Koenig’s idea. Scott is a board member for rail advocacy group Friends of the Rail and Trail, but said Monday he was speaking only for himself. He would rather see the RTC change the scope of the project — for example, building less of the trail to save money — than build the trail over the tracks. That would likely result in the state taking back some of the grant money, but that’s better than the alternative, he said.

“The whole move would be a strong signal to the state and the federal government that the county has no interest in rail, and that signal is the worst,” Scott said, adding that he also thinks that the two commissioners have greatly underestimated the pushback the proposal will receive.

Scott argues that railbanking and the more temporary option that Koenig and Keeley are proposing both ultimately lead to the same place: the death of passenger rail. That’s especially true, said Scott, given that the trail will have to stay in place for at least 20 years. 

He added that the prospect of building a trail over the tracks only to remove it and rebuild it alongside the rail line when a future train project breaks ground would make the already pricey, complicated rail and trail projects even more expensive and complicated. Scott also said that because other projects in the state are facing the same issues Segments 8 through 11 are, the RTC should prioritize working with the state to find ways to bring the project into budget with its original design.

On the other hand, Bud Colligan, a prominent voice against the passenger train idea, signaled his support for Koenig and Keeley’s proposals. Colligan led the failed 2022 Measure D campaign, in which trail advocacy group Greenway sought to scrap plans for passenger rail in the county’s general plan. He said much of the county supports a trail, and getting it built is the most important thing.

“My position has been consistent — build an affordable, continuous, safe and beautiful trail in the corridor. That is what the majority of county residents want. If this proposal delivers that reality sooner than later, then county residents will be supportive,” he told Lookout via email.

Keeley and Koenig expect to discuss their proposal at the RTC’s meeting on Dec. 4. Commissioner Andy Schiffrin, the alternate for District 3 County Supervisor Justin Cummings, declined to comment on the proposal, as he and Cummings are still discussing how to vote. Schiffrin said that he opposed the idea of railbanking in September, when the commission agreed to discuss it at its December meeting.

Friends of the Rail and Trail Board Chair Matt Farrell and board member Faina Segal did not return Lookout’s request for comment by publication time.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.