Measure D: Existential Rail or Bricks & Mortar

What do we want? Existentialist rail or bricks and mortar mobility?

Opinion piece submitted by Ronnie D. Lipschutz

People on both sides of the Measure D rail-trail brouhaha are mesmerized by existentialist visions of a happy rail future that is unlikely to materialize.  Opponents imagine a future rail travel as it exists in European cities.  Supporters are enthralled by the notion of accommodating pedestrians and bikers along the same corridor without conflict (and maybe light rail in due time).  Given the longue dureé of past struggle over the rails and railbed, should we really expect either to be put in place any earlier than 2040? Both sides advocate very costly options without much in the way of functionality, since we don’t really know how many people might commute cross-county on trains and trolleys or bikes whether any kind of rail and trail will significantly reduce congestion on Highway One and city streets.

So, let’s review the issues: what are the goals of supporters and opponents?  First, both are concerned about traffic, transit and road congestion. Second, both regard walking and biking trails as attractive amenities.  Third, both recognize that bikers and pedestrians often get in each other’s way. Fourth, everyone is justifiably concerned about the cost and timetable for completing rail and trail.  Finally—and this is my conjecture—most voters in Santa Cruz County are thoroughly confused about rail and trail options and many probably don’t care very much about either.

Is there a way to accommodate transit, bikes and walkers sooner rather than later without taking out the rails? One suggestion I have seen is a dedicated busway on the railbed running full sized Metro vehicles. This seems pretty far-fetched.  But small autonomous electric buses are coming into their own, so what if we built a one-lane roadway, with numerous turnouts for passing, designed for such vehicles. Paving could probably happen much more quickly and cheaply than with the alternatives. The rails could be left in the pavement, as they are on Walnut Street. Solar panels could be mounted over the roadway, providing a resilient source of electricity for emergencies as well as chargers for the buses.

And there are other advantages. Small autonomous buses could go “off-track” to pick up riders at stops far from the right-of-way. Bikes could share the roadway with slow-moving buses, just as they do now on city streets.  Neighbors could sleep in peace, with no train horns at grade crossings, and the buses would stop, look and listen at street intersections. Finally, we could collect meaningful data about whether a bike and bus transit option would reduce traffic congestion elsewhere.

To be sure, this would not come cheaply, but it would almost certainly cost less than futuristic trains and trolleys stuck on the rails. Maybe a light bus-trail won’t pencil out.  But it is certainly worth giving it a chance.

Ronnie D. Lipschutz is President and Senior Analyst at the Sustainable Systems Research Foundation in Santa Cruz.