##################################################################

TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #25: FEBRUARY 16, 2000

##################################################################

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY MARCH 1, 2000 <>
<> Starting at 5 pm sharp at 501 MISSION STREET <>
<> in SANTA CRUZ --- EVERYONE IS INVITED <>
<> <>
<> AGENDA: planning for a panel discussion/forum <>
<> on MetroBase. <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


NOTES FROM FEBRUAY 16:

Our meeting began just after 5 pm, with Debbie Bulger, Bill Comfort,
Don Fong, Josh Hart, Dick Little, Josh Muir, Dennis Norton, Arena Reed,
Emily Reilly, Cheryl Schmitt, Peter Scott, Janet Singer, Michael Singer,
Richard Stover and Dave Walworth either present or shortly to arrive.

We warmly welcomed our special guest, Supervisor Jeff Almquist, who is
also serving as Chair of the SCCRTC. We also welcomed Josh Hart, who is
now working for the "Rails to Trails Conservancy" (which includes Rails
WITH Trails) in San Francisco.

ABOUT THE RAIL WITH TRAIL PROJECT:

Jeff gave us a synopsis of the current status of the project to
transform the Union Pacific Railway in Santa Cruz County into a "rail
with trail". He pointed out that it is likely that the SCCRTC itself
may act as the lead agency for this project, as it would appear that a
joint powers authority (JPA) could involve awkward liability issues.
Although legal input is needed, an EIR for the acquisition of the
right-of-way has been requested, using part of the $450,000 previously
allocated for environmental assessment of the MTIS rail options.

In response to a question from Debbie asking whether trestles would be
included, Jeff thought there would be a plan for the entire project, but
that it might be built in segments as funds became available, like road
projects. There is at the moment no detailed plan, but it is clear that
the purpose of acquiring the right-of-way is to create a bikeway.

Josh Hart offered that the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy can help with
regard to liability (and other) issues.

Bill Comfort (who knows at least one Union Pacific employee) noted that
maintenance of the rail line is expensive, and wondered if maintenance
issues would be part of the purchase negotiation. Jeff said "yes".
Peter Scott asked if there was thought of hiring consultants (not
Parsons/Brinkerhoff), and Jeff said "probably, with a [local] advisory
group".

Debbie Bulger asked "what can TTT do?", and Jeff mentioned that it would
be appropriate to lobby for the use of Prop 116 funds for the
acquisition project.

Peter Scott asked if other counties were also wanting to expand Prop 116
funds for similar purposes, and Janet Singer mentioned Ventura,
Monterey, Sonoma Counties, and noted a CTC report available on the
internet. [see http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/1999AnnualRpt_Vol1.pdf,
which mentions seven agencies yet to apply for 116 funds, the current
deadline for which is June 30, 2000, including the City of Irvine, Marin
County, Monterey County (TAMC), Sacramento Regional Transit District,
Sonoma County and our own SCCRTC.]

Josh Hart then made a fine presentation about the Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy, in which he distributed several helpful documents, along
with mentioning two useful books: "Rail-Trail Guide to California
Recreational Trails on Railroad Grades" by Fred Wert, (Infinity Press,
1995), and "Secrets of Successful Rail-Trails" by Karen-Lee Ryan and
Julie A. Winterich, (Rails-to-Trails, 1993).

Josh noted that Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has offices in five states,
that it works with the Surface Transportation Policy Project in lobbying
activities, and that there are currently 47 rails-WITH-trails across the
United States, with over 70 additional projects in the works. He
reviewed a set of notes he had brought and distributed, covering
LIABILITY CONCERNS (e.g., rails with trails are no more dangerous than
trails alone), DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (e.g., bridges and trestles are
KEY, minimum existing rail-with-trail is 18 feet, intersection design
can make or break a project), BENEFITS (e.g., graded route can encourage
fast and efficient bicycle traffic, provides access to many destinations
for the santa cruz county route), ROLE THAT RAILS-TO_TRAILS CAN PLAY
(e.g., technical support, speaking, developing brochures etc), ADVICE
(e.g., name the trail, solicit community involvement, gain support of
various groups and neighborhood associations).

Other issues were asked about or commented on, such as intersection
design (Bill); encroachment on the right-of-way by adjacent landowners
(Dennis Norton); electric bikes: is speed an issue? (Bill) (answer: only
with pedestrians, but not with bikes); path width? (Debbie) (answer: 10
feet is ideal for bikeway, add more for pedestrians; does additional
right-of-way have to be acquired? (Dick Little) (answer from Bill: the
current right-of-way is 36 feet minimum, so is probably all right in
most locations); how much would the cut on the east end of the
river-mouth trestle need to be widened? (Don Fong) (this is possibly the
narrowest channel--not known); drainage is an important issue (Dennis
Norton) (answer from Josh: yes, possibly the most important issue); is
the rail track along the center-line of the easement? (emily) (answer
from Dennis: probably, since the rail came first, THEN the easement);
how wide is a train? (Janet) (answer from Bill: perhaps 8 feet).

Dennis noted that he has been walking the right-of-way, and notices many
pedestrians along the corridor. He also noted that the corridor passes
through or near several shopping areas.

Josh Hart noted that bicycle paths are popular, and that the path in
Monterey County works well. [Any comments from those of you from
Monterey County?]

ABOUT OUR NEXT MEETING ON MARCH FIRST:

Dick Little suggested that we talk about park-and-ride facilities.
Others suggested that we continue our discussion and planning for a
forum or panel discussion regarding the proposed MetroBase project,
noting that both the Metro Users Group (MUG) and the Metro Accessible
Services Transit Forum (MASTF) may be interested in co-sponsoring such a
forum. We decided to go with the latter choice, at least to start with.

A flyer from SCRAM (Santa Cruz Residents Against Metrobase) was
circulated. The source of this flyer is not clear, as it has no
attribution.

ENDING NOTE:

It is rumored that the SCMTD is interested in taking over the Amtrak bus
service, which was recently mandated through state legislation to limit
its passengers to those holding train tickets. [This is a rumor. Is
there any truth to it?]

-- Peter Scott, note-taker.


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS EMAIL LIST, WRITE TO PETER ||
|| drip@cats.ucsc.edu WHO WILL TAKE YOU OFF ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||