at 41 st Avenue To transform Santa Cruz County into a OUR VISION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

To transform Santa Cruz County into a world-class active transportation community

OUR VISION

at 41st Avenue

WHO WE ARE BUD COLLIGAN

Greenway Board Member, CEO South Swell Ventures, Co-Chair, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, Founding Board Member, Santa Cruz Works; community activist & philanthropist for arts, environment, education, affordable housing, social equity, and transportation

RYAN WHITELAW

Greenway Board Member, 17-year resident of Santa Cruz County, mathematics degree, commercial real estate appraiser, extensive background in “highest and best use analysis”

• Over 3,000 petition signatures (online & written)
• 150+ doctors and medical professionals
• Disability rights advocates
• Dominican Hospital (largest private employer in SCC)
• SCC Business Council (65 biz/orgs, including largest employers)
• Many community leaders: Gary Griggs, Julie Packard,

Jacob Martinez, Lloyd Tabb, Doug Erickson, Gayle Ortiz, Patrice Boyle, Robert Stephens, Miles Reiter, William Ow, Bill Simpkins, Ted Burke, Tyler Fox, Dr. Robert Quinn,

• Dr. Casey Kirkhart, Scott Roseman, Joe Quigg, and many more...

SUPPORTERS

at Seabright

To create a spectacular Greenway as the backbone of a safe, scenic, and efficient active transportation network

OUR MISSION

GREENWAY IS THE BACKBONE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Protected bicycle lanes connecting Greenway to our major employers, schools, and destinations are needed to create a safe, efficient active transportation network

• 1. UCSC
• 2. Harvey West
• 3. Government
• 4. Boardwalk
• 5. Dominican Hospital
• 6. Capitola Mall
• 7. Cabrillo College

EXISTING RIVER TRAIL

WHICH TRAIL DO WE WANT?

ADVANTAGES

GREENWAY RAIL-WITH-TRAIL

Wide Trail Narrow Trail Separates Users Mixes Users Preserves Trees, Plants, Soil Removes Trees, Plants, Soil No Fencing Fencing No New Retaining Walls Extensive Retaining Walls

GREENWAY RAIL-WITH-TRAIL

Linear Park Utilitarian Path Transportation Recreation Allows Connections Limited Connections Uses Existing Bridges Requires 24 New Bridges 100% Funded - Measure D Not 100% Funded Preserves Future Options Preserves Future Options

ADVANTAGES

RAIL FEASIBILITY

• Rail Feasibility Study, 1983
• Santa Cruz-Los Gatos Rail Corridor Study, 1994
• Demonstration Trains, 1996
• Around the Bay Study, 1998
• MTIS Study, 1999
• Recreational Rail Options, 2003
• Rail Transit Feasibility Study, 2015

SEVEN RAIL STUDIES SINCE 1983

LOW ROUND-TRIP RIDERSHIP – 2015

Source: Rail Transit Feasibility Study, pg. 108

ID Scenari0 Trains/Day Low High B SC – Cap 60 1,400 1,700 D SC – Wats (Peak) 24 550 675 E SC – Aptos 60 2,350 2,575 G SC – Wats (Exp) 2,500 2,750 J SC – Pajaro 12 875 975 S SC – Sea Cliff 38 700 800 G SC – Wats (Exp) 60 2,500 2,750

LOW ROUND-TRIP RIDERSHIP – 2035

ID Scenari0 Trains/Day Low High B 60 1,850 2,150 D SC – Wats (Peak) 24 650 800 E SC – Aptos 60 2,950 3,200 G SC – Wats (Exp) 60 3,075 3,400 J SC – Pajaro 12 1,125 1,250 S SC – Sea Cliff 38 1,000 1,100

Source: Rail Transit Feasibility Study, pg. 108

G SC – Wats (Exp) 60 3,075 3,400

LOW WATSONVILLE RIDERSHIP

Source: Rail Transit Feasibility Study, pg. 114

RAIL IS NOT FINANCIALLY OR POLITICALLY FEASIBLE

Right of Way, Parking, Fences, Quiet Zones, Inflation, Interest, 40% Average Overruns MBSST ........................... $127M PRFS ............................. $176M $12M net O & M x 30 years …. $360M Total ............................. $663M LAST MILE $663M+ Not Covered: Not Covered

Source: MBSST; Rail Transit Feasibility Study; DOT

MYTH: The RTFS was preliminary and that’s not what we really want to do. We expect to use “green-based track technology.”

Section 8.2.4 of the RTFS states: “While rail transit lines can be electrified the costs can be prohibitive, especially for smaller systems. The cost for constructing electric light rail and modern streetcar lines ranges from $50M to $100M per mile and up. Given traditional funding sources, neither of these technologies is cost-effective for the Santa Cruz line at this time.”

RAILBANKING

RAILBANKING PROCESS IS CLEAR

• Kevin Sheys Memorandum, October 13, 2005

– Subject: Santa Cruz Branch Abandonment – Provides legal standard and procedures for abandonment – Indicates 3 to 6 months for STB decision

• Woodside Consulting Group Memorandum, October 13, 2005

– Subject: Potential Abandonment of the Santa Cruz Subdivision – Addresses probability of abandonment being approved – Concludes there is “no chance” the STB would deny abandonment application

UP/IP CONTRACTS FORESAW RAILBANKING

• UP Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions,

August 23, 2010 – Section 6.8.1(a)(ii) – Allows for abandonment

• IP Administration, Coordination, and License Agreement,

September 27, 2012 – Section 8.3: Abandonment – Allows for railbanking as part of the abandonment process

IOWA PACIFIC HAS STRONG INCENTIVE TO WELCOME RAILBANKING

MYTH: We need to keep the tracks and ties for future rail.

• FALSE. Existing railroad track and ties would be replaced.

Per Section 6.1.2 of the RTFS: Replacement of all rail to be used for passenger service was assumed as part of the analysis (6.1.2.2). Existing ties are not suitable for the higher forces generated by higher rail vehicle speeds and increased passenger traffic contemplated by the operating plan (6.1.2.2.1).

WHY GREENWAY?

= SAFETY

PREVENTS DETOURS ONTO DANGEROUS CITY STREETS

& ROADS WITH HIGH SPEED LIMITS

PROTECTED BIKE LANES CAN RESULT IN A 40% - 50% DROP IN INJURY CRASHES FOR ALL ROAD USERS (drivers, cyclists & pedestrians)

HEALTH BENEFITS

REGULAR BICYCLING REDUCES CARDIOVASCULAR RISK BY 11% Commuting by bicycle more than HALVES the likelihood of experiencing a heart attack

ON AVERAGE, BICYCLISTS TAKE 15% FEWER SICK DAYS FROM WORK And live TWO YEARS longer than non-bicyclists

ACCESS

GREENWAY DOESN’T DISCONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS WITH FENCES

OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS INCLUSIVE, ACCESSIBLE, SAFE

TRANSPORTATION VALUE

WA TSONVILLE SANT A CRUZ CAPITOLA

SCOTTSVALLEY

17

REACH1

319 147 236 147 895 500

LEGEND

2,247 1,614

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists

to shift to the trail

NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

NORTHERNREACH CENTRALREACH SOUTHERNREACH

1 2 Miles

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

POTENTIAL TOTAL DAILY CYCLIST USAGE

(Low Estimate)

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists

REACH2 REACH3 REACH4

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

Source: Nelson Nygaard 2016 using NCHRP Demand Model

WA TSONVILLE SANT A CRUZ CAPITOLA

SCOTTSVALLEY

17

REACH1

1.470 500 1,075 490 4,110 1,685

LEGEND

10,320 5,450

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists

to shift to the trail

NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

NORTHERNREACH CENTRALREACH SOUTHERNREACH

1 2 Miles

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

NewCyclists

to shift from

• ther modes

POTENTIAL TOTAL DAILY CYCLIST USAGE

(Midpoint Estimate)

Existing Recreationalor Utilitarian Cyclists

REACH2 REACH3 REACH4

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

to shift to the trail

We couldexpect

Source: Nelson Nygaard 2016 using NCHRP Demand Model

ENVIRONMENT

BEAUTY AND TRANQUILITY

HUNDREDS OF HERITAGE TREES SAVED

AVOIDS COSTLY MAINTENANCE, BLIGHT & UGLINESS OF MILES OF RETAINING WALLS

LOWEST GHG EMISSIONS

“400 FT BOARDWALK ON HARKINS SLOUGH” STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL NOT APPROVE

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

LOOK TO THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST

Let’s build Greenway to plan for evolving technologies and attract a new generation of residents and businesses

SOCIAL EQUITY

GREENWAY PROVIDES REAL SOCIAL EQUITY SOCIAL EQUITY = Health, Safety, Housing, Transportation, Education, Environment, Cost

• Health: High diabetes and obesity – exercise and outdoors
• Regressive tax to fund annual train subsidies – South County

pays disproportionally for service it doesn’t use

• Train fares are unaffordable for low income: $15 per day

roundtrip fare (20 mile Santa Rosa to Novato on SMART): annualized $3,465

• Cost of bike = $308/year; METRO = $715/year; train =

$3,465/year

GREENWAY PROVIDES REAL SOCIAL EQUITY (2)

SOCIAL EQUITY = Health, Safety, Housing, Transportation, Environment, Education, Cost

• Households earning less than $20K per year are twice as likely

to bike for transportation as all other income groups

• Hwy 1: Greenway provides congestion relief in most impacted

area (SC – Aptos) improving flow from South County

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and vanpools on shoulder of Hwy 1 is

most flexible, expedient, and economically viable solution

• Electric bikes for commuters (Morgan Hill to SJ on Coyote Creek

Bike Trail is 25 miles and averaging > 2,000 riders per day). Offer subsidies to buy electric bikes.

FUNDING

GREENWAY IS 100% FUNDED Measure D = $85M

• Nelson Nygaard Estimate to build trail = $60M
• Refund Prop 116 funds = $11M
• Buyout Iowa Pacific = 2M? Losing money now
• Amend EIR = $5M
• New Design and Construction Docs = $3M – $5M per Alta
• Use $40M from rail portion of Measure D to build

protected bike lanes from Greenway to major employers, schools, and other popular destinations to create a true active transportation network

CTC SUPPORTIVE CTC letter September 2015

“Once the funds are refunded RTC may use the Santa Cruz Branch Line and/or any of its facilities for any lawful purpose.” “The CTC is willing to work with the RTC to develop a solution to any issues affecting this transportation corridor.”

CONCLUSION

PATH FORWARD

1. Continue with Phase 1 of Segment 7 & Watsonville 2. Stop work on remaining segments until UCS is completed and peer reviewed 3. Negotiate IP buyout 4. File for abandonment and railbank the corridor 5. Amend/Revise Master Plan & EIR 6. Remove rails and ties; begin using path immediately as design and construction continue on various segments 7. Build trail envisioned by Greenway

WHY GREENWAY?

• Rail Infeasible (Cost, Funding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Railbanking Preserves Future Transit Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Best Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Health Benefits and Reduced Health Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Superior Access in Neighborhoods and ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Greatest Transportation Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Saves Heritage Trees, Plants, Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Lowest GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Avoids Cost and Blight of Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Spurs Sustainable Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Most Socially Equitable Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• 100% Funded; Affordable to Maintain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Will Take Least Time to Implement Whole Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Takes Advantage of & Scalable with Emerging Technologies . . . . .
• Every Community LOVES Its Bike and Pedestrian Trail! . . . . . .

THANK YOU

APPENDIX - MYTHS

Myth #1: A train will dramatically relieve congestion on Hwy 1. FALSE. RTC’s study shows only 2,750 daily roundtrips, of which only 300 are Watsonville to SC commuters. The mid-point estimates for Greenway ridership show what’s possible with an active transportation network. Myth #2: We have to build a trail next to the tracks to preserve the option for future rail service. FALSE. Railbanking has been used by other communities nationwide to preserve all future rail options. We have received guidance from legal counsel and the STB regarding process and procedures to implement. Myth #3: A train is the only way to serve low income residents of south county. FALSE. Trains are one of the most costly ways to serve low income residents. Typical fares will total over $3,465 per year (1), NOT including any first mile or last mile costs. A sales tax to fund operating deficits is the MOST REGRESSIVE form

• f taxation, and with low ridership projected, the burden of paying for north county use will fall

disproportionately on south county residents. Residents making < $20K per year have twice the bike usage as those who make more. Bike = $300/year. METRO = $715/year. Myth #4: The trail portion of the Rail-with-Trail plan is one contiguous trail. FALSE. The MBSST trail will go onto busy streets at trestles and workaround points. If Segment 17B is implemented (likely), south county essentially gets NO TRAIL and is detoured onto streets with cars going 60 MPH (San Andreas Rd) and no bike lane (Beach Rd). Myth #5: We will likely get federal and state money to pay for a train. HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Due to low county population and forecasted ridership, we will rank low in securing competitive grants.

MYTHS OF RAIL WITH TRAIL

Myth #6: We are obligated to implement a train due to Proposition 116 funds. FALSE. We can return the $11M of Prop 116 funds to the CTC and save $700M+ over 30 years. Myth #7: The RTFS was preliminary and that’s not what we really want to do. We expect to use “green-based track technology.” Whopper Alert! Section 8.2.4 of the RTFS states: “While rail transit lines can be electrified the costs can be prohibitive, especially for smaller systems. The cost for constructing electric light rail and modern streetcar lines ranges from $50M to $100M per mile and up. Given traditional funding sources, neither of these technologies is cost-effective for the Santa Cruz line at this time.” Myth #8: We need to keep the tracks and ties for future rail. FALSE. Existing railroad track and ties would be replaced. Per Section 6.1.2 of the RTFS: Replacement of all rail to be used for passenger service was assumed as part of the analysis (6.1.2.2). Existing ties are not suitable for the higher forces generated by higher rail vehicle speeds and increased passenger traffic contemplated by the operating plan (6.1.2.2.1). Myth #9: It’s too hard and will take too long to change the existing public process. REALLY? All it takes is political will. It will be enormously more expensive and destructive to build the wrong trail.

MYTHS OF RAIL WITH TRAIL