SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission took no action Thursday on a proposal to seek abandonment of a branch line that a tourist train operator said could doom its operation, instead instructing Executive Director Guy Preston to engage in further talks with Roaring Camp Railroads.
Meanwhile, in a separate action Thursday, Santa Cruz County supervisors advanced a ballot initiative that could block future development of a rail transit operation in the county.
The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that five of the commission’s 12 members or alternates indicated during Thursday’s meeting that they would oppose the adverse abandonment plan, which would allow railbanking of the Felton branch along with development of a walking and biking trail. The other members indicated no position.
The Felton branch connects the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific tourist railroad to the Santa Cruz branch, allowing the tourist railroad to run a popular seasonal beach train to downtown Santa Cruz. Roaring Camp Railroads, the tourist railroard’s parent company, has campaigned against the abandonment plan, saying it could eventually lead to its demise [see “California tourist rail operator says railbanking plan threatens its future,” Trains News Wire, Jan. 31, 2022].
Two Roaring Camp representatives who spoke at the meeting explained the abandonment plan would end the railroad’s common-carrier status, which offers regulatory protection to preserve the line. “We know that if we lose these protections, the whole branch line is in jeopardy,” said Rosemary Sarka, one of the Roaring Camp representatives. While there is no current freight service on the line — mostly because it requires infrastructure work that could cost up to $65 million— the other Roaring Camp representative, Michael Conneran, said the railroad has received expressions of interest from potential customers if the line can be repaired.
Roaring Camp CEO Melani Clark indicated to the website Lookout Santa Cruz that she found the meeting to be encouraging, saying the commission “seemed more open and sympathetic to the impact it would have on Roaring Camp and want to have a deeper discussion on how it can be resolved. … We need people to be open to what solutions are possible.”
Ballot initiative could sink rail transit line
In another Thursday meeting, Santa Cruz County supervisors approved a ballot initiative that could determine whether the 32-mile, county-owned Santa Cruz branch will become a bike and pedestrian trail, or could still be used for a rail transit line.
Good Times Santa Cruz reports supervisors voted 4-1 to approve a measure asking voters whether they support amending the county’s general plan to prioritize development of the trail, while railbanking the rail line for possible future use. That proposal is supported by nonprofit Greenway Santa Cruz, which collected more than 13,000 signatures to place the item of the ballot.
If that proposal passes, it would block, at least in the short term, proposals to develop a passenger rail system along the branch supported by other groups. The competing proposals have led to strong divisions in the area [see “Digest: Santa Cruz transportation commission puts off reconsideration …,” News Wire, May 7, 2021].
“I’m disappointed that after all these years of study and discussion, we continue to have such deeply entrenched factions on how to best use the rail corridor,” Supervisor Bruce McPherson said during Thursday’s meeting.
Supervisors also asked for a report on how the measure would affect housing, schools, and land use. After receiving that report in March, they will likely choose to place the measure on the June 7 ballot.
As I read the Good Times article, it seems that the trail only group has gathered enough signatures to force the Commission to place the item on the ballot, no matter there actual opinion.
What’s really stupid is that the corridor can support both rail transit and a bike/trail path…only no one is willing to say so. All you need is a fence between the two(like most rail lines in the U.K.. Of course, someone in Sacramento could also pass a state law prohibiting the future rail banking of existing trackage in the state saving it for future revival(since the Feds won’t end the Rails to Trails program and put a permanent moratorium on line abandonments).
From what I’ve read on the situation, most of the groups supporting commuter/passenger rail on the Santa Cruz branch tend to support building a trail alongside it, for rail-with-trail. Unfortunately, there’s a few other groups–Trail Now being one–that insist on removing the rail line and only doing trail, and they seem to have the ear of the commission right now.