Transit advocates protest as RTC delays discussion on contested stretch of Coastal Rail Trail

Around 70 supporters of a coastal trail and future passenger train staged a protest at the Santa Cruz County building Wednesday, urging the board of supervisors to quickly approve two segments of the Coastal Rail Trail that failed to pass a vote last week.

Last Tuesday, county supervisors failed to approve designs for a 4.5-mile stretch of the trail through Eastside Santa Cruz and Mid-County, with Manu Koenig and Bruce McPherson citing concerns about project costs and funding shortfalls as well as environmental impacts. Rising construction costs have caused an estimated $28 million funding shortfall for those two segments of the proposed 32-mile trail. 

Supervisors instead voted to ask county staff to explore ways to cut costs, reduce the number of trees that will need to be cut down to build the trail and study the impact of the funding shortfall on regional transportation budgets. 

The failed vote to approve the trail segments caused the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to defer its own plans to discuss the project at its Thursday board meeting. 

RTC staffers had planned to share an environmental review and a project update with board members Thursday, but RTC spokesperson Shannon Munz told Lookout that staff now need more time to gather the information relevant to the supervisors’ questions. “Had the supervisors approved the item last week, there would have been no reason for RTC staff to defer the Segment 10 and 11 item,” she said.

The board’s failure to approve the two segments has alarmed rail and trail advocates because of concerns that it could lead to the county missing out on $67.6 million in state grants tied to it — the largest active transportation grant awarded in state history. The grants expire in the summer of 2026. Since construction is not slated to begin until 2026, many worry that the county could lose that funding if the project is delayed.

Planning staff had hoped for the board of supervisors to approve the segments so that they could bring updates to the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) June meeting as part of the process to receive the $67.6 million. 

CTC Deputy Director of Legislation and Finance Justin Behrens told Lookout that the commission had planned to dole out $5.7 million of the grant money to the RTC this fiscal year to put toward design and engineering work for the two segments of the trail. The fiscal year ends June 30, meaning the RTC would have had to submit its plans before then. Behrens said the RTC can request an extension of up to 12 months — but that request also needs to be submitted by June 30. 

Proponents of the project argue that the delay caused by an extension of this part of the project could end up putting the entire grant at risk. The rest of the money – $61.9 million to help fund construction of the two segments – is scheduled to be paid out in the next fiscal year, Behrens said.

Matt Farrell, board chair of Friends of the Rail and Trail, told the crowd that the project is “an opportunity that we can’t ignore,” and urged Koenig and McPherson to “stop blocking forward progress on Segments 10 and 11.”

He added that, earlier this week, Roaring Camp Railroads, which has rights to run freight trains on the branch line, said it was willing to relocate the rail line along Segment 10 at its expense in order to make more room for the trail, something Farrell said would save the county millions of dollars and greatly help with the current funding shortfall.

Farrell directed protesters up to the board of supervisors chamber with post-it notes and sheets of paper, where they lined one wall with messages urging the board to approve the project and voiced their ongoing support for both a trail and passenger rail.

A small group of counter-protesters gathered next to the FORT rally, holding signs that read “Stop railroading our supervisors” and “Don’t railroad our trestle!!!”

RTC member and former Santa Cruz mayor Mike Rotkin said that advocates need to be persistent in their efforts, rather than paint the politicians as enemies.

“We need to persuade them that this is the right thing to do, and this is the time to do it. I think they can be persuaded to do that,” he said. “I honestly don’t see what their alternative is.”

FORT board member Barry Scott told Lookout that the supervisors’ vote was “unexpected,” and that he believes Koenig and McPherson should have raised their concerns about the project well before the vote to approve it. However, he does see a silver lining.

“What’s good is that some of those questions are being answered,” he said, citing Roaring Camp’s commitment to relocating the tracks, the planning staff’s intention to seek additional funding, and the ability to use 2016 Measure D funding to cover some of the funding shortfall. “It’s in their court now, so we’re encouraged by that, but we’re not by any means complacent.”

Scott also said that the argument that the project will take money away from South County is “totally untrue,” because the extra costs would not be covered with construction funds, but rather, maintenance funds that have been set aside for all of the segments.

Lani Faulkner, founder of Equity Transit and Koenig’s opponent in the March race for District 1 county supervisor, also said she believes the county will be able to address its current funding gap. She reiterated how vital it is for future funding to get the segments moving forward.

“If those funds expire, it will negatively impact all future funding,” she said. “There is no reason why the State of California and the California Transportation Commission would ever seriously look at funding our programs.”

In a statement to Lookout, Koenig said he understands that the protesters want rail and trail, but that the question is what can the county afford. He added that if Segments 10 and 11 end up $28 million or more over budget, “there won’t be any money left over for the Seascape, La Selva and Watsonville segments. That means no money for planning these segments, no matching money to win grants, and all the money for the 30-year revenue measure [2016 Measure D] spent.

“When you consider that grants usually match local money 4:1, this could deprive South County of $220 million of investment.”

Koenig said that with the “interim” trail configuration — building the trail on top of the tracks rather than next to it — “we actually stand a chance of delivering the project that we promised voters when they approved the sales tax.”

Koenig also added that community conversations have been “very pie in the sky,” and it is unrealistic to think the county can have a trail, a train, an improved Highway 1 and a free and frequent Metro transit system. “We have to focus on what’s achievable or everything will just be half-done,” he said. 

He acknowledged that a strong majority of county voters supported a future of passenger rail in voting down 2022’s Measure D, but he added, “I don’t think it meant that elected officials should suspend all critical thinking and spend as much money as possible on a halfway-completed project. The trail costs are coming in at $24.5 million a mile. Maybe we should pause a minute before spending that much, no?”

McPherson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

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