Supervisors’ deadlock on rail trail shows Measure D fight is not over: I urge action to get needed state funding

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

On Tuesday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors deadlocked on advancing two segments of the construction of the rail trail in Mid County. With Supervisor Zach Friend forced to recuse himself on the item because he lives within 500 feet of the rail corridor, only two of the remaining four supervisors, Justin Cummings and Felipe Hernandez, remained in support of the proposed plan to complete Segments 10 and 11 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Rail Trail that runs throughout the county.

I’d like to weigh in on what the failure to move ahead with this decision means for the rail trail and the zero-emission light rail train proposed for the corridor. 

I see it as a huge problem because it puts funding for not only these two segments of the rail trail at risk, but for the rail trail as a whole as well as for other transportation projects throughout the county.

First, it is worth noting that all of the leadership of Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT) were out of town the week this decision happened, so nobody much worked to organize the public to speak out on this issue. The strong recommendation in support of the project by county staff might have given people a false sense of security on the outcome of the issue.

The majority of the public speakers from the audience at the public hearing were individual mobile home park residents who are facing problems because their mobile homes encroach, and have encroached for decades, into the rail corridor owned by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). They recently received notices of their encroachment and need to vacate the public land that at least part of their homes or yards sit on. 

The issue is not trivial to them, because often moving their mobile homes even a few feet would require relocating gas and electric lines and yard improvements that few of them can afford. But this is hardly the issue the board of supervisors was there to discuss at this meeting.

As reported by Max Chun, both Supervisors Bruce McPherson and Manu Koenig, the opponents to moving ahead with the construction of the two trail segments, based their opposition on the escalating costs associated with construction of the two segments under consideration. They also cited the necessity of removing and replacing a large number of mature trees, nearly half of which are native species, and the impact that would have on animals that live in or near the corridor. Finally, the two opposing supervisors cited the equity issues involved in using so much of the remaining Measure D (2016) funding for the corridor in Mid-County at the expense of Watsonville and other South County residents.

The county parks planning staff led by Rob Tidmore, who managed the study on the two trail segments and the environmental work that consultants did in support of the project, strongly recommended and advocated for the board to support the construction of the two segments under consideration. Tidmore’s and the consultants’ report to the board was detailed and took over an hour to present.

Readers will not be surprised to learn the underlying issue was whether or not the board should select an ultimate trail configuration that places the trail next to the railroad tracks or an interim trail configuration that would require ripping up the tracks and placing the trail down the middle of the corridor. The interim trail proposal supporters argue that you could rip up the tracks and replace them later if we decide we want a train. That idea depends upon the now locally discredited concept of rail banking, for which there remains little support among county voters.

If you thought that the three-fourths of the public who voted in June 2022 to reject the Greenway ballot measure in support of the interim trail had resolved that issue, you would be wrong.

The surprising result of the environmental impact report (EIR) on the project is that although the interim trail destroys fewer trees in the short run, overall, the environmental impacts of the interim trail, which requires opening up the toxic materials that lie beneath the existing rail line, and other aspects of the interim project actually would create about the same amount of unavoidable environmental damage as the ultimate trail. 

It turns out, the interim trail is even worse for the most active monarch overwintering site than the ultimate trail would be.

In the face of hard questions from supervisors Koenig and McPherson, county planning staff argued that the cost problems of the project would not have to all be solved out of Measure D transportation funds and that they would seek both to reduce costs of the project and seek additional funding from the Regional Transportation Commission and the State of California for the project. 

This project has already received the largest state grant in history for active transportation, and if it is not spent by 2026, the county risks having to give the money back.

Perhaps equally damaging, this decision sends a signal to state and other funders that the commitment of the county to this project is at best shaky. The unprecedented success of the transit district, the RTC and Santa Cruz County and its cities in attracting grant funding for its transportation projects, including this one, had depended on granters being impressed with the local commitment here to multimodal transportation projects and the unanimity with which local decision-makers and the public have pursued such projects.

A deadlock on moving ahead here sends a very different message to past funders and potential future funders. How will turning this project down at this point help South County residents move ahead with their segments of the rail trail in the name of equity? Should county and Watsonville city planners now begin work on new segments of the trail and just abandon this project on Segments 10 and 11 as too costly or difficult to implement? 

That seems an unlikely scenario.

Although this decision was about the trail and not the proposed rail project, in fact, it brings attention to the overall project for the corridor and the plans for a modern transportation system for our county. Both McPherson and Koenig made it clear they were not voting on the train issue at this meeting – both referenced the alignment and cost study that the RTC hopes to complete sometime around December as when they will weigh in on the future of the train.

But putting the trail portion of this project on hold and continuing to raise what should now be a dead issue of an interim trail built where the tracks currently run down the middle of the corridor suggests that our days are still haunted by the specter of Greenway’s ballot measure. 

So, in sum, the strong views of the vast majority of the voters in every supervisorial district and in every demographic group in the county have not, seemingly, put this issue to rest.  

Where we will go next remains unclear.

The lack of a decision to move ahead with the proposed construction of Segments 10 and 11 now makes it difficult for the county to complete a state application for additional funding by the June deadline at the California Transportation Commission as was planned. And unfortunately, the election of new supervisors in November comes too late to meet the June funding deadline Tuesday’s meeting was to address.

However, action by the April 9 board meeting might allow the county to meet the state’s funding deadline. I urge concerned residents to contact Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson’s offices to register their unhappiness with the supervisors’ failure to advance the will of the vast majority of voters in the county in supporting the ultimate option for the rail trail and press that these supervisors reverse their decision while it is still possible to apply for necessary state funds to complete the project.