Let’s not call the new rail-trail plan a ‘peace deal’: Paving over rail for 20 years rejects voters’ will

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

Lookout’s coverage of the Manu Koenig–Fred Keeley “peace deal” touches an issue far larger than a technical dispute over trail design. It goes to the heart of what kind of transportation future Santa Cruz County chooses for itself – and whether elected officials feel bound by the clearly expressed will of the voters.

At the center of the proposal is a stark reality: It would remove the possibility of commuter rail for at least 20 years by paving directly over the existing tracks. Lookout’s own reporting states that “that temporary solution would have to last at least 20 years.” 

That is not a procedural detail. In transportation planning terms, 20 years is a generation. For many, it means we will never see functional rail service in our lifetimes. A decision of this magnitude should not be presented as a clever compromise or mere sequencing.

Because the stakes are so high, this debate must be grounded in facts, starting with the most important political fact in the discussion: In 2022, 73% of county voters rejected Measure D, the Greenway initiative that aimed to eliminate the possibility of future rail service. 

In a diverse county like ours, that level of agreement is extraordinary. It was not a narrow loss – it was a landslide. Few major ballot measures are defeated by such margins.

MORE RAIL & TRAIL: Lookout news coverage | Community Voices opinion

That is what makes claims that eliminating rail for at least the next two decades is what the majority of county residents want so troubling. There is no factual basis for it. Voters already rejected, overwhelmingly, a proposal whose core objective was to foreclose rail. 

To now suggest that a policy achieving the same end reflects majority will is to invert the public record.

The Koenig-Keeley proposal itself – narrowly approved last week by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission – deserves much more scrutiny. “Trail now, rail later” sounds reasonable until one considers the mechanics. Once rails are removed or, as the plan suggests, paved over, restoring them becomes enormously difficult. The costs of tearing up a new paved trail, rebuilding rail infrastructure and reconstructing a combined corridor would be staggering. 

Politically, it would be even harder. Decades from now, officials would have to tell a new generation of trail users that their heavily used path must be torn up for a train they’ve never seen. The resistance would be fierce and predictable.

In this context, “temporary” becomes a euphemism. A 20-year removal of rail is, in practical terms, a likely permanent loss of future passenger service. 

One Lookout article quotes transit advocate Barry Scott, who says this sends a “strong signal” to state and federal partners that Santa Cruz has abandoned rail. I concur.

Transportation agencies are not naïve. If we bury our tracks under asphalt, we are broadcasting that we are not serious about rail, no matter what local resolutions might claim.

The headline’s suggestion that “initial reactions are divided,” based on interviews with only two individuals, also needs context. The true division ­– the one that matters democratically – was resolved by the 2022 vote. On the central question of preserving rail capability in our coastal corridor, voters expressed unambiguous preference. They had a direct choice and solidly rejected the trail-instead-of-rail vision.

This is not to deny legitimate differences about how best to develop the corridor. 

People reasonably care about safe trails, climate-friendly transit, neighborhood impacts and costs. But it is misleading to frame Koenig and Keeley’s proposal as merely another chapter in that ongoing debate. What seven of the 12 RTC commissioners voted for last week is the effective reversal of a recent landslide vote – achieved not through another election, but through a policy maneuver presented as an urgent, pragmatic fix.

If county leaders genuinely believe that paving over the rails for the next 20 years is the right course, then the democratic path is to put that question directly to the voters again. There should be clear ballot language and a transparent public discussion. 

What should not happen is a backdoor nullification of the 2022 result through a “temporary” measure that everyone understands is long-term in effect.

Santa Cruz County faces real transportation challenges: Highway 1 congestion, climate risks, evacuation constraints and deep inequities for residents who cannot rely on cars. Rail is not a magic solution, but it is one of the few tools with the potential to transform our transportation system – linking Watsonville, Mid-County and Santa Cruz in a way that serves workers, students, elders and visitors. 

To remove that option for a generation, after voters chose to preserve it, would be a historic mistake.

We do need a better trail, and we can move toward a world-class trail-with-rail corridor that serves cyclists, walkers, wheelchair users and transit riders. What we do not need are political deals that sidestep a clear public mandate and lock us into a car-dependent future under the comforting banner of compromise.

Santa Cruz County deserves solutions that respect both the corridor and the democratic process – solutions that build on, rather than overturn, the will of the voters. Before we move forward with what amounts to a 20-year suspension of rail and the likely permanent loss of future passenger service, we demand a full public conversation and, if necessary, another vote.

Mark Stehens is a Santa Cruz County native, a community activist, author and yoga teacher with a large local and international following.