No on Measure D: Dr. Bruce Sawhill
This is an opinion piece on Measure D submitted by Dr. Bruce Sawhill. Dr. Sawhill is a physicist, mathematician, and data scientist working in the areas of optimization and scheduling. Please note that this has NOT been fact-checked. For the facts, see RTC Update.
Talk, Talk, Talk
Everybody is talking about Greenway’s Measure D, but few people understand fully the implications and caveats. Since this is for a technical/engineering audience, it will be focused on data and sources in presenting an argument against Measure D.
Background
As a backgrounder to this highly divisive issue, a good place to start is the 'Impartial Analysis of Measure D' as provided by the County's Election Department in accordance with state law.
Dr. Bruce Sawhill, Nancy Hills MD
Measure D was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition called the “Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative” and signed by the requisite number of voters in Santa Cruz County.
The Initiative seeks to change the Circulation Element of the Santa Cruz County General Plan to support the development of an interim multi-purpose trail (“the Greenway”) within the Santa Cruz Branch Line Rail Corridor, which would require a federal process called railbanking.
The Santa Cruz County General Plan is a comprehensive long-term plan that outlines future growth and land use development in the unincorporated areas. One of seven chapters in the General Plan, the Circulation Element must include a description and location of the existing and proposed transportation network, including goals and policies that meet the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways.
If constructed as outlined in the proposed changes to the General Plan, the Greenway would utilize the Santa Cruz Branch Line Corridor (“the Corridor”) as an interim multi-use trail. The term “interim” is not defined.
The Corridor is an existing 32-mile continuous transportation rail line currently owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (the “RTC”), an independent government agency. The RTC’s current plans for the Corridor include developing a trail next to the existing rail line, also known as “rail with trail.”
The Initiative focuses on the segment of the Corridor between the San Lorenzo Bridge in the City of Santa Cruz and Lee Road in the City of Watsonville. As the County’s General Plan only applies to the unincorporated areas of the County, areas of the Corridor located within any city limits would not be impacted by the Initiative.
As proposed, the Greenway would involve the removal of the existing rail tracks and construction of two lanes of wheeled traffic on a paved path, divided from a separate walkway for pedestrians, with a shoulder on both sides. Trail uses may include commuting, active transportation, and recreation by pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs, skateboards, and personal e-mobility. Existing bridges, trestles, and other certain existing freight service infrastructure would remain in place.
Railbanking
Construction of the Greenway depends on the approval of railbanking, a legal process involving the federal government, freight operators, and the RTC which preserves railroad easements and rights-of-way for future freight service. If the Corridor is not able to be railbanked, the Greenway as proposed would not be feasible. Moreover, the General Plan is a planning document and does not mandate that proposed infrastructure be built. Therefore, adoption of the Greenway Initiative does not guarantee that the Greenway will be constructed.
Additional proposed changes to the General Plan include adding “Greenway Planning” to “Objective 3.7 Rail Facilities” in the “Transportation Management System,” as well as the modification of policies and program sections for transportation systems goals, commodities movement, recreational system development, and other related items which may include the reduction or elimination of rail-related language. Voters are referred to the full text of the measure for complete details.
These changes to the General Plan would be permanent unless amended by voters in the future, except for minor conforming amendments consistent with the Initiative.
Note: Underlining from the author of this article
Measure D is a popularity contest, for the purpose of gauging public opinion. It has unclear legal implications, which means it is fertile ground for lawsuits. Voting Yes does not guarantee that the Greenway trail plan will be implemented and voting No does not mean rail service will be initiated.
The first aspect of Measure D that should arouse suspicion is the amending of the General Plan. Modifying the GP is not a requirement for railbanking and reveals the true intent behind Measure D, which is to remove a transportation option and, at best, provide a trail in return, though a trail is not guaranteed. Removing the rail option from consideration places all of our eggs in the freeway basket at a time when we should be looking at practical transportation alternatives that will reduce automobile use.
Railbanking is a legal process that allows for the preservation of a rail right-of-way, usually for the purpose of removing tracks and building a trail. It is generally applied to abandoned lines and theoretically allows for the re-instatement of rail service.
Issues with Pro-D arguments:
“Measure D saves the corridor for rail”: in almost 40 years of “railbanking”, over 23,000 miles of trail have been installed in place of railroad tracks and not a single mile of track has ever been restored after being replaced with an asphalt or concrete paved trail as Greenway proposes.
“No room”: Much of our infrastructure is dedicated to storing and moving cars, to the detriment of people who live and work here. People and cars are competing for the same space. Wider freeways eventually require wider surface streets, and we’re maxed out without tearing down homes. Rail is a more efficient use of space.
“Not dense enough”: Our County is dense along the rail corridor, with many Census tracts over 10k people per square mile, more typically urban than suburban, plenty enough for rail. High ridership is driven by density near rail more than overall population. See https://www.socialexplorer.com for more.
“Rail won’t serve everybody”: Even if rail were only for the 40k people at UCSC (and especially UCSC’s growing Marine Sciences campus) and Cabrillo College (with the aid of short spurs and/or a pedestrian bridge) the spreading out of student impacts and reduction in surface traffic would be significant.
“Use money for more buses”: Buses cost more per person-mile than light rail, so a pure bus system costs more than integrated bus+rail for the same service. Effective north-south rapid bus service will also require large investments in infrastructure. Cost data
“We want a trail, not rail” argument: It is not rail vs. trail, it is rail+trail vs. trail only.
“Everybody wants a Greenway trail”: See this list of No on D endorsers and judge for yourself. https://www.nowaygreenway.com/opposed
“Roaring Camp has their own rail line and doesn’t need the Coastal Line”: Roaring Camp needs access to the national network to move vehicles in and out as well as freight.
“No money”: All big infrastructure projects start out underfunded, but money for rail and trail exists at the State and Federal level.