County on brink of landmark railroad purchase, but can we affor...

[The Accountant]

rwc wrote:

"The county transportation agency can tap state and federal money to buy the line and construct much of the proposed rail trail, meaning a portion of the railroad vision could be achieved at relatively little expense to the community."
Folks where do you think that 'state and federal money' comes from?

China?

[The Accountant]

Coastsider52 wrote:

Services are being cut at schools, libraries and parks; college fees are escalating; roads are rutted with potholes; salaries are being cut; unemployment is up; gangs are killing or maiming our kids; and the transportation chief wants to buy a railroad?

Believe it or not but most organizations can do more than one thing at a time.

[thecost]

SC CO is broke so how will SC afford the deferred maintenance?

[Ron - Capitola]

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
Every gallon of gasoline that is bought in California is taxed quite heavily. How can you say that roads are subsidized? Who are they subsidized by?
18 cents per gallon to the state (used to go to roads only, now they go in the General Fund), 18.4 cents per gallon to the feds (federal excise tax), 1.2 cents per gallon for underground storage tanks, on top of that sales tax of what, 8.5% in Santa Cruz.
You know what is subsidized? Bike lanes. Bus routes. Trains.
Not roads.

Gas tax funds largely go to the state general fund, not roadways

[Waste Not]

The straight facts are that we don't have neither the money nor the expertise. Union Pacific (UP) has let the condition of the line deteriorate, with only the most minor of patch repairs since they took it on many years ago. The original purchase price will probably be peanuts compared to the repair and maintenance costs. Who and what are supposed to be transported on the rail? It doesn't go anywhere. Also, has anyone looked into the federal regulations for LEGALLY having a bike path run alongside an active railway. I don't believe they can be operate simultaneously on the same real estate.

[nocklebeast]

here are some resources for rails with trails (the already exist across the country)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails...

http://www.railstotrails.org/ourwork/trailbui...

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railt...

Of course there are minimum engineering design standards that bike paths have to adhere to. And one of those requirements is width. Whether or not the rail right-of-way is wide enough in some places to fit a bike path that meets Caltrans' minimum width requirements is an issue (see ch 1000 here http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm )

Waste Not wrote:

Also, has anyone looked into the federal regulations for LEGALLY having a bike path run alongside an active railway. I don't believe they can be operate simultaneously on the same real estate.

[falcon]

Waste Not wrote:

The straight facts are that we don't have neither the money nor the expertise. Union Pacific (UP) has let the condition of the line deteriorate, with only the most minor of patch repairs since they took it on many years ago. The original purchase price will probably be peanuts compared to the repair and maintenance costs. Who and what are supposed to be transported on the rail? It doesn't go anywhere. Also, has anyone looked into the federal regulations for LEGALLY having a bike path run alongside an active railway. I don't believe they can be operate simultaneously on the same real estate.

Ah, but the money is FREE. It will go to someone else if we don't take it, therefore we must. Who cares about expertise, repair and maintenance, anyhow? And a bike trail - why, of course! That will surely mean no more bikes on the roads for us gas-guzzlers to deal with, right? And legalities? This is Santa Cruz County. I can just see my 35 year old neighbor taking her two kids to school in the rain on the trail now, and my other 77 year old grandpa neighbor with the bad back right behind them.

[Buck]

That simply is not the true. The county can purchase the land and does not have to immediately start rail service. In fact, we aren't ready to do it now and the sale can still go forward. We may be wrapped in indecision for the next 20 years. The government isn't going to sue us. You are nuttier than a 3 dollar bill.

Depending on our final type of rail service, the trestles may or may not be needed. Many "trains" are designed to be both rail and road ready. So no, the value is in the land, not the fact that currently it is contiguous.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, Buck? Note that the 'grant money' is contingent upon continued rail service. That is the whole point of the grant. While the State of CA can't take the land, they could sue us for the $11M, which we would be obligated to repay. It's not like we can say "Just kidding!" and have the money free and clear.
As for tearing down the trestles, that would negate the entire value proposition of a contiguous trail, no?

[SkiSanger]

Is the land really worth $14 million? Who else would buy it? It is only good for rail service or a bike/pedestrian path. There isn't enough business to support rail service or else Union Pacific would keep it.

Sit back and wait a few years. Let UP continue to pay for the upkeep of an used line. We can buy it for much less money later. We can't afford to build the trail system yet anyway.

[Theryl McCoy]

We still need to have the rail-way even if we just call it a greenbelt trail. We can figure out the trains at a later date, say 10, 50 or 100 years from now. It is an extremely valuable public resource and will only grow in public value as the years go by. Can you remember traffic 30 years ago in Santa Cruz? Can you envision traffic 30 years from now? I don't care how much it costs, this is essential.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
And how much money did they lose in that time? Unfortunately it simply costs a lot to run rail, and those who want to ride it aren't willing to pay what it costs to run it.

[SinceWhen]

When we cannot afford to keep our streets safe, when we cannot afford to keep our schools safe and filled with people who care, when we cannot pay enough in wages for the average worked to afford a home here, when the majority of people in this town must commute to make enough money to live here:

LETS BUILD A RAILROAD

So typical SC.

OFF TOPIC: Those TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ people are just another part of the problem - not a part of the solution. I may agree with all they desire but without goals, a leader and someone to direct their supporters they are no better than this forum often is: a spew bucket.

[Carl Bendix]

This is normal for gubmint... to spend way more than they have or can reasonably expect to have. This gives the entity leverage to raise taxes/fees.
Kinda reminds me of the health care plan tactics.

[The Accountant]

Carl Bendix wrote:

This is normal for gubmint... to spend way more than they have or can reasonably expect to have. This gives the entity leverage to raise taxes/fees.
Kinda reminds me of the health care plan tactics.

And the war in Iraq.

[Carl Bendix]

The Accountant wrote:

<quoted text>
And the war in Iraq.

Just look at all the members of congress who voted FOR it.

[Publican]

Westside Homeowner wrote:

Santa Cruz needs to join all the other cities that benefit from rail trails! http://www.railstotrails.org/index.html
Other than that, oh, if only Caltrain, BART, or Amtrak would come down here it would solve a lot of the Hwy 17 problem ...

Thanks for the link. Judging from the extent of trails converted from railways - even in Orange County - it appears that this must be a promising way for communities to go.

[Daniel Thorne]

A rail service for the parks and beaches seems like a real winner . The county depends on tourists alot. I dont think that enouhg is done to promote the area .

[easong]

The tourist angle could be played up. Davenport to the Boardwalk to Capitola to the State Beaches. UCSC students would take it from Westside to Seabright and beyond. The homeless could ride it from Harvey West to the bushes in mid county. No wait, forget that last thing it isn't a selling point.

[unreal]

Publican wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the link. Judging from the extent of trails converted from railways - even in Orange County - it appears that this must be a promising way for communities to go.

Unless you live along the trail! This is Santa Cruz, not suburban Maryland (mentioned in the link you are referring to). We live in a cest pool. The filthy low lifes of our area will live and do business on the rail trail, making it useless to those who really want to use it. Crime in our area has gone up in areas where foot escape and bicycle escape are possible. Once this trail is built, it will be used as a road for ciminal activity for sure. Cops cant drive on the trail, therefore the ciminals will come out of the wood work. Ever walkt the tracks now??? I do.

[Buck]

The last point would work if we provide them with free vouchers.

easong wrote:

The tourist angle could be played up. Davenport to the Boardwalk to Capitola to the State Beaches. UCSC students would take it from Westside to Seabright and beyond. The homeless could ride it from Harvey West to the bushes in mid county. No wait, forget that last thing it isn't a selling point.

[treehugger]

let's see, the county can't afford to keep their current workforce and have done massive layoffs and furloughs, closed parks, reduced services, etc. but is able to purchase this white elephant that will entail huge expenses for maintenance?

Yeah, right... way to go SC