From: Michael Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 10:49 AM To: Regional

Home , RTA Rapid Transit, Sacramento RT Light Rail, Tejon Pass

Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Michael Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 10:49 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: SCCRTC Special Meeting

To: Yesenia Parra RE: RTC Special Meeting

I have two concerns about the upcoming RTC Special Meeting in Watsonville on November 15.

There is no information available about this special meeting, neither on the RTC webpage for the meeting, nor in the November 1, 2018 Meeting Highlights. Will an agenda for this meeting will be released in time for us to be aware of the purpose and agenda items for this meeting?

More broadly, I'm concerned about the RTC's unrelenting emphasis on highly expensive and resource intensive transportation choices in the Unified Corridors Study, such as passenger and freight rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and possible consideration of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).

Focus on these costly, high-tech transit options flies in the face of the stated Goals of the UCS: Safety, Reliability and efficiency, Environment and health, Economic vitality and Equitable access.

BRT, PRT and rail would achieve none of these goals. Rail and BRT would decrease safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and wildlife along the corridor. Construction of required infrastructure in the rail corridor would result in extensive destruction of existing natural areas, including impacts to critical riparian habitat. The high cost of construction and ongoing maintenance would result in user fees that would exclude many low-income travelers, and would create a permanent drain on County economies.

As a 69 year old daily pedestrian and bicyclist, I'm a strong supporter of the County's stated goal of creating walkable and bikeable communities. The UCS ignores this goal, giving scant attention to existing primary transportation modes, walking, bicycling and bus transit. Emphasis on rail, BRT and PRT delegitimizes walking, bicycling and riding the bus, choices that require no additional infrastructure.

It's time for the RTC to concentrate on people transportation, not machine transportation.

Michael Lewis, PhD Santa Cruz

From: Michael Lavigne Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:08 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Fwd: Feedback on the UCS and the rush to vote on Scenario B

1 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Please note I have re-submitted my earlier email with edits for auto-correct spelling errors below. Please distribute the version below instead of the original submission, to staff and all RTC commissioners.

Thanks, Michael Lavigne

Dear RTC Commissioners:

I am not in favor of the RTC's continued efforts to rush the process of obtaining input from residents, and rushing the vote to approve the RTC's preferred option for a passenger railroad option, Scenario B.

Guy Preston has been recently hired as the new Executive Director of the RTC. Before he has even started the job, why rush a decision that will establish a multi year (and billion dollar plus) commitment to various transportation modes, without allowing a new director to review the process and the study itself, and allow for adequate public input? This is a billion dollar- plus commitment for the next couple of decades. It is larger than any financial undertaking in the history of the County. What is the big rush for a vote in the next 4 weeks?

Among other things that are not adequately addressed by RTC staff and the study they commissioned, what is the impact of pushing for funding of a passenger railroad, on cannibalizing our existing Metro bus system, which carries millions more riders per year than the proposed train system will ever carry under the most optimistic scenarios?

Finally, by scheduling the next two hearings/meetings in mid November and early December, at 6 p.m. in Watsonville and 9 a.m. in Santa Cruz, you are deliberately RUSHING THE VOTE. And, you are holding hearings at times and locations where it is highly inconvenient to attend, and guarantees little public input and attendance, because most citizens are working at those hours and unable to attend, and traffic getting to those locations at those times greatly hinders attendance and input from the public. Your conduct as commissioners and paid staff, in rushing the RTC/Regional Train Commission towards Scenario B, a rail-based plan with low-ridership, requiring both enormous capital commitments, and some of the highest annual operating costs of all scenarios, (with no measurable impact on Highway 1 congestion), in hopes that fantasy funding for a passenger train will drop from the sky to fund this rail-based-charade, is appalling.

Michael Lavigne Capitola resident, voter, and business owner

From: Jean Brocklebank Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 8:56 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Comments on the UCS

Dear RTC Commissioners:

I am an elder pedestrian who has eschewed automobile travel for years, preferring to walk or use the METRO bus system. I intend to do this for at least another 20 years.

2 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

I am dismayed that SC County is not putting more emphasis on a bus system that already serves public transportation needs (albeit it diminished from its former self). I am equally dismayed that pedestrianism is still considered "alternative" transportation, rather than the most environmentally sound form of transportation available to modern civilizations.

It is time for the RTC to rethink transportation. In order to rethink, slow down the decision- making that will likely result in hugely costly futuristic plans for this County. We are reaching the limits to growth, limits that were predicted over 40 years ago. There is nothing "sustainable" or "environmental" about plans for a costly train system in the rail/trail corridor that will rearrange the landscape and become just another vehicular tunnel pushed through the community.

Let's focus on walking and bi-tri-electric cycling as a means of finally separating walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users from vehicular traffic. We pedestrians are weary of breathing the dust and grit and fumes of vehicles. We are weary of the noise that all traffic, even electric cars generates to make our form of transportation less healthy.

I concur with Greenway: "There has been no analysis of the impact on METRO operational funding of choices being considered in various UCS scenarios. METRO is the public transit system providing over FIVE MILLION rides per year in Santa Cruz County. None of the projects in the UCS come even close to this type of volume. The last thing we want is to have a project like passenger rail cannibalize a METRO system which has ALREADY suffered from budget cuts."

Sincerely, Jean Brocklebank, Environmentalist

From: Della Davis Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 7:04 AM To: General Info Subject: Corridor Study and results

Dear RTC Commissioners:

The RTC has been charged with making important decisions regarding the direction of transportation investments in our county. Please do not rush these decisions.

The new Executive Director who starts in his role on December 3 should have a chance to review and comment on the direction. These projects are going to take many years and the RTC owe it to the new executive director and the public to take our time to get these decisions right. The current RTC staff has demonstrated its bias towards an unfunded fantasy train over the last four years. Slow down the process and give the new Executive Director time to make his recommendations. After spending over $4,000 per page for the UCS, let's use the information thoughtfully to make the right decisions.

Sincerely,

Della Davis

3 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following email sent by the individuals listed below:

Dear RTC Commissioners:

You will be making important decisions regarding the direction of transportation investments in our county in the coming months. Please do not rush these decisions.

You have just hired a new Executive Director (ED), Guy Preston, who starts in his role on December 3. No organization would hire a new ED and hand him a decision covering the next 17 years without getting his input prior to making such a large commitment. We owe it to the new ED and the public to take our time to get these decisions right.

There has been no analysis of the impact on METRO operational funding of choices being considered in various UCS scenarios. METRO is the public transit system providing over FIVE MILLION rides per year in Santa Cruz County. None of the projects in the UCS come even close to this type of volume. The last thing we want is to have a project like passenger rail cannibalize a METRO system which has ALREADY suffered from budget cuts.

There is a group of transportation projects in the UCS on which the community has strong consensus. It's the Commissioners' job to bring the community together. The current RTC staff has demonstrated its hopeless bias towards an unfunded fantasy train over the last four years. Slow down the process and give the new Executive Director time to make his recommendations. After spending over $4,000 per page for the UCS, let's use the information thoughtfully to make the right decisions.

Sincerely,

November 8, 2018 November 9, 2018 Marina Ramon Gary Sultana Bill Gray Nadene Thorne Bud Colligan Cindy Plumb Woutje Swets Tiffany Theden

From: Jack Carroll Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 2:46 PM To: UCS ; Regional Transportation Commission Subject: UCIS data request

Table 38 of the draft UCIS identifies, under Scenario B, potential capital funding for a bike & pedestrian trail of $197,700,000 and for a local train of $99,000,000.

4 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Table 39 of the draft UCIS identifies, under Scenario B, potential annual O&M funding for a bike & pedestrian trail of $606,000, for a local train of $12,500,000 and for bus connections to a new train of $8,300,000.

Please identify the sources of these funds and provide a narrative explanation of why these estimated amounts are a reasonable expectation.

Thank you. -- Jack Carroll

From: Michael Pisano Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Maybe have a Hybrid Option of B & E for the Unified Corridor Study.

Hi SCCRTC,

Maybe have a Hybrid Option of B & E for the Unified Corridor Study.

I lived near the Kaiser Permanente Cement Plant in Cupertino in the 70’s & 80’s. Some mornings (before schools starts & after the garbage trucks) a Freight Train loaded with cement gravel would travel from the Kaiser Permanente Plant Quarry in Cupertino to San Jose, and then back empty in the afternoon (before school ends).

Maybe Have a Freight train transverse the Santa Cruz Rail/Trail only a few days & times a week – similar to Cupertino’s prior Kaiser Permanente Freight Train.

Thank you for your time & consideration

5 6 George Dondero November, 2018 Page 2

Caltrans Specific Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study Step 2 Analysis Results

1. Reliability and Efficiency a. By aggregating all throughput across all transportation facilities, the screenline results do not provide enough detail to depict the true value of Highway 1 or benefits of Highway 1 improvements, including High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV). b. The potential benefits of an HOV system may be underrepresented by the mode share performance measure results. All scenarios, including scenarios featuring HOV, forecast a decrease in carpooling. These results are unexpected based on the fundamental concept behind HOV facilities. c. Caltrans considers the HOV system as the ultimate long-term, sustainable solution for addressing congestion and delay on Highway 1. d. Ramp metering will be an essential element of any Highway 1 improvement strategy moving forward. We expect that any scenario chosen by the SCCRTC will include ramp metering.

2. Performance Measure Alignment with Future Funding Opportunities a. SB-1 Solutions for Congested Corridors – The UCIS should be evaluated for alignment with the recommended Performance Measures for the 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines being developed by the California Transportation Commission. While the UCIS includes a reasonable set of performance measures for baseline conditions, further evaluation may be needed to measure or refine the measurements related to corridor improvements for the following items:

i. Congestion/Delay . Person throughput – corridor total (multimodal) person throughput . Delay as measured in person hours, vehicle hours, and trucks ii. Accessibility . Access to multimodal choices (e.g., availability of connections between modes, convenience of multiple transportation choices, vehicle ownership) . Number of households within 45-minute transit ride . Travel time reliability . First-mile/Last-mile considerations . Complete Streets – networks of non-motorized facilities that connect residential, recreation, and employment opportunities iii. Safety . Number and rates of collisions (per million vehicle miles and per number of bicycle and pedestrian trips) iv. Economic Development, Job Creation & Retention . Improvement of freight throughput . Truck time reliability

““Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

7 George Dondero November, 2018 Page 3

. Access to jobs and education (change in accessibility within 30 minutes or 45 minutes for transit) . Access to jobs and education for disadvantaged populations (change in accessibility within 30 minutes or 45 minutes for transit)

3. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Highway 1 a. The UCIS cites the Draft Tier I and Tier II Environmental Document (DEIR/EA) as an information source. Note that the Final Environmental Document (FEIR/FONSI) is anticipated to be approved in December 2018 and will then be the definitive information source.

4. Data a. The document represents an extensive compilation of data. Caltrans is unable to perform a review or validation of all data related to Highway 1, including collision reduction, household transportation costs, and public investments for capital costs, operations costs, and maintenance costs.

5. Estimating Costs a. Highway 1 Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) (Table 39) – Caltrans is unable to validate the estimates stated in the UCIS. In a discussion with SCCRTC staff, reference was made to the State’s Transportation Asset Management Program (TAMP) as the source for this estimate. It should be noted that the TAMP provides an outlook of the needs and costs for capital investments to preserve the transportation system based on asset condition and inventory. It is not a source of O&M costs, per se. The most recent example available in District 5 for such an estimate was performed for the Highway 156 West corridor in Monterey County prepared by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County: https://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/highway-projects/highway-156/ b. Reversing commitment to establish rail service (FAQs) – Caltrans cannot confirm all potential costs identified. While the Proposition 116 funds are restricted to supporting passenger rail service, the other fund sources cited such as Central Federal Lands, STIP and PTA are each subject to different sets of guidelines and may be managed to avoid losses or repayment.

““Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

8 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Michael Pisano Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Maybe have a Hybrid Option of B & E for the Unified Corridor Study.

Hi SCCRTC,

Maybe have a Hybrid Option of B & E for the Unified Corridor Study.

Maybe Have a Freight train transverse the Santa Cruz Rail/Trail only a few days & times a week – similar to Cupertino’s prior Kaiser Permanente Freight Train.

Thank you for your time & consideration

9 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Michael Pisano Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Multi-Modal Transport

Hi SCCRTC Board,

I thought I would share an Idea for a possible temporary quick solution for a Multi-Modal Transport rail connection between Santa Cruz, & Watsonville (or other limited service areas), or maybe have a battery powered reconditioned passenger trolley: http://www.gomacotrolley.com/Resources/pages/recondition.html

Or Trolleys without wires: https://www.railwayage.com/news/trolleys-without- the-trolley-wire/

Of course; I don’t know the costs, the regulations for flagmen or other safety concerns.

Multi-Modal transport idea from Wired Magazine link below; http://www.wired.com/2008/05/half-bus-half-t/

Thank you for your time & consideration

From: Robert Esposito Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 8:13 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Rail/Trail

Name Robert Esposito Email

10 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Subject Rail/Trail Your Message Dear RTC, First, thanks for all you do. My interactions with RTC have been pleasant. I am writing in support of Trail Now. I live in Rio Del Mar, and feel my family would need to use the car and truck just a fraction of the amount of how we now use them, if the tracks were able to be ridden by bicycle. I would feel safe riding with my family to the pump track (we drive there now) as well as shopping, Capitola, etc,.. I like trains, but am opposed to them for this situation. It is just is not practical, and would be financially and aesthetically ruinous. Please forgive me if I may sound naive, but as a contractor it seems fill could be poured over existing tracks for immediate use for proverbial pennies. I pine daily for the day to arrive when our family will ride with the rest of the community. The wait is so painfully long. Time seems so short in terms of greenhouse gasses, warming oceans, kelp, star fish, crab, salmon, steelhead, sea lion, die offs, etc,...... while we are all stuck on 1 in gridlocked traffic. ...engines running. Money can't buy it back once it is gone. There is a better way forward. Please act soon. Regards, Robert Esposito

From: Michael Pisano Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 10:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS

Hi SCCRTC,

To help incentivize community members to choose alternate forms of transportation. I was wondering if Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD) has a Pre-Tax Commuter Transit program similar to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)? – a summary of the BAAQMD transit program is outlined below with links provided.

This BAAQMD Transit Program includes; Transit Help Parking Help for Carpoolers If a new program could include other forms of commute transportation as well; UBER, Lyft, WazeCarpool app, Scoop app, Due app, Bike Share, and Scooter Share discounts.

BAAQMD Program Highlights; https://taps.ucsc.edu/commute-options/ commuter-pretax-program.html This program is the result of a BAAQMD requirement that large employers within its air district provide commuter benefits as a way to save money and encourage the use of sustainable transportation modes such as public transit.

Pre-Tax Commuter Transit and Parking Benefits for UNEX and SVC Employees UCSC employees at University Extension and the Silicon Valley Center are eligible to participate in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) pre-tax commuter transit and parking benefits program. This program is the result of a BAAQMD requirement that large employers within its air district provide commuter benefits as a way to save money and encourage the use of sustainable transportation modes such as public transit. All employees with a fixed appointment (or cumulative total) of 25% or more per month are eligible to participate in this program. Please note that there are

11 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received no UCSC-operated shuttles or vanpools operating between Santa Cruz and the Santa Clara County worksites. TAPS has contracted with Commuter Check Direct to provide an easy interface for employees to manage and order transit and parking commuter benefits. Commuter Check Direct allows employees to purchase transit fares and parking for all Bay Area transit providers, including Caltrans, VTA, and BART. IRS regulations allow pre-tax deductions of up to $255 per month for transit and $255 per month for parking.

Commuter Check Direct charges a $4 per month administration fee per monthly election. Orders and any changes to your enrollment must be made by the first of each month and all benefits will be processed through payroll deductions. Detailed information about the program is available by viewing the Commuter Check Direct Open Enrollment/Welcome Letter.

To enroll in the pre-tax commuter benefit program go to https://www.commutercheckdirect.com and use the UCSC Company ID number of 1460.

If you have questions, contact Commuter Check Direct at (888) 235-9223 or [email protected]. You may also contact Cathy Crowe, UCSC TAPS, at [email protected] or, (831) 502-7942.

Cc: Please also see attached for a 4/21/16 & 4/21/17 Sentinel Articles on Santa Cruz County Air Quality to maybe help qualify a transportation incentive program.

Thank you for your time & consideration

From: Grace Voss Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 8:34 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: financial data on freight service for watsonville in UCS? dear RTC...how much will freight service for watsonville cost? (i can't find that data in your study)...grace

12 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

Dear Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation,

• We need fast reliable public transit and safer streets for cyclist and pedestrians. • We need alternatives to being stuck in highway traffic congestion. • Please use the rail line for dependable passenger train service for workers, students and everyone. • Please make our streets safer for bikes and pedestrians.

I live in Santa Cruz County and I support the improvements in Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Investment Study.

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

Estimada Agencia Regional de Transportación de Santa Cruz,

• Necesitamos tránsito público rápido y confinable y calles más seguaras para ciclistas y peatones. • Necesitamos alternativas para aliviar la congestion del tráfico en el autopista. • Favor de utilizer la vía de tren para servicios de pasajero confinable para trabajadores, estudiantes y todo el público. • Favor de hacer nuestras calles más seguras para bicicletas y peatones.

Yo vivo en el condado de Santa Cruz y apoyo las mejoras en el Escenario B del Estudio “Unified Corridor Study”.

November 5, 2018 November 7, 2018 Kevin Macclaren Kaki Rusmore Tom Rath Tim Collins Bonnie Rodriguez Bonita Montoya Barbara Steiner Sandy Bough Greg Milligan Charles Paulda Mona Barnes Dennis Woefel Linda Baker Mike LaValle

13 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Christopher Miller Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 8:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RTC Scenarios

We live in La 7 Beach and would like the RTC to develop Scenario C, train only in Watsonville.

Than You, Chris Miller

From: tutti hacking Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 9:18 AM To: [email protected] Cc: tutti hacking ; [email protected] Subject: re: no rails on trail corridor

Dear RTC, Please stop HOARDING the Coastal Corridor and use it NOW for active TRAIL transportation. My late husband, Benjamin Doniach was killed by a car on the Murray Street Bridge July 10, 2018, a fatality that could have been avoided had a trail-only bridge been ALREADY in place over the harbor where the rail tracks are now.

Sincerely, Tutti Hacking Attorney at Law

From: Brian Peoples Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 5:35 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: HOARDING COASTAL CORRIDOR

“Hoarding is a mental illness characterized by the compulsive need to keep things even when they are no longer useful.” Contrary to public perception, the RTC has no realistic plans for a commuter train. The Unified Corridor Study shows a train wouldn’t improve Highway 1 gridlock and is not economically viable. The RTC’s hoarded tracks are hindering our county's quality of life. If we come together to as a community perhaps we can help the RTC to overcome their hoarding habit, let go of the old tracks, table the passenger rail dream for now, and open the door for healthier lifestyle options. Letting go of the tracks and replacing them with an effective trail that separates faster and slower modes will save countless lives, trees, green hillsides, and precious taxpayer dollars

14 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

while allowing an estimated 15,000 users a day to get out of cars reducing traffic congestion during peak commute hours.

Brian Peoples Executive Director Trail Now

From: Brett Garrett Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:08 PM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: Re: UCS - FAQs

Thanks Ginger!

I can't find any way to make those new numbers match the previously published mode shares and total trips data, except maybe if they are only for the project area instead of countywide (which should be clarified if that's the case).

Trying to calculate Total Trips based on those numbers, noting wide assortment of different numbers for baseline mode share, nothing is close to the expected 947,700.

Transit Transit Calculated

Mode Trips Total Trips Share

Baseline (using 1.9% unweighted mode share from RTC 20,160 1.90% 1,061,053 website)

Baseline (using 2.8% weighted mode share from RTC 20,160 2.80% 720,000 website)

Baseline (using 2.9% mode share from UCS Table 36) 20,160 2.90% 695,172

Baseline (using 3.0% mode share from UCS Table 15) 20,160 3.00% 672,000

2035 No-Build 22,924 2.90% 790,483

Scenario A 32,319 4.10% 788,268

Scenario B 40,443 6.00% 674,050

Scenario C 34,038 4.80% 709,125

Scenario E 35,472 5.30% 669,283

15 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Expected total trips based on FAQ is … 947,700

From: Peter Stanger Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 10:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS

Dear Commissioners,

Please be good stewards of public transportation funds and embrace Scenario A of the UCS. The opportunities for state-of-the-art modern transportation is upon us. Re-building Highway 1 with HOV lanes for our Metro buses and high occupancy vehicles will give our community the best results to what has become a traffic nightmare. Using the rail corridor for a active transportation highway will open more opportunities for citizens to do their everyday activities without crowding onto our roadways.

Additionally, I submit that theAptos Village rail road crossings at Highway 1 and in Aptos Village can be removed if the commission wisely chooses to use the rail corridor for active transportation rather than a train. By re-routing the route to remain only on the ocean-side of Highway 1, the active transportation route could be built on a bridge from where the Rio del Mar Tennis Club is to connect at the rail corridor behind North Avenue in Seacliff Beach. This would dramatically lessen the congestion and safety concerns that would otherwise occur if the active transportation route were to remain on the current rail corridor that passes over Highway 1, then through Aptos Village, then again across Highway 1.

This would also allow for more easily widening and leveling of Highway 1, and more easily widening Soquel Drive through Aptos Village. The rail road trestles could be removed! This would be a great asset in facilitating these projects.

And best of all, the users of the Active Transportation Trail would be allowed a faster and safer route to by-pass Aptos Village. Those wishing to enter the Aptos Village could use the existing roadways at State Park Drive or Rio del Mar Boulevard. A possible pedestrian/bike bridge could be built to cross Highway 1 in the future.

I believe Scenario A, with adjustments, would serve our county's transportation needs with the most economical and practical solutions.

Thank you,

From: TrainRiders AssocofCA Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Comments on UCS

Please find attached a PDF which constitutes TRAC's comments on the UCS.

16 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

You'll find main article on the topic on page 4 to 5 of the submittal. Sorry that pages are out of order in the PDF but i didn't have time to fix that.

There are also other articles that support the main article about the UCS, such as the one regarding 21st Century rail.

-- Michael D. Setty Membership & Communications Coordinator Visit us at Twitter: @trainridersCA Visit us at www.facebook.com/trainridersCA www.calrailnews.net

17 They are designed to survive crashes Hydrogen-Powered Rail Has Arrived without being breached. If a tank should become too hot, perhaps because of exposure to a fire, a thermally activated pressure relief valve will dump hydrogen fast enough to prevent the tank structure from being breached by high pressures, after being weakened by high temperatures--yet slow enough to avoid serious damage. The piping. Another worry about hydrogen trains is the potential for a derailment to damage the piping system that connects the tank to the fuel cell. Hydrogen systems are designed with a valve that shuts off the tank if it senses the pressure has dropped in the The first full-size hydrogen train is now carrying passengers in Germany. Source: Alstom connecting piping, or sensors detect a By David Schonbrunn Toronto, Canada has completed a study hydrogen leak. The gas left in the piping TRAC Vice President for Policy finding hydrogen-powered trains to will disperse quickly, Even if it should be The Age of Hydrogen Rail arrived be a technically feasible alternative to ignited, there will not be enough of it to in September 2018 (The Age has been electrification for GO Transit. cause any damage. delayed slightly. See Coast Obser- With all these developments, it’s time The fuel cell. The fuel cell is the power vations). Alstom’s Coradia iLint hydro- to squarely address the safety concerns source for the vehicle’s electric traction gen fuel cell-powered trains began that have dogged hydrogen ever motors. It converts hydrogen from the operating in revenue service then, in since a catastrophic fire destroyed the tank and oxygen from the surrounding the Bremerhaven area of Germany. The Hindenburg zeppelin airship. air into electricity. The only exhaust two prototypes are able to travel over gas is pure water. The fuel cell stack 600 miles between refuelings, making The safety of a hydrogen-powered is a compact unit which can withstand a top speed of 87 mph. Fourteen more system can best be understood by significant impacts and – like the piping trains have been ordered for this German analyzing each of its sub-systems – contains only a minimal amount of regional transport authority, which separately: hydrogen. has over 120 diesel DMU trainsets that The tank. The tank for storing hydrogen will also require replacement soon. Refueling. The refueling equipment, is seemingly the most vulnerable part. Renewable electricity to generate including seals and the nozzle that However, today’s storage technology hydrogen will eventually come from connects the refueling station to the has nothing in common with the wind, making these truly zero-emission train, is designed as a hermetically Hindenburg’s rubberized gas bag. trains. sealed system. It does a self-check Modern tanks are made of carbon fiber regarding leaks before each refueling Significantly, operators are starting wrapping an inner liner normally made process, minimizing the risk of a leak. to select hydrogen trains instead of of aluminium or high-density polymer. As no hydrogen is released into the catenary electrification in efforts to Tanks for railroad use are designed to environment, it is actually safer to refuel reduce diesel emissions. Stadler will be operated at pressures 350 times the with hydrogen than with gasoline. produce 5 hydrogen trainsets for standard atmospheric pressure. (For Typically, gasoline vapor is released Austrian operator ZVB, which decided fuel cell automobiles, the tanks operate during refueling, which can be ignited to go with hydrogen after opposition at 700 times atmospheric pressure.) by the use of a cell phone! emerged to its electrification plans. These tanks are literally bulletproof. Passengers are the First Priority of European Rail Service By David Schonbrunn address announcements are made in a can practice, opening all doors at every TRAC Vice President for Policy pleasant human voice. They are natural stop, uses more energy, and imposes The most striking thing about the sounding, and not machine-like, despite higher heating/cooling loads. German and French transit I sampled, being obviously automated. besides the sheer amount of it available, Germany has adopted the “clock is the amount of care and resources that face” approach to scheduling. Trains have gone into providing an excellent HSR Meets HV and buses tend to be scheduled at the TRAC’s newest Board member passenger experience. Buses, trams and same number of minutes past the hour, has been digging up extraordinary trains all work together as an integrated all day long. If there are 3 buses per information about the planning failures system. I hypothesize that these socie- hour on a line, one will arrive at the of California’s HSR project. Susan ties see transit use as an essential part stop pretty much every 20 minutes. Not MacAdams is perfectly positioned to do of life, and devote resources accord- only does the regular spacing make it so, having worked for LA Metro as its ingly. In the States, transit is only an easy for local residents to catch buses, HSR planning manager. afterthought, since “most people drive.” trams and trains, it makes scheduling connections relatively easy. In her comment letter on the 2018 This caring is most evident in their HSR Business Plan, Susan pointed out passenger information systems. Where Major train lines are all electrified. mission-critical information that had American transit riders are pretty much Combined with excellent right-of-way been left out of the Business Plan: left on their own, Europeans provide maintenance practices, this produces an the very high cost and long planning passengers with arrival information unusually smooth and quiet ride, unlike processes required to provide safe clear- at bus stops, train stations, and on anything available in the U.S. It was ances between HSR catenary wires and board transit vehicles. While older eye-opening to see definitive proof that overhead high-voltage (HV) power lines systems have automated Next Stop there’s no excuse for noisy systems like crossing the proposed right-of-way. By announcements, newer vehicles have BART. ignoring (or burying) this information, graphic displays that show not only the HSR project is sure to experience yet One quite different European practice upcoming stops, but the connections more delays and cost overruns. available at each. Some systems are is that doors are opened individually by The letter, along with many other of even able to provide real-time arrival passengers. The button lights up green her comment letters on HSR and Metro information for connecting lines! when the door can be opened. They close by themselves after a moment, if projects, is online at CalRailNews.org/ Unlike BART or Amtrak, the public no one is blocking closure. The Ameri- Southland.

8 California Rail News May 2018–August 2018 18 19 1025 Ninth Street #223 MEMBERS, PLEASE CHECK Sacramento, CA 95814-3516 THE RENEWAL DATE ABOVE YOUR NAME AND RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP IF THE DATE IS

Return Service Requested APPROACHING OR PAST

(continued on Page Two) Page on (continued the book focus on various planning planning various on focus book the

included. Chapters in the last half of of half last the in Chapters included.

Two chapters examine the urban urban the examine chapters Two

E I A H e p o r u n d e v i r r s a with currently operating systems are are systems operating currently with

that support the advocates’ assertion: assertion: advocates’ the support that

particular countries. Most countries countries Most countries. particular

R P - H l i a d e r e w o n e g o r d y

from those chapters and from those those from and chapters those from

authors are experts on HSR in their their in HSR on experts are authors

assertion, What follows are points points are follows What assertion, 8 PAGE Taiwan, China, Great Britain). The The Britain). Great China, Taiwan,

California HSR theory, dispute that that dispute theory, HSR California

(Japan, France, Spain, Germany, Germany, Spain, France, (Japan,

S F s s e C C u r o

operating long enough to test the the test to enough long operating

development in a particular country country particular a in development

SMART T history of the systems that have been been have that systems the of history g n i n u operation and evaluation of HSR HSR of evaluation and operation

document the economic development development economic the document

synopsis of the planning, construction, construction, planning, the of synopsis

page 7 page

benefit-cost analysis of HSR, which which HSR, of analysis benefit-cost

composed of chapters that provide a a provide that chapters of composed

? C R T

s r a o b o p m u r around its stations. Chapters with with Chapters stations. its around

Roughly the first half of the book is is book the of half first the Roughly

to shape dense urban development development urban dense shape to

R C 21

o t l i a y r u t n e t s

Francisco and Los Angeles. Angeles. Los and Francisco

that HSR’s primary benefit is its ability ability its is benefit primary HSR’s that

speed HSR route connecting San San connecting route HSR speed 6 PAGE advocates of California HSR believe believe HSR California of advocates

California’s efforts to build a high- a build to efforts California’s

justification for the project. Many Many project. the for justification

O C s n o i t a v r e s b t s a o

is to provide an objective context for for context objective an provide to is

of its chapters implicitly criticize the the criticize implicitly chapters its of

economy of investment.” Its purpose purpose Its investment.” of economy page 3 page HSR development in California, some some California, in development HSR

decision-making and the political political the and decision-making While the book mildly supports supports mildly book the While

“High Speed Rail and Sustainability: Sustainability: and Rail Speed “High

INSIDE

posed California HSR line. line. HSR California posed book on high-speed rail (HSR) titled titled (HSR) rail high-speed on book

and development aspects of the pro- the of aspects development and Berkeley recently edited an excellent excellent an edited recently Berkeley

Deakin of the University of California, California, of University the of Deakin If California HSR succeeds, it will be due to a new approach. approach. new a to due be will it succeeds, HSR California If Photo: RSA, own work own RSA, Photo:

Stanford University and Elizabeth Elizabeth and University Stanford

Drs. Blas Luis Perez Henriquez of of Henriquez Perez Luis Blas Drs.

essential principles for HSR success. HSR for principles essential

Stanford and UC Berkeley that outlines the the outlines that Berkeley UC and Stanford

by two highly respected academics from from academics respected highly two by

review of a recent book on high-speed rail rail high-speed on book recent a of review

TRAC agrees. Thus we present an in-depth in-depth an present we Thus agrees. TRAC

proceed.”

conducted, and then decide whether to to whether decide then and conducted,

take a deep breath, have a project review review project a have breath, deep a take

said “...In short, the next governor should should governor next the short, “...In said

Califonria Chancellor Janet Napolitano Napolitano Janet Chancellor Califonria

and reviewed. For example, University of of University example, For reviewed. and

that the current high-speed rail be “paused” “paused” be rail high-speed current the that

were quoted by the Sacramento Bee, urging urging Bee, Sacramento the by quoted were

Editor’s Note: Recently, California leaders leaders California Recently, Note: Editor’s

Special to California Rail News Rail California to Special

By Dr. Gregory Thompson Gregory Dr. By

principles for HSR success HSR for principles

New book outlines essential essential outlines book New

Speed Rail Plans, Decide Future Decide Plans, Rail Speed

New Governor Must Pause High- Pause Must Governor New

3 Number 28 Volume October 2018 - December 2018 December - 2018 October

S 4-5: 4-5: S age P santa atsonvi uz–w cr choice best is l rai e ll settings [in Japan] have seen served by HSR). Pausing California HSR commercial property values fall.” (continued from Page One) (Murakami and Cervero p. 245; Areas surrounding the San development consequences of the emphasis added) Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento terminals as well as Bur- world’s oldest HSR line, between • “The implications are that secondary Tokyo and Osaka, which has been in bank airport will likely see develop- cities both grow and lose position as a ment boosts. If HSR ever gets to San operation for 52 years, a long enough result of vastly increased interregional Diego, University City will also likely period to evaluate its impact on urban accessibility. They can resist [down- investment: ward] trends and protect their regional see development boosts. economies if they have unique assets Low Usage HSR in Spain • “It is widely accepted that the primary --- less so if the industries they host benefits of HSR investments are the are not firmly anchored in place and The chapter on Spain’s 25 years of direct ones that accrue to users, mainly can be lured elsewhere by lower HSR experience provides some support in the form of travel-time savings. To wages, larger markets, higher level for advocates of California’s HSR’s the degree that they occur, economic services, more amenities.” (Hayashi, initiative: development benefits are mostly Mimuro, Han and Kato, p. 42) second-order and indirect in nature.” • Despite low traffic density for the HSR (Murakami and Cervero, p. 228) • “Japanese experiences reveal that very lines that have opened in Spain,some small and intermediate cities failed analysts assert that the lines have • “Japan’s commercial redevelopment to reap economic benefits from HSR stimulated urban development in efforts aim not only to increase busi- largely because of their manufacturing intermediate-sized en-route cities. ness passengers on the Tokaido and service industry economic bases.” “Without undertaking specific project Shinkansen but also to promote land (Murakami and Cervero p. 250) evaluations, most economic literature value capture around the terminal has viewed the spatial benefits of HSR stations... Tokyo, Shinagawa, and • “If the trends and experiences in as marginal . . . To the contrary, the Nagoya [terminal or first tier cities] Japan are repeated in the United Spanish example shows that spatial have experienced rising commercial States, planned HSR investments impacts of HSR at the interurban land prices within 5 km of the are likely to be associated with and urban scales are important Shinkansen stations, fueled by large- territorially uneven and highly economically as well as politically.” scale redevelopment projects created localized economic development (Urena, Benegas, and Mohino, pp. 88- through public-private partnerships.” impacts. This is because there are 89) (Murakami and Cervero p. 245) many station areas in the US cases where there is little currently in place • “HSR brings together two types • “In contrast, other HSR station for which HSR will be a significant of areas that have different and contributor.” (Murakami and Cervero, complementary characteristics: p. 245; emphasis added) metropolises with high living cost, abundant professionals and high- • “The comparative advantage of the quality services, and historic, dense small intermediate cities in areas like small provincial cities that are agriculture and traditional manufac- comparatively less expensive and turing are the kinds of economic have plenty of available land, but activities that find little value in being a relatively small number of highly near a high-speed passenger rail qualified professionals.” (Urena, Published November 8, 2018 station in a clustered configuration.” Published 2-3 times annually by the Benegas, and Mohino p. 93) Train Riders Association of California (Murakami and Cervero, p. 251) in cooperation with the • “However, this requires HSR travel California Rail Foundation In California, examples of agricul- times of an hour or less, frequent tural and traditional manufacturing Ronald Jones, TRAC President services, cheap fares and a high level Michael Setty, California Rail News Editor towns that the proposed HSR line of comfort.” (Urena, Benegas, and David Schonbrunn, Copy Editor must deviate to serve and that likely Mohino p. 94, emphasis added) Signed articles represent the views of their will not benefit from HSR include authors, not necessarily those of the above • Major Spanish cities are close enough organizations. Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, together to allow HSR to stop more and Modesto. The city for which often than expected at small en- 1025 Ninth Street #223 Sacramento, CA 95814-3516 HSR would make its largest detour is route cities and still remain under the Telephone: 916-557-1667 also the one with the least attractive 3-hour travel time limit required to be e-mail: [email protected] chances of benefitting from HSR. This competitive with air service between www.calrailnews.org/ is Palmdale. Palmdale has fewer than the major end- point cities (Urena, California Rail News encourages letters, comments, 1,500 jobs, all manu-facturing, within Benegas, and Mohino, p. 94). and reports on local issues. Please submit your 5 km of HSR (Table 15.2, p. 238 for material to California Rail News at the above • “It is only in the larger metropolitan address. Sorry, we cannot guarantee return of photos definition of job cate-gories; Table agglomerations (Madrid and Barce- or articles submitted. Deadline for material to be 15.5, pp. 246-247 for employment lona) and some of the major cities included in the next issue of CRN is August 1, 2018. specialization in cities proposed to be (continued on Page Three) Join TRAC and Help Fight for Improved Trains Clip & mail with your check or money order payable to: Online Renewals or Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) New Memberships 1025 Ninth St. #223 Sacramento, CA 95814-3516 (916) 557-1667 You may also join TRAC or Please fill out the following, or attach address label: renew an existing membership online at the TRAC web- Regular member $50-79 Name site: Contributing member $80-499 www.calrailnews.org Click on the Donate tab on Street 1 (or company) Benefactor $500+ $ the upper left corner of the TRAC homepage window. Limited income $25-49 Street 2 Paypal and almost any credit Renewal Membership Number or debit card accepted. City State Zip (if known) New Member Telephone E-mail

2 California Rail News October 2018–December 2018 20 (Continued from Page Six) automobiles. Already, major rail Tuning SMART for Success vehicle manufacturers have had significant success with automated light rail cars. In Potsdam, Germany, automated streetcar experiments are going especially well. The fact that tracks are fixed and railcars are thus self-steering–whether in exclusive right-of-way or embedded in streets– means that automated railcars would not have to steer, so rail service would be even simpler to operate than automated buses. A few academic studies have predicted that shared ride AVs such By Michael D. Setty While the San Rafael Transit Center as automated taxis and minibuses Editor, California Rail News offers timed transfers between buses, SMART‘s schedule frustrates bus-train could attract many auto drivers, since Long-time SMART-hater Mike and train-bus transfers. SMART has the high cost of owning automobiles Arnold’s Marin Voice on SMART in the chosen to not match the hourly and half- in urban areas could be eliminated September 2, 2018 edition of the Marin hourly departures of the buses. Instead, Independent Journal had little to offer or greatly reduced. However, its departures are a minute earlier, the reader, other than a mega-dose of because such studies emerge from causing some transferees to miss the sour grapes. It would be far more con- the dominant auto-mobility mindset, train. Preliminary research by TRAC has structive to discuss how SMART can be they tend not to offer a comparison uncovered an apparent system design optimized by applying rail best practices to an equally advanced transit tech- error by SMART. We call for studying from Europe. nology. They never consider the fact a fix that would enable simultaneous that automated fixed-route buses The current, increasingly crowded SMART and bus departures, with arri- or streetcars running every few conditions on Golden Gate Transit’s San vals 5 minutes earlier, to allow adequate minutes, particularly if operated in Francisco–Larkspur ferries shows that transfer time. there is strong and growing demand dedicated lanes, would be much more A well-integrated feeder bus net- for express transit in the Highway convenient to use. work is essential in maximizing the 101 corridor. Once SMART has its full convenience of the transit alternative. Automated taxi enthusiasts forget complement of operations personnel Improved bus facilities are needed at that walking a few minutes to a fixed and vehicles, it could be serving many a number of SMART stations to allow route stop with frequent service will more passengers. Plugging gaps in the cross-platform connections as close as usually be quicker than waiting 5-10 schedule and increasing peak period possible, where such facilities either do capacity will make a big difference in minutes for the automated taxi to not exist or are an unreasonable walking ridership. Moving from commute service arrive, deviate to the next customer(s) distance from train platforms. requiring another 5-10 minutes, to all-day service typically increases and only then traveling to your des- ridership significantly, as many more In some cases, new stations may be tination. people find the train fitting their travel needed. For example, a SMART station needs. at River Road in Fulton includ-ing a bus After the hype dies down and the loop adjacent to the train platform could SMART needs to apply best practices challenges of autonomous driving dramatically reduce transit travel times from Europe to the Highway 101 corri- prove to be more difficult to solve to/from Russian River communities, with dor. For example, in Switzerland and than previously understood, it may new timed connections with SMART other European countries, trains and trains. just turn out that rail advocates have buses run on “clockface headways,” the last laugh. The author believes e.g., service arrives and leaves at the Similarly, a ¼ mile elevated extension that very soon, automated streetcars same time every hour on the hour 7 of SMART from its station in Larkspur and light rail vehicles in dedicated days per week, regardless of whether to an elevated platform above Golden lanes, and automated commuter rail service runs every 15 minutes, every Gate Transit’s ferry dock would provide trains on exclusive rights-of-way will 30 minutes, or hourly. Even service as an attractive ferry feeder service. While be technologically and economically infrequent as every two hours or only a potentially very expensive, it would feasible. few times per day in remote rural areas appeal to ferry riders who generally are scheduled at the same times past shun buses, greatly relieving the current Researchers in England are cur- the hour. severe parking shortage. rently developing automated, battery powered 20-seat streetcars and Clock headways are very easy for A new ferry-SMART direct connec- 60-seat railcars for lower-volume passengers to remember. They also tion potentially could attract several hundred thousand new trips per year suburban and rural rail routes expec- make it easy to organize regional networks. One can travel hundreds of miles from San Francisco, with its new uncon- ted to be ready for deployment within across Switzerland with minimal delays, gested, non-highway access to the 101 the next 3-5 years. even if several connections are required. corridor’s Wine Country. This tourism revenue could support additional ser- Eventually, such services could be The Swiss National Railways, vice, stretching current operating supplemented by automated fixed- along with its rail and bus partners, subsidies much further. route buses on local roads, operated have perfected the concept of “timed both as local service and as rail transfers” based on clock headways. In conclusion, with sufficient invest- feeders, particularly where potential They provide cross-platform connec- ment over the long run, SMART rider- ridership cannot justify upgrading an tions at key stations where trains and ship could increase by an order of existing rail line or new construction. buses connect, usually with less than 5 magnitude, becoming a heavily-used, In North America, automated rail minutes of delay at each transfer point. key transit service in the Highway 101 vehicles might make branch line rail Train and bus travel times in Swit- corridor, as originally envisioned. zerland between these timed transfer services in rural areas and smaller Michael D. Setty is Editor of California points have been optimized to allow urban areas economically feasible, Rail News. He has 40 years of transit industry connections at the same times past and potentially profitable in situations experience, including as a member of the team each hour, facilitating transfers and such as tourist areas. that developed the successful Vallejo Ferry. minimizing connecting time delays. California Rail News October 2018–December 2018 7 21 A 21st Century Rail Renaissance: Automation & Batteries By Michael D. Setty Editor, California Rail News

By almost all accounts, Elon Musk is a genius. He has managed to take proven but heretofore very expensive technologies of rockets, electric cars and large-scale battery storage and dramatically reduce their cost. While Musk’s SpaceX rockets still are very expensive to launch, they are much cheaper than rockets launched by NASA. Musk’s Tesla electric cars are still very pricey, but much cheaper than past attempts at developing electric cars. Tesla batteries are still very expensive at about $20,000 for a 100-kilowatt hour Tesla Model S or X battery pack, but they are still far A depiction of 20-passenger automated, battery-powered streetcars in Coventry, England. cheaper than traditional large-scale Source: University of Warwick Very Light Rail (VLR) Innovation Centre, Warwick, UK batteries. utilization of railcars, rail could be or less, counting all mileage for taxi- But like any human being, several times as efficient as electric like “deadheading” to pick people up Musk has had and continues to cars. and idle times between riders. make his share of mistakes. Tesla Using Automation More Effectively However, several companies in is still learning how to efficiently Europe and the U.S. have demon- manufacture automobiles and create While AVs “sort of” work under strated that automated transit attractive working environments, direct human supervision, most vehicles are technically feasible learning hard lessons that Detroit cannot adequately deal with the on surface roadways, without sep- dealt with many decades ago. many variables of urban traffic, such arate fixed guideways. Examples Musk’s Nevada Gigafactory for as unpredictable pedestrians and include demonstration projects in mass production of batteries has not bicyclists, erratic human drivers, as the Netherlands, France, Sweden, expanded nearly as quickly as Musk well as any weather that isn’t clear, Germany and Switzerland and the had earlier hyped. Musk has also dry and sunny. While AVs may be U.S. There is also the nearly 50 years generated some rather goofy and able to adequately function when of automation experience with BART eccentric ideas, such as the unproven provided with electronic guideposts and the 1970’s era “personal rapid Hyperloop concept, a dubious proposal that suffers from the high costs of high-speed rail (HSR), but without the very high capacity. Similarly, Musk’s claims about fully-automated vehicles (AVs) have proven decades premature, and may never be feasible. The Boring Company might be helpful in reducing tunneling costs, but would be wasted on Musk’s plans to operate very-low capacity, costly “sleds” for individual automobiles through his proposed urban tunnel networks. Despite the shortcomings of some of Musk’s ideas, in the near-future, rail advocates may be very thankful for those of Musk’s initiatives that work. Tesla has dramatically reduced A depiction of a 60-passenger very light rail vehicle for lower volume branch line services. the price of large storage batteries, Source: University of Warwick Very Light Rail (VLR) Innovation Centre, Warwick, UK which make battery propulsion an buried in the pavement, it is fanciful transit” system in Morgantown, West increasingly feasible and economic to believe that Caltrans and the other Virginia (though the size and cost of alternative to electrifying railroads road bureaucracies are competent the Morgantown guideways made with overhead wires. Batteries are enough to keep such AV guidance the technology too expensive for now sufficiently affordable and light- devices properly maintained and up widespread application to the U.S. weight that rail passenger vehicles to date. transit industry). can travel many miles before needing recharging. For example, a 60-ton, Many observers are concerned Automated transit technology 100-seat battery electric railcar with that the press-led AV hype is is rapidly improving. The operat- typical stations spacing can travel fundamentally misguided. These ing environment in which auto- 25+ miles on one Tesla 100-kilowatt hagiographies for AVs are oblivious to mated buses–-or automated battery pack that would propel a their potentially very large negative streetcars–-would run is relatively Model S or X about 300 miles. When impacts, including potentially gen- simple compared to the much considering the energy cost of erating many more daily vehicle more complicated urban road building rails vs. road construction, miles. AV implementation could result environment faced by automated along with the potentially very high in average occupancies of 0.5 persons (continued on Page Seven) 6 California Rail News October 2018–December 2018 22 Ensuring California HSR Success (continued from Page Two) include congestion relief for air and Coast (particularly Zaragoza and Valladolid) auto modes, reduction of energy use, where there are plans to locate major and reduction of greenhouse gas office buildings around HSR stations. emissions. Observations In smaller cities residential uses THE HIGHLY TOUTED AGE OF HYDRO- dominate the redevelopment plans; • “Of the measured external [secondary] GEN TRAINS has to wait a bit longer. benefits of HSR investment, reduced however, studies in Spain show that It seems only two trains are currently congestion [of auto and air modes] is HSR stations in small cities are an operational in Northern Germany at the most significant.” (Nash, 180) attractive residential location only the moment, thanks to numerous for immigrants, while locals prefer to • “Environmental benefits are unlikely “new tech”teething problems that locate close to their families, friends to be a significant part of the case need to be solved until the entire fleet and other amenities away from the for high-speed rail when all relevant can enter service...[rest to be added] stations.” (Urena, Benegas, and factors are considered, but nor are Mohino, p. 96) they a strong argument against it The Spanish experience suggests provided that high load factors can be that an important policy objective was achieved.” (Nash, 180) to use HSR to revitalize intermediate Two other points call out for further cities, but the chapter does not pro- commentary: vide enough information to determine • Capital costs per kilometer [or mile] of whether the objectives are being met. route are one of the major variables The studies pointed out key affecting a HSR project’s social attributes of HSR: worth. A project with an estimated capital cost that is evaluated as being • “The value of business time is abso- beneficial to society will cease being lutely critical to the case of high-speed beneficial if capital costs increase rail.” (Nash, p. 168) Forecasts indicate substantially without estimated bene- that benefits to business travelers will fits increasing commensurate with total 55% of all benefits generated by capital cost increases. (Nash, p. 181). HS2 in England. Business travelers value time saved more than commuter This point seems fundamental, but and leisure travelers. (Nash, pp. 169 & it is ignored by those in California 180). who continue to support HSR regardless of run-away capital costs without • Where rail journey times can be any increase in estimated benefits. It brought close to or below 3 hours [between very large cities], HSR can be would seem that a design objective expected to take a significant market for the California proposal should share of origin-destination aviation have been to minimize the length markets (Nash, p. 180). of the route in mountainous terrain, in order to constrain such cost • Many business travelers prefer HSR escalations. Instead, by choosing a over air even when door-to-door times for HSR are slightly longer, because circuitous route via Tehachapi Pass HSR offers greater comfort and ability and Palmdale on the south, and to work undisturbed for longer periods Pacheco Pass on the north, the project of time (Nash, p. 169). team has maximized the number of miles in difficult mountainous terrain, • “However, the evidence relates to countries with dense cities, where greatly inflating capital (and likely well-located city rail terminals are future operating) expenses. more convenient for most passengers • NIMBYism is a threat so serious that it than are airports, and shorter rail could stop HSR construction. It should journey times may be needed to have been minimized by judicious compete with air where cities are less routing of the HSR line. (O’Hare and dense, as in the United States.” (Nash, Audikana, pp. 322-336). p. 180). Again, the California HSR project Making HSR Work in California team’s choice of a circuitous align- Applied to California these points ment has unnecessarily pitted the suggest that the only HSR market project against homeowners and land with heavy traffic potential is between owners through much of its route, San Francisco and Los Angeles, IF particularly by sending it through travel time can be kept to around rich farmland as well as city centers 3 hours. However, the sprawling through much of the route in the San nature of both areas com-pared to Joaquin Valley. A direct route would those served by HSR lines in other be along I-5 and over Altamont Pass. parts of the world create doubts. Also In the north and Tejon Pass in the damaging to the California case is the south, not only would garner much fact that the San Francisco and Los greater ridership than the chosen Angeles metro areas each are served route, but would greatly reduce the by several airports, each offering fre- threat of NIMBYism while slashing quent departures to every airport capital and operating costs through a in the opposite metro area. Many shorter route with much less of it in residential and business locations mountains. have better access to airports than to Dr. Gregory Thompson is Professor Emeritus proposed HSR terminals, particularly of Urban Planning from Florida State in Southern California. University and a TRAC board member. HSR has secondary benefits that California Rail News October 2018–December 2018 3 23 Santa Cruz “Unified Corridor Study” Scenario B Focusing on Rail Maximizes Ridership, Far Less Costly Than Road Expansion By Michael D. Setty Scenario C envisions Editor, California Rail News an 8.5-mile busway On September 28th, the Santa between Downtown Cruz County Regional Transportation Santa Cruz and Aptos Commission (SCCRTC) released its on the railroad right- Unified Corridor Investment Study: Step of-way. Like the rail 2 Analysis Results. This study focused option, the busway on the Highway 1 corridor between would be primarily downtown Santa Cruz and Watsonville in single lane, with some southeast Santa Cruz County. Each study passing areas and scenario included a number of individual return bus traffic on improvements emphasizing differing parallel local streets strategies, as summarized in Figure 1. where possible. Busway capital costs Scenario A emphasized auto-oriented are projected to be solutions on Highway 1, particularly $265 million including construction of a third lane in each contingencies and direction between Santa Cruz and Aptos project management, Village, restricted to high-occupancy e.g., $32 million/mile. vehicles (HOVs) and transit vehicles during the weekday a.m. and p.m. Some rail critics have peak periods, plus “Bus Rapid Transit declared that local rail Lite” (BRT Lite) on Soquel and Capitola service in Santa Cruz Avenues paralleling Highway 1. County is “unaffordable.” However, to $800 million+. Median stations would the results of the UCS indicates that also need elaborate facilities for required Scenario B emphasized any of the major options evaluated will access to persons with disabilities, implementation of local rail transit on the require hundreds of millions in additional probably involving major overpass 22-mile Santa Cruz Branch Line rail-right- funding for upfront capital costs. These modifications. of-way between Santa Cruz, Watsonville added costs become unaffordable if HOV and Pajaro (e.g., potential Capitol lanes on Highway 1 are included, plus Under Scenario B emphasizing local Corridor connection), but included the additional annual operating funds rail service and BRT Lite, train operating auto-oriented improvements including needed for added transit service in order expenses are projected to be $14.0 ramp metering on Highway 1 and the to take advantage of these new facilities. million of the projected $43.9 million same BRT Lite. Scenario C also included additional annual operating expenses. some low-cost auto improvements, but For an HOV lane on Highway 1 This total includes $12.1 million for emphasized implementation of an 8.5- between the Highway 17 interchange additional bus service de-signed to mile dedicated busway on the rail right- feed rail stations. of-way between Santa Cruz and Aptos, While the cost of with through buses from Watsonville Figure 1. added local bus operating onto the busway. Scenario D service has been was eliminated by the SCCRTC board in added to the rail late 2017. scenario, proposed Like Scenario A, Scenario E enhancements to emphasized auto-oriented improvements local bus service including proposed Highway 1 HOV are desirable for all lanes, construction of local rail transit on scenarios. the rail-right-of-way, along with limited It also appears local bus improvements designed to feed that operating rail stations. dollars would go All scenarios studied included farther with rail. significant improvements for bicyclists Scenario B local rail and pedestrians, including a trail service is projec- adjacent to the rail right-of-way (with ted by the UCS to site-specific variations in how this trail attract 6.0% of all would be implemented). p.m. peak period trips within the Figure 2 summarizes projected capital county. This may costs for each project included in each appear to be a lar- scenario. ge difference, but Most Cost-Effective Option: Local Rail the difference in Service ridership would be and Aptos under Scenarios A and E, concentrated in the Highway 1 corridor. Figure 3 summarizes selected projected capital costs are $440 million Under Scenario B, in 2035 local rail performance measures and unit capital or $50 million+ per mile. For Highway 1 service is projected to attract 3,133 p.m. costs for each scenario. auxiliary lanes extended three miles from peak period passengers crossing the 17th Local rail service under either State Park Blvd. in Aptos to San Andreas Ave. screen-line in Live Oak, compared Scenarios B or E is projected to cost Road, projected costs are $142 million or to 1,797 p.m. peak period passengers $324 million (excluding a capital costs $40+ million/mile. under Scenario C with the busway on for excursion trains to Davenport) for 22 Converting proposed HOV lanes on the rail right-of-way. This translates to at miles between Santa Cruz, Watsonville Highway 1 for joint use as a busway to least 5,000 more daily passengers at this and Pajaro in Monterey County. This serve intermediate transit passengers point, or 8,000-9,000 daily over the entire is $14.7 million per mile. This figure at median busway stations at Morrissey rail route compared to a busway, also includes a very generous allowance Blvd., Soquel Ave., 41st Ave., Park Ave./ accounting for average trip length. for Positive Train Control (PTC), Cabrillo College, Aptos Village, and When express transit services conventional railway signaling and grade Rio Del Mar Blvd. would be extremely are considered, BRT using a busway crossing upgrades totaling $76.8 million. expensive. First, the HOV lanes would on the rail right-of-way would have Compared to the approximately $1.0 cost $440 million+, or nearly $600 lower expansion capability than local million per mile paid by SMART in Marin- million if HOV lanes/auxiliary lanes are rail capacity and would be less cost- Sonoma Counties, projected Santa Cruz extended another 3 miles southeast effective overall. Under Scenario C that costs for PTC and signaling is excessive. to San Andreas Road. Widening the emphasizes construction of a busway, It also far exceeds PTC and signaling freeway median for safe out-of-traffic bus only 4.8% of all p.m. peak period trips cost estimates in a number of recent rail stops at median busway stations may within Santa Cruz County would be passenger corridor studies. add $200 million or more, pushing costs served compared to 6.0% under Scenario 4 CCalifornia Rail News October 2018–December 2018 24 Santa Cruz “Unified Corridor Study” Scenario B Focusing on Rail Maximizes Ridership, Far Less Costly Than Road Expansion were based on a Santa Cruz and Watsonville. “direct demand” 3. There are almost twice as many jobs model which along the Santa Cruz Branch Line has been used within 1/2 mile of potential stations by a number of compared to the Sprinter between other rail studies. Oceanside and Escondido. In the previous “California 4. There are nearly twice as many Rail News” residents living with 1/2 mile of and in a TRAC potential rail stations along the Branch position paper, Line than along the Highway 78 we estimated corridor. that extending service directly to 5. Compared to the rolling hills downtown Santa encountered by the Sprinter, the Santa Cruz, a connection Cruz Branch Line is relatively level, so to Cabrillo College service would be about 20% faster. and more frequent 6. Local transit-riding culture is well- 15-minute peak established compared to Northern period service San Diego County, even though Metro westward from ridership has declined recently due to Rio Del Mar service cuts. would increase B emphasizing local rail service. Seventh but not least, the Santa Cruz potential ridership to 11,000–14,000 Branch Line has direct access to most Enhancing Local Rail Service in Santa daily compared to the 5,000-6,000 daily Santa Cruz area beaches that collectively Cruz County predicted by the 2015 study under [then] attract 8-9 million+ annual visits. TRAC proposes some modifications current conditions. TRAC‘s recent second position paper to Scenario B to increase potential rail As noted in another article in this on Santa Cruz County rail service (linked ridership and improve cost-effectiveness. CRN, rapidly improving technology here: http://www.calrailnews.org/trac- This assumes that the high estimated could dramatically reduce rail operating position-papers/) proposes excursion costs for PTC and signaling under costs through automation, improving train service to Santa Cruz-area beaches Scenario B are greatly reduced, more in battery storage for propulsion, and in both directions from the Boardwalk, line with SMART’s costs per mile. This other technological advances. If more and to other attractions including capital savings could instead be used to frequent service can be provided due to downtown Capitola and Aptos Village. extend the rail line to within 1/4 mile of potentially lower rail operating costs,

much higher patronage Providing non-auto access for visitors would be likely than would not only improve traffic, it could even TRAC’s estimates help subsidize transit operations for resi- above. dents. Sufficient peak period capacity Corridor Travel will be needed not only for weekday Volumes Matter commutes but also for weekend tourist peaks, and during midday and evenings The Highway 1 over the summer beach season. corridor between Santa Cruz and With all these factors combined, TRAC believes ridership potential is seriously downtown Santa Cruz’s core, providing a Watsonville is quite similar to the understated. We also note that rail tran- direct connection to frequent bus service Highway 78 corridor between Oceanside sit has the potential to add capacity to the University of California, Santa and Escondido in Northern San Diego over time by running longer trains, as Cruz. County. Total travel volumes are similar ridership grows. Highways, on the other in both corridors, but in addition As previously mentioned, at least hand, tend to fill up as soon as they are Oceanside–Escondido has Sprinter rail 5,000 more daily passengers would use widened. The phenomenon of induced service. Currently, the Sprinter carries a local rail line at the point it crosses the demand means road widening produces about 10,000 per day with 30-minute 17th Ave. screen-line in Live Oak, with no net long-term benefits. headways, which is more than projected about 8,000-9,000 over the entire route. for Watsonville-Santa Cruz rail in 2035. Conclusion If PTC capital costs are brought down to reasonable levels, it also appears The Santa Cruz-Watsonville corridor While the Unified Corridor Investment to be adequate to purchase more rail has numerous advantages for rail that Study offered projections for 2035, in the cars and to construct a direct freeway the Highway 78 corridor does not: final analysis, the more important public overcrossing to Cabrillo College for policy question is “Will this investment bicycles, pedestrians and automated 1. Highway 1 is much more congested continue to provide benefits for the next minibuses, as suggested in TRAC’s than Highway 78. hundred years? Cities in Europe, for second Santa Cruz County position 2. The Escondido Sprinter station is example, are still reaping the mobility paper, linked at: http://www.calrailnews. nearly a mile from the center of benefits of projects a century old. It is org/trac-position-papers/. downtown. With relatively minor clear to TRAC that investing in local rail service with a strong feeder bus Rail ridership estimates by the UCS changes proposed by TRAC to Scenario B, trains can operate to within 1/4 mile network, Scenario B, is the superior are similar to those found in the 2015 alternative. rail feasibility study. The 2015 estimates of the core areas of both downtown

California Rail News October 2018–December 2018 5 25 Unified Corridor Investment Study - Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

Dear Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation,

I live in Santa Cruz County and I support the improvements in Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Investment Study.

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

Estimada Agencia Regional de Transportación de Santa Cruz,

Yo vivo en el condado de Santa Cruz y apoyo las mejoras en el Escenario B del Estudio “Unified Corridor Study”.

November 2, 2018 November 2, 2018 November 2, 2018 Helen "Edy" Rhodes Sanji Caulte Doann Wilder Juanita Gomez Chris Miroyan Joyce Carroll Jose Nouranijo Teri O'Brien Marie Tracy James Wilder Shannon McAlly Amanda Wanden Valerie Valdey Bob Reed Scott Thornburg Ivan Medina Karen Sulgar Danyelle Noron Erica Ponce Mark D. Lee Phil Johnson Gilberto Ch. Craig Barr Trish Paulson Porfirio Cervantez Vaden Ashley O'Brien Gilberto Chacon Frank Kline Lorna Fleming Janneke Strause Daryl Dichek Julie Watson Alma Sanchez Chris Troll Linda Wilshusen David Poznanter Cynthia Chao Tollie Coleman Philip Branum Billy Dittlone Kayla Souza Narayani Gaia Mick Friedbers Steve Sulger Ryne Case Joanne Brower Grace Watkins Ron Burke Danielle Vadez Lindsay Franchi Ran Mnz Elizabeth Schilling Eileen Mackvside Nick Manzi Rebecca King Jimce Monabito Rocco Cappalla Yamindira Kanagasundaran

26 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Casey Beyer Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 3:11 PM To: George Dondero ; Ginger Dykaar ; Shannon Munz Cc: Mark Mesiti-Miller Subject: chamber letter of support Importance: High

Dear George, Ginger and Shannon:

I am out of the country and not immediately accessible to internet, so this e-mail may not reach you before the close of business today, November 2.

Today, our board chair, Mark Mesiti-Miller dropped off the Chamber’s letter of support for Scenario B.

As you know well, the Chamber was the lead voice of 2016 ballot Measure D, which without the voter’s approval, the UCS would not have been possible. During past two years, the Chamber actively participated in the public process to look at all options for our three corridors. Early in 2017, I wrote an opinion article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel encouraging the public to engage in the lengthy process and to hold judgment until the final document was produced. Some organizations decided to conduct their own public review process of the study based on personal and political opinions. I do not find fault or support of their interest.

The Chamber choose to let the public process go forward until a final environmental and economic analysis was completed. Now that the final UCS is complete for public review, after attending over 18 meetings in the last two years and reviewing the final document, I recommended to my Chamber board to support Scenario B of the UCS. You received a hard copy of that letter of support. The Chamber board, overwhelming supported Scenario B.

I am attaching that letter again to ensure you have both hard and digital copies.

Thank you in advance for your public service.

Casey Beyer Chief Executive Officer Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce [email protected] www.santacruzchamber.org

27 November 2, 2018

Chair Leopold and Commissioners Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

1523 Pacific Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Re: Chamber Support for UCS Scenario B Dear Chair Leopold and Commissioners,

The Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce applauds the Uniﬁed Corridor In- vestment Study - Step 2 Analysis Results (UCS) presented at the October 4, 2018 meeting of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and thanks the RTC for conducting public workshops and focus groups to inform and engage the community around our future transportation options. The Chamber, founded 129 years ago, is a county-wide business organization representing over 600 members who collectively employ more than 18,000 people. The Chamber is focused on promoting the economic vitality of our members and our county. The Chamber has been actively engaged with the UCS following the passage of Measure D and has encouraged a robust public process to evaluate the various scenarios in an effort to identify the most efficient, ethical and economical option to best serve our central coast community (from north county to south county). With that background, the Chamber supports Scenario B with one important addition: the rail corridor must allow continued use of the rail line for transport of goods by freight. We understand more than 600 jobs in our County today depend on freight rail and we recognize the value of maintaining freight rail service to our County for the future. Not only will access to efficient freight rail allow local businesses to remain competitive, every freight rail car removes three to four highway trucks from our local roads improving existing road capacity, further improving road safety for all users and reducing climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce * 725 Front Street, Suite 401 * Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-457-3713 Phone * 831-423-1847 Fax The SCACoC is a 501c (6) non-profit corporation * Employer ID 94-0841660 28 We also noticed that implementing Scenario B will result in a substantial increase in public transit use when compared to any of the other scenarios demonstrating Scenario B’s superior ability to improve social equity, reduce the total cost of living for employees and make it easier for local businesses to attract and retain employees. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, Scenario B was the only scenario receiv- ing straight A’s across all metrics used to evaluate economic impact. We believe the key to our region’s future success is a prosperous economy. Of all the scenarios, scenario B is clearly best for business.

Sincerely,

Casey Beyer Chief Executive Officer cc: Santa Cruz Area Chamber Board

From: Jack Nelson Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Comments on Unified Corridor Study

Dear RTC Commissioners and staff:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and ask questions about the Unified Corridor Investment Study, Step 2 Analysis.

I view all four of the studied Scenarios as flawed by their inclusion of expensive auto- centric projects, and the analytical travel model’s lack of factoring induced travel into the results.

Even with that concern in mind, I believe it is timely for the RTC to designate Scenario B as your preference among the four scenarios, because Scenario B best opens the door for one of the key paradigm shifts needed here: planning the utilization of the north-south rail corridor as a multimodal transportation corridor to include public transportation between Watsonville and Santa Cruz.

Do your staff and UCS consultants agree, at least on a qualitative basis, that if induced travel were factored in to the scenarios analysis, that the more auto-centric Scenarios A and E would show the most reduction in performance?

Mr. Mike Schmitt of Kimley Horn told me that induced travel was not yet factored in, and also that the limited reductions in greenhouse gas emissions rely primarily on assumptions about future improvements in auto fuel efficiency and more electric cars.

Sincerely,

Jack Nelson Santa Cruz CA

From: jjmmlight Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:00 PM To: UCS Subject: UCS

Dear RTC and staff,

Below are questions and comments regarding the Unified Corridor Study:

The Dashboard, although designed to be easy to read, is oversimplified and misleading.

30 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Safety: Collision and collision cost data should not be associated with scenarios, but with projects. Page 81: “the projects that are estimated to provide the greatest reduction in total number of collisions are education and enforcement, ramp metering, the bicycle and pedestrian trail on the rail right of way and buffered bicycle lanes on Soquel Ave/Soquel Dr/Freedom.” Fewer collisions have nothing to do with rail, and rail’s association with impactful projects is misleading.

Reliability and Efficiency: The 20111-2012 California Household Travel Survey was used to determine mode share and to forecast bike ridership. Also available in this study was data describing Santa Cruz county Trip Lengths at shows more than 40% at 2 miles or less. Wouldn’t this info be important in forecasting future mode travel? Is this information included in this study?

Are walking forecasts based on observations at Arana Gulch? If so, why? Were any traffic impact studies referenced with regard to negative traffic impacts associated with rail and crossings?

Economic Vitality: Page 101: “It is difficult or even impossible to accurately measure every economic benefit associated with every individual project in the UCS.” Even though the results show little differences, this statement nullifies any opinion.

Environment and Health: Why did the UCS not include any data regarding positive health benefits associated with active transportation? Also, why did the study not include effects associated with rail? Train noise, ground borne vibration, horns or bells (in quiet zones), negative aesthetics of fences blocking scenery.

Is it possible to differentiate transit ridership between rail and bus on shoulder?

Table A-3: Auxillary Lanes. Why are costs to reconstruct rail bridges in Aptos included? Scenario A has no rail. Would bridges be included in Trail Only scenario?

Table A-10: Rail Service: What structures are included? Are quiet zones considered Train Control?

Table A-13: Trail Only: What bridge structures? What is “Other”?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Johanna Lighthill

31 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: William Menchine Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS Step 2 Scenario Analysis Review

Dear RTC Commissioners,

There is no doubt that the Unified Corridors Investment Study 2nd Step Analysis is an important milestone in our county’s transportation planning process and the RTC Staff and consultants should be commended for their efforts to investigate and analyze the myriad of project options and scenario groupings. That said, I am worried by what I see as a lack of objectivity, creativity and a sense of urgency for solving the most pressing transportation problems facing our county’s population.

Overview The work product, while imperfect, does provide a framework for evaluating and further refining our future options for transportation modes and technologies, land use and infrastructure investment over the County’s three major transportation corridors. While the UCS has attempted to quantify and present data on several transportation options that were previously unknown or lacking specificity with the public, there are also several project ideas and possible scenario groupings that were not presented in the study that clearly should have been included. Most critically, there are some inaccuracies in the definition, scope and assumptions regarding certain projects that affect the outcome of the “triple bottom line” evaluation and rankings. Whether errors of omission or actual bias, these inaccuracies need to be investigated and addressed through a peer review of the study to ensure that there is full transparency and a proper analysis of all the projects and scenario rankings.

Analysis Process The triple bottom line analysis process used to rank the performance, environmental, social, and economic impacts of competing projects is useful in providing metrics for project comparisons. Unfortunately, this process ignores some critical parameters that are ultimately needed to move forward with actual plans to address our county’s transportation and mobility challenges. Eventually, it is necessary to evaluate projects with a high degree of understanding of the scope, costs and timeframe to achieve public buy-in and political support. The so called “triple constraint” is a widely accepted concept in the world of design, engineering, construction and project management. Without a timeline for implementation there can be no true comparisons between scenario options.

While the UCS is an important first step it is by no means a definitive “road map” for future transportation projects or a blueprint for our transportation project planning. It has value as an analysis tool but stops short of providing a definitive set of projects or a strategic plan for how best to proceed for the most effective use of public resources. The UCS lacks a conventional analysis of return on investment (ROI) and comparisons of the opportunity costs of pursuing specific projects and proposed project scenarios.

Competing Trail Designs The failure to accurately identify the differences between the so called “Trail Only” and the “Trail with Rail” designs ripples through every aspect of the evaluation process. The differences between the two trail designs is significant and has a profound effect on determining the potential number of users and evaluating the level of service, environmental

32 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

impact, aesthetics, transportation performance, ridership, accessibility, GHG emissions reductions, community identity and branding, tourism, effects on land values, etc. Nevertheless, the UCS rates both trail systems as nearly identical in terms of performance measures. This is a glaring error and undermines the credibility of all the study’s data. The term “Trail Only” does not accurately account for the utility of a wide, general purpose roadway that is integral to the Greenway proposal. In addition to accommodating both passive and pedal assist vehicles, the proposed 16-foot Bikeway or Cycle Path would also serve a new class of all-weather pedal assist or “Bio-Hybrid” vehicles as well as miniature multi-passenger jitneys or trams. The key to this is the extra width that is simply not available in the RWT design.

Highway 1 Projects Scenario A contains a combination of Tier II Highway 1 construction plans for Auxiliary Lanes and the subsequent Tier I construction of HOV lanes and the widening or replacement of interchanges and overcrossings necessary to accommodate three discrete lanes in each direction. It is baffling that the RTC Staff and consultants chose not to evaluate the use of the new lane pair for transit and toll priority to support private and public mass transit vehicles. HOT/Express Lanes and the use of electronic toll collection technologies provides the means to apply congestion pricing strategies to discourage single occupancy trips and incentivize carpool and vanpool use as well as prioritizing mass transit uses such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

The UCS highway project cost estimates show that approximately 85% of the Tier I cost alone are the result of modifying or replacing highway interchanges and overcrossings. It is imperative that with this level of highway infrastructure investment that future overcrossing projects be designed to accommodate mass transit uses such as Bus Rapid Transit and connections to transit hubs at strategic locations in the county. New overcrossings along with dedicated access ramps (DARs) and causeways at Dominican Hospital, Cabrillo College, Rio Del Mar and Freedom Boulevard would connect the Hwy 1 and the Soquel/Freedom corridors and are obvious locations for multimodal transit stations. The data shows that there is a need today for congestion relief, yet many of the Tier 1 project completion dates are assumed to be more than twenty out. This is disturbing given the latest information on the rate and severity of global climate change and the need for immediate and significant reductions in GHG emissions. Meanwhile, congestion delays impart a significant economic and human toll on mid and south county commuters on a daily basis. The overall impression is that there is no sense of urgency on the part of the RTC Staff to develop plans and strategies that could result in fast tracking solutions.

Summary of issues with the UCS • No attempt at overall strategic planning or to identify the sequence or phasing of transportation projects. • Triple Bottom Line analysis does not account for the collective ROI or consider the number of years to achieve significant results for specific projects or groupings of projects (scenarios). • The scenarios are not organized or prioritized with specific goals in mind such as congestion relief, transit improvements, traffic safety, project cost, etc. • There are numerous examples of either errors of omission or bias with respect to the rating and comparison of the so called “Trail Only” and “Trail with Rail” options.

33 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

• The Trail Only analysis fails to account for the fact that there is a marked difference in the predicted “level of service” (LOS) with the Greenway proposal for a wider, separated bike and pedestrian facility that is engineered for Active Transportation and designed for ADA compliance. • The failure to study the Greenway vision of a linear park with a Bike and Pedestrian facility designed for Active Transportation does a disservice to the more than 10,000 Greenway supporters that have expressed interest in the development of a better trail system as an improvement to the MBSST in the coastal corridor. • There is a need to evaluate the potential of dedicated Toll and Transit lanes on Hwy 1 along with the implementation infrastructure improvements that support the development of Bus Rapid Transit and multimodal transit hubs at strategic location in the County. • There is a need for a comparative study of BRT in the Highway 1 corridor as an alternative to passenger rail service in the rail corridor. BRT is faster, more flexible, lower cost, leverages our existing highway infrastructure and Metro system. BRT could serve the places where people drive to now (Cabrillo College, Dominican Hospital complex, UCSC, Scotts Valley, 17 Express Park and Ride, Santa Clara County destinations and VTA connections).

Potential Opportunities • Replacing the pair of RR bridges in Aptos, ramp metering, BRT Lite and protected bike lanes on Soquel Ave are all projects that have merit and should done. The issue is phasing and priority. The highest priority should be the Aptos bridges as they are required for Bus on Shoulder to work and for the eventual construction of dedicated HOV/HOT lanes. They will serve RWT, Bus in the Rail Corridor and a Trail Only plan equally well. We can’t wait 20 years to start. • The study of emerging transportation technologies should be included in the UCS to evaluate the potential for dedicated HOV/HOT lanes to accelerate the adoption of Autonomous Vehicles for mass transit. HOT in the Hwy corridor could attract Google, Uber and others working on AT to develop and innovate in Santa Cruz County. • The general-purpose roadway of the Greenway would support E-Bikes and a new class of pedal assist all-weather vehicles designed for utility use and potentially available through ride share programs. Velomobiles could function as PRT without the need for fixed guideways.

Conclusions The goal moving forward should be to shift the focus to projects that a clear majority of the community will support and that address our most critical transportation deficiencies. Projects need to be solution oriented, prioritized by community need and the ability to reduce GHG emissions in the shortest timeframe possible. The emphasis should be on health, safety, mobility, efficiency, environmental stewardship and affordability. We need to challenge the notion that transportation projects necessarily need to take decades to complete. It is time for a new approach using public and private investment and a proactive engagement with Caltrans and local government agencies to build multimodal transit hubs that link our major transit corridors and provide realistic transit options for the tens of thousands of people that drive today.

34 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

There are faster, better and cheaper solutions that could provide mobility options to an order of magnitude more users than identified in the UCS. A tremendous amount of effort, expense and good will has been spent by the RTC Staff on attempts to make the railroad and passenger rail “inevitable”. It is time for the RTC to change its priorities. It is time to stop pushing for a train that won’t help the underserved in our county, won’t move the needle in terms of GHG emissions and doesn’t go to where tens of thousands of people are going to now. Optimizing the Coastal Corridor with a facility designed for recreation and Active Transportation at the human scale and the Highway and Soquel Corridor for HOV, BRT and Toll provides the tools to enforce congestion pricing and incentivize multi-passenger vehicle use. Linking the corridors at multi-modal stations and developing direct access ramps and causeways at strategic locations leverages our investment in public roads and highways. It is time to identify, study and deliver projects that can optimize transportation and mobility options across the three major corridors in the County with clearly demonstrable metrics and true transparency.

I would encourage the RTC Board and Staff to go back and re-watch the videos of the presentations and the Q & A sessions from each of the “Innovators in Transportation” speaker series. There are many important ideas that have not made it into the current UCS. High among them is that prototyping and incremental improvements along with honest analysis results in better outcomes. There is a lot of common ground between stakeholders and lot of creativity and passion in our community. More work is needed to gain alignment and consensus on a few of the big issues. The RTC Board should not be bound to an arbitrary schedule to decide on one scenario or another, but rather should be working to identify best practices and innovations that can truly solve our transportation issues. We need to be sure that we are working towards effective solutions and not following a process that is moving us towards a dead end. Please consider these comments when evaluating your next steps.

Thank you for your service and dedication. Respectfully,

William Menchine

From: Dianne Dryer < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Comment on UCIS - Support Scenario B

I attended the October UCIS public meeting and have reviewed the Step 2 Analysis Results. I strongly urge you to select Scenario B, trail and rail.

Scenario B is the best choice because it provides the most safety, use of public transit, environmental sustainability, social equity and local economic benefits. And it qualifies for future State Rail Funding. People of all abilities will use it.

35 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The rail corridor should be used for both a trail and future electric rail transit. It’s our only hope to reduce vehicle miles travelled, which is critically important to reducing the terrible impacts of the climate crisis.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dianne Dryer Santa Cruz

From: Brett Garrett Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Validating UCS data

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff, Given that the Unified Corridor Investment Study has not been subjected to peer review, I strongly suggest due diligence in making sure the results are accurate or at least plausible. Mode share and transit VMT are two areas where I have struggled with plausibility, trying (and failing) to estimate each project's contribution to the whole scenario to form a cohesive understanding of the benefits of each project.

As part of the due diligence, I suggest working with the consultants to "fill in the blanks" below, taking the time to step back and confirm if the numbers actually make sense (for example, projected bus ridership compared with today's bus ridership).

Scenario B Transit Mode Share

I am skeptical of the 6% projected countywide Transit Mode Share for Scenario B, so I would like to verify that the numbers add up correctly. No-build transit ridership: 27,541 per day (based on 2.9% mode share of 949,700 total daily trips) or ... 22,924 based on new FAQ posted online today Passenger Rail ridership: 7396 per day New ridership attributable to Soquel/Freedom BRT: ______per day New ridership attributable to bus-on-shoulder: ______per day New ridership attributable to local bus transit connection to rail: ______per day The sum of the above numbers, minus any overlap (for example, train riders who were already counted in no-build transit ridership) should be (approximately) 56,982 trips per day, based on 6.0% of (approximately) 949,700 total daily transit trips. We have not been told the expected total daily transit trips for Scenario B, but it may be important information available from the consultant. I assume it is relatively close to the 949,700 mentioned in the FAQ. (After I wrote most of the above, I saw the FAQ suggesting the total Scenario B transit ridership should be 40,443. If that's countywide, it appears to be inconsistent with the other

36 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

information that has been provided. If that's not countywide, it should be clarified. All UCS data should clearly indicate if it's countywide, project area only, or some other scope.)

Transit VMT Even though I think Transit VMT is a poor measure of transit success, I was surprised that I could not find any plausible way to complete the blanks so that the numbers add up properly. Therefore, I am very curious to know the correct numbers.

Transit VMT calculation (in millions) Scenario: A B C E No-build 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.61 Hwy 1 bus on shoulder Hwy 1 bus in HOV lane Soquel/Freedom BRT Lite + freq Passenger Rail Transit New local bus connection to rail Rail Corridor BRT Total (from UCS) 5.74 6.65 6.11 5.23 Thank you! Sincerely, Brett Garrett

From: Mary Miller Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS Option B

Dear RTC,

Thank you all for all you do. The immeasurable hours you spend making important decisions will impact my kids and grandkids for years to come. I was very eager to hear the results of the comprehensive Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS) recently published the by Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

I have always felt the best option is to keep our options open - keeping the rail while building the trail. I was so encouraged to discover UCS found that very scenario - B - which includes both passenger rail and a multi-use trail in the rail corridor is the very best option when considering public safety, protecting the environment, promoting cycling, improving social equity, increasing use of public transit and benefiting the local economy. Hooray! Now you can all put this in place, put pen to paper and make this happen. I strongly support the rail with trail option B to ensure our options for the future.

Thank you again, for your time.

Best regards, Mary Miller

37 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Bud Colligan < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:14 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: take the time to build consensus and get the UCS right

Dear RTC,

Please take the time to do the right governing rather than expedient political thing to do. The following points are additional input into the UCS beyond what I have already provided:

1. None of the scenarios do enough to reduce roadway congestion, reverse GHG emissions or plan for emerging transportation technologies. We have 10 years to reverse directions. We can’t afford to waste 20 years on ineffective solutions. 2. The UCS “Trail Only” analysis completely fails to evaluate the true health and safety benefits of an “all-in” plan like the Greenway for a better Bike and Pedestrian facility as the backbone of the MBSST. The lack of an analysis of a better trail system is a breach of the public trust and a failure of the UCS process. This must be addressed and corrected. 3. Santa Cruz County has an opportunity to lead the nation with truly innovative and integrated transportation solutions that improve mobility and public health. The Board needs to show leadership by prioritizing and gaining consensus to address the key issues of congestion, safety, GHG reduction and providing cost effective mobility options. 4. The public need mass transit solutions that are faster, cheaper and better than driving solo to address the millions of vehicle miles traveled each day by county residents going to places that they go to now. No train proposal comes even close to addressing the issue. The UCS needs to study Bus Rapid Transit and prioritized HOT lanes that connect with the major source of automobile trips today (Cabrillo College, Dominican Hospital complex, UCSC, Scotts Valley and Hwy 17, downtown Watsonville and Santa Cruz. 5. Most of the projects identified in the UCS are non-controversial and should be done as a matter of course. They need to be prioritized, funded and developed. There is need for more analysis and a focus on a “top down” solution to solving our worse problems ASAP. It is impossible for the public or the RTC Board to make informed decisions on the best and highest use of the three corridors if viable mass transit and mobility options have not been studied or properly evaluated. 6. The new RTC Executive Director should have an opportunity to fully evaluate the UCS and suggest alternative projects and strategies to meet our transportation goals. There has been an ongoing strategy led by the outgoing ED and RTC Staff to make the Branch Line Railroad and passenger rail service “inevitable”. This has tainted all aspects of the UCS report and must be addressed. 7. The RTC Board should encourage Staff to evaluate new ideas that were presented by speakers and the public at the transportation speaker series. There is a lot of common ground between stakeholders and lot of creativity and passion in the community. More work is needed to gain alignment and consensus on the big issues. The RTC Board should not be bound to an arbitrary schedule to decide on one scenario or another, but rather should be working to identify best practices and innovations that can help to solve our transportation issues. We need to be sure that we are working towards effective solutions and not following a process that is moving us towards a dead end.

Regards, Bud Colligan Co-Chair, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership 38 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Keith Otto < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:03 PM To: SCC-RTC-UCS Subject: SCC RTC UCIS - Recommendations To Commission For Meeting On 11/15/2018

SCC RTC -

Please be responsible stewards of public funds.

Do NOT invest in rail (beyond freight service in Watsonville, which is already up and running, and used by businesses there). Additional rail services will be costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will not be amply utilized. Further investment in rail will not deliver an acceptable cost / benefit ratio.

DO invest in Highway 1 and bus services which can provide more timely and useful solutions to our transportation challenges.

Any decisions by the SCC RTC should be put to the voters to be approved only with a 2/3 majority.

Thank you!

Regards, Keith

Keith Otto

39 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Rick Longinotti < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 3:12 PM Cc: [email protected]; Ginger Dykaar ; Grace Blakeslee ; John Leopold ; [email protected]; Zach Friend ; Ryan Coonerty ; Greg Caput ; [email protected]; Jacques Bertrand ; Sandy Brown ; Randy Johnson ; [email protected]; Cynthia Chase ; [email protected]; George Dondero Subject: CFST comments on UCIS

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Attached are the comments that represent the consensus of the members of Campaign for Sustainable Transportation. Please contact me if you would like to discuss.

Thanks for reading.

-Rick

40 The Campaign for Sustainable Transportation Rick Longinotti, Co-chair [email protected]

November 2, 2018

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS).

At a recent meeting of the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation, one member held up the following graph from the UCS showing reductions in CO2 emissions by 2035. In that moment, all of us recognized that all of the scenarios would produce roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions, with the No Build Scenario actually outperforming Scenarios A and E.

The fact that the scenarios do not achieve substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions beyond the No Build Alternative means they are out of step with the recent call from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a 45% reduction in GHG’s by 2035. To accomplish that goal, our County needs to do its part to bring about a comprehensive transformation of our transportation systems.

The scenarios also don’t perform well on social equity. For low-income households, the percentage of income spent on transportation would increase by 2035 in all scenarios.

If you are disappointed that these scenarios costing between $780 million and 1.2 billion fail to address the existential environmental issue of our time or even reduce transportation costs for low- income people, then we share your disappointment.

We suggest that the reason for the disappointing performance is that all scenarios would invest in expanding auto capacity. An increase in vehicle miles traveled would result from this expansion, at a

41 The Campaign for Sustainable Transportation Rick Longinotti, Co-chair [email protected] rate of 8%-12% across the scenarios. With more cars on the road, it is not surprising that commuters will spend as many hours in the morning commute as they would under the No Build scenario.

In a focus group meeting, the staff at Kimley Horn acknowledge the importance of accounting for induced travel when estimating travel time savings of auto expansion projects. They report that the traffic model used for these estimates does not take into account induced travel. So expect worse congestion than the estimates depict.

On top of that, the UCS tells us that without government regulation, expansion of ride services (TNCs) and automated vehicles will increase road congestion beyond the UCS estimates.

We consider the conclusion to be self-evident: the Commission should remove from consideration projects that expand auto capacity, instead prioritizing transit and active transportation.

In so doing, the Commission will bring about a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, increase the opportunities for households to reduce their car ownership or miles driven (and hence their transportation expense), contribute to the safe walkability and public health of our communities.

As assembled, the UCIS scenarios fall short on multiple key performance factors, reflecting the futility of expanding highway capacity, and the negative environmental and social consequences of doing so. Any message implying that further expansion of Highway 1 will create a lasting benefit to commuters is contradicted by international studies on induced travel and now by the Unified Corridors Investment Study. We also note that the UCIS estimates zero state and federal dollars forthcoming for the HOV lane project. It’s time for all of us who are aware of these facts to share them with those in the community who believe that highway expansion will improve their daily lives. The sooner members of our community turn away from the false promise of highway expansion, the sooner we will reach consensus on prioritizing transit and active transportation.

Further recommendations from the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation: 1. Because the Draft EIR on Highway 1 projects estimates no safety benefit and insignificant congestion relief from the “TSM Alternative”, we conclude that building a portion of the TSM Alternative, 4 miles of auxiliary lanes funded by Measure D, would bring no community benefit. We suggest that if the Commission drops the ambition to build the HOV lane project, that you also withdraw support for the Measure D auxiliary lane project. 2. The cost of bus-on-shoulder should be estimated without assuming that auxiliary lanes will be built. Widening Hwy 1 for auxiliary lanes would result in far more width than is needed for bus on shoulder. 3. The expansion of auto capacity at intersections worsens the safety of bicycling and walking. We need to transform our intersections to make them more conducive to active transportation, not less! 4. Making transit a priority means we need to preserve the option of transit on the rail corridor.

Thanks!

42 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Brett Garrett < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 2:56 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Peter Muller < > Subject: Consultant Report regarding PRT/ATN

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

I am pleased to provide the attached report which demonstrates how our community can benefit from a Personal Rapid Transit system. This report focuses on technology that is in service and available today and ready to be built in any community that wants to improve transportation, improve safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce long-term expenses.

As you know, I have suggested for you to study a PRT system that would extend from Santa Cruz to Aptos. This report takes a larger view, extending the system to include Watsonville and Pajaro Station. Based on modeling techniques that are explained in the report, this large system is expected to achieve at least five times the passenger rail ridership shown in the UCS FAQ for Scenario B.

In addition to demonstrating that PRT/ATN can achieve better results than Scenario B for all 13 key UCS criteria, the report provides realistic steps toward implementation. In particular, ATN has almost infinite capability to be scaled up or down. It would be possible to start with a simple two-station demonstration shuttle system and to scale up from there in phases. As new routes and stations are added, the new stations will be accessible from the old with no transfers being necessary. The portion of the system from Santa Cruz to Aptos is likely to be very viable as a stand-alone system that could cover its own operating costs and most, if not all, of its capital costs through fare-box revenue. It is likely that an ATN system can be acquired under a design/build/finance/operate/maintain/transfer procurement model requiring little to no upfront funding. The supplier team would finance the project and receive payments over time in return for ensuring the system is available for public use meeting predetermined criteria. Technical and business failure risks would be protected by performance and payment bonds ensuring all debts will be paid and the system will be removed if it fails to work.

My first request to Commissioners and Staff is to please review this report carefully and with an open mind. I suggest strong consideration of engaging your own consultants to confirm and validate the information that we are providing.

My second request to Commissioners and Staff is to please ensure that all UCS decisions, including possible choice of a preferred scenario, are worded very carefully to "leave the door open" for additional study and possible implementation of new or alternative technologies, including PRT/ATN, that may provide better results for our community than the bus, train, and highway construction scenarios that are currently under consideration.

43 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

PRT Consulting specializes in driverless transit and was founded in 2005. The company has completed projects for cities, counties, airports, and private corporations around the world. Let's think out of the box, and above the ground. Santa Cruz County can be a leader in implementing the bold solutions that are needed by our planet, our climate, and our community. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Brett Garrett

44 UNIFIED CORRIDOR INVESTMENT STUDY AUTOMATED TRANSIT NETWORK ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPTUAL EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION “The objective of the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS) is to identify multimodal transportation investments that provide the most effective use of Highway 1, Soquel Ave/Soquel Dr/Freedom Blvd, and the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line to serve the community’s transportation needs.” 1 The UCS considered bus transit, rail transit, auto, bike/ped and rail freight modes. It also considered automated vehicles/connected vehicles even though those modes are still emerging. Despite this multi-modal approach, the study completely ignores a mode that has been operating in public service since 1975. This mode is called automated transit networks (ATN – an umbrella term for personal and group rapid transit - PRT & GRT). ATN suppliers such as Vectus, Ultra, Modutram and 2getthere have had ATN systems in continuous public service since 1999 2 . ATN systems have completed over 200 million injury-free passenger miles.

The purpose of this paper is to document why the UCS should add ATN to the modes considered. This is accomplished by addressing each of the performance measures used in the UCS in turn, with emphasis being placed on comparison with Scenario B, understood to be the likely preferred scenario.

Figure 1. ATN Systems in Public Service

1 SCCRTC’s Unified Corridor Investment Study, Step 2 Analysis Results, Draft, September 2018, by Kimley Horn 2 Video clip of ATN systems in operation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IM5299tXcw&

1 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

45 AUTOMATED TRANSIT NETWORKS

DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION Automated transit networks (ATN) is an umbrella term for two ATN DEFINITION concepts that are now merging into one. These are personal rapid transit (PRT) and group rapid transit (GRT). PRT was • Small driverless conceived to use small (2 – 6 seated passengers) driverless vehicles vehicles carrying individuals or parties travelling together nonstop from origin to destination and not sharing rides with • Exclusive guideways strangers. GRT uses large driverless vehicles (up to 20 or even 30 seated and/or standing passengers) which often wait before • Offline stations departing to encourage ride sharing and stop at intermediate • stations if necessary. Modern PRT systems generally have 4 On-board switching to 6 seats, encourage ride sharing and may make an intermediate stop or two. Other terms for these systems include ATN CHARACTERISTICS Podcars (commonly used in Sweden) and Pod Taxis (commonly used in India). This study refers to these systems • Short wait times as PRT, GRT or ATN as appropriate. • On-demand service ATN systems provide a very high level of service and • passengers have no need to know routes, schedules or Mostly nonstop transfer points. All they need to know is the name of their • Seated travel destination station. • High reliability Table 1 on the following page provides a comparison of PRT with cars and conventional transit. • Very safe

ATN systems proven in public service have capacities ranging from 2,000 to 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) and maximum speeds ranging from 25 to 43 miles per hour. Higher capacities and speeds up to 20,000 pphpd and 60 mph are under development now that the American Society of Civil Engineers has agreed to adapt their Automated People Mover Standards to better apply to ATN systems. The maximum speed assumed in this study is 40 mph while the maximum capacity assumed is 5,000 pphpd.

2 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

46 TABLE 1. COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSIT, CAR AND PRT (Source: PRT Consulting)

3 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

47 SOLUTIONS PROVEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE

The Ultra PRT System The Ultra system is rubber-tired, battery- powered, and runs on an open guideway. The front wheels are steerable, and the vehicle keeps itself on the guideway without any physical lateral guidance (using lasers), simplifying switching, which is accomplished by steering. This system has been in operation at London’s Heathrow International Airport since April 2011. The commitment to using off-the- shelf technology, wherever possible, coupled with a rigorous testing and development program, has allowed the Ultra system to be the first modern PRT Figure 2. Ultra PRT Vehicle on Elevated Guideway system to win a commercial contract. Heathrow Airport has expressed its satisfaction with the system by including significant expansion in its budget. However, it is understood that construction of a new runway may obliterate the existing system and alter the plans for expansion.

The Ultra vehicle was designed for four adults, plus luggage. However, Heathrow has opted to replace the bucket seats with bench seats, allowing the vehicle to carry a family of six. Commuter versions of this vehicle are anticipated to include two jump seats allowing six adults to be accommodated.

Open guideway PRT, such as that used by Ultra and 2getthere, tends to be more economical, but the rubber/guideway interface can be problematic during inclement weather conditions. Ultra has plans to address this issue, by using a glass fiber reinforced plastic grating as the riding surface. Preliminary testing by PRT Consulting in the winters of 2006 and 2007 has shown this solution to be very successful in mitigating the effects of Colorado snowfall.

Ultra PRT Ltd. is under new ownership that is aggressively marketing the system in Asia. They are reducing costs by implementing vehicle manufacture in India and other means. They are also developing a next-generation control system to allow higher speeds and shorter headways intended to increase capacity while reducing costs. Figure 3. 2getthere’s Third-Generation GRT Vehicle

4 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

48 The 2getthere GRT System 2getthere, a Dutch company, has been operating an automated GRT-like shuttle bus system, in cooperation with Frog Navigation Systems in Rotterdam, Holland, since 1999. They are delivering their second GRT system using third- generation vehicles in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. This system will have 25 vehicles and a capacity up to 5,000 pphpd. A third system is being delivered to Brussels Airport. The vehicles are capable of speeds up to 37 mph. Operation in mixed traffic is possible with top speeds up to about 30 mph.

The 2getthere PRT System 2getthere’s true PRT system was the first of its kind when it went into operation in Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates in November 2010.

2gethere’s PRT system is of the open guideway type, with somewhat similar Figure 4. 2getthere PRT Vehicles in Station attributes to those of the Ultra system.

The Vectus PRT System Vectus is a subsidiary of POSCO, one of the world’s largest steel manufacturers. Despite being a British company owned and operated by Koreans, Vectus chose to establish a full-size test track, with an offline station, in Sweden to prove operability in winter weather conditions and to meet the rigorous Swedish safety requirements. They have now accomplished both goals and moved on to implement a system in South Korea.

The Vectus system is of the captive-bogey type, where the undercarriage, or bogey, is Figure 5. Vectus PRT Vehicles in Station not steerable, but has wheels which run along vertical side elements, thus, keeping the vehicle on the guideway. Switching is accomplished by movable wheels mounted on the vehicle. The test track vehicles were propelled (and braked) by linear induction motors mounted in the guideway. Mounting the motors in the guideway reduces the weight of the vehicles but increases the cost of the guideway. This is advantageous for high-capacity systems, but expensive for low-capacity systems. Their first application in Suncheon Bay, South Korea, uses

5 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

49 conventional rotary motors which obtain wayside (third rail) power. Propulsion batteries are not required, allowing the vehicles to be lighter in weight.

The Vectus Vehicle is designed to carry four or six seated adults, plus their luggage. In an urban transportation mode, the vehicle can also accommodate up to six standees.

The Modutram ATN System While not yet in public service, the Modutram system has been included here because of the extensiveness of its test track and demonstration program. A public project is understood to be imminent.

Modutram, is being developed as a university effort with considerable funding from the Mexican government. This system is comprised of rubber-tired vehicles operating on a steel track. The Figure 6. Modutram PRT Vehicles Leaving Station vehicles have electric motors that are battery-powered.

The Modutram system has been designed specifically for the Mexican climate and is not initially intended to be capable of operating satisfactorily in snow and ice conditions. Development has progressed fairly smoothly from the initial design through a small test track to a larger test track with two stations and, more recently, a demonstration system that carries passengers in six-passenger vehicles.

Modutram appears well suited for urban operations. The system is designed for speeds up to 40 mph with minimum headways of 3 to 4 seconds. Vehicles can be physically coupled together to increase capacity.

SOLUTIONS NOT YET PROVEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE Numerous ATN systems are in various stages of development ranging from being mere concepts to having engineering design completed and prototype systems in various stages of development. Some of the better-known names include JPods, Metrino, Futran (Milotek), PRT International, skyTran, Swift ATN and Transit X. Taxi 2000 recently closed its doors after decades of being unable to fund a full-scale test track demonstrating full functionality, the same hurdle that is holding many of the previously-mentioned systems from emerging onto the market.

Some of these emerging suppliers make aggressive claims regarding the costs and capabilities of their systems. These claims have typically not been proven in practice and have therefore been ignored in this study. Should high speeds and capacities become viable at very low costs, this will further enhance the feasibility of the solutions discussed here.

More information on ATN can be found here: www.prtconsulting.com and here: www.advancedtransit.org

6 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

50 CONCEPTUAL ATN LAYOUT A conceptual layout (Figures 7 and 8) has been developed for purposes of comparison with the Scenario B rail project. Like the rail project, it extends along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way from the Westside of Santa Cruz to Pajaro Station near Watsonville. Unlike the rail project, portions of the alignment (mostly those through developed areas) are one-way with return one-way guideways located in the adjacent communities, mostly along the Soquel Avenue/Drive BRT routes. These return guideways are elevated to facilitate retrofitting into existing road rights-of-way. Portions of the alignment within the rail right-of-way are also elevated to avoid at-grade crossings with other traffic (a key factor contributing to ATN safety and reliability).

Figure 7. Conceptual ATN Layout Santa Cruz to Aptos

Note that the routing and station locations shown are in no way intended to be final. The southern portion of the route could serve Freedom Blvd. (equivalent to BRT Lite in the UCS) or Highway 1. It could do so as a two-way line or it could be in the form of a one-way loop. In the latter case it would provide service/stations along two of the three routes (the rail corridor, Freedom Blvd. and Highway 1). It would also be possible to extend the system to UCSC and/or other destinations. If a goal is to improve circulation within Santa Cruz (for example), more guideway could be added, including additional north-south connectors with new stations between the loops shown.

ATN has almost infinite capability to be scaled up or down. It would be possible to start with a simple two- station demonstration shuttle system and to scale up from there in phases. As new routes and stations are added, the new stations will be accessible from the old with no transfers being necessary. The portion of the system from Santa Cruz to Aptos is likely to be very viable as a stand-alone system that could cover its own operating costs and most, if not all, of its capital costs through fare-box revenue.

7 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

51 Figure 8. Conceptual ATN Layout Aptos to Watsonville

TABLE 2. CONCEPTUAL ATN LAYOUT CHARACTERISTICS Feature Quantity At-Grade Track Length (miles) 20 At-Grade Stations 5 Elevated Track Length (miles) 38 Elevated Stations 52 Average Speed (mph) 39 Trip Time Santa Cruz to Watsonville (mins) 30

The ability of ATN to achieve a 39-mph average speed with a 40-mph maximum speed derives from the fact that all stations are offline, requiring no slowing of through vehicles. Note that slowing for horizontal alignment characteristics (tight curves – of which there are few) has been accounted for.

A single at-grade ATN track only requires about seven feet of right-of-way. The ATN may thus be able to co-exist with the existing rail line allowing for freight operations. However, the assumption has been made here that the rail track will be removed, and those costs have been accounted for.

8 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

52 CONCEPTUAL ATN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS – 2035 FORECASTS This section provides a conceptual analysis of the ATN alternative with particular reference to passenger rail and bus rapid transit as envisioned for Scenario B (understood to presently be preferred by some community groups).

SAFETY Automated guideway transit is held to a far higher standard of safety (American Society of Civil Engineers Automated People Movers Standards) than any other mode of surface transportation. ATN operates on exclusive guideways separated from pedestrians and traffic. There are no crossings, only merges and diverges. The results speak for themselves – over 200 million injury-free passenger miles. Couple this with the fact that ATN’s higher level of service attracts more passengers than any other transit mode and it is clear that ATN will significantly increase safety over any other solution.

RELIABILITY AND EFFICIENCY ATN systems for which data is publicly available (Heathrow Airport and Masdar City) are operating at availabilities more than 99.5%. This is five times more reliable than transit level of service A (97.5%).

Peak Period Mean Auto Travel Time While an analysis of the impacts of ATN on auto travel time has not been undertaken, the significantly higher mode share with ATN (see below) will result in fewer autos on the road than with other transit modes and thus should have a greater positive impact on congestion and travel speeds.

Peak Period Mean Transit Travel Time Referring to UCS Table 17, the ATN average travel time of 30 minutes between Downtown Watsonville and Downtown Santa Cruz is better than the average AM and PM peak period auto times of 52 and 60 minutes respectively. Referring to UCS Table 35, Scenario B, it is also better than the best bus time of 53.6 minutes and the passenger rail time of 41.0 minutes and considerably better than the worst bus time of 83.7 minutes.

Travel Time Reliability ATN systems are designed to avoid traffic jams. Overcrowding results in people waiting a bit longer in stations which encourages ridesharing and thus boosts capacity at the time it is most needed. Trip times are always the same between any two stations with the small exception that some passengers may have a small detour or an intermediate stop or two if they have agreed to rideshare. Even these passengers will be able to count on very little daily variability in trip and waiting times.

Mode Share The mode share for ATN has been based on the transit mode share for Scenario B adjusted to account for changes in waiting and travel times as well as revenue miles. The transit mode share for Scenario B includes 7,396 rail boardings per day (10/16/18 UCS FAQ) and an unstated number of bus boardings per

9 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

53 day. Based on boardings reported by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, Route 91X, the Santa Cruz/Watsonville Express has 704 daily boardings and Route 71, Santa Cruz to Watsonville has 1,920 daily boardings.

The following discussion explains how bus daily ridership and ATN daily and peak period ridership were estimated for Scenario B from this information.

The analysis was based on work done by Liu3 and uses a Logit Model to estimate changes in mode share based on modal preferences and changes in trip times. Mode preference is the extra time a person would spend to use their preferred mode. For example, people have been shown to be willing to take a 25- minute longer trip by car rather than catch a bus. Public stated-preference surveys by PRT Consulting have shown ATN mode preference over bus to be higher than auto but, to be conservative, it has been assumed to be the average of auto (25 minutes) and rail (10 minutes). Transit wait times have been assumed to be the square root of peak headway as per UCS Table 11. Since the number of bus stops varies, the first and last mile times for all systems have both been assumed to be five minutes. The BRT times have been averaged into one time. The average fare per trip was assumed to be the same for all modes ($5.50 per trip) and was therefore not a factor.

The Logit Model can predict the increase or decrease in ridership of a given mode based on the known ridership and any changes in service level (headways, first- and last-mile times and travel times). With the addition of modal preference values, it can be used to predict the ridership if one mode is replaced with another.

First, the Logit Model was used to estimate the BRT boardings in Scenario B. To do this, the model calculated the number of BRT boardings that would result if passenger rail, which produced 7,396 boardings, was paralleled with BRT service running a mile or so away through roughly similar neighborhoods. The characteristics of the rail and BRT service used in the model are shown in Table 3. The result was 1,479 BRT trips. This seemed low relative to the existing boardings and the BRT boardings were increased by 30% to 1,920 (the same as Route 71) to be conservative.

Next, the model was run in the same manner using the factors in Table 3 to predict the number of ATN boardings that would result if the rail system was replaced by an ATN system (22,800) and, secondly, if the BRT system was replaced with an ATN system (28,100). These results total 50,900 ATN boardings.

Table 3 shows the assumptions for each mode and the resulting ATN trips.

TABLE 3. RIDERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS (SCENARIO B) Mode Headway Wait First + Last Travel Mode Boardings Time Mile Time Preference Passenger Rail 30 5.5 10 41.0 10 7,396 BRT (estimated average) 15 3.9 10 70.5 0 1,920 ATN 1 1.0 10 30.0 17.5 50,900

3 Liu, R et al (1997), “Assessment of Intermodal Transfer Penalties Using Stated Preference Data”, Transportation Research Record 1607 pp 74-80

10 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

54 To test the accuracy of the Logit Model, it was used (in a previous project) to predict the bus ridership on the Red Route in Clemson, South Carolina, based on the actual automobile ridership and the differences in trip characteristics between the auto and bus trips. The model was run twice with slightly different factors each time. It predicted an average bus ridership of 3,459 which was 4% higher than the actual bus ridership of 3,239.

To compare the Logit Model to the model used in the UCS, it was used to predict the ridership on BRT in the rail corridor based on the rail ridership and the difference between the rail and BRT characteristics. The characteristics used are shown in Table 4 below. The first/last mile times used reflect the fact that the BRT has twice the number of stations as the passenger rail.

TABLE 4. RIDERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS (RAIL & BRT IN RAIL CORRIDOR) Mode Headway Wait Time First + Last Travel Mode Boardings Mile Time Preference Scenario B Rail 30 5.5 15 41.0 10 7,396 Scenario C BRT 15 3.9 7.5 65.1 0 3,698

The 3,698 predicted BRT trips are 251 (6%) less than the 3,949 predicted by the UCS (10/16/18 FAQ).

The results in Table 3 above are consistent with those of other investigators around the world as illustrated in Figure 9, which is based on studies undertaken in the named cities using a variety of methodologies.

Part of the reason the ATN system does so well is that it covers both the rail and the Soquel BRT routes and would undoubtedly also pick up traffic from the local bus routes (a factor not accounted for above). This is largely because, unlike BRT, ATN combines high average speeds with numerous stations. Figure 9. Transit Mode Share With and Without ATN Note that savings in local bus operating costs have not been accounted for here.

The 50,900 daily ATN boardings result in about 3,000 ATN pphpd in the peak hour (assuming 10% of trips are in the peak hour and a 60/40 directional split), which is less than the previously-selected maximum line capacity for this project of 5,000. The projected ATN boardings are not out of line with the 13,900 average daily boardings reported in 2010 for the Morgantown PRT system which only has five stations4.

To estimate countywide mode share, it was anticipated that bus ridership for UCSC and Highway 17 will exceed the current level of at least 11,000 daily trips5, for a countywide total of at least 61,900 daily

4 PRT Facilities Master Plan, West Virginia University, by Gannett Fleming, Lea+Elliott, Olszak, June 2010 5 Santa Cruz Metro, Comprehensive Operational Analysis, January 2016

11 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

55 transit trips. Therefore, assuming a total of 947,700 daily trips for all modes (10/16/18 UCS FAQ) the countywide transit mode share with ATN is likely 6.53% or better, exceeding the anticipated result for Scenario B.

Despite the comparisons and justifications, some will doubt the ability of high-quality transit with reliable express, on-demand service, numerous stations and short waiting times to attract riders. The ATN boardings have therefore been reduced 25% in the following analyses. This results in a daily ATN ridership of 38,800.

ECONOMIC VITALITY

Public Investment The UCS revenue analysis appears to ignore fare-box revenues. This analysis assumes fare-box revenues at the average rate of $5.50 per boarding. In addition, to obtain a true comparison of the total cost of each system, the operating costs and fare-box revenues are estimated over a life of 30 years, assuming the 2035 ridership represents the average ridership. The daily boardings have been multiplied by 300 to determine annual boardings. The daily boardings are for weekday ridership and the 300 multiplier is used in place of 365 to account for lower ridership on weekends and holidays.

TABLE 5. TOTAL COST COMPARISON (SCENARIO B) (All figures in thousands of year 2018 dollars, except subsidy per ride in 2018 dollars) Mode Capital O&M Costs Fare-Box Revenue Total Net Cost Subsidy Cost Over 30 Years Over 30 Years Over 30 Years Per Ride ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($) Soquel/Freedom BRT + bus-on- $44,863 $534,000 -$95,040 $483,823 $28.00?6 shoulder (1,920 daily boardings) Rail (7,396 daily $339,800 $420,000 -$366,100 $393,700 $5.91 boardings) Scenario B Total $384,663 $954,000 -$446,142 $877,521 $10.47 ATN (38,800 daily $1,403,500 $1,158,000 -$1,920,600 $640,900 $1.84 boardings)

Even though table 5 shows that the ATN solution is considerably more expensive, it attracts far more passengers and thus has higher fare-box revenues. The ATN system more than covers its own operating costs through fare-box revenues (almost unheard of for US transit systems). In order to also cover the capital costs over 30 years (neglecting interest), the subsidy per ride for ATN is only $1.84. Even if the ATN ridership estimate is halved, the capital costs would be reduced (since fewer vehicles are needed). The operating cost would be approximately halved, and the required a subsidy would be $5.42 per ride,

6 Ridership based on Table 3 assumptions. The UCS estimated BRT ridership is unknown.

12 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

56 about half of Santa Cruz Metro’s current subsidy (for operating costs only) for intercity routes. On the other hand, as ATN ridership increases, the required subsidy decreases.

Note that it has proven impossible to ascertain the extent, if any, of BRT costs not included in the UCS Study. The study seems to imply that the costs shown are additional to existing service, which will continue, but does not provide the cost of the continuing service. Also, it is unclear whether the projected fare-box revenue has been deducted from the annual O&M costs in the study or not (Table 4 assumes not).

An analysis of the potential amount of funding from known federal, state, and local revenue sources for ATN is not included here. Even though the ATN solution has the potential to fund itself (should the contingency allowances not be required), it is eligible for FTA funding in competition with other fixed- guideway modes as evidenced by the continuing federal grants being awarded to the Morgantown PRT System.

It is likely that an ATN system can be acquired under a design/build/finance/operate/maintain/transfer procurement model requiring little to no upfront funding. The supplier team would finance the project and receive payments over time in return for ensuring the system is available for public use meeting predetermined criteria. Technical and business failure risks would be protected by performance and payment bonds ensuring all debts will be paid and the system will be removed if it fails to work.

Visitor Tax Revenues and Other Economic Impacts While no analysis is included here, the increased transit use, shorter trip times and reduced congestion should result in increased visitor tax revenues and positive economic impacts.

Costs Associated with Collisions Motor vehicle collisions and associated costs should reduce approximately in proportion to the increase in transit mode share.

ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH

Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled If we assume the average transit trip length is 5.9 miles (UCS Page 119), we find that ATN increases the daily transit person trip miles by approximately 245,000. Assuming an average automobile occupancy of 1.29 (UCS Table16) and disregarding any induced automobile travel demand, this would reduce daily automobile vehicle miles traveled by approximately 190,000. This is about twice the anticipated VMT reduction for Scenario B.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas While no analysis has been undertaken, ATN has a smaller footprint (seven feet wide for one-way track at grade) than any other transit mode. In addition, the lightweight vehicles produce almost no noise, vibrations, emissions or electro-magnetic interference. Accommodating a trail next to the ATN system

13 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

57 will be relatively easy compared to train or bus, especially since the ATN guideway can be elevated the entire way or just in tight situations.

Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutants ATN vehicles themselves do not emit greenhouse gases, and in general ATN systems consume about one third of the energy per passenger mile of other transit systems. ATN guideways are well-suited to support solar panels (costs not considered here) which may be sufficient to meet the needs for motive power. Even if the system lacks solar panels, it would likely be powered with carbon-free electricity from Monterey Bay Community Power. Battery-powered vehicles could facilitate energy storage. Reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled and congestion should have significant positive impacts on emissions.

EQUITABLE ACCESS

Transit Vehicle Miles Traveled Unlike most other transit modes, ATN vehicles do not have to travel to the end of the line or even the end of a scheduled route before turning around. Furthermore, they do not need to move to provide availability when there is no demand. This means there is less relatively empty vehicle movement. It also makes it more complicated to determine vehicle miles traveled without a detailed station-to-station trip demand matrix. Nonetheless, the ATN vehicle miles traveled have been estimated at 43.8 million miles per year. This is 6.5 times higher than the 6.65 million shown in UCS Figure 41.

Household Transportation Cost Since “How much a household spends on transportation depends primarily on the number of automobiles in the household” (UCS Page 130), it is clear that the increased transit mode share with ATN will do more to reduce household transportation costs than any other alternative.

The community may wish to implement a tiered fare structure to encourage ride sharing and give passengers more control over their transit spending. For example:

• Tier one passengers pay per vehicle. They get a vehicle dedicated to them and their party (one to six). They wait less than a minute and travel nonstop to their destination. • Tier two passengers pay per ride. They must be willing to wait up to (say) five minutes for others to arrive who are on the same route and can share the ride. They may have to make an intermediate stop or two. • Tier three passengers pay a very low fare per ride and must be willing to wait longer (up to 20 or 30 minutes) for their ride.

This fairly unique ability to match the level of service to the fare paid promotes equitable access and mobility for all. An animation of an ATN station configured to accommodate this type of operation may be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyBJ_nyh4M&

14 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

58 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ATN systems are commercially available from a number of suppliers. They have been in continuous public service since 1975 (1999 for commercially-available systems). This conceptual study has found a six-passenger ATN system to be superior to the UCS Scenario B combination of passenger rail and BRT. It is believed that consideration of a 24-passenger GRT system would probably also find superior results.

This analysis has not been undertaken to the same depth as the UCS analysis. However, the level of accuracy is adequate to demonstrate that ATN will be a far superior solution that is worthy of further consideration. The operating characteristics have been proven in public service. The costs have been derived by experienced suppliers from projects that have been implemented. Even if the ridership estimate is halved, the ATN system will still cover its operating costs with fare-box revenues and it will only require a subsidy of $5.42 per ride to also cover its capital costs. This is far lower than any other alternative.

The thirteen key criteria in the UCS study have each been addressed. ATN has been found to be superior to Scenario B for each criterion. There appears to be no credible argument to exclude ATN from consideration.

15 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

59 APENDIX A – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATES The ATN project description and cost estimates are provided below. This project has been evaluated at a conceptual level and a contingency of 50% has been used. Costs are based mostly on fixed bid prices in South Carolina in 2016 adjusted to reflect this project’s size and location.

“Annual Operations and Maintenance” includes costs for new ATN service, vehicle operations and maintenance as well as facility maintenance. Maintenance costs include replacement of worn parts up to and including vehicle replacement as necessary.

Project Table A-1: ATN System Limits Natural Bridges Drive in Santa Cruz to Pajaro Station near Watsonville. The route from Aptos to Cabrillo Highway near Watsonville consists of two-way track along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way, mostly at-grade. The remainder of the route is mostly elevated and consists of one-way track along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of- way forming interconnected loops with one-way track along Mission Street, Lincoln Street, Soquel Avenue/Drive, 17th Avenue, Capitola Road, Clares Street and Wharf Road in Santa Cruz and along Salinas Road, Porter Drive, Main Street, Freedom Boulevard, South Green Valley Road and Ohlone Parkway in Watsonville. See Figures 7 and 8 for maps of the layout showing proposed station locations. It should be noted that the guideway routing and station locations shown are conceptual. They are intended for use in this conceptual analysis only. Determining preferred routing and locations requires extensive public input. Description On-demand passenger service provided by driverless small (six-passenger) vehicles traveling along exclusive guideways and serving offline stations. Guideways and stations may be elevated or at-grade. This analysis is based on six-passenger battery-powered vehicles such as offered by Ultra or Modutram (and possibly 2getthere if they can accommodate six passengers). Scope Connect 57 stations with 58.3 miles of one-way track. Provide 20 hours of service 365 days a year with an average wait time less than three minutes at any station and average speeds exceeding 35 mph. CAPITAL COSTS Track Removal $5,400,000 Guideway & Control System $609,500,000 Stations/Maintenance Facility $114,000,000 Vehicles (480) $50,800,000 Soft Costs (30%) $234,000,000 Contingency (50%) $389,800,000 Total Capital Costs $1,403,500,000 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Annual O&M Cost ATN service 20 hours a day for 365 days a year $25,700,000 Contingency (50%) $12,900,000 Total Annual O&M Costs $38,600,000

16 Conceptual ATN Evaluation, November, 2018

60 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Piet Canin Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ginger Dykaar ; Grace Blakeslee Subject: added context for EA staff comments on UCS

Hi Ginger and Grace, I wanted to provide further context and clarity for the EA UCS comments and request document I emailed to you earlier today.

While we understand that future planning processes are required between this UCS decision and final implementation, Ecology Action feels strongly that the specific funding needs and project details be included in the UCS for all improvements we are considering so that the final adopted plan provides clarity on this. Without the project specifics or associated funding detailed in the plan that gets adopted, we are concerned they will not be prioritized or possibly even pursued compared to projects that have details and budgets in the final plan. The majority of our comments at this stage relate to this concern, especially for projects that have a higher likelihood of being implemented in the short term that can related to accelerating lower carbon transportation mode adoption.

Thank you.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation

From: Piet Canin Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 1:15 PM To: Ginger Dykaar ; Grace Blakeslee ; [email protected] Cc: Kirsten Liske Subject: EA staff comments & requests on the UCS

Hello Ginger and Grace, Please find EA’s staff comments and requests on the UCS. I hope there is time for staff to make some modifications to the UCS as requested by EA and other community individuals and groups. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also can you respond to my questions regarding the format of the RTC staff UCS recommendations to the RTC Commissioners.

Thank you.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation Ecology Action | EcoAct.org Direct (831) 515-1327 | Cell (831) 227-8987

61 November 2, 2018

To: RTC and Consultant UCS Team From: Ecology Action staff RE: Ecology Action UCS comments & requests

Ecology Action would like to commend the RTC staff and consultants for their good work in producing the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS). The data in this study provides valuable information to direct important transportation decisions to meet environmental, health, economic and equity goals and objectives. Please find EA’s comments that are focused mainly on active transportation improvements that largely can be accomplished in the near (1-3 years) and mid-term (3-6 years). We believe that these bike and pedestrian advancements will help reduce injury and fatality crashes, make our community healthier, advance low-cost mobility, and reduce our individual and collective carbon footprint.

As the UCS indicates, electric vehicles will be the greatest tool for reducing GHG emissions (from the local transportation sector which contributes some 50% of GHG emissions in the county) so we also call on the RTC to detail and budget not only EV education but also EV market acceleration. Giving folks viable non-drive alone options is a central goal of the UCS but when there are no other options to driving alone then driving an electric vehicle is a superior carbon footprint minimizer.

Thank you for your time and work in considering further fleshing out and budgeting the following programs/projects already listed in the UCS.

Protected bike lanes on Soquel/Freedom Corridor: EA requests that protected bike lanes (i.e. having a physical barrier) in high crash locations be included and budgeted. Soquel/Freedom is a major corridor for employment, shopping and education activity centers. The UCS estimates daily bike trips for Soquel Ave/Dr and Freedom Blvd at 9,071 (3,310,915 annual trips) trips with 2,625 (958,125 annual new trips) of these trips being new ones. This corridor has some of the highest bike crash rates over a 5-year period. The following sections of Soquel Avenue/Drive standout: from Paul Sweet Road (Dominican Hospital) to Pacific Avenue with 61 bike injury collisions: 61 and one bike collision fatality and Dominican Hospital to 41st avenue had 20 bike injury collisions.

Please estimate the key locations, high bike crash areas, to place protected bike lanes along this corridor. Calculate the number of miles and then the cost to install that length of protected bike lanes.

Bike/Pedestrian intersection improvements for Soquel/Freedom: The UCS lists just 4 intersections for improvement with budget amounts for each improvement and then lists some

62 $8M for improvements to other intersections on Soquel. What about improvements on Freedom Boulevard at the two main intersections of Airport and Green Valley road? There are many other intersections that sorely need bike and pedestrian improvements on Soquel as well. Is the current $30.8M for intersections improvements enough? Can you provide more details on the improvements for each specific intersection?

Train Siding Placement: two locations along the rail corridor are slated for train sidings (where trains can pass each other on this one-track line) diverting bikers & walkers onto the streets at 41st to 47th and Sumner Avenue. Sidings should be placed in sections of the corridor that are wide enough to fit both the siding and the trail. Can you please look at other locations for the train sidings to avoid diverting the Rail Trail onto the street.

Improved safety for bikes crossing RR tracks at street crossings: There is a high rate of solo bike crashes at on street crossing of the railroad tracks. This is evident in the crash data from Davenport and Beach Street. Rubberize or other RR track and pavement gap filling treatment could go a long way in reducing preventable bike crashes some of which have been severe. Please plan and budget for this relatively-easy to implement safety measure.

Trail in rail corridor over Capitola Trestle: The UCS indicates that the trail will be diverted off the rail corridor onto streets through Capitola Village. This urbanized section of the Rail Trail should carry a high number of people biking and walking assuring the trail provides a safe and direct route from mid county to south is crucial. It would be good to at least know the cost and timeline of constructing a new trestle that would accommodate a trail and rail. It might be too expensive and money better spent on other on-street bike and pedestrian improvements but this is important information needed to assess how to spend limited funds.

Train electrification: The passenger rail service is priced for diesel trains, but the public voiced a preference for electric trains during the 2015 passenger rail feasibility study. EA endorses electric train service as a cleaner, operationally less expensive and more neighborhood compatible option. Electrifying our transportation system is a major tool in reducing GHG emissions.

Several UCS projects, listed for all scenarios, have scant information and no budget but are high- potential and lower-cost methods for increasing sustainable transportation. We request that the RTC provide more information and budget for the needed expansion of these projects/programs.

Education and enforcement including bike safety education: What is the funding source to pay for these programs? Increased bike safety education is sorely needed in Santa Cruz as we have high crash rates. Expanded direct education for all age groups and demographics. More public education aimed at all road users, especially drivers, efforts like Street Smarts are needed county-wide. Also need more enforcement to deter distracted drivers, speeding, and other types of dangerous driving. Please provide a plan and budget to fund this vital safety work.

Improving bike/ped facilities throughout urban area closing gaps in network. How would these be selected? From the RTC Regional Transportation Plan? Current bike and pedestrian plans? What is the funding source to complete these projects? Is there the staff bandwidth to

63 implement as there is a current need to close gaps in a very fragmented bike and walking network. Within the corridor study area there is an urgent need for connected and safe active transportation routes that connect to schools, worksites, shopping, parks and other frequently visited destinations. We need bike lanes that connect to Soquel/Freedom, the Rail Trail, the two bike and pedestrian bridges over Highway 1. Is there a budget for these network completing facilities?

Bike Share, bike amenities, multimodal hubs. Clarify what this would be. Is there a budget to help expand the current JUMP ebikeshare program from the City of Santa Cruz to the rest of the county? Is there a plan and budget to increase on street bike racks and secure bike parking? What other bike amenities are planned and budgeted for? Is there a plan and budget for multimodal hubs?

Employer and residents – incentive program. There is a lack of resources to reach enough employee sites, need a robust campaign to move more commuters to bike, walk, transit, carpool, and telecommuting. These are low cost encouragement and incentive measures that can target employees who are able to use the currently available non-drive alone methods. Please plan and budget for these programs that can be implemented immediately.

EV Education: There is a dearth of public funding for consumer education and market acceleration solutions regarding EV ownership/leasing that is the easiest way for most people to drastically reduce their GHG emissions. The UCS states that EV adoption is the highest impact method for reducing GHG emissions from transportation. This is especially true now that Monterey Bay Community Power is providing carbon-free electricity to Santa Cruz. Current education is conducted by local non-profit groups. What is the budget and plan for this effective GHG reduction effort that supports the majority of the GHG reductions in all the scenarios.

64 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Mark Mesiti-Miller < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:38 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Zach Friend' ; 'Ryan Coonerty' ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Randy Johnson' ; [email protected]; 'Cynthia Chase' ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Lowell Hurst' ; [email protected]; 'Patrick Mulhearn' ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Andy Schiffrin' ; George Dondero ; Ginger Dykaar ; Grace Blakeslee ; Regional Transportation Commission ; UCS Subject: Friends of the Rail & Trail support for Scenario B per the Unified Corridor Study

Chair Leopold, Commissioners, Commissioner Alternates and Unified Corridor Study project team,

Please find attached a letter from Friends of the Rail & Trail regarding our support for Scenario B. The original of same will be hand delivered to the RTC offices later today.

Thank you,

Mark

Mark Mesiti-Miller, P.E. Board Chair, Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail Build the Trail – Keep the Rail www.railandtrail.org Imagine – 4 min video: https://youtu.be/qe3gRU-bpWY Top 10 Reasons to Build the Rail Trail ASAP – 80 sec video: http://tiny.cc/TopTenReasons

65 66 67 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: E. Hansen < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Support Rail & Trail Scenario B, Equal Opportunity and Inclusive of all Santa Cruz County Residents

I support the proposed North Coast Rail & Trail Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Study as it will benefit the entire Santa Cruz County Community.

Local values consistently represent equality and therefore access to the North Coast Trail Project should be for the enjoyment by all, regardless of physical limitations.

A combined Rail and Trail allows for that equality to continue. A trail only would be exclusionary to people who may be unable to use a project requiring sight, ambulatory ability or physical exertion.

Saving the rail corridor for future possibilities that include blended means of travel of pedestrian, bicycles and mass transportation has the greatest potential for serving the entirety of Santa Cruz County.

Erik Hansen Watsonville Resident

From: Susie < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:30 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Scenario B

To Whom It May Concern,

I am an active real estate agent helping sellers and buyers for the past 3 decades finding that perfect home all over our beautiful county. This is why Scenario B is the right choice. We must build a future for our children and grandchildren. We must build a light rail line serving our whole community; from Davenport to Watsonville. Let’s use our three corridors; let’s utilize Scenario B which includes rail with a trail.

If someone can’t afford the maintenance, gas, insurance of a vehicle and lives in Watsonville and works in Santa Cruz, Capitola or the West side of Santa Cruz no one wants to ride a bike back Watsonville during the winter, when it’s raining or late at night.

Think about our future generations and go with Scenario B.

Sincerely, Susie Stelle, Broker Associate

68 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Katherine McCamant < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Rail trail

I support scenario B. Please keep our rail trail moving forward! Thanks!

Katherine Mccamant

From: Robert Kibrick < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 11:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: I support UCS Scenario B, using the rail corridor for Rail and Trail

Dear RTC,

I support Scenario B of the UCS as this option will make the most effective use of the corridor.

Robert Kibrick Resident of Santa Cruz

From: Charlie Zimmerman < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 10:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Please vote for Scenario B

Members of my Transit Board - As a very concerned member of our community that ALL people have the BEST transit options in the future here in Santa Cruz County - I urge you to vote for Scenario B.

Thank you! Charlie Zimmerman

From: Alicia Stanton < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 9:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified corridors plan

I would like to voice my opinion on the unified corridors plan under consideration by the RTC.

69 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

I am in support of constructing pedestrian and cycling trails on the rail corridor without railroad.

I am in support of increased bus rapid transit on the freeway corridor, whether by constructing new transit lanes in both directions on the freeway, using "bus on shoulder" or by diverting the bus off the freeway and directly onto the railroad grade at certain points. In addition, the BRT should be intelligently scheduled for time-of-day coverage and direction. In other words, for morning transit use the railroad grade going north and the freeway going south; reversing the flow in the evening.

I feel that the RTC has created scenarios that bundle projects in nonsensical ways. This gives the appearance of allowing the community to make informed choices, but fails to optimize the potential of our transit future.

It is absolutely clear that leaving out rail service on the bulk of the railroad corridor would save millions of dollars in both construction and maintenance costs.

Personally, I would like to see the money saved by not doing the railroad be spent on a network of protected bikeways throughout Santa Cruz county, connecting the railroad trail to major employers, such as Cabrillo College, Dominican Hospital, Santa Cruz County Building and UCSC.

If forced to support a scenario as presented, my first choice would be scenario A.

Thank you, Alicia Stanton

From: Kurt Rosenberger < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 9:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UCIS

Hello I am writing to voice my support for Scenario B of the UCIS. I firmly believe that utilizing the rail ROW for multi-mode transportation is the best use of this public resource, and will do the most to relieve congestion on the backroads of Santa Cruz county. I live in Soquel and commute to the Wrigley building on the Westside, and all the standard east-west routes are too congested, and I now weave my way through other people's neighborhoods to get home from work. If there was light rail, I could park in Capitola and ride in to work (and if my son were lucky enough to get a spot at PCS, he could ride with me, by the time it is implemented). Please do not let this amazing resource be squandered on a linear park that only benefits the wealthy.

Thank you

Kurt Rosenberger

70 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: J Mella < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 8:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject:

Hi, I am a residence of Capitola and soon to be in Aptos. I fully support the scenario B for Santa Cruz county. Thank you for your hard work.

Jaakko Mella

From: Rodrick Jones < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:46 PM To: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Scenario B Implementation

Dear SCCRTC,

I would like to see the rail line running again as a mass transit provider, battery or hydrogen powered light-rail. If it comes with a bike/hike trail that's a nice plus. It looks like Scenario B offers the most benefit for the most people. That's my feelings about it.

Thanks for listening, Rod Jones, Capitola, CA

From: Peter Haworth < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 4:47 PM To: Ginger Dykaar; Grace Blakeslee; Regional Transportation Commission; UCS; Greg Caput ; John Leopold ; Ed Bottorff ; Mike Rotkin ; Bruce McPherson ; Trina Coffman-Gomez ; Jacques Bertrand ; Randy Johnson ; Sandy Brown Subject: Comments On UCS Draft Step 2

Commissioners and RTC staff,

Please consider the following input when recommending and voting on the UCS scenario to be adopted. My comments are mainly concerned with Scenarios A and B.

I hope the RTC will not rush into a decision.The process has already taken years and a few more weeks are a lot less important than making the correct decision based on the facts. In addition,The new RTC Executive Director will be on board on 12/3/2018, only 3 days before

71 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

the RTC’s current scheduled date to vote on the UCS recommendation. Surely the successful applicant will want to contribute to the Discussion and decision?

I am providing a summary of my comments below. More information is available for each bullet point.

SUMMARY

• General • o The UCS does not fulfill the RTC’s promise to voters to “Perform in-depth environmental and economic analysis of future transit and other transportation options on the right-of-way through an open, transparent public process.” since the ROW options are all grouped with other projects thereby making it impossible to determine their true costs and benefits. o Railbanking has been rejected as a myth by RTC staff despite the fact that several railbanked ROWs have been returned to their original purpose and it may avoid the payback of Proposition 116 and other funds • Specific • o The performance measurements should not be treated as truths. It’s impossible to forecast anything 17 years in the future with any degree of accuracy. o Scenario B costs $375,000,000 more than Scenario A over 20 years after taking inflation into account. o The Rail-with-trail option costs $915,000,000 more than the trail only option over 20 years after taking inflation into account with hardly any effect on highway 1 and local traffic. o The study does not mention the environmental destruction required to implement rail-with-trail in Scenario B because of earthmoving, retaining walls, and tree removal needs. o Annual peak hour round trip travel times between Santa Cruz on the Scenario B passenger rail service has a fare which is $1620 more per passenger than the Scenario A Express Bus on HOV Lane option has a longer journey time.

MEASURE D PROMISES NOT FULFILLED

The scenarios included in the report do not tell the full story as it relates to rail-with-trail and trail only options. The costs and benefits of those two options are obfuscated by the inclusion of the other Scenario A and B projects and there is no project leve information in the study. What would the scenarios A and B look like if the rail ROW projects included in them were switched? We don't know.

The Measure D Transportation Improvement Plan available on the RTC website states in the Rail Corridor section that 8% of the Measure D funds will be available for "Analysis (including environmental analysis) of both rail transit and non-rail options for the corridor; rail line maintenance and repairs”.

72 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The Rail Corridor tab on the RTC’s website page titled Measure D Regional Projects states that the RTC will “Perform in-depth environmental and economic analysis of future transit and other transportation options on the right-of-way through an open, transparent public process.”

The UCS does not fulfill either of those RTC obligations since it includes other non rail/trail projects in all the scenarios. The people who voted in favor of Measure D are entitled to see an analysis of the various rail right-of-way options without the costs and benefits being obscured by other projects.

Whatever projects are chosen, they will undoubtedly require funding visa either a sales tax increase or bond measure. If the RTC does not fulfill its Measure D obligations, it will be less likely that voters will approve any future transportation ballot measures.

RAILBANKING

It’s disappointing thatthe RTC has steadfastly refused to even investigate the possibility of railbanking, with Mr Dondero even describing it as a “myth”. Since hundreds of rail ROWs have been railbanked across the country, I assume he means that once railbanked, ROWs are never returned to their original purpose of running rail service. However in a presentation to the Surface Transportation Board by Marianne Fowler, Senior VP at the Rails To Trails Conservancy, she states that “...the nine corridors that have been re-activated for rail service demonstrate that the program is serving its intended purpose of preserving these corridors for future rail service.”, laying to rest once and for all the claim that once railbanked, ROWs are never returned to their original purpose. The document is attached.

The Rail To Trails Concservancy’s mission is " dedicated to creating a nationwide network of trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors to build healthier places for healthier people.” (https://www.railstotrails.org/). Surely the RTC should at least consult with them before concluding that railbanking is not feasible for our ROW? It is entirely possible that railbanking would avoid the need to repay Proposition 116 funds if passenger rail service is not adopted.

STUDY RELIABILITY

The study claims that in 2035, the Countywide AM Peak Period Mean Auto speed in Scenario A will be 40.6mph and 39.4mph under Scenario B. That’s a difference of 3%. Many of the PM numbers yield percentage differences in that range . It is simply not possible to forecast anything 17 years in the future with anything close to a 3% degree of accuracy.

This is not helped by errors in the calculations. The collision costs are incorrect by a large amount because the average cost of all collisions ($224k) is used but Property Damage Only collisions , which make up 65% of the total, cost only $15,400 each . How many other errors are there in the calculations?

COSTS

73 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

We can be sure that the costs of any scenario will be at least those mentioned in the study.

The study characterizes the benefits and costs of each scenario but does not does include an estimate of the total costs over a given period of time, nor does it take inflation into account for the costs.

I calculated the 20 year costs of Scenarios A and B including 3% inflation. Scenario B costs $375,000,000 more than Scenario A . I calculated the same costs for the rail-with-taril and rail only options per tables A-10, A-11, and A-13. Rail-with-trail costs almost 4 times as much as rail-with-trail which translates to $915,000,000.

While government funding will certainly cut the amount to be borne by county residents, the level of available funding over 17 years is subject to political and economic factors which cannot be predicted.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

The study presents them in terms of number of miles of sensitive habitat affected but this is a quantitive measure and does not reflect the qualitative effects of the damage caused. For example, Scenario B is said to affect only 1.8 miles more sensitive habitat than Scenario A which sounds innocuous. However, this completely ignores the tons of earth and hundreds of trees which would have to be removed in order to widen the ROW to accommodate a trail alongside the rail tracks.

TRAVEL TIMES AND FARES

Table 35 of the study indicates the round trip Peak period travel time between Santa Cruz and Watsonville by the train service included in Scenario B is approximately 17 minutes longer than ti would be using the Express Bus service on the HOV lane included in Scenario A.

Using current METRO bus fares and the Sonoma/Marin SMART train as a source for train fares, traveling by rail would cost $1620/year more than by bus

Peter F. Haworth Soquel

74 National Headquarters tel 202.331 9696 21 21 Ward Court. NW,Sth Floor fax 202.223.9257 Washington. DC 20037 www railstotrails.org rails-to-trails conservancy

June 29,2009 Surface Transportation Boatd Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 690 395 E Street SW Washington, DC 20423-0001

RE: Twenty-five Yeats of Rail Banking

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC), I wish to speak at the heating of die Surface Transportation Board on July 8,2009 concerning the future of rail banking under Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act I would request fifteen minutes to address the Board regarding the questions identified in the heating notice. Please find attached my written testimony. I will also be making use of a PowerPoint presentation. I look forward to the opportunity to share RTC's more than twenty years of experience facilitating the construction of rail-trails nationwide.

Sincerely,

Marianne Fowler Senior Vice President of Federal Relations

Enclosure

75 f Testimony of Marianne Wesley Fowler, Senior Vice President of Federal Relations Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Presented to the Surface Transportation Board

"TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RAIL BANKING: A REVIEW AND LOOK AHEAD"

June 29, 2009

Introduction

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is pleased to offer this testimony on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Section 8(d) of the National Trails Systems Act (the 'Trails Act"), which created the federal railbanking program. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) is a national nonprofit conservation organization founded in 1985. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with four regional field offices located in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, RTC's mission is to create a nationwide network of trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors to build healthier places for healthier people. RTC has more than 100,000 members and supporters nationwide.

Over the last 25 years, RTC has taken a leading role as defender, user, and advocate for the Trails Act. Through its Trails and Greenways Clearinghouse, RTC provides technical assistance to government agencies, communities, and grassroots organizations across the country to facilitate the preservation and continued public use of rail corridors that are not currently needed for rail transportation through conversion into public trails and non-motorized transportation corridors. RTC has also produced numerous publications and undertaken studies on a broad range of topics, including the benefits and economic impacts of rail-trails, trail design, and liability issues. RTC's "rails-with-traiIs" study is the most comprehensive source of information about "rails-with-trails" - the emerging trend of developing multi-use trails on appropriate space adjacent to or within the right of way of active rail lines. Through its Legal Program, RTC has defended the Trails Act in the Courts and before Congress, and has advocated for vigorous implementation of the law before this Surface Transportation Board ("Board" or "STB").RTC also vigorously pursues and advocates for policies and funding opportunities that benefit, facilitate and protect America's trails.

Over the course of many years, RTC has developed and manages a comprehensive database of information about rail-trails, including the number, mileage, and location of rail- trails, and the extent to which they are developed and open. Part of that information is available to the public through www.TrailLink.com. a free access Web site with detailed maps with trail

76 overlays designed to help trail users find rail-trails based upon locale, allowed uses, surface types, historic features, nearby amenities, etc. This database also includes more esoteric information such as the number of "railbanking orders" that have been issued by this Board under the Trails Act, and the subsequent actions taken as a result of the issuance of these railbanking orders. The database houses thousands of records relating to railroad corridors, open trails, and trails in development, with data on rail-trails dating back to 1969, and information on railbanked corridors from 1986 forward. Trail-related information is gathered by online monitoring of trail progress in the news and other internet sources and through our large network of trail managers, advocates, and users. Maintaining communication with hundreds of local and state trail professionals and enthusiasts has allowed RTC to collect, continuously update and validate rail-trail information. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive - and perhaps the only - national database of information about rail-trails in existence.

RTC also relies on public information made available through the STB to track railroad abandonments and activate its "Early Warning System." By monitoring abandonment proceedings initiated before the Board, RTC is able to provide timely notice to community activists and public officials of impending abandonments and help them take advantage of railbanking opportunities. Each week, RTC staff reviews filings submitted to the STB, maintaining records of corridors proposed for abandonment, noting the status of Interim Trail Use agreements, and tracking filings, decisions and notices related to corridors under railbanking negotiations. In some cases, we rely on trail managers to verify final railbanking agreements, if the railroad and trail group have failed to notify the STB that an agreement was reached.

This background on the activities and programs of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is provided by way of establishing RTC's credibility in speaking knowledgably and authoritatively on the questions posed by the Board in its call for this hearing.

Success of the Trails Act/Corridor Conversion Rates

The Trails Act was passed by Congress in 1983 out of concern that our Nation's build rail corridor infrastructure, which was painstakingly built up more than a century ago through the use of eminent domain, or public lands grants, loan guarantees and cash awards, was being rapidly lost through railroad abandonments. As Congress rightly recognized, it would be virtually impossible for even a governmental entity to recreate this system once the right of way was abandoned and sold, and the bridges, tunnels and other costly structures destroyed, much less a private railroad unless granted future powers of eminent domain and unlimited resources.

The law establishes a clear "national policy to preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service, to protect rail transportation corridors, and to encourage energy efficient transportation use." 16 US.C. § 1247(d). And in furtherance of this policy, this Board, as well as the Departments of Transportation and the Interior, is first and foremost directed to "encourage State and local agencies and private interests to establish appropriate trails" in administering its regulatory responsibilities.

77 The STB has focused its implementation of the Tails Act on the second provision of the statute, stating that the Board "shall impose such terms and conditions as a requirement of any transfer or conveyance [of such rights-of-ways] for interim use in a manner consistent with this chapter, and shall not permit abandonment or discontinuance inconsistent or disruptive of such use." Id. The Board's issuance of railbanking orders, in response to trail use requests from a state, political subdivision, or qualified private organization to which the railroad assents, has enabled such trail treasures as Missouri's 225-mile Katy Trail National Park, which had over 300,000 annual user visits in 2001, and Nebraska's 320-mile Cowboy Trail, the longest rail-trail in the country. Without railbanking, these extraordinary public resources would have been irreparably lost.

The numbers in RTC's database tell a story of success and unrealized potential. On the success side, since the program's inception and up to the present date, 698 railbanking orders (either Certificates of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (CFTUs) or Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonments (NITUs)) have been issued by the STB. Of these corridors subject to railbanking requests, 301 have been successfully railbanked under Section 8(d), representing 5,079 miles, and 92 are currently in negotiation, while 159 corridors were abandoned when railbanking negotiations were unsuccessful. Of the railbanked corridors, 120, representing 2,764 miles, are presently open to the public for use as trails and 72 corridors representing 1,122 miles are currently under development.

As a result of railbanking, these corridors are preserved for future use, while providing multiple benefits to the communities in which they are located. For example, according to a study conducted by RTC on the Pine Creek Rail Trail, a 62.6-mile railbanked line in rural North Central, Pennsylvania, the trail was visited by 138,000 users in 2006, who expended more than $5 million in food and lodging while using the trail.1 Boston's Minuteman Trail, serving an urban area, has more than 1 million users each year. Some use is purely recreational, much is for purposeful travel, and all, we assume, is pleasurable. The Trails Act also paved the way for state legislatures to formally adopt state level policies favoring rail corridor preservation and establishing state-level rails-to-trails programs, including rights of first refusal, that have worked in tandem with the Trails Act, or in its breach when the Trails Act was not invoked. And of course, the nine corridors that have been re-activated for rail service demonstrate that the program is serving its intended purpose of preserving these corridors for future rail service.

The 159 corridors whose railbanking negotiations fell short and were subsequently abandoned totaled 2,974 miles. To put these numbers in a larger perspective, over 832 corridors have been approved for abandonment in the past 25 years, representing 9,105 miles of our national rail system that have been lost, in all likelihood irrevocably. Of these corridors, only 163 were eventually converted into non-railbanked trails, which means that these trails are not subject

1 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Pine Creek Rail Trail 2006 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis (December 2006).

78 to rail service re-activation.In short, 5,079 miles saved as a part of our federallyrailbanked corridor system; 9, I 05 miles lost. Ifwe were playing baseball, a .358 average would be exceptional. When playing with our nation's future, the· loss of two thirds of what could have been saved does not constitute success.

What can and should the Board do to facilitaterailbanking?

The_numbers show that, while the Trails Act has been effectivewhen used, railbanking is the exception rather than the rule. Which brings us to the question posed in the hearing notice: "What can or should the Board do to further facilitaterailbanking and encourage the restoration of active rail service on railbanked lines?" To answer this question, we need to go back to 1986, when the InterstateCommerce Commission (ICC), this Board's predecessor, chose not to adopt an interpretationof the Trails Act that would have required corridors to be transferredto a willing trail manager. This tact left preservationof our Nation's built rail infrastructure solely to the discretion of private railroads. This Board's strictly "hands-off'approach toward interim trail use requests and negotiations stands in stark contrast to the agency's active role in Offersof Financial Assistance (OFA), the longstanding provision under whichthe ICC (now STB) has the authority to compel the transferof railroad property that is the subject of anabandonment application to another rail operator filingan OFA, and establish mandatory terms and conditions forsuch transfers.

In the absence of any regulatory mandate to participatein railbanking, many railroads declined to railbank corridorsbased on misplaced concernsabout potential residual liabilities, the lure of windfall profits through private sales, or forno apparent reason at all. Some bold railroads even used the threatof railbankingto make piecemeal corridor"sales" to adjacent landowners, _ even in cases where the adjacent landowner already owned the under1ying fee interest in the corridor._Without any regulation or oversight by the STB, some railroads have also insisted on grossly inflated purchase prices, based on appraisal methodologies that presume an "across the fence value" rather than the accepted methodology used by this Board forvaluing corridor transfers in the context of OFAs. These practices clearly contributedto the largenumbers of rail abandonments that occurredover the last 25 yearswithout any participationin the railbanking program.

And certainly, there are a number of corridorsthat wereabandoned after no trail use request was received. Based on RTC's experience working with communities as part of the Early :WarningSystem, we believe that this is due in part to the expedited time framesin exempt abandonment proceedings, which are insufficientto allow public agencies to secure the approvals needed to submit a trail use request. Given these time frames, railbanking opportunities will continue to be lost.

Many efforts to preserve rail corridorsthrough railbanking will continue to be thwarted unless this Board changes its current approach to the Trails Act. In general. the STB' s approach to rail-trails is passive: the agency issues and extends Interim Trail Uses (ITUs), but appears

)

79 'reluctant to adopt policies that further the statutory goals. And in some cases, the STB has adopted a dual standard for railroads and for Trails Act requests. This Board's decision in RLTD Railroad Corporation - Abandonment Exemption - In Leelanau County. MI. Docket No. AB- 457X (served Oct. 30, 1997), is a case in point. When presented with a trail use request, to which the railroad consented, the Board refused to issue a trail use condition based on its view that the corridor in question had become severed from the National Rail System due to de facto abandonment - despite the fact that this Board routinely exercises jurisdiction over numerous active rail corridors that are arguably not connected to the national rail system.

City of Lincoln v. STB, 414 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005), is another example of this Board's failure to heed the congressional directive in the Trails Act to "encourage State and local agencies and private interests to establish appropriate trails" in administering its regulatory responsibilities. In that case, the City of Lincoln sought to condemn a 20-foot strip of excess right-of-way on an active rail line for trail use, based on established precedent permitting railroads to convey excess right of way for non-railroad use. The STB found that the City's ability to condemn this property was preempted, despite the fact that trail use would not interfere in any way with railway operations.

There are certainly modest steps that the STB can and should take to encourage and facilitate rail corridor preservation through railbanking and interim trail use. First, the time period between notice of abandonment and effective date of abandonment is frequently too short to allow public agencies to secure the necessary approvals to initiate railbanking negotiations. Since exempt abandonment procedures apply to lines that have already been out of service for two years, there is no need for such an expedited time frame, particularly since this time frame may well preclude railbanking and interim trail use. These time frames should therefore be lengthened.

Second, the STB should re-examine the required language for filing statements of willingness, and the breadth of the interim trail manager's required assumption of liability. This language has, for example, prevented the State of Florida from participating in railbanking due to statutory limitations on the state's ability to assume liability.

Third, it is our experience that 180 days is almost never a sufficient amount of time to negotiate a railbanking/interim trail use, and requiring multiple extensions is a hardship on potential interim trail managers, particularly to private organizations that must pay a $350 user fee for every extension request. Instead, one year is a more appropriate time frame for interim trail use negotiations.

Fourth, and perhaps not so modest a proposal, to best protect our rail corridor infrastructure from future deterioration, this Board should make 16 U.S. C 1247 (d) mandatory, rather than discretionary.

80 Should Notice or a copy of Trails Act Agreements be submitted to the Board?

Scrutiny of the railbanking statistics provided by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy reveals that the status of 109 railbanked corridors representing 1,1193 miles is unknown. RTC has worked within the context of Board disinterest to tract the numbers of NITUs, CITUs, individual agreements, miles, number of corridors railbanked, etc. A requirement that Trails Act Agreements be filed with the Board would help in the gathering of accurate information and allow for greater understanding of the program. A document of record could also be helpful in addressing issues that might arise upon corridor reactivation.

Who should bear the cost to restore a rail corridor for rail service, including replacing any bridges that may have been removed during interim trail use?

It is important to put the question of who should bear the costs to restore a rail corridor for rail service into the proper context. Our response is guided by this Board's decision in Georgia Great Southern Division - Abandonment and Discontinuance Exemption- between Albany and Dawson. AB 389 (Sub-no. IX), served May 16,2003, reconsideration denied, id. served Feb. 2, 2004, in which the successor to the abandoning railroad asked this Board to vacate the trail use condition in order to reactivate rail service on the line, but then insisted that the trail manager had an obligation to re-convey the corridor to the railroad without any compensation. The interim trail manager opposed the request, pointing out that it had made a substantial payment to the original railroad in a bargain sale, for which the railroad took a substantial tax deduction. This Board simply vacated the trail use condition, ruling that this was a private contractual dispute between the railroad and the interim trail manager, in which the STB had no role.

While we disagree with this ruling, it does provide the current framework for the question of who should pay for the cost of restoring railroad structures: following the reasoning of Georgia Great Southern Division, there is no role for this Board in assigning responsibilities for the costs of restoring trail structures. Instead, as was the case with the question of payment to the interim trail manager, this is a private contractual matter, the enforcement of which must rest in the state courts. If the abandoning railroad, in conveying a corridor to the interim trail manager, wishes to ensure that bridges, tunnels and other structures remain in place for possible future rail service, the railroad should include specific provisions relating to these structures in the instruments of conveyance.

We cannot conceive of any circumstances under which it would be appropriate to compel a trail manager to pay for the restoration of railroad structures that were unconditionally transferred as part of a railbanking agreement. Requiring such a payment would result in a windfall to the railroad, a private, for-profit enterprise, at the expense of cash-strapped public park agencies and nonprofit organizations. Without the transfer of the corridor to an interim trail manager, it is likely that the railroad would have been required to remove these structures itself upon abandonment, at a significant cost. For example, as was the case of railbanked "Highline"

81 in mid-town Manhattan, New York, Conrail alleged, in adverse abandonment proceedings before the ICC, that "The cost of removing the Highline and its viaduct is estimated by Conrail to be $34 million, covering the dismantling of the structures, the transportation of debris by truck from the site to the landfills, and the. payment of dumping fees."

Moreover, the material used to construct railroad structures may have a substantial market or salvage value, and the price paid by the trail manager to the railroad for the corridor is likely to include the value of these structures (or if it did not, the railroad may well have taken a tax deduction for this value, as the railroad did in the case of the Highline Trail). It would be grossly unfair to require the interim trail manager to pay for the railroad's costs of restoring railroad structures, when the trail manager's assumption of responsibility for the structure likely resulted in a significant cost saving or tax benefit to the railroad.

Such an unfair result is compounded by the fact there are many situations in which railroad structure are removed either by order of the state public utility commission or under threat of such an order, to address a safety problem with the railroad structure. Often, grade separated rail-highway crossings are removed by the state departments of transportation because highway needs require a greater vertical or horizontal clearance than the structure allows or for safety reasons. Removal of structures can be the result of damage caused by flooding or other natural occurrences. And in Pennsylvania, for many years, the public utility commission simply ordered that all inactive railroad crossings be "abolished" and structures removed, even where the corridor had been transferred to a trail manager and was being used as a trail. Under these circumstances, it would be particularly unfair to require the trail managers to pay the costs of replacing these structures.

Additionally, the railbanking provisions of the Trails Act were adopted by Congress as a long-term strategy for corridor preservation. Structures deteriorate; technologies and design change. Pursuit of a policy holding trail managers responsible for maintaining railroad features to a standard necessary to accommodate rail use at the time of reactivation leads to absurdity. Imagine fifty years hence when a train whose second deck magnetically levitates above a rail- based carriage. The height of this wondrous train disallows its passage through the 19lh century tunnel on a railbanked corridor. Would anyone seriously suggest it is the trail manager's responsibility to anticipate and pay for future railroad needs?

How have reversionary property owners been affected by rail banking?

There has been much sound and fury over the purported impact of railbanking orders on the putative "property rights" of adjacent landowners, or so-called "reversionary property owners." These adjacent landowners point to a questionable, and, most importantly, non- precedential decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996), which found that, in some cases, interim trail use imposes an additional easement on the rail corridor for which the underlying landowner is entitled to compensation. However, it is important to note that the courts have never found that

82 the use of these corridors for railbanking in any way impacts these so-called "reversionary property" interests. In other words, if a state or political subdivision acquired a corridor and simply banked it, unused and undeveloped for the foreseeable future, while in the meantime wholly excluding adjacent property owners from the land, these property owners would have no cause to complain about a "taking" of their property, since railbanking is unquestionably a permissible use of a railroad easement.

What this demonstrates is that interim trail use does not stand as an obstacle to the underlying landowner's ability to regain possession of the corridor. To the contrary, the law has provided an economic windfall to adjacent property owners - and an even greater one to their class action legal counsel - who have richly profited from the compensation litigation.2 As a result of interim trail use, the underlying property owners receive a payment from the United States to compensate for the additional trail use easement on the corridor, while at the same time, they now have access to the corridor from which they otherwise would have been excluded, and they retain their underlying fee interest in the corridor and right to repossess the property if interim trail use ceases without any re-activation of rail service.

The benefits to adjacent landowners do not end there. Study after study has demonstrated that trails increase the value of adjacent property more than similar property not adjacent to a trail, and protect their homes from flood damage by absorbing excess water.3 Adjacent property owners, including some of the most vocal opponents of the trail, are its most avid users, with the attendant health and wellness benefits of regular exercise.4 And like all members of the public, adjacent landowners benefit from the protection of green and open space, improved air and water quality, preservation of history and culture, and livable communities provided by trails.5 So, the evidence (as distinct from the groaning and moaning), is that adjacent landowners have benefited economically and personally from railbanking.

2 In most compensation cases, the compensation payment to the landowner is dwarfed by the attorneys fees paid by the United States to legal counsel see, e.g. Carl Junction R-I School District v. U.S.A. Case No. 05-3L (Fed. Cl., filed Jan. 3,2005) (payment to the named plaintiff was $46,093; payment awarded to attorneys was $476,727.70)

3 See Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, "Economic Benefits of Trails and Greenways," Oct. 2003, httD://www.railstotrail& org/rcsources/documents/resource docs/tgc cconomic.pdf.

4 See Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, "Health and Wellness Benefits," Dec. 2004, htln://wwv>.railstotrails.orc/resoiirces/documenls/resource docs/HealthandWellness.pdf: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, "Historic Preservation and Community Identity," Oct. 2003, http.V/www railstotrails.org/rcsourccs/documcnts/rcbource docs/lgc Historic.pdf.

5 See Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, "Historic Preservation and Community Identity," Oct. 2003, http://www.railstotrails.orii/resouices/documents/resource docs/tec Historic.pdf: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, "Trails and Greenways for Livable Communities," April 2006, http://www.rjiKtolrails.org/resources/docuineins/re.source doc^/tgc fs hvahle.pdf.

83 Conclusion

Our built railroad system represents an extraordinary investment in an energy-efficient form of transportation. In 1983, as it deregulated the rail industry and rightfully anticipated a rash of abandonments, Congress with great foresight sought to preserve the system knowing that the value of a clear corridor in a rapidly developing nation was inestimable. It gave us the Trails Act as the tool with which to accomplish its goal. The Surface Transportation Board and Rails-to- Trails Conservancy have been partners in this endeavor. Between us we've done well, but on balance, not good enough. We look forward to a future which not only features levitating trains, but also yields a stronger partnership as together we become better stewards of our rail corridor estate.

84 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Janneke Strause Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 3:24 PM To: UCS; Ginger Dykaar; Grace Blakeslee Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Zach Friend ; Ryan Coonerty ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Randy Johnson ; [email protected]; Cynthia Chase ; [email protected]; George Dondero Subject: Bike Santa Cruz County comments on the Unified Corridor Study

Dear Unified Corridor Study project team,

Please accept Bike Santa Cruz County's comments on the Draft Step 2 Scenario Analysis of the Unified Corridor Study in the attached PDF.

Thank you,

Janneke Strause Executive Director Bike Santa Cruz County 333 Soquel Ave., Santa Cruz, CA 95062 (831) 425-0665 bikesantacruzcounty.org

85 November 1, 2018

George Dondero, Executive Director Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Ave Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Re: Bike Santa Cruz Recommends Adoption of Scenario B with Modifications

Dear Mr. Dondero,

On behalf of Bike Santa Cruz County, I would like to acknowledge our gratitude to RTC staff and consultants in putting together a complex study of our County’s potential transportation options.

Our vision is that bicycling in Santa Cruz County is a safe, respected, convenient, and enjoyable form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities. To reach that vision, we must build infrastructure that is safe and separate from traffic.

Overall, Bike Santa Cruz County supports the adoption of Scenario B due to several factors including: it has the lowest number of annual collisions, highest projected bike trips, lowest rate of CO2 emissions, and highest transit mode share. While we support Scenario B overall for the reasons stated above, we believe two key additions will significantly increase cyclist safety and bike ridership. Therefore, we request the following additions to Scenario B:

1. Include a cost estimate of protected bike lanes rather than buffered bike lanes.

Protected bike lanes have a physical separation between the bike lane and vehicle lane in contrast to a buffered bike lane that merely has paint. Protected bike lanes can be separated from motor traffic by raised medians, on-street parking, or bollards. In contrast, buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane, typically demarcated by white paint and hatch marks. Protected bike lanes have been proven around the world to exponentially increase bike ridership and safety due to the physical separation, rather than just paint, between cyclists and motorists.

Between 2006 and 2017, there were more than 200 bicycle collisions on Soquel Dr./Ave./Freedom Blvd. and it has been termed a high injury corridor by the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency in their 2017 Traffic Violence in Santa Cruz County report. Protected bike lanes provide the physical separation needed to prevent collisions and because Soquel Dr./Ave./Freedom Blvd. is a high-use cross county route for cyclists, the minimal investment would create a significant return.

86 Protected bike lanes not only increase safety drastically, but they also increase bike ridership significantly. After a protected bike lane was installed on Chicago's Kinzie Street: Bicycle ridership increased 55 percent, according to morning rush hour counts; Forty-one percent of respondents changed their usual route to take advantage of the new lane; Bicyclists accounted for a majority of all eastbound traffic (53 percent) and more than one third (34 percent) of total street traffic during a CDOT traffic count conducted during morning rush hour in August 2011. (Chicago DOT, 2011 - Initial Findings: Kinzie Street Protected Bike Lane).

To truly reduce human impacts on climate change, we must get as many people onto bikes as possible, and protected bike lanes have proven to do that around the world. Please prioritize protected bike lanes on Soquel Ave./Dr./Freedom Blvd. over buffered bike lanes.

2. Include a cost estimate to retrofit the Capitola Trestle bridge to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.

Ridership estimates in the Unified Corridor Study were reduced for the Trail next to Rail project on segments and surrounding segments by 20% where the rail is routed onto roadways. While including ridership data for the Rail Trail to extend across Soquel Creek would only bolster the ridership data for Scenario B, we think it’s extremely important to be explicit to ensure the community that the Rail Trail will not be permanently routed through the Capitola Village. Additionally, looking at the San Lorenzo River Trestle as an example, we think it is entirely possible to retrofit the Capitola Trestle Bridge rather than needing to build a completely new bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians. Having said that, we would support a new bike/ped bridge if that is required.

In addition to the infrastructure projects outlined in Scenario B and above, Bike Santa Cruz County supports encouragement and education programs in order to support a growing population of cyclists. Some of those programs include an integrated county-wide bike share system, bike safety education in schools, enforcement of the rules of the road, long-term bike parking at transit stations, and bike repair stations along the Rail Trail.

Additionally, we assert the importance of improved bike/pedestrian facilities throughout the urban area closing gaps in the network. Connecting cyclists from one route to another reduces bicycle collisions and increases bike ridership by increasing access to safe routes to work and school.

The Bike Santa Cruz County Board of Directors acknowledges the benefits of a trail-only option in the rail corridor as outlined in the Unified Corridor Study. Bike ridership was reduced by 5% in the Transit with Trail Scenarios B and C, because trail usage next to rail or BRT may be discouraged due to proximity to moving transit.

In contrast, bike ridership in Scenarios B and C were increased by 5% due to the increased access to transit. We believe this estimate is lower than it should be because the implications of the State Rail Plan were not included in the Unified Corridor Study. Rail has the potential to promote bicycling because it allows people living a car-light lifestyle to travel further distances

2 87 with their bike. An improved rail network across the State would increase bike ridership even further due to the access to an integrated transit system.

Transportation is the number one cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Santa Cruz County and given the recent climate change reports that have been released, we must do everything in our power to not delay this decision and move forward. Bike Santa Cruz County urges you to approve Scenario B with the addition of prioritizing protected bike lanes over buffered bike lanes and including an estimate for the Rail with Trail project to extend over Soquel Creek on the Capitola Trestle.

Thank you for your dedication and time working on this extremely important topic.

Sincerely,

Janneke Strause Executive Director Bike Santa Cruz County [email protected]

3 88 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

Dear Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation,

I live in Santa Cruz County and I support the improvements in Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Investment Study.

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

Estimada Agencia Regional de Transportación de Santa Cruz,

Yo vivo en el condado de Santa Cruz y apoyo las mejoras en el Escenario B del Estudio “Unified Corridor Study”. November 1, 2018 November 1, 2018 November 1, 2018 November 1, 2018 Gilberto Jara Ruben Alvarez Alexander Rojas Jose Lopez Abel Anguiano Yadira Grajeda Felipe Maldonado Ioka Black Kimberly Guiterez Alexandra Romero Jessie Trinidad Najera Gabriel Black Francisca Castro Ofelia Gonzalez Spence Droet Elyse Bartels Mario Esparza-Luguin Raul Sanchez C Wilber John Hervey Alejandro Murillo Daniela Ramirez Carlos Aguliar Andy Hartman Jenny Sarmiento Tania Guzman Juan Rodriguez James Bergum Remon Gomez Yesenia Melgoza-Fernandez Manuel Rodriguez Felipe Hernandez Estella Banuelos Susan Nilsson Kevin Montes Roberto Ruiz Mario Chavez Kate Minott Edwin Sololzovno Miguel Quezada Maria Mene Nadine Burke Carlos Rodriguez Ricardo Melgoza Esmeralda Garcia John Davis Nazareno Estrada Jose Reyes Ana Hernandez Jose Luis Lopez Ignacio Rocha Jorge Martinez Eva Ibarra Ricardo Orejel Amuleo Monrdy Jesus Ortega Angel Ruiz Leo Albur Ofelia Gonzalez Tanya Noble Melissa Aguilar Maribel Villonbelo Patricia Ramirez Eva Garcia Margarita Amparan Tina Vmibo Uaria Espinoza Pedro Carmona Jose Luis Hernandez Marta Vasquez Elena Salazar Welda Gawy

89 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Debra Jones < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UCIS comments

November 1, 2018

Dear RTC commissioners:

As a 50-year resident of Aptos, Capitola, and Soquel, I would like to bring the following observations to the attention of the RTC commissioners in regards to the UCIS study: • The proposed Scenario B use of the rail line for commuter trains will permanently bisect neighborhoods and beach access with fences. Inter-community travel, from Aptos to downtown Santa Cruz, would be served better by bikes, e-bikes, walking, or small electric vehicles on a car-free route. Neighborhoods deserve an open-access route for kids to get to school, people to walk their dogs and get exercise, and short commuter trips and errands completed without the use of a car. • The RTC has owned the rail corridor since 2012 without making it open and usable for the community. How many people have not had the opportunity for healthy exercise or car-free travel because of the inaction and outdated thinking of the RTC? The RTC’s proposed trail is expensive, environmentally destructive and unappealing, discontinuous, and, apparently, rather a bone thrown to gain support of the train. • We all love the train systems in Europe, but honestly, this county would not be served in the same way by a train here. We do not have the population or financial resources to support a train. There is no data showing that commuters on Highway 1 would use a train system, when buses (with the exception of the UCSC route) are not working to get people out of their cars. I believe if put to a vote, the county could not pass an increased sales tax to pay for an expensive, underused train. • Is there any real reason that we could not just rail-bank the corridor, place a surface over the existing rails, and let folks ride and walk the corridor until the county does have the population and dollars to put in a commuter rail line? Let’s see if we can design and implement state of the art transit solutions that we can afford, that work, that don’t segregate neighborhoods, and that put bikers and walkers on equal footing with other modes of transportation. It’s time for a compromise. Santa Cruz County has many other pressing, expensive problems that need our focus and attention. We’re ready to start using the beautiful corridor running through our county. We’re ready to be proud of the healthy, realistic choices we can make.

Debra Jones Aptos

Sent from my iPhone

90 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Robert Stephens < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 11:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Comments on UCIS

Dear Commissioners,

I really appreciate all the time and effort you have put into the RTC. We have limited time and money to solve our county’s transportation issues, so we need cost effect solutions that can be implemented sooner than later.

I was a strong supporter of Measure D and I thought there would be a “fair and open” study of the rail corridor, as this would add clarity to an issue that has been nagging our community for a long time. Unfortunately we got the UCIS which just seems to be a staff tool to promote “stay with the status quo.”

Instead of working towards compromise and figuring out a way to move forward we are stuck in the same old paradigm. No freeway widening, METRO is going broke, wait forever for a train that we cannot afford and meanwhile try to build a disconnected trail at great cost.

The only way I can see going forward is to drill down on the train and develop a go/no go scenario.

When would a train start to operate, what will it cost to build, what will it cost to operate, what is the number of riders and how will it be paid for? These are the questions that need to be answered. Once you know these you can decide to go with a train or not.

Having a peer review of the corridor part of the UCIS is a first good step, as there are many numbers and premises that don’t make sense. Having a neutral third party help resolve these issues makes sense.

Your own ridership studies predict an annual train ridership of 2 million by 2035, which is less than half of current bus ridership. So in my mind, the ridership is way too low to justify the cost.

As we continue to delay building a train, we lose options. For example: maybe 5 years ago we could have built a station and had parking for it in Aptos Village, but that option is now gone.

I support the idea of a state rail plan, but I am not sure how popular it will be or how it will work, some of this depends on the new Governor. Having a node to it in Watsonville or Pajaro makes sense, but there is no need to connect to it by train from Santa Cruz, so don’t get too caught up in that.

Lastly, transportation is rapidly changing. Look at Jump Bikes. How many people are they moving per day and at what cost to tax payers? There are many transportation solutions out there that work, are cost effective and can be implemented now.

Keep an open mind.

Sincerely, Robert Stephens 91 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Barry Scott < > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 10:25 AM To: UCS ; John Leopold Cc: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please select Scenario B, rail transit, trail, metro improvements. Do not delay to 2019

Dear Commissioners,

Future citizens won't embrace public transit if we don't provide it.

Watsonville won't be connected if we remove the rail line for a trail they won't use. Watsonville won't be connected if the rail corridor becomes a linear park. Scenario B should add Freight because this takes trucks off the highway, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and moves goods 4 times more efficiently than by trucks, and it should be revenue neutral or even contribute revenue to county budgets.

Scenario B investments offer the best outcomes: --Greatest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions --Largest bike mode share --Largest transit mode share --Highest scores in "Economic Vitality" measures --Greatest reduction in VMT, Vehicle Miles Traveled --Most consistent with current and future state and regional transportation policies

Please present for Commission approval Scenario B with the addition of freight on the rail line.

And, please do not postpone the commission vote to January, we cannot avoid further delays. Begin to build out all public transit and bike infrastructures as soon as possible!

An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport. --Enrique Penalosa

Many thanks,

Barry -- Barry Scott Aptos resident.

92 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Mark Woodhead < > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 6:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS results and what to do next

I am writing you to express my very strong approval for the trail-only scenario on the ROW. I've reviewed the latest Unified Corridor Study, and once again it has shown that bicycles, buses and wider freeways are the best option for fixing our traffic problems, not to mention increasing active transportation which numerous studies have shown increases the health of the people that use active transportation.

I also believe it is imperative that we improve the bus system AND widen Hwy 1. But the most important thing I want to see, no matter what direction the board thinks we ought to go in, is a vote on what to do next. The SCCRTC has had well over a decade to study the possibilities for the rail ROW (what has it been, six or seven studies now?). It's time to put forth a plan, let the people who will be paying for all this have their vote, and then let's move forward with the plan that the people of our county vote for.

Mark Woodhead Santa Cruz resident since 1982

From: Sue Kaufmann < > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:56 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission ; UCS Subject: Support Scenario B and develop rail transit ASAP

To Whom It Mat Concern,

We own a rail line when are we going to use it? Develop and build rail mass transit soon.

In 1981 my family and I moved from Los Angeles to Santa Cruz. I was raised in Los Angeles and I remember as a child that quite often my mother, siblings and I would take the Red Car from our home to downtown Los Angeles. The Red Car was fast and efficient. Suddenly it appeared to me tracks were ripped out and replaced with buses which now took us three times as long with transfers to get to the same locations. I remember my mother being angry the Red Car was removed with all its tracks. Due to increased traffic, partially caused by buses, the pollution became a huge problem and I developed sever asthma from the smog and it was a terrifying experience for a child. Now decades later and millions of hours of wasted time on crowded highways and jammed streets Los Angeles is replacing the once abandoned tracks with rail rapid transit.

I am a senior citizen and due to a hip replacement I have no intention of riding a bike or e-bike because I am fearful of a fall which in my opinion is not safe on the busy streets in Santa Cruz and Capitola where I live. Lots of seniors have had hip and knee replacements and are hesitant to ride bikes and are unable to walk long distances.

93 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Recently I spoke to a Greenway advocate (board member?) about their plans and what they envision for the rail corridor and it would be for bikes and e-bikes. I said to him, "ask your grandmother how she would like riding a bike or e-bike ? You don't have a vision for the future for seniors, special needs, amputees and disabled individuals that do not have the strength as you, young man."

I am an active real estate agent these past 46 years. Let's not forget Watsonville and allow them to be represented in this process.

Finally, we own a rail line when are we going to use it?

Sincerely, Sue Ginsburg-Kaufmann

From: Daniel Heppner < > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Don't Widen HWY1

I'm a train advocate. I think the future of our dense county will work need a high capacity passenger rail line. But above all, I believe widening highway 1 is NOT the solution to our transportation problems.

As we've seen time and again, and as many urban planners can attest to, widening roads just results in more cars driving on them, and traffic doesn't improve. This is a phenomenon known as induced demand, and in Santa Cruz, it would encourage people to move further and further away from where they work. The immediate impact might be reduced traffic, but after a year or two we will right back where we are now. Look at all the examples of cities around the world REDUCING road sizes, and instead of seeing increased traffic, they just saw increased transit usage.

We need alternatives to traffic, not "solutions" that just cause more people to get in their cars. While I believe that Santa Cruz is dense enough for a high capacity rail solution, I think above all else we just need to prioritize mass transit. Whether that means bus lanes on soquel drive and highway 1, or a full fledged light rail in the corridor.

When it comes to the unified corridor, we have a great opportunity to move a lot of people in and out of downtown, giving thousands an alternative to sitting in traffic. A trail solution in Santa Cruz would be well used and very popular, but a quick train in its own ROW will move all kinds of people, including those who can't afford an electric bike. -- Daniel Heppner http://danielheppner.com/

94 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Donna Maurillo < > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:49 PM To: Sccrtc Info Subject: Support for Rail/Trail

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The last ten years of my career were devoted to working at the Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. I also earned my Master of Science in Transportation Management. So I believe I am well-versed in the transit needs of our local communities.

One thing we learned was that widening highways does little to relieve congestion. In fact, it encourages more "rubber wheel" vehicle use. We can widen Highway One until it's the size of the Los Angeles Freeway. But that isn't what we want or need. Things have always been bad. When I lived in Aptos in the 1980s, I had a business office in downtown Santa Cruz. Going to and from work was a nightmare even then--and it continues today.

San Jose has light rail. We don't. It would be a huge mistake to remove the legacy rail line in Santa Cruz County, which could be used for transit. Not only would it relieve highway congestion, but it would be a great connector to rail lines in development over the hill. Why remove an asset that could not be easily replaced in the future?

Even if all we do at the present is to develop the trail, we can still reserve the rail line for the next generation. Removing it would close a door that cannot be opened again. Recall what happened when the rail line under the Santa Cruz Mountains was abandoned. We no longer have it as a way to relieve Highway 17 congestion.

Thank you for taking my opinion into consideration.

Yours truly, Donna Maurillo

From: Catherine Marino Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Study Scenario B support

Dear RTC commissioners,

Please adopt Scenario B, Rail and Trail, for our rail corridor. I’d also like to see you add freight service for Watsonville to support the 5 freight customers and 700+ workers employed by those companies. It would be a welcome and much needed addition to also extend both a southbound and a northbound auxiliary lane (or perhaps an HOV lane) from Soquel Ave in Santa Cruz to Main St in Watsonville.

95 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Using the rail corridor for Rail and Trail will be the safest scenario, plus it will provide needed additional transportation choices for all of our citizens, including seniors, citizens with disabilities, and those who desire active transportation.

Thank you for your hard work in getting us to this point!

Sincerely, Cathy Marino Live Oak

From: John Martinelli Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:11 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: John Martinelli ; Matt Huffaker ; Lowell Hurst Subject: Three top priorities for consideration before the November 15th RTC meeting Importance: High

Dear RTC Commissioners.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide Community feedback on the various scenarios being considered for our critically important transportation corridor. My primary purpose here is to propose that the UCS project team adopt a locally preferred hybrid plan as “a recommendation on a preferred scenario to the commission on Nov 15th.” Recognizing that scenario B appears to have the most support at this time, my comments will be focused on proposed modifications to this scenario.

Buses on shoulders: This is the best idea I have heard so far, and it should be included in Scenario B and given the highest priority for implementation ASAP. A dedicated lane, used only by commute buses and emergency vehicles, would travel at normal freeway speeds parallel and visible to the clogged Highway 1 freeway serving local commuters between South and North County homes and jobs. The buses themselves would be a rolling “advertisement” as they cruise by those sitting motionless in car traffic every day! This would be extremely motivating for local commuters to convert to this clean, affordable and safe public transportation alternative. It would also reduce much of the car traffic for commuters who are driving over the hill to San Jose jobs, without a viable public transportation solution in the foreseeable future.

Freight service on rail in Watsonville: This is a requirement for many of our South County businesses, and simply must be added to scenario B. One rail car can displace four semi-trucks delivering raw materials and shipping finished goods to our national marketplaces, as well as reduce cost, making us more competitive with companies located outside the

96 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

expensive state of California. Also, to the extent that our local businesses are successful, we provide valuable jobs to our local population who do not need to occupy the commute corridor.

Bike and pedestrian trail: I am a major fan of the “rail trail” for many reasons and believe this should be a fast track project for many reasons. With or without a re-established rail transit system someday, we should do everything we can to build a functional hike and bike trail ASAP. Assuming the rail system is at least 10 to 15 years away from reality, our Santa Cruz county community would benefit greatly from the use of this resource in the meantime, by simply covering the existing rail bed…even if just with base rock in the outlying areas of Watsonville and Davenport! Our County is starved for outdoor recreational facilities that also connect neighborhoods, restaurants, parks, homes, jobs and schools to each other, as well as our beautiful coastline and beaches. In addition to creating the opportunity for adults and families to leave their cars at home, teenagers without access to cars would be able to get out of the house, off their electronic devices, and interact with each other in safe, wholesome activities and venues that are otherwise inaccessible, even if only a few miles away.

Reverse commute to the Pajaro rail station: Although this is outside the scope of the RTC project, another very effective solution to help resolve much of the south county traffic on Highway 1 would be to help facilitate establishment of a commute rail segment on existing tracks that connect the Pajaro station with Gilroy, and all the rail and other public transportation systems in the Bay area.

We have a great opportunity to establish broad alignment with a majority of our Community members around a preferred scenario. I really believe many of those who are not convinced the South County is getting its fair share of the attention and representation on the RTC will support a revised plan B with these features addressed on November 15th.

Thanks very much for your sincere consideration.

John

S. John Martinelli CEO S. Martinelli & Company 227 East Beach Street Watsonville, California 95076 Direct: 831-724-1126 x222 Cell: 831-332-5629 [email protected]

97 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Philip Boutelle Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS Draft Step 2 Comments: Scenario B

RTC Commissioners and Staff,

After reviewing the UCS Draft Step 2 Analysis Report and Dashboard, it is has become apparent that Scenario B is the best choice for our county. Scenario B includes a passenger rail service and a 12' wide path on the rail line, which are the two most important features we should have on the corridor. This scenario has the highest marks in almost all categories looked at (including lowest collision rates, highest impact on car miles traveled, highest transit use share, etc).

For the next draft, as well as for the upcoming presentation to the County Board of Supervisors on the staff recommendation, please include an analysis of additional funding possibilities, specifically the California Rail Plan, which appears to fund jurisdictions across the state with high-speed/regional/local rail. If we proceed with pasenger rail, a top priority should be securing funding to cover the incremental cost of using electric engines instead of diesel engines.

Thank you for your work on this important plan.

-Philip Boutelle Santa Cruz

From: Geoffrey Smith Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS: no train on Coastal Corridor

I do not think a train will be a good solution for the Coastal Corridor because it will cost too much money to build and operate while not improving the congestion on Hwy 1 or Soquel Ave. at all. It will only move a small percentage of people and very little commerce while having many negative effects on our community.

If the SCCRTC thinks a train is really the best solution then they should let us taxpayers vote now on the tax subsidy which will be needed to support it before spending any extra money to keep the tracks just in case they might be used in a few decades. The SCCRTC should be spending their time on widening Hwy 1 to three lanes through Aptos, modernizing our bus transit system and developing protected bike lanes instead of all of their time pushing for a train. That is why I voted for Measure D.

Geoffrey Smith Santa Cruz

98 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: david van brink < > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCIS: Please Choose Scenario B on December 6th.

Dear Commissioners for Santa Cruz County Transportation,

I am a resident of the West Side of Santa Cruz, living here since 1988 and homeowner since 1999. We live near the Branch Line right-of-way.

I encourage you to pursue “Scenario B” as the general corridor transportation policy. The Unified Corridor Investment Study suggests that by-the-numbers it’s the best bang for the buck.

The timeline of this process has been generous. The parameters and steps have been well- specified, and transparent. There’s no justification for claims of “rigging”, claims of impropriety. I look forward to the final version of the UCIS. After this, any delay for further tiny iterations on the Study will not result in a meaningful change of outcome.

Knowledge is never perfect, and predictions are notoriously difficult, especially about the future. There will be many further discussions to refine each component to fit current realities of technology, funding, and citizens’ needs. Our choice today is a statement of policy, of aspiration.

Please stick to the existing, generous timeline. It’s been years in process. This is no surprise.

And please choose Scenario B. Let’s get our trail built. Let’s not succumb to minority NIMBY pressure to remove our one and only rail transit option prematurely.

Thank you for all your work!

Warmly —> David Van Brink

From: Michael Parisi Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor feedback

Hello,

I feel like there are too many options still left unexplored. With recent advances in technology, the idea of building a trail to accommodate a train seem absurd, and even harmful. Did you know, there are electric vehicles, less that 40” in width, that can be “tethered” together like a train ( for speed control), but then release as a normal, 2 person street legal car? How about

99 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

a dedicated “alternate hwy 1 lane” for sub 60” width vehicles with NEV? They are not expensive, 13k each, and could be used exactly how Jump bikes work. Rented per trip.

I don’t believe a train will solve anything traffic related in SC, but the corridor COULD.

Thanks,

Mike Parisi

From: Sawhill Bruce Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Sawhill Bruce Subject: Support for Scenario B of the UCIS

Dear SCCRTC Commissioners and Staff:

I am writing to underscore my support for Scenario B of the UCIS. I sent each of you an economic cost/benefit analysis of the four scenarios under separate cover, and Scenario B provides over $1.2 billion in net benefit (including costs) over 30 years and beats the next best scenario (Scenario C) by $400 million. This has a comparable effect to reducing sales tax by 1 and 1/4 cent over 30 years, and we would have major lasting transportation improvements to show for it to boot. Good for people, planet, and prosperity.

Best,

Bruce Sawhill, PhD

From: Brett Garrett Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Mode Share discrepancy, and missing data for Total Trips and Fares

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

The Baseline Mode Share data in Tables 15 and 36 (and also in the resulting charts and in the FAQ) appears to be incorrect. It is substantially different from the Mode Share data given at https://sccrtc.org/funding-planning/statistics/ even though they are both are said to be from the same source, 2011-2012 California Household Survey.

(For what it's worth, I discovered this discrepancy when I tried to calculate the baseline 2015 number of Total Trips based on Metro data and mode shares. The only way I could get a reasonable result that seemed consistent with 947,700 daily trips in 2035 was to use the unweighted value 1.9% for the transit mode share. I'm not sure what the weighting refers to on RTC statistics page.)

100 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

It would be very helpful for the UCS to provide complete Total Trips data for each scenario. I appreciate the FAQ showing 947,700 daily trips in 2035, but I would expect this number to change in response to HOV lanes and other projects. The UCS is also missing baseline 2015 number of Total Trips. The Total Trips data is necessary for converting mode shares into the actual number of trips for each mode.

Regarding fares, it is my understanding that UCS counts fares toward the public funding of operational expenses for each project or scenario. I would regard fares as being separate from public funding, and many people are interested in farebox recovery, so I suggest giving more details about the fares and showing them separately.

Thank you, Brett Garrett

From: Brett Garrett Received: Wednesday, October 31, 2018

From: Piet Canin Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:46 AM To: Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Subject: UCS preferred scenario

Hi Ginger & Grace, I have a few questions regarding the UCS, the soon to be selected preferred scenario and community group input into the preferred scenario.

• What is the format of the staff recommendation for a preferred scenario?

101 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

• What revisions will you consider from the public? • Will there be a budget for the preferred scenario and each of the projects contained in the recommended scenario?

It would be great if you could give me a call to talk regarding the best way for community groups to provide input to the final UCS recommended scenario.

Thank you.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation EcologyAction | EcoAct.org

From: Jack Carroll Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Use the train money for free buses

When the 2015 Rail Feasibility Study was published I thought the railroad myth was dead. That study predicts only 64 people will ever be on the train at once with some traveling only a short part of the route (page 110). Some of them would have ridden the bus instead! So few Santa Cruz train passengers will have no effect of Hwy 1 traffic. In fact CalTrans data reports 82% of Hwy 1 peak traffic continues onto Hwy 17, not Santa Cruz.

Our Santa Cruz train route passes farm land and single family dwellings, not apartment complexes. We do not have the necessary housing density along the line to make this route useful. It appears you are considering a plan to spend $400 million to avoid returning $11 million to the state. With 40 public road crossings and 28 private crossings (page 88 of the Feasibility Study), this train will not speed up traffic and may not be safer. And we have to spend all $400 million before the first train runs. That’s more than triple the 2015 capital estimate, by the way. Our community cannot support a passenger train. That’s why no one in the business wants to operate one. Just postpone this rail investment for the future. You’ll have to replace all the rails and 2/3 of the ties in any case (Table A-10). So why spend that money today?

Spend the train money on improving bus service. The disabled and the elderly will be better served by the incredibly helpful bus drivers because there will not be similar assistance available on a train.

Without the train we can use that investment money to run our buses completely free. In fact, just the annual O&M savings of no train is more than double the Metro’s entire fare box revenue for last year. Toss this wasteful train and we can have completely free buses forever!

Please publish a version of Scenario B that omits any passenger rail possibility and no freight rail possibility other than existing service for Watsonville (Phase 1). You’ll no longer need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in additional new funding and, still, everyone could ride the buses for free!

102 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Additionally, this scenario will preserve our ability to raise funds for affordable housing. If people could live closer to their work that, too, would improve our traffic. Please incorporate new housing into our Regional Transportation Plan. Do proposed routes service likely locations of new housing? Let’s see how that looks.

That’s two changes to the draft report: 1. add a version of Scenario B without any train service beyond Phase One plus free Metro buses 2. state how additional housing will be supported by these transportation investments.

The RTC is the best county-wide authority to provide overall planning for new housing. Step up to the plate.

-- Jack Carroll

From: Anna Kammer Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Support for Scenario B With Addition of Freight Transit

Good afternoon Chair Leopold and RTC Commissioners,

As Watsonville residents we urge your support for Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Study. This Scenario, with the addition of freight service on the rail line, provides the best transit options for the greatest majority of the public.

Scenario B is the best option for cyclists and pedestrians as it provides a safe trail along the rail corridor for active transport, with options for mode-sharing with transit on the rail line, as well as BRT on the Soquel/Freedom Corridor. This Scenario also supports Vision Zero goals as adopted by the Watsonville City Council earlier this year.

Preserving the tracks on the rail line is an important part of the future transit options for Santa Cruz County, not only for county internal trips, but for future connection with the Pajaro Rail Station on the Monterey County Rail Extension Project.

We have this chance to be part of the transportation solution for Santa Cruz County with the adoption of "Scenario B with freight rail service". Please support Scenario B, which serves the greatest share of the population regardless of age, mobility, or area of residence, and gives us all the most options for transit.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Anna Kammer and Dan Fallorina

103 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Ashley Winn Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Scenario A

Dear RTC staff and commissioners:

While I think the Scenarios offered in the UCS appear to have been arbitrarily contrived, the only Scenario (as combined) that I can support is Scenario A. Any other scenario will doom the county to transportation nightmares for the foreseeable future.

Ashley M. Winn Law Office of Ashley

From: Grace Voss Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS commentary/Scenario B is best!

Dear RTC Board of Directors…Scenario B of the United Corridors Study is the best solution for Santa Cruz County’s transportation future. Here are reasons why…

· SAFETY: 3,400 people are killed annually on California’s highways. Scenario B offers safety in the form of alternate transportation (i.e. buses on the shoulder of Highway l between Morrissey and State Park Drive and bus rapid transit on the Soquel Avenue/Drive corridor.) Protected bike lanes on Soquel, coupled with rail trail AND rail transit, will save lives. Buses are safer than cars, and the rail corridor will give protected travel for bikes, pedestrians and rail commuters.

· EQUITY: Cars are expensive, costing their owners $5,000 annually or $48 a day (two– car family) for gas, fees, upkeep and insurance! Daily congestion on Highway 1 also results in frustration from time spent stuck in traffic, especially for residents of the South County/Watsonville area! Scenario B will give relief to motorists by offering bus rapid transit and commuting by rail. The City of Santa Cruz’s popular bike share program offers a solution to ‘first and last mile’ rail and bus commuters. Automobile–centric scenarios (A and E) give little relief in time and money to South County commuters.

· CARBON EMISSIONS: Scenario B is best, offering the lowest reduction (-28%) of greenhouse gas emissions in metric tons per day, compared with the baseline total from 2015. This county’s voters declared its preference for reduced greenhouse gas emissions when they soundly defeated a proposal to widen Highway 1 more than 10 years ago. Let’s not repeat past failures!

104 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

· TIMELINE AND COST: Scenario B offers immediate construction of a rail trail due to money already available ($42 million), supplemented by money from Measure D. Indeed, the Westside’s Segment 7 (Phase 1) is shovel–ready, awaiting a reasonable construction bid. Likewise, buffered/protected bike lanes and bus rapid transit on the busy Soquel Avenue/Drive corridor are a timely remedy, and may be implemented far easier and more economically than auxiliary lanes and bridge widening for Highway 1. Up to $900 million will be available for passenger rail on the Central Coast from Caltrans, sponsor of the California State Rail Plan. Caltrans has decided that future transportation needs will be met with rail transit, not with highway widening. Follow the money!

· CONCLUSION: Scenario B leads the way in saving lives and reducing costs due to fewer auto collisions. It will reduce adverse health impacts from CO2e emissions, plus it will protect environmentally–sensitive areas. Best of all, it will bring an equitable transportation system that meets the needs of all users. No doubt about it, Scenario B is best!

VOTE FOR SCENARIO B! —Sincerely, Grace Voss

From: Tina Andreatta Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:35 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission; UCS Subject: Only Scenario B with rail transit serves everyone in Santa Cruz County

To Whom It May Concern;

I love living in Santa Cruz County and I’ve been here since the early 1980s. A few years ago I retired after owning a small business for 26 years. My three long time employees were all born in Santa Cruz County and each were 3rd or 4th generation Santa Cruz residents. Frequently all of us talked about how great it would be if there was a light rail between Watsonville and Santa Cruz because the traffic was getting worse with each passing year. For the first 15 years, my office was located on 41st Avenue and it is three blocks from the rail line. Then we moved to the second location close to Capitola Village and this office is about 5 blocks from the rail. The four of us would talk about how wonderful it would be to leave our cars at home, save on gas and maintenance, read a book, relax then get a little exercise before getting to work. Two employees were born, raised and lived in Watsonville and both wanted the option to take a light rail to work then walk the few blocks to the office. My third employee was also born in Santa Cruz County and lived in the Seabright area and wanted to walk to the rail and commute to work on light rail too.

Fast forward, I ride my bike through out our beautiful county and in many areas it’s not safe riding on the streets. I always worry whenever I see school age children riding their bikes as I am very concerned that every day Santa Cruz County DELAYS building the trail is another day a child could be hit by a car or truck and suffer major injuries or death.

The rail corridor is the last and only remaining open corridor connecting North County to South County. A light rail will help get traffic off of our very congested Highway One. It’s

105 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

worth saving BOTH rail and trail for future generations. Don’t be shortsighted, don’t forget our residents with disabilities, don’t forget our elders, don’t forget our community residents that can’t afford cars which cost about $15.00 per day to operate. Build the trail now. Save the rail corridor.

I would love tram or light rail and that is why I strongly like and support Scenario B: -Best at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, -Highest share of bike travelers -Highest share of transit users -Highest scores in economic vitality -Fewest collisions, safest mix of improvements -Decreases the total number of miles driven by motor vehicles (VMT)

Best Regards, Tina Andreatta

From: Dan Dion Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCIS letter of support

Greetings,

My wife and I support the rail and trail scenario B in the UCIS. Its obvious on all measures that scenario B is the path forward for our communities. Let’s not be blackmailed again by the wealthy special interest groups Greenway and Trailnow and get this built without delay.

Best regards, Jill and Dan Dion

From: Keith Otto Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:59 PM To: SCC-RTC-UCS Subject: SCC RTC UCIS Rail Ridership?

SCC-RTC-UCS

Hello! I wanted to confirm the rail ridership numbers included as part of the UCIS.

1.) I thought I heard at the Watsonville 10/18 meeting that ~ 7,000+ daily riders are expected. Is this correct?

2.) And then in the UCIS FAQ, I found

106 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The 2035 forecast for rail transit boardings for Scenario A is 7396/day and for Scenario E were 6571/day.

Scenario A? Is this a typo? Should it be:

The 2035 forecast for rail transit boardings for Scenario B is 7396/day and for Scenario E were 6571/day.

See also details / references below.

Thanks!

Regards, Keith

------

Unified Corridor Investment Study Frequently Asked Questions DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis

Posted October 26, 2018

... 11. How was ridership for bus transit, rail transit and BRT on the rail right-of-way determined? ... The 2035 forecast for rail transit boardings for Scenario A is 7396/day and for Scenario E were 6571/day. source: https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FAQS-post-Step-2-DRAFT-20181026.pdf

------

DRAFT Unified Corridor Investment Study Performance Dashboard Step 2 Analysis Results

Scenario A (blue)

107 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

source:

PDF page 3 of 35 https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Unified-Corridor-Investment-Study-Dashboard- DRAFT.pdf

From: Wendy Strimling Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Rail and trail

Please support scenario B. Santa Cruz County needs rail, not just trail, to combat climate change and provide a good alternative to cars for commuting.

From: Linda Wilshusen Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:21 PM To: [email protected] Cc: John Leopold; George Dondero; Luis Mendez; Cory Caletti Subject: Wilshusen comments on UCS

Hi all - My comment letter is attached.

As you know, we're out there fighting hard for our collective future. Thank you to the RTC staff & Commission for your efforts every day.

- Linda Capitola First - No on L

108 109 110 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

Dear Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation, • We need fast reliable public transit and safer streets for cyclist and pedestrians. • We need alternatives to being stuck in highway traffic congestion. • Please use the rail line for dependable passenger train service for workers, students and everyone. • Please make our streets safer for bikes and pedestrians. I live in Santa Cruz County and I support the improvements in Scenario B of the Unified Corridor Investment Study.

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

Estimada Agencia Regional de Transportación de Santa Cruz, • Necesitamos tránsito público rápido y confinable y calles más seguaras para ciclistas y peatones. • Necesitamos alternativas para aliviar la congestion del tráfico en el autopista. • Favor de utilizer la vía de tren para servicios de pasajero confinable para trabajadores, estudiantes y todo el público. • Favor de hacer nuestras calles más seguras para bicicletas y peatones. Yo vivo en el condado de Santa Cruz y apoyo las mejoras en el Escenario B del Estudio “Unified Corridor Study”. October 30, 2018 Andrew Woodward Paul Elerick Georgina Balkwell Kelly Sheperd Rachel Cordero Jessica Sanders Nick Deans Karen Groppi Edina Sorvir Nathan Beserra Elizabeth Flynn

111 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Don Lauritson Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 5:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Support for USB Scenario B

I wholeheartedly support Scenario B. We have to use the rail corridor for some type of transit in addition to creating a bike and pedestrian trail in this corridor.

Don Lauritson Mid-County Resident

From: Stephen Slade Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCIS comment

I am attaching two docs in response to the UCIS

-- Stephen Slade Executive Director Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

112 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Unified Corridor Investment Study 10/29/18

The Land Trust is your partner in building the Rail Trail. We committed $6 million in funds as match and have spent $471,000 to date supporting RTC’s work on the North Coast segment.

We have raised $4 million and have $2 million to go to meet our commitments. We suspended fundraising after you committed to studying reversing your policy – in order to not have Trail Only advocates kill Measure D. We cannot effectively fundraise for a project the commission might abandon.

We are eager to see this issue settled and encourage you to stick to the deadline of a December 6 decision. Our commitment is to the Rail Trail plan you adopted and have been implementing. We support any scenario that includes the Rail Trail, which means either Scenario B or E.

We note that trail with rail scenario (B) is better at reducing collisions, increasing transit use, and reducing vehicle miles traveled than the trail without rail scenario (A). The reason is clear enough: there’s a 50% increase in transit use over the trail only concept. The surprising fact is that the trail with rail scenario (B) is cheaper to build than the trail only scenario (A) – $831 million vs. $899 million.

If the commission chooses another alternative, the Land Trust cannot automatically shift the $4 million we have raised for one project to another. I imagine most of the thousand donors who have given funds will want them used sooner than 2027 – which is the earliest construction could begin on a trail only option, according to your staff.

Let’s get the trail built ASAP and move ahead with addressing our county’s transportation challenges.

Sincerely,

Stephen Slade Executive Director

P.S. I’m attaching an ad which will appear in the Sentinel, Pajaronian, Good Times and Santa Cruz Waves. 113 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL

Are you confused? Learn the facts!

APPROVED PLAN UNAPPROVED CONCEPT

Current plan adopted after a 3 year NO public process, promotion began after public R public process. process and Rail Trail approval.

Current plan adopted by County, and three cities NO real plan and no support by local governments R it passes through. for the trail only approach.

R Environmental review complete. NO environmental review. R $142M available to build the trail. NO funds allocated for trail only approach. R Work underway on 13 of 32 miles of the trail. NO work underway. R First segment will be open in 2019. NO timeline for construction. R Most of trail could be built in 10 years. NO construction will begin for eight years, earliest. Tracks will be removed. Railbanking is Preserves tracks for future rail use. R NOT a viable option for returning them.

Supported by leading bicycle Leading bicycle and environmental organizations R and environmental organizations. say NO trail delay. Trail NOW, Rail TBD Trail Later, Rail Never

LAND

OFTRUST SANTA CRUZ EST. 1978 COUNTY

TO LEARN MORE VISIT: LandTrustSantaCruz.org OR RailAndTrail.org114 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Ryan Hoffman Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Trail Not Rail

To Whom It May Concern,

I am confused that educated, otherwise reasonable, folks seem to have such disagreements about what to do with our rail corridor. The UCIS does nothing to improve this discord, and when taken into context with other studies, is not convincing that our community needs rail. What is lacking are the details: source of funding, true traffic impact, etc. Please do not commit to a course of action involving rail until more details are better understood. I wholeheartedly support pedestrian trail on the corridor, and can not justify rail north of Watsonville for any reasonable return on investment where rails’s meager benefits offset tremendous costs. Trail now, trail only.

Ran Hoffman Live Oak, SC

From: Trician Comings Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Investment Study

Dear RTC Commissioners,

I want you to know that I support Scenario B, using our rail corridor for Rail and Trail.

Thank you,

Trician Comings, a pretty much daily bike rider for 65+ years.

From: Leah Drake Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Yes on Scenario B

As a Santa Cruz County resident on the increasingly traveled (and unsafe for more traffic) backwoods commuter route, Eureka Canyon Road, I’m joining those who support Scenario B!

Thank you, Leah Drake, RLA, ASLA Drake Design Landscape Architecture

115 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Jessica Guild Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Support for UCS Scenario B

Dear RTC,

My name is Jessica Guild. I am Live Oak community member that commutes by bike every day to UC Santa Cruz. I want to express my full support for the UCS Scenario B Rail and Trail path. It would be tragic to lose the rail tracks and I am looking forward to the day when I can ride across town to work in safety and security along a beautiful bike path.

Yours,

Jessica Guild

From: Marcia Poms Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 4:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: rail/trail projects

Considerations: Seniors, like myself, will be unable to use the bike/walk path unless accommodation is also made for small electric vehicles (such as golf carts?).

Bus service has been eliminated for La Selva Beach, which means everyone must drive on Hwy. 1.

Even when there was occasional bus service, it did not connect directly to Watsonville (where many go for shopping and activities).

Small, electric buses with more frequent runs would be welcome.

Please keep these things in mind.

South County is part of Santa Cruz County with a growing population that need to be considered when making decisions about transportation.

Thank you, Marcia Poms

116 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Bruce Sawhill Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 12:49 PM To: Cory Caletti; Ginger Dykaar Cc: Sawhill Bruce Subject: Analysis of UCIS Scenarios

Hi Cory, Ginger:

I decided to apply the tools of conventional investment analysis to the UCIS (taking the “I” for “Investment” seriously) and to see what it would look like. The attached document is built on all of the numbers given in the UCIS and generates information that I feel is noteworthy enough to share with the RTC.

Best,

Bruce

117 Cost/Benefit Analysis of the UCIS Study Alternatives Bruce Sawhill, PhD • October 21, 2018

The recently released Draft UCIS contains four scenarios for future transportation options on the three main north/south corridors in our County. Since the “I” in UCIS stands for “Investment”, why not attempt to subject the scenarios to the kind of investment analysis that is usually undertaken for more conventional investments, like buying stocks, buildings, farm property, etc.?

Transportation investments are not as simple as most other investments and transportation infrastructure affects many intangibles as well as tangibles. That said, the UCIS has given us several measures of effectiveness that can be translated into dollars. The two largest effects are VMT (“vehicle miles traveled”) and accidents prevented.

For a conventional investment, one looks at the capital cost and the carrying cost – How much something costs to buy and how much it costs to keep it up. A good investment makes enough money to not only exceed the carrying cost but to pay back the capital in a reasonable amount of time. As it turns out, the benefits of all of the scenarios except A exceed the carrying costs, but only two of them “pay back” the capital in a reasonable amount of time.

For the UCIS, we have carrying cost (“operations”) and capital costs, divided into local and non-local components. We also have benefits in terms of VMTs (increase or decrease) and accident reductions, compared to the “No Build” (do nothing, spend nothing) alternative. The costs and benefits are calculated in terms of local quantities.

The following spreadsheet shows the operations and capital costs of each of the four scenarios and the monetized effect of VMT changes as well as accident reductions. The VMTs are priced at the Federal reimbursement rate of 54.5 cents per mile (2018) and the accidents are priced at 68.2% of the $223,700 cost of each accident as quoted in the UCIS. 68.2% is used because that is the indirect cost of each accident, because the reduction in direct costs largely benefits insurance companies.1

Scenario Cap Ops/yr Colls VMT/day Yearly Net Net: 20 yrs Net: 30 yrs No Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 520 9 -248 150,000 -1 -540 -550 B 379 16 -366 -80,000 56 736 1,294 C 285 11 -252 -60,000 39 503 896 E 794 6 -257 120,000 9 -607 -514

Scenarios B and C are clear winners here, with B producing almost $400 million additional benefit over 30 years than C.

Build the Trail. Keep the Rail. RailAndTrail.org 118 The same information can be viewed in graphical form, to show the return on investment of the different scenarios over time. The vertical scale is in millions of dollars.

Net Present Value vs. Time

All of the scenarios start in negative numbers (representing the initial investment) and then change over time by the net gain or loss on operations, VMTs, and accidents. Both Scenarios B and C have a break- even time of about 7 years and generate net positive value after that. Scenario A never breaks even. Scenario E breaks even after 85 years, not shown on the above graphic. After 30 years Scenario B has delivered over $1.2B in value and the spread between the best and worst scenarios (B and E, A) is a whopping $1.8 billion.

In conclusion: A return on investment analysis of corridor scenarios is important for an investment of this size and complexity. Though all of the scenarios are preliminary, it is clear at this point that B is the winner by a significant margin. I feel this is a compelling reason to choose it. — Bruce Sawhill, PhD

References: 1https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013 APPENDIX Testing assumptions: These calculations, like all financial analyses, depend on assumptions. What happens if we change key assumptions like the cost of operating a car or how much financial assistance we get from outside the County?

A) Marginal cost of driving instead of total cost – No lifestyle changes, no cars bought or sold in response to transit or lack thereof – people just use exactly the same number of cars to drive more or less, retaining the costs of car ownership. Replace 54.5 cents/mile with 32 cents/mile. Result: Scenarios B and C pay back in 8 years, A and E in 40-50 years, B ahead of C by $350M in 30 years with a net value of $1.1B. Best to worst spread@30yrs (B vs A): $1.3B

B) Worst case funding scenario: No help from outside, all expenses paid locally. Result: B first to pay back (33 years), Value of B $38M better than C (next closest) at 30 years. Best to worst spread@30yrs (B vs E): $1.9B

C) Perfect storm: Use marginal cost of driving plus no outside financial help: Result: B first to pay back (46 years), C ahead of B at 30 years by $9M. Best/worst spread@30yrs (C&B vs E): $1.4B

119 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Piet Canin Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:10 AM To: UCS; Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Subject: Re: Soquel/Freedom bike data

Ginger, Thanks. I have 4 more follow up questions.

1. So is the ridership forecasted for buffered bike lanes only? 2. If so wouldn't protected bike lanes provide a higher ridership forecast? 3. Is the UCS team going to provide cost estimates for installing projected bike lanes on soquel/freedom? 4. Is the RTC Commission timeline for selecting a preferred scenario going to be extended? If so what is the new timeline?

Thanks so much for answering my questions on a Sunday.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation EcologyAction | EcoAct.org

From: Piet Canin Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:16 AM To: Ginger Dykaar; Grace Blakeslee Subject: Soquel/Freedom bike data

Hi Ginger & Grace, I'm sure you are inundated with questions regarding the UCS so I hope you can get back to me on this one.

I don't understand this statement on pg 173 regarding the Soquel/Freedom buffered bike lanes, "Given the lower forecasted ridership, the bicycling facility being separate from pedestrians and the opposing directions of bike travel being on opposite sides of street, it is anticipated that the level of service will be good and was not evaluated for this facility. Total daily bike trip projections for Soquel Ave/Dr and Freedom Blvd are a total 9071 trips where 2625 of these trips are new. The mode share calculations included the estimates of bicycle and pedestrian trips on the rail right of way and Soquel Ave/Dr and Freedom Blvd in the analysis.

If this facility wasn't evaluated how can you forecast ridership numbers? Can you explain how you got the numbers for Soquel/Freedom?

Thank you.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation EcologyAction | EcoAct.org

120 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Brian Peoples Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:41 AM To: Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Cc: Zach Friend; 'Patrick Mulhearn'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sandy Brown; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; John Leopold; [email protected]; Regional Transportation Commission; [email protected]; Alex Clifford; Barrow Emerson; [email protected]; [email protected] cruz.ca.us Subject: Fw: SMART Train good example?

Grace/Ginger,

Below is a copy of the Trail Now newsletter recently sent to our followers. In the Unified Corridor Study, your projected ridership and cost to build/operate should be comparable to the SMART train. Your numbers are too high for ridership and cost to build and operate are too low.

Best regards,

Brian Peoples Executive Director Trail Now

FACTS OF A TRAIN Santa Cruz train supporters are pointing to the SMART train in Sonoma as a great example of how a train would operate on the Santa Cruz Coastal Corridor. OK – let’s look at how well the SMART train is doing.

According to SMART’s Annual Report, through December last year the train took 2,191 riders on the average weekday. Ridership is so paltry that the train is having no impact on traffic — that is, except in downtown San Rafael, where it is causing congestion. Taxpayers pay $27 per person with tickets costing $7 to $23 for roundtrip ticket.

SMART’s general manager made a presentation in early August in Watsonville touting the sales tax is “only 25 cents of every hundred dollars.” It sounds small until one does the math and realizes that the typical household living in Marin since 2009 has paid over $2,700 in sales taxes to SMART, whether the train has been ridden or not.

SMART estimated in 2008 that the cost of construction was $455 million. Through June 2017, they spent $475 million on construction and $65 million on “materials and supplies” to build just 61 percent of the promised rail line.

Yes, SMART train is a good example of how a train will operate on Santa Cruz Coastal Corridor. Compare this to the estimated 15,000 users (based on Unified Corridor Study) of the future Santa Cruz Coastal Trail, at a fraction of the cost to build and operate, a train makes no sense.

121 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Carey Pico Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:42 PM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: Re: need your help on this quandary of traffic

Ginger

I misstated the "contrary to Caltrans data". That was an editing error. The data is the data from Caltrans. It just doesn't make sense to me. carey

On Friday, October 26, 2018, 9:19:04 PM PDT, Carey Pico wrote:

Ginger

Please reply to this email. Attached is a pdf of a graph of Hwy 1 aadt (i.e. daily traffic county) at 41st ave. for the years 1993 through 2016 (all available by Caltrans summary, and I didn't compare with PEMS).

It shows the traffic has been decreasing from 2004, and not much above its 1993 value. I have lived here since 2006, so my history is limited. People tell me the traffic is the worst they've seen. This is contrary to the Caltrans data (it is the "back" side (i.e. south) of the the street crossing).

Can you, informally, tell me if this is nuts? Am I misunderstanding something? Is the data correct?

Carey (I'm guessing the drop after 2004 was a construction of an access lane between Bay and 41st. True?)

From: Brett Garrett Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Possible errors and omissions in UCS draft report

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff, I bring the following items to your attention, in hopes of improving the accuracy and completeness of the Unified Corridor Study Step 2 Analysis Report.

122 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

No train stop in Watsonville (Typo?)

Table A-10 says the rail service will serve “ten primary stations (Westside Santa Cruz, Bay Street/California, Downtown Santa Cruz, Seabright, 17th, 41st, Monterey Avenue, Aptos Village and Downtown Santa Cruz in Santa Cruz County) and one station at Pajaro in Monterey County.” Perhaps the second “Downtown Santa Cruz” is a typo intended to say “Downtown Watsonville”, but as currently worded, Watsonville residents would need to detour to Pajaro in order to take the train.

Mode Share for Bicycles

Table 36 shows the exact same mode share in 2035 “No Build” as in 2015, but I think the mode share for bicycles will become much higher since it already appears to be increasing now. During this past year, the new Jump Bikes appear to have dramatically increased the bicycle mode share for the City of Santa Cruz. I expect electric bike sharing to be available (and popular) countywide within the next few years.

Questionable data: Appendix D

Pedestrian data: In Appendix D, the 2035 “No Build” data shows dramatically fewer pedestrians than “2016 Baseline”. This doesn’t seem plausible, given that Table 36 shows no change in the pedestrian mode share (10.6%). Vehicles and person-trips: In Appendix D, Scenarios A and E show a dramatic reduction in vehicles and person-trips at State Park Drive and Rio Del Mar Blvd, compared to either “2016 Baseline” or “No Build.” This seems extraordinarily unlikely and the numbers appear to be erroneous. Transit rider data: Comparing 2035 “No Build” to “2016 Baseline”, most locations show increased transit ridership as I would expect over time. Therefore, I am skeptical of the reduced ridership shown for Capitola Ave, Rio Del Mar Blvd, and San Andreas/Freedom Blvd.

Confusing data: Collision Forecasts by Scenario

Tables 31 and 42 (revised 10/15/2018) are still confusing. They should clearly show the annual average 2011-2015 collisions and 2035 no-build collisions for (a) Highway 1, (b) Soquel/Freedom, (c) Rail right-of-way area, and (d) overall project area. Some of the zeros could be replaced with “n/a” to show a project doesn’t exist in a given scenario. Furthermore, it is my understanding that HOV lanes would increase the number of collisions while ramp metering may decrease the number of collisions. In my opinion, the safety impact of HOV lanes should be shown clearly in Tables 31 and 42. The summary graphs shown in Dashboard should clarify that the numbers are for the UCS project area and not for the entire county.

123 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

BRT/Rail Discrepancy: “New Local Bus Transit Connection”

Table A-10 includes $12 million per year operating cost for new bus connections to the rail corridor, which is more than the entire operating expense in Table A-12 for BRT on the rail corridor. The project description is “local rail transit with interregional connections” and I assume “interregional connections” means the train station at Pajaro. The extra bus service might be called “intraregional connections” instead, and perhaps should be listed as a separate Project in UCS. The extra bus connections for rail might be a good idea, but they are well beyond the scope of the “Scenarios for Analysis” document (and also beyond the “Scope” shown in Table A-10). They create a very lopsided comparison of Scenario B rail transit to Scenario C rail corridor BRT. The rail project in Table A-10, “new local bus transit” section, literally adds more bus hours (163 weekday hours + 103 weekend hours, excluding rail) than the entire rail corridor BRT project in Table A-12 (122 weekday hours + 60 weekend hours, including BRT). Furthermore, unlike Table A-12, Table A-10 doesn’t include any capital cost for the additional buses required. Table A-10 should clarify the meaning of Routes 57 and 65, since these routes do not currently exist. Similarly, the excursion train Table A-11 seems to be outside of the scope of the “Scenarios for Analysis” document.

Missing details: BRT on rail corridor

Reference: Table 35 It is not obvious why an express BRT on the rail corridor takes 62.6 minutes to travel from Watsonville to Santa Cruz in the morning, compared to 41.0 minutes for passenger rail service that is serving ten stations. It would be helpful to provide a sample schedule for a BRT trip, to clarify where this bus would stop and where the delays occur.

Missing detail and possible discrepancy: Transit VMT

Transit VMT must be defined more clearly. We understand that “one bus traveling one mile while in service is one transit vehicle mile traveled” but it’s not clear how this definition extends to other forms of transit such as rail or Personal Rapid Transit. In any case, the numbers in Table 47 seem implausible to me. For one thing, I would expect Scenario E to provide more Transit VMT than Scenario A. To make the numbers more meaningful, I suggest to show more details, like this, filling in the blanks to show how the numbers add up: 2015 No Build Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario A B C E Baseline 3,325,771 3,611,451 3,611,451 3,611,451 3,611,451 3,611,451 Bus on n/a n/a n/a n/a Shoulders

124 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Bus in n/a n/a n/a n/a HOV BRT Lite n/a n/a n/a + freq Rail n/a n/a n/a n/a Transit New n/a n/a n/a n/a Local Bus for Rail Transit BRT on n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a rail corridor Total 3,325,771 3,611,451 5,736,938 6,649,956 6,110,177 5,229,875

Missing data: Transit Ridership and Passenger Miles Traveled

I appreciate the FAQ providing expected ridership for rail and for BRT on the rail corridor. This information should be included within the UCS, along with projections for “BRT Lite” on Freedom/Soquel, perhaps compared to existing Route 71 service. It would be helpful to clarify weekday ridership and weekend ridership separately. The number of transit trips and also Passenger Miles Traveled, broken down per transit project, would give a much better picture of how the various services will be used, as opposed to Transit VMT which fails to distinguish between an empty bus and a full bus.

Missing Scenario: Personal Rapid Transit

Prior to making any decision based on the Unified Corridor Study, it is essential to compare the benefits of a large Personal Rapid Transit system which could provide better transit, better safety, and better environmental benefits, compared to the Projects currently under consideration. I will provide more details soon.

Thank you for your consideration!

Brett Garrett

From: Michael Pisano Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS)

Hi UCS,

125 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

My opinion for the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS).

I would like to see more Incentives for community members to choose to be Carless. To own a car is way to convenient, and alternative forms of transportation are too expensive, or inconvenient.

For Example; To get to work: (from Live Oak to Scotts Valley). UBER/Lyft is about $84 a week [Trip time about 15 minutes]. METRO is a great bargain at $16 a month for a UCSC bus pass (for others is $4.00 a trip & $20 a week*) [Trip time about 1 Hour]. CAR: [Trip time about 12 minutes]. Lease is about $200 a month + $50 gas & insurance $80 (about $82 a week). Does not include maintenance costs. eBike: $3500 up front costs plus nightly charging & and fear of ebike getting stolen [Trip time about 1.5 Hour, per co-worker].

To get back home: (from Scotts Valley to Live Oak). UBER/Lyft is about $84 a week [Trip time about 25 minutes]. METRO is a great bargain at $16 a month for a UCSC bus pass (for others is $6.00 a trip & $30 a week*) [Trip time about 1.5 Hours]*. CAR: [Trip time about 20 minutes]. Lease is about $200 a month + $50 gas a month & insurance $80 a month (about $82 a week). Does not include maintenance costs. eBike: $3500 up front costs plus nightly charging & and fear of ebike getting stolen [Trip time about 1.5 Hour, per co-worker].

Summary of Costs: UBER/Lyft: ~$336 a month METRO: ~$200 a month (unless you buy a 31 day pass at $65). METRO ticket machines could be more conveniently located in the County. CAR: ~$328 a month eBike: ~$320 a month??

Just my Opinion on Last Mile Options: This is what sustainable transportation looks like with Bike Share & Scooters safely located in the County.

Possible Solutions May Be; Discounts on Uber/Lyft commute rides, Better Transfers on METRO to Scotts Valley at Water & Ocean (or a direct METRO route from Watsonville to Scotts Valley). Earlier METRO runs to allow for Manufacturing employees to use METRO that start at 6am (like Threshold & Bay Photo) (and help reduce HWY 1 traffic at 2:30pm when those employees would be on a bus & not in a car). Have Higher parking rates downtown, Better transfer timings of METRO buses, and Cheaper or FREE Bus passes (More METRO Marketing & cleaner bus stops & Newer Buses – some articulated). Please help change manage and expand the Santa Cruz Bike Share Program & Respectfully add Scooters to the County.

126 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Add More Walkable Areas: Add more restaurants, pharmacies & grocery to Soquel Drive by Dominican Hospital (How about a five & dime type store with a 24hr Café at the old Toys-R– Us building). More Bike Lockers throughout the County.

Thank you for your time and consideration ----

Michael Pisano UCSC – BAS/SHR – Leave of Absence Assistant

From: Mark Mesiti-Miller Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Comments on the UCS

Greetings,

Please see attached letter containing our collective comments on the UCS.

Thanks, Mark

127 Build the Trail ‐ Keep the Rail

October 26, 2018 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Re: Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results

Friends of the Rail and Trail has reviewed the UCS and is generally impressed with the overall quality and quantity of the work presented. We are satisfied the UCS provides the type of information and performance metrics needed to distinguish between scenarios and to understand the individual component parts of each scenario. At the same time, Friends of the Rail and Trail suggests addressing the following parts and portions of the report in an effort to deepen understanding of the choices before our community. Broad Scope Issues

The UCS appears to largely ignore the 2018 State Rail Plan (SRP) just adopted in September 2018. We understand that during development of the UCS the SRP only existed as a draft document and because the draft was subject to change, it was difficult to incorporate the SRP into the UCS. Now that the SRP has been formally adopted by the State and implementation of the SRP is intended to be complete by 2040, the adopted policies, plans and projections contained therein are relevant to and should be considered in the UCS. The UCS should at least consider the following elements from the SRP: o Funding: One clear policy directive of the SRP is that California is moving away from funding highway expansion and toward funding railway expansion. To the extent this monumental policy shift has not been accounted for in the estimated “funding potential” CapEx figures for Scenario A which includes highway expansion (adding HOV and additional auxilliary lanes to Highway 1) and for Scenario B which includes railway expansion (adding passenger rail on the SCBL), the “funding potential” figures should be adjusted accordingly, i.e. substantially decreased for Scenario A and substantially increased for Scenario B. To further illustrate the impact of the policy shift to railway expansion, the SRP includes $1.5 billion targeted at the Central Coast of California to “Implement Regional Rail Connecting Monterey and Santa Cruz to the Statewide Rail Network” and two other projects (SRP p.194). To put that $1.5 billion figure in perspective, that is about five times what is needed to pay for adding modern passenger rail service between Santa Cruz and Watsonville estimated at about $325 million in

877 Cedar Street, Suite 240, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060 | Tel: 831.426.5925 www.railandtrail.org 128 the UCS. Accordingly, it seems highly probably the “Potential Funding” CapEx figure for implementing passenger rail service on the Santa Cruz Branch Line (SCBL) will be substantially more than the very low $99 million figure provided in UCS Table 38 for Scenario B. Similarly, the required “New Public Investment” CapEx figure needed to implement passenger rail service on the Santa Cruz Branch Line (SCBL) should be substantially less than the figure provided in that same Table 38. Summarizing, we would expect to see substantial adjustments to these figures in the final UCS. o Ridership: The SRP anticipates a twelve fold increase in rail ridership statewide. As the SRP rolls out and folks become more accustomed to rail travel, it seems likely there will be a substantial increase in the number of out‐of‐county visitors choosing to travel car‐free using clean, quiet, efficient passenger rail to reach tourist destinations in our County and a similar substantial increase in County residents choosing passenger rail to reach destinations outside our County. I trust this expected increase in ridership was included in the analysis and results. If not, it seems prudent to include an allowance for same in the UCS. Similarly, I trust you have considered the white paper titled “OPTIMIZED RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY” authored by Michael D. Setty, MUP and dated April 16, 2018. In this paper, Setty demonstrated that ridership on the SCBL could be about double that predicted by the 2015 Rail Transit Feasibility Study (RTFS) if better connections to education and employment centers in our community are considered. Based on comments made at the two public workshops focused on the UCS, it sounded as though ridership projections largely reflected the RTFS and did not consider Setty’s analysis and findings nor impacts of the SRP. While one can argue ridership studies typically fail to accurately estimate actual ridership (actual is higher or lower than predicted), it seems prudent to consider what impact doubling ridership would have on the performance of Scenario B, especially in light of the fact that in ‘academic’ communities such as ours, rail ridership is higher than in other typical communities. Accordingly, we recommend an analysis of what effect doubling rail ridership would have on the UCS results be included, particularly with regards to projected OpEx figures. o Finally, the SRP paints a vivid picture of vastly improved passenger rail transit in California with an improved quality of life for all Californians. It would be helpful if the UCS would include an analysis about the changes to the quality of life each scenario would offer to the residents of, visitors to, and workers in our County.

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 2 of 8 129 Specific Comments

 Rail CapEx and OpEx o The UCS includes figures for OpEx and CapEx for a North Coast Excursion Service. We opine there is no basis for including these costs as any future excursion type service will likely be provided by an independent operator under terms and conditions similar to the existing agreement with Progressive Rail. It seems more probable the RTC will actually receive revenue from any future excursion service operating on the SCBL. Accordingly, all CapEx and OpEx cost figures for any and all future excursion services should simply be excluded from the UCS in the same way all CapEx and OpEx costs for future freight rail service was excluded from Scenario C and from Scenario E – see footnotes of Tables 38 and 39. o We noticed the estimated OpEx for future passenger rail service as stipulated in Table 10 includes over $12 million per year for “NEW LOCAL BUS TRANSIT CONNECTION TO RAIL”. This figure seems completely unwarranted, out of scale and should be excluded from consideration for the following reasons: . Integration of new passenger rail service into our County’s transportation system will require reconfiguration of most existing bus routes as we will then have a spine and rib system (passenger rail spine and bus route ribs). Many bus routes will simply be reconfigured to include a stop at a rail station at no additional cost. It is even conceivable some routes such as the 71 or 69 could be eliminated entirely. . Given the existing Metro annual budget is approximately $50 million, it seems illogical that adding a much faster transit spine will cause a 25% increase in bus OpEx. It seems more reasonable that adding a faster transit spine will result in a more efficient distribution of existing bus routes that will dramatically increase ridership and may even decrease costs due to the resulting increased fare box revenue. Please adjust the figures accordingly.  Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): We appreciate the good work that went into estimating the VMT reduction figures and suggest this esoteric concept would benefit from some simple analogy to make it more relevant and understandable. For example: given the daily 230,000 fewer VMT resulting from implementing Scenario B over Scenario A, that is about 84,000,000 VMT. Using the current IRS per mile reimbursement rate of $0.545, the resultant annual dollar savings would be about $46 million, almost all of which would be spent locally stimulating our local economy. Adding this $46 million figure to the $26 million saved by the fewer collisions under Scenario B over Scenario A, results in a total savings of $72 million – more than enough to “pay” all OpEx for a passenger rail system and robust improvements to our Metro bus system.

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 3 of 8 130 Perhaps a similar analysis could be done to convert VMT reductions into the number of trees one would have to plant to achieve similar results; or VMT reductions could be converted into gallons of fuel saved using an average vehicle MPG figure.  Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates provided in Appendix A: Our comments here follow in the same order. o Table A‐1: Bus on Shoulders . CapEx figures do include an allowance for support costs but support costs are not explained. Are “support costs” the same as “soft costs” included elsewhere? If so, please revise to say “soft costs” for consistency with other parts of Appendix A. Alternatively, please use the words “support costs” elsewhere in the appendix. If “support costs” are not the same as “soft costs”, an allowance for soft costs should be included. . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for any contingency but should . OpEx figures do not include an allowance for any soft costs but should o Table A‐2: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and Increased Transit . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs or contingency but should. CapEx figures provided in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan estimate the total cost for this project as being $603 million (see Appendix F‐27 footnote under Project ID RTC 24m) considerably more than the $440 million figure provided here – please explain difference or use the $603 million figure to more accurately portray the estimated cost) . OpEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs but should o Table A‐3: Auxiliary Lanes (in addition to the auxiliary lanes funded by Measure D) . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs or contingency but should o Table A‐4: Ramp Metering . CapEx figures do include an allowance for support costs but support costs are not explained. Are support costs the same as soft costs included elsewhere? If so, please revise to say “soft costs” for consistency with other parts of Appendix A. If not, an allowance for soft costs should be included. Also, a support or soft cost of 43% seems excessively high – please justify 43% figure used. . OpEx figures are not included as part of the project costs which seems like an oversight for surely there will be some OpEx expense associated with ramp metering. Please include an allowance for OpEx expenses.

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 4 of 8 131 o Table A‐5: Widen Highway 1 Bridge at San Lorenzo River . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs or contingency but should. If allowances are included in the stated total figure, then please state so and indicate the magnitude of allowances included. . OpEx figures are not included as part of the project costs which seems like an oversight for surely there will be some OpEx expense. Please include an allowance for OpEx expenses. Or if allowances are included in the total figure provided, then please state so and indicate the magnitude of allowances included. o Table A‐6: Mission Street Intersection Improvements . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs or contingency but should. If allowances are included in the stated total figure, then please state so and indicate the magnitude of allowances included. . OpEx figures are not included as part of the project costs which seems like an oversight for surely there will be some OpEx expense associated with this project. Please include an allowance for OpEx expenses. o Table A‐7: Soquel Avenue and Freedom Boulevard Intersection Improvements . CapEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs or contingency but should. If allowances are included in the stated total figure, then please state so and indicate the magnitude of allowances included. . OpEx figures are not included as part of the project costs which seems like an oversight for surely there will be some OpEx expense associated with this project. Please include an allowance for OpEx expenses. o Table A‐8: Buffered Bike Lanes on Soquel/Freedom . OpEx figures are not included as part of the project costs which seems like an oversight for surely there will be some OpEx expense associated with this project. Please include an allowance for OpEx expenses. o Table A‐9: Bus Rapid Transit on Soquel / Freedom . OpEx figures do not include an allowance for any soft costs but should o Table A‐10: Passenger Rail Service . CapEx figures include the cost to electrify the railway. Given the rapid development and deployment of battery electric rail vehicles around the world and here in the United States, it seems probable using all electric rail vehicles will not result in an increase in CapEx. Furthermore, utilizing an all‐ electric fleet should dramatically reduce OpEx costs as well. . OpEx costs for new local bus transit connection to rail should be excluded for reasons previously stated elsewhere. If not excluded, costs for new local bus transit connection should be substantially reduced to a small

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 5 of 8 132 fraction of the figures included in the first draft of the UCS Step 2 Analysis Results. . OpEx figures for rail service (and bus service if it remains included) should be reduced recognizing reduced mid‐day service when ridership is lighter is likely. Other passenger rail services cut service in half from mid‐morning to mid‐afternoon and our system would operate similarly. o Table A‐11: Excursion Rail Service . For reasons stated elsewhere, all costs for excursion rail service should be excluded from consideration o Table A‐12: Bus Rapid Transit Watsonville to Santa Cruz on Rail Right of Way with portions of route on parallel roadways . CapEx includes an allowance of 50% on all line items excepting the line item costs for the Articulated Bus Vehicles and “Other”. However, in Table A‐10 for passenger rail service, the contingency allowance was applied to the rail vehicles as well as all other line items. Please explain the inconsistent application of the contingency allowance or do not apply a contingency allowance to the rail vehicles in Table A‐10. Please also describe to what the line item “Other” refers. . There is no allowance for costs of settling property rights litigation that will likely arise if the railroad is abandoned to utilize the corridor for other purposes, such as Bus Rapid Transit. We understand approximately two thirds of the rail ROW exists as an easement across privately owned land allowing use of the land as a railroad. There are plenty of examples of the kinds of time and expenses required to settle such litigation when railroads are abandoned and repurposed (see our statement dated 10/14/18). Given the value of land in our area, it seems an allowance of at least $100 million should be included to address this issue plus the soft costs associated with this matter. . OpEx figures do not include an allowance for soft costs but should as soft costs are included for similar operating expense estimates (see A‐10 for example). o Table A‐13: Trail Only . CapEx: There is no allowance for costs of settling property rights litigation that will likely arise if the railroad is abandoned to utilize the corridor for a trail only purpose. We understand approximately two thirds of the rail ROW exists as an easement across privately owned land allowing use of the land as a railroad. There are plenty of examples of the kinds of time and expenses required to settle such litigation when railroads are abandoned and repurposed (see our statement dated 10/14/18). Given the

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 6 of 8 133 value of land in our area, it seems an allowance of at least $100 million should be included to address this issue plus the soft costs associated with this matter. . CapEx: The allowance for soft costs appears to be applied to the total of all items above the Soft Costs line except the Bridge Structures line. However, Bridge Structures will also incur soft costs. Therefore, the allowance for soft costs should be applied to the total of all items above the Soft Costs line including the Bridge Structures line. o Table A‐14: Trail Next to Rail . The “Scope” section states “the trail is routed onto Nova Street between 41st Street and 47th Street and sharrows will be marked on the neighborhood street. The trail is routed onto Cliff Dr / Stockton Ave / Capitola Ave / Monterey Avenue and back onto Rail ROW south of Park Ave.” The explanation offered for the trail diversion onto city streets between 41st and 47th at the Live Oak public workshop was that this is where a passing siding was shown in the 2015 Rail Transit Feasibility Study (RTFS) and there is not enough room within the existing rail ROW to provide for main rail, passing siding and trail. However, there is nothing to prevent the passing siding from being relocated somewhere else other than as conceptually shown in the RTFS. For example a passing siding located just downcoast of the Capitola Trestle where the rail ROW is estimated to exceed 150’ in width would allow the main rail, passing siding and trail to all be located within the rail ROW avoiding any diversion of the trail to existing surface streets. Furthermore, the adopted 2013 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan (MBSST) clearly shows the Rail Trail located adjacent to the existing railroad tracks and going right over the Capitola Trestle and not diverted as described. Please adjust description to reflect the adopted MBSST. o Table A‐15: Trail Next to BRT . CapEx: There is no allowance for costs of settling property rights litigation that will likely arise if the railroad is abandoned to utilize the corridor for a trail next to BRT purpose. We understand approximately two thirds of the rail ROW exists as an easement across privately owned land allowing use of the land as a railroad. There are plenty of examples of the kinds of time and expenses required to settle such litigation when railroads are abandoned and repurposed (see our statement dated 10/14/18). Given the value of land in our area, it seems an allowance of at least $100 million should be included to address this issue plus the soft costs associated with this matter.

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 7 of 8 134 Thank you for considering the above comments as you finalize the UCS report. We look forward to hearing your response to the above and most importantly, the final UCS. As always, please feel free to call me anytime should wish to discuss any of the above in more detail. Respectfully submitted,

Mark Mesiti‐Miller Board Chair, Friends of the Rail & Trail

Cc: Friends of the Rail and Trail Board

Comments on the Unified Corridor Investment Study ‐ Step 2 Analysis Results October 26, 2018 Page 8 of 8 135 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

136 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

Yo vivo en el condado de Santa Cruz y apoyo las mejoras en el Escenario B del Estudio “Unified Corridor Study”. October 25, 2018 Gordon Gazeley Niko Rivera Sue Kaufmann Valerie Girsh Maria Hernandez Robert Morgan

137 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Carey Pico Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:58 PM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: my power point presentation of traffic, trail, and train

This is a reduced version in order to keep it under 25Mb for email. Mostly photos were taken out.

Regards Carey

138 Trains, Trails, and Automobiles An Overview of Santa Cruz County Corridor Issues by Dr. Carey Pico

139 Overview of Hwy 1 Traffic Volume (total both directions summed)

85,000 97,000

140 Watsonville Is Effectively Artificially Cutoff From County Traffic Density Vs. Number of Lanes 30 Three lanes Two lanes Three lanes 25

Traffic jams start here from north 20 Traffic jams start here from south

Autos/Lane (Thousands) Autos/Lane 10

141 Where do people go?

142 Northbound Hwy-1 Exit Ramp Volumes Hwy 17N Hwy

25 41

20 st Ave. West Side 15

10 Ocean

Watsonville 5 # of Cars Existing (Thousands) Existing of Cars #

Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District143 5” 6 of 10 cars on Hwy-1N go to 17N towards Silicon Valley (comprises 63% of Hwy 17N traffic)

Exit Number of Cars/Day % of Total Cars Hwy-1N ramp to Hwy-17 North 21700 59% Hwy-1N ramp to Ocean 4850 13% Hwy-1N ramp to West Side 10200 28%

Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District144 5” Southbound Hwy-1 Exit Ramp Volumes 20 18 Hwy 1S to MontereyHwy 16 14 12 <======62,000 ======> Watsonville 10 8 Aptos 6 4

# of Cars Exiting (Thousands) Exiting Cars # of 2 0

Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District145 5” 36 per 100 cars on Hwy-1S go to Monterey County Note: below would give 44%. Difference is because of on-ramp traffic and fractions of total traffic exiting.

Southbound Exit Number of Cars/Day Hwy-1S to Monterey 17500 Riverside 5600 Main St 10600 Airport 6000

Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District146 5” Summary of Hwy 1 Traffic

• Watsonville • 1/3 via Monterey County

• Santa Cruz • 6/10 via Hwy 17N

Commuting pattern does not suggest train would be successful.

147 What if There Were a Train?

• 2015 Passenger Rail Study

• Service to Watsonville: Scenario G or J

• UCS recommends J route with G frequency

• Analysis is based on G values

148 We Lack Population by a Factor of 4X

System Largest city Metro Population Density (pop./sq.mi) served MBTA light rail Boston 4,628,910 13340 Metro Rail light rail Los Angeles 13,131,431 8282 Muni Metro San Francisco 4,594,060 18187 San Diego Trolley San Diego 3,095,313 4003 MAX Light Rail Portland 2,348,247 4375.1 SEPTA light rail Philadelphia 6,051,170 11635 All 31DART light rail in USDallas connect to: 6,954,330 3645 Denver RTD The Ride Light Rail Denver 2,754,258 4044 TRAX (UTA) Salt Lake City 1,153,340 1666 1) MetroMetroLink PopulationSt. Louis 1M+ 2,810,056 5157 Hudson–Bergen Light Rail Jersey City 634,266 13495 METRO Light Rail Minneapolis 3,495,176 7417 METRO Light Rail Phoenix 4,489,109 2968 Sacramento(SMART RT Light Rail cameSacramento after this slide, 800K2,149,127 4700 METRORail Houston 6,313,158 3662 Link Light Rail: Tacomaconnects Link & Central Link toTacoma Bay & Seattle area) 3,671,478 3990 Santa Clara VTA Light Rail San Jose 1,952,872 5600 The T: Pittsburgh Light Rail Pittsburgh 2,360,867 5540 Baltimore Light Rail Baltimore 2,785,874 7671 Santa RTACruz Streetcars in New County: Orleans New Orleans 1,240,977 2274 San Francisco cable car system San Francisco 4,594,060 18187 Portland Streetcar Portland 2,348,247 4375.1 Newark Light Rail Newark NYC 11458 1) MetroLYNX Rapid Transit Population Services Charlotte 270,000 2,380,314 2721 Buffalo Metro Rail Buffalo 1,134,210 6436 River LINE Trenton-Camden Philidelphia 11101 RTA Rapid Transit Cleveland 2,064,725 5107 SPRINTER Oceanside-Escondido San Diego 4000 Tide Light Rail Norfolk 1,672,319 1733 South Lake Union Streetcar Seattle 3,671,478 7969 MATA Trolleys Memphis 1,341,746 2000 TECO Line Streetcars Tampa 2,824,724 2969 Sun Link Tucson 996,544 2793 Santa Cruz County 262,382 149 430 Who Will Grow Train Ridership?

People over 70

Working aged under 70 has flat-lined

150 We Lack Work/Use Destinations On Rail Line Destination limit per Destinations urban studies Costco Dominican Soquel Harvey West Home Depot CostPlus

New Brighton Capitola

West Side Requires new shuttle buses to places

151 Comparison of Job Density Near Rail Stops (US Bureau of Labor and Statistics Database/US Census Bureau)

Job Density/Sq.Mile

Population Density/Sq.Mile

152 Watsonville: Beach & Walker

½ mile from home limit

¼ mile to work limit

153 Ridership is Very Low

120 to 325 Daily Riders From Watsonville

154 Summary of Train

• Doesn’t go to key destinations or jobs

• Low ridership

• Expensive

• Takes money away from better justified programs

155 Special: Progressive Rail

• Freight loses money • Average Iowa Pacific Year: $157,000 • Prior to Iowa Pacific (STB Filing (Dec. 2011)): • Revenue: $135,000 • Expenses: $500,000 • Passenger rail loses money: Average Iowa Pacific revenue: $137,000 • What can Progressive do to make profit? • New business • Take advantage of federal STB regulation • No local/state regulations apply including environmental • Past examples of “regulation-free” zones • Solid waste processing plants • Railcar storage • Development on state restricted wetlands • Propane transloading facility

• RTC will pay $1M/year to support Progressive Rail 156 Trail on Rail Corridor Money, Construction, Access

• Rail-with-Trail (train not included) • MBSST Estimate: $127M • Actual construction bids: $400M - $500M • Measure D Funds: $85M

• Rail-Trail (without tracks) • Greenway Estimate: $50M - $70M • Measure D Funds: $85M

157 Cost depends on construction

• Rail-Trail (uses existing railbed to build trail) • Existing 17 ft (or wider) railbed • Recycling iron rails pays for railbed foundation • No excavation, retaining walls, or new bridges

• MBSST (creates new ground to build trail) • Path outside railroad setback • New excavation at least 25 ft from track center • Retaining walls up to 20 feet high • 24 new bridges required

158 Example Why Excavation’s Expensive Existing width: 17 ft. Excavation 25 ft from track center

159 Access to Trail on Rail Corridor

• Rail-Trail (no tracks) • 100% on rail corridor • 0 miles road • Includes Watsonville wetlands

• MBSST (RTC plan) • 74% on rail corridor • 26% on road • Bypasses Watsonville wetlands

160 MBSST Access In Watsonville • 5.5 miles on road • 1.2 miles on corridor On street Rail corridor

161 Trail Summary

• Rail-with-Trail • Unaffordable and will never get built • Only 75% on rail corridor • Watsonville gets little benefit

• Rail-Trail (without rail) • Affordable • Fast (5-yr construction after all parties agree) • Railbanking protects corridor for future rail use • Note: the 1980 California Marketability Title Act changed the rail easement to permanent property title.

162 Where is the Hwy-1 Traffic? Traffic Volume

120 Hwy-1 traffic dominated by south of Hwy-17 100

Thousands of Cars/Day Thousands 20

163 Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways” Is the trend increase? Multi-year on/off ramps for each exit Hwy 1 Ramp Data 2007-2014 25 Hwy17N. 2007 2008 2011 2014

20 Conclusion: Doesn’t Vary with Time

Thousands) 41st Ave. 15 Main St/ Watsonville 10

0 Daily Average Ramp Volume ( Volume Ramp Daily Average

164 Data Source: Caltrans “2016 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District 5” Summary Relative to Commuter Rail

1. Neither direction of traffic goes to where tracks are. 2. Direction: a. Northbound: focus is on Hwy 17 & 41st Ave b. Southbound: focus is on home. 3. Watsonville Area: Split between Monterey County and Watsonville 4. Commuter Rail Won’t Help and Takes Focus and Money from Hwy 1 Widening 5. Extra Lane/HOV: $640M ($450M construction) • UCIS: $440M

165 Construction Cost

• RTC Estimated Cost Per Mile: $6.5M/mile • UCIS: $15.4M/mile • Actual SMART train cost: $14M/mile • RTC 1999 MTIS study: $14.M/mile • Comparable train systems in Feasibility Study: $15M/mile

• Which would you trust? • Suggests: $308M for 22 miles

166 Annual Operating Costs

• RTC Feasibility Study Estimate: $10M/yr • RTC MTIS study: $24M/yr

Which do you trust? Comparables put it at $15M/yr or $450M/30 yrs or $9/ticket subsidy

Note: SMART has $25/ticket subsidy (farebox = 15%)

167 Other Costs

• Shuttle Buses • Assume one per stop, $500k/yr per bus • 30 yrs: $150M

• Parking (unknown)

• Total 30 yr Costs: Construction+Operating+Shuttle • $300M + $450M + $150M = $900M + parking

168 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Carey Pico Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:32 PM To: Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar; Brian Peoples Cc: joex; Robert Quinn; [email protected]; Zach Friend; 'Patrick Mulhearn'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Clifford; Barrow Emerson; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sandy Brown Subject: Re: Updated Highway 1 Delay chart?

Attached are three screenshots of charts plotting Hwy 1 delay time for northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) Hwy 1 traffic at 41st Ave. (I think under the bridge). The date is on the screenshots. Each point represents lane 1, lane 2, and lanes 1+2 for each five minute period of the day from 12 am to 11:59pm.

These are Hwy 1 only to address the north-south travel per the mission statement and not "countywide" as reported in the UCIS.

Feel free to ask for more charts of different days, multiple days, or combined days.

Carey

From: Brian Peoples Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:47 PM To: Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Cc: Carey Pico; joex; Robert Quinn;; Zach Friend; 'Patrick Mulhearn'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Clifford; Barrow Emerson; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sandy Brown Subject: Updated Highway 1 Delay chart?

169 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Grace/Ginger,

At the recent Watsonville Council meeting, you showed a new chart to the peak travel time based on the various scenarios. Attached is the report that was originally presented at RTC on UCIS.

The updated chart you presented had a significant difference in travel times for the various scenarios. Scenario B had no change from No Build and Scenarios A and E had driving speeds at 45 mph. This is a very significant change in the report.

Can you please forward that chart to me?

Also, have you incorporated the changes from the error in the original travel time calculations for Highway 1 HOV lanes? Such as lower CO2, increased economic benefit, etc...

Best regards,

Brian Peoples Executive Director Trail Now

From: John Walker Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 5:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Support Scenario A

I'm sending this email to support Scenario A.

As a long time resident of La Selva Beach, I have commuted to work in Watsonville, Santa Cruz, and to the Silicon Valley.

I believe that increasing the capacity of Highway 1 is the only viable option to keep Santa Cruz county from becoming permanently gridlocked.

The rail has potential and attractive to me. However, I don't see that a one line rail system will have a significant impact on traffic for the foreseeable future. The rail would deliver people to out of the way destinations that would require additional connections to reach work, business, and recreational centers. thank you, john walker

170 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

October 24, 2018 Tina Andreatta Nathan Cross Thomas Hogye Kathy Jackson Nicholas Landi Dennis Norton Leticia Rodriguez Joel Valolivia Martin Valdia Bill Weber Suzanne Weber

171 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Mary Altier Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Scenario A Please

Please record my being in favor of Scenario A. As a 47-year resident of La Selva Beach we have seen traffic on our street (a major artery from Highway 1) increase to the point that we sometimes can't get out of our driveway at commuter times. We feel that increasing capacity on Highway 1 to meet the already overwhelming need is the only way to facilitate the nearly untenable situation we now find ourselves in here in Santa Cruz County.

Than you for your consideration on this matter, Mary Altier -- See Mary's travel photography from six continents at www.maryaltier.com.

From: Jjmmlight Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:38 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Questions about MBSST reroute

Hello RTC staffperson,

I attended the workshop in Live Oak recently and had a few questions about what I thought I heard. I hope you can clarify.

Did I hear that the route of the bike/ped trail will be diverted at 41st Ave, to continue south onto Nova? If so, can you explain where this route rejoins the route shown on the MBSST network master plan?

Not discussed at the workshop: after looking at the plans’s renderings of trail alongside rail, in some examples, I see an 8’ trail with two 2’ buffers. Is this, then, considered a 12’ trail? And what type of material would be used for this buffer zone?

I’m sure the RTC is fielding many, many questions during such a critical planning time, so I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Johanna Lighthill

From: Stanley Sokolow Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:25 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Cc: [email protected]; Ginger Dykaar; George Dondero; Andy

172 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Schiffrin; John Leopold; Gumz, Jondi; Brian Peoples Subject: BRT versus train on the rail corridor -- my public comment to the UCIS study

Dear Regional Transportation Commissioners, staff, and other interested persons,

As you may recall, when the UCIS phase 2 began, I proposed in a letter to the RTC a Bus Rapid Transit solution which would replace the tracks (still keeping the planned trail) with a busway that would let battery-powered buses run in the busway during the freeway commute, avoiding the congestion, and return on the non-congested side of the freeway, or with passing sidings would allow 2-way bus travel on the rail corridor instead of a train. Passing could also be accomplished by having one bus exit the busway onto a parallel street for a short distance to let the bus coming the opposite direction pass and then re-enter the busway to continue.

My BRT would use the existing transit centers in Watsonville, Capitola Mall, and downtown Santa Cruz. It would send buses onto or off of the rail corridor at or near Lee Road, allowing Watsonville freight to continue using the tracks without conflict in the industrial area. The bus on my route would also exit the busway at 41st Ave to serve directly the Capitola Mall station and get back onto the busway again. It would bypass the San Lorenzo River bridge and Boardwalk/BeachSt congestion by taking the existing route 68 from Seabright crossing to the Pacific Station. However, since my route would replace the tracks from Lee Road northward to Santa Cruz, it would preclude freight train service to west county someday. (Neighbors in west Santa Cruz would like that since they wouldn't have freight trains running in their back yards.) The rail corridor could be used for a wide bike/pedestrian path west of the Santa Cruz wharf roundabout since no trains would be running there.

The RTC staff and consultants have created a BRT plan which runs on the freeway in the Watsonville area, both during the commute and non-commute hours, and takes San Andreas Road to get over to a busway on the corridor. The proposed BRT buses in the UCIS would still be delayed in morning congestion on the freeway until they reach San Andreas Road, which is not good for ridership. At other locations, where passing sidings are not feasible, the buses would take parallel streets and join back onto the busway.

I still think that my plan would be a better route to compare with the train because passengers would connect with the existing bus transit centers without needing an additional shuttle ride from the train station on the corridor to the bus transit center for transfer to the bus that takes them to or from their destination and origin. My plan requires 1 transfer at each end of the trip. The RTC's train plan requires 2 transfers at each end of a trip or sending all bus routes from the transit centers to the nearest train station, which could be in the opposite direction of their intended route.

The Metro sent the RTC a proposal for altered and enhanced bus service to accommodate passenger train service connections, but that proposal has not been revealed in the UCIS report. It should be made public and of course revealed to the Commissioners in this study since it could be material to their decision.

Transfers discourage ridership due to delays and unreliability of making the connection on time. I have not heard anything from the RTC to explain why it ignored or rejected my

173 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

BRT route except that their plan avoids the cost of building a bus lane from San Andreas to Lee Road. The benefit of such a plan was not compared with the cost.

The RTC staff and commissioners decided to study these particular scenarios. By now, the staff should have enough data in their mathematical model to compare my route with their BRT route on the rail corridor, in the chosen scenarios. Will they? I request that it be done and reported.

Regarding the cost of operating a train versus a BRT system -- the UCIS should have revealed the bus and train fares it used in the ridership and revenue calculations. I've searched the report and it doesn't. It only says: Transit fares generated by UCS projects with new bus service on Highway 1 and Soquel/Freedom are distributed to operational costs of new bus service associated with these improvements. Transit fares generated by new rail or bus rapid transit service on the rail ROW and new bus connections to rail service are distributed only to operate these new transit services.

Since transit fares have an effect on ridership, it is a deficiency of this report not to reveal the fares that were used to arrive at the revenue estimates. The fares are revealed in the online FAQ which says in answer #15: Household transportation costs forecasted for 2035 are in existing dollars. Local transit costs are equivalent to Metro costs at $2.00/boarding or $65 for a monthly pass. Rail transit and BRT on the rail right-of-way were both assumed to cost $5.50/boarding or $200 for a monthly pass. The report itself should contain that answer and should explain how the train fares were chosen.

The fares on the Sonoma-Marin SMART train are $15 per round trip between Petaluma and Marin Civic Center in San Rafael, about the same distance as Watsonville to downtown Santa Cruz, or $23 for unlimited trips in one day. Why is it assumed that the train fares would be only 75% of the fares on the SMART train? Is this lower fare unrealistically inflating the train ridership projection?

The report should give estimates of the effect of higher train fares on the expected ridership. Rather than just a single figure of ridership based on a single fare structure, the report should show low, middle, and high estimates so that the range of ridership uncertainty can be seen. That should not be difficult to do. The elasticity of ridership versus fares is a relationship that has been researched and should be available for this study. A higher fare could be substituted for the one used for the current report and then the model can be run again on the computer. The resulting ridership and fairbox revenue could be reported along with the new results of the performance measures. This would give the Commission some idea of the risk of faulty ridership estimates.

I recently visited the Lane Transit District in Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, which operates one of the early installations of a BRT system in the US. In discussions with their principal planner, I learned that the ridership of the second BRT line installed in the system (going from downtown Springfield to the Gateway district north of downtown) fell short of predictions. As a result, the frequency of BRT buses is being cut back from one per 10 minutes down to 1 per

174 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

15 minutes due to lower farebox revenue. A similar risk exists with any BRT or train that the RTC builds here. The magnitude of the risk should be estimated in the UCIS, but it isn't.

There is a scientific methodology for estimating risks in projects. It is called risk analysis and it relies upon the concept that the internal relationships between various things in the planning model are not know with certainty. They themselves are estimates which can be off the mark compared with reality, which will result in outputs (performance measures in the UCIS) that are far from reality. To get an idea of the range of possible outcomes, risk analysis makes variations in the internal parameters and runs the mathematical model over and over again, randomly changing the parameters within their estimated range. This kind of analysis is called the Monte Carlo Method because it incorporates the idea of randomness into the predictions. This method produces a range of outputs for each performance measure, not a singular number which falsely gives the impression of accuracy. Hurricane forecasters do something similar in their predictions of the path of a hurricane. They don't just produce a single line which is their best estimate. Instead they show a region around that line which represents the probable range of paths at some level of statistical certainty. Acting Commissioner Schiffrin at the last RTC meeting tried to get at this kind of analysis when he spoke about statistical significance and the ".05 level".

At the afternoon ITAC meeting where the UCIS was presented again, I asked the Kimley- Horn people if their model used the Monte Carlo method. They said no it doesn't. I asked if such a model exists for the kind of simulation they did in the UCIS. They said, no it doesn't. They did say they use that randomizing method when they model such things as the effect of various signal light timings on traffic through an intersection where the cars arrive at random intervals, but that kind of randomization isn't built into the model they used for the UCIS. I know the Monte Carlo simulation method has been used for some transportation studies, but apparently the complexity of the transportation model in the UCIS hasn't been handled with that method yet.

Nevertheless, it would be very informative if the model were run again a few times with some key parameters changed to a low estimate and high estimate, such as fares and ridership on the BRT and train and the cost of parking and gasoline. This would give some indication of the uncertainty in the performance measures predicted by the model. I request that the RTC instruct the staff to do that to better inform the Commissioners. It could show that some performance measures that seem to be equivalent among scenarios could be quite different if key assumptions were changed.

Regarding ridership, the FAQ says: The 2035 forecast for rail transit boardings for Scenario A is 7396/day and for Scenario E were 6571/day. The 2035 forecast includes rail transit ridership based on the projected population for 2035 and interregional connections via Pajaro Station. Since scenario A doesn't include a train but B does, I assume this is a typographical error and it should say that Scenario B ridership is forecast to be 7396/day and Scenario E is forecast to be 6571/day. The FAQ continues: The boardings for BRT for Scenario C were projected based on research that shows that a BRT service, that offers the same level of service and amenities to rail, could provide a similar level of ridership. Adjustments were made to downward from rail transit ridership projections to BRT ridership projections to reflect the differences in routing including the BRT

175 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

one-way dedicated lane for the majority of the length on the rail ROW and the BRT service on Highway 1 between Watsonville and Santa Cruz. The ridership for BRT on the rail ROW is forecasted to be 3949/day, an approximately 45% reduction relative to rail transit.

Thus, the ridership of the proposed BRT is reduced due to the route chosen by the RTC staff and consultants. My proposed BRT route would not divert the bus onto Highway 1 during the heavy commute hours unlike the route studied. Moreover, my route would take riders directly from the Watsonville Transit Center where neighborhood circulator buses would bring them, directly to the Capitola Mall Transit Center, and directly to the downtown Santa Cruz Pacific Station Transit Center.

In contrast, the train would not visit any of those existing bus transit centers but instead diverted buses from the Metro system or shuttles would be needed. The tracks are about 1500 feet from the Watsonville Transit Center. They are about a 10-minute walk from a proposed station on Beach Street to the existing Pacific Station Transit Center in downtown Santa Cruz. The train would not go directly into the Capitola Mall, which is a long walk or additional bus ride from the tracks. It is likely that the Capitola Mall will be redeveloped with new uses since malls like it have passed their time and big-box stores are closing in them. Most likely, the new Capitola Mall will include housing and offices as well as a smaller mix of restaurants and retail. It may become an important locus of origins and destinations for transit. It would be shortsighted to adopt a transit plan relying upon a train backbone that bypasses this important center.

Moreover, my BRT route would allow express buses to carry riders directly to major transit destinations such as UCSC and Cabrillo College without getting off of their rapid bus that carried them on the BRT busway. The express bus would exit the BRT corridor and take major arterial streets to those destinations. These so-called "single seat" rides enhance the riders' experience and promote greater ridership. A train can't do that. I see my BRT route as superior not inferior service compared with the train. Therefore, it has the potential to realize greater ridership than the train, not 45% less. It's just not a fair fight if you tie one hand behind one fighter's back and pit him against an able bodied opponent. I challenge the consultants to perform a ridership analysis of my proposed BRT route taking these observations into consideration so the Commission can better compare BRT versus train.

The 2015 Passenger Train Feasibility Study includes an important table which shows how many riders are estimated to be onboard any train at any one time. This is called the peak passenger load. If the load is small, a bus could handle the load. If it is several hundred people, several consecutive buses or a longer light-rail train would be needed. Here's the table:

176 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

It shows that the estimated peak load on any of the service scenarios in that study would not exceed 64 passengers. An articulated bus can carry at least that many, seated and standing combined. So, the additional capacity that a long train could provide is not necessary to carry the estimated load factor. With my proposed route, buses can run as frequently as necessary to meet demand on the one-way busway because they wouldn't need to be accurately spaced to avoid conflicts between passing lanes. A train, as the study showed, needs precise scheduling so the trains going opposite directions meet at a passing siding at the same time. The feasibility study concluded that trains at 30-minute intervals were the most frequent that could be handled on our corridor without purchasing more right-of-way width for additional passing sidings.

We are all trying to achieve the same thing for our County -- enhanced options for transportation, reduced greenhouse gases, and reduced delays. It would be irresponsible for the RTC to rush their decision on this complex study. I oppose taking a vote as the RTC staff have proposed to be done before the end of this year. Mr. Schiffrin did his homework to come up with detailed concerns about the study. Now the rest of the Commissioners should do likewise and get answers, perhaps to questions not yet considered in the draft study, before taking a final vote that will affect transportation for generations to come. Please don't rush to judgment.

Sincerely,

Stanley M. Sokolow

From: Stanley Sokolow Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 9:20 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Brian Peoples; Ginger Dykaar; George Dondero; Andy Schiffrin; John Leopold; Gumz, Jondi Subject: Fwd: Trail Now Newsletter on UCIS, and my info on new battery-powered trains

For your information, below is the newsletter sent out by Trail Now (Brian Peoples, et al.) today, giving their objections to the UCIS study.

177 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

My comment: He says that the RTC is planning to use diesel trains if the passenger train service is selected. That's not true. The diesel train units were used in the 2015 Passenger Train Feasibility Study just as an example. That study made a point of showing various train technologies, but it chose a small DMU (diesel multiple-unit) to work out where the stations could be and how the schedule could work in various levels of service. It did not recommend, nor does the RTC propose, a diesel train.

Currently, fully battery-powered trains are coming onto the market. They are no longer just speculation. I posted an article on our Facebook page which shows that a battery-powered train made by Bombardier is being placed into service in Austria. It has sufficient range on a single charge to go from Pajaro to west Santa Cruz (Natural Bridges) on a single charge with power to spare and can be recharged in 7 to 10 minutes at the terminal stations or receive a freshen-up charge if necessary during brief station-stops along the route . It does not burn any fuel. The cost is about US$8.5 million, but Bombardier calculates that the total cost of ownership over a train's useful life would be less than for a diesel train.

Bombardier's goal is to replace all diesel passenger trains in Europe with battery-powered trains. To achieve that, a longer-range version is expected to be announced at the end of next year which would have 2.5 times the range of this first one, but our system doesn't actually need that longer range. By the time the RTC would get around to putting out the request for bids from train manufacturers, which would be years from now, I expect that there will be other manufacturers with competitive trains, such as Siemens which currently makes various models of light-rail trains in the US to satisfy the Buy American policy.

Now that Bombardier has successfully produced a battery-powered train with sufficient range, Siemens and others will surely follow. Bombardier also has factories in the US and Canada, but not making this particular train yet. That could change by the time we're ready to buy one. Alstom currently manufactures its Citadis Spirit electric train for North American cities, so it's another potential battery-train source in the future. California and the entire US certainly would be a market for battery-powered light-rail trains for passenger service. We have thousands of miles of track without overhead electric wiring.

Here's are links to YouTube videos introducing the Bombardier Talent 3 battery-powered train: World premiere of the BOMBARDIER TALENT 3 battery train. Bombardier’s electric trains go battery. Want a battery train.

Brookville Equipment Corporation, a US company in Brookville, PA, has been producing battery-powered streetcars which appear to be smaller than the Bombardier Talent 3. They have been used in Dallas, TX, for short runs "off wire" between charging at stations, without overhead wires along the distance. https://www.brookvillecorp.com/streetcar-division.asp .

Our local electricity provider has been changed, as you may have noticed in mailers and on your bills. PG&E is still the company that brings the electricity to your site on its grid network and bills you, but the generation of that power is now done by Monterey Bay Community Power which buys electricity from carbon-free sources. MBCP is also seeking proposals to partner with new local solar power generators in its 3-county service area (Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties). So the battery-powered trains would be re-charged with carbon-free electricity.

178 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Barry Scott has had a wonderful animation created by a talented animator which shows how a battery-powered light-rail train would look along the entire route from Santa Cruz to Pajaro, starting at morning dawn, which he posted in a comment under one of my postings on our Facebook page. He said it's been several months in the making. It's fun to watch. The buildings and trees were carefully matched to what's already along the route and conceptual stations were added to give a realistic impression. Here's the video on YouTube: Santa Cruz Wavelink . Thanks, Barry!

Stan

From: Brian Peoples Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 7:54 AM To: Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Cc: Zach Friend; [email protected]; John Leopold; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sandy Brown Subject: UCIS comments

Grace/Ginger,

In addition to the comments we made at the multiple meetings, the following is our response the the Unified Corridor Investment Study.

We believe Scenario A is the best solution with addition of buffered / protected bike lanes and freight operations in Watsonville. Scenario A aligns with current plans to complete Highway 1 Tier I EIR and look for State / Federal funding to continue widening of highway through Aptos. We caution RTC not to vote for Scenarios B or E because it will automatically result in ownership rights of the Coastal Corridor to Progressive Rail. If RTC votes for the train plan (Scenario B), Highway 1 widening will not continue, a continuous trail from Watsonville to Davenport will never happen and the plan will be for 60 trains a day (6 am to 9 pm) through our neighborhoods. Below are some specific issues we have identified within the UCIS: Caltrans traffic flow estimates not used UCIS ignored the Caltrans assessment that shows highway speeds increasing with Highway 1 widening. Caltrans Tier I & II study showed highway speeds would be 46 mph with widening of highway versus 18 mph without widening. The UCIS did not include the Caltrans assessment of Highway 1 improvements (including the CO2 comparisons) resulting in misrepresentation of traffic flow improvements with widening the highway. State & Federal Funds UCIS incorrectly stated that $41M would need to be returned to State and Feds if tracks are removed. The only funds that must be returned to the State is the $11M from Proposition 116 to purchase the property. The exact amount is still debatable because

179 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

there is a requirement to include appreciation of property and need to subtract railline used for freight in Watsonville. Aptos Village Impact The new Parade Street in Aptos Village was originally designed to connect to Soquel Drive. Unfortunately, as long as the railroad tracks remain, it is not possible to connect the two roads due to CPUC requirements. The UCIS does not look at detail issues along the Coastal Corridor and how the train would impact the local neighborhoods. Trains over Capitola Trestle The UCIS does not look at the details or practicality of using trestles for fast moving passenger trains. There are over 20 trestles from Watsonville to Santa Cruz that are not built to support 60 trains a day travelling 35 mph. Homes and businesses are located feet from the tracks and, in the case of Capitola Trestle, underneath. The Capitola Trestle is a historical resource that will prevent it from being replaced or building trail adjacent to it. Here is a video of freight trains travelling over Capitola Trestle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JiPirQVLc&feature=share Progressive Rail Impact UCIS does not take into consideration that the Progressive Rail contract prevents any use of the corridor from Watsonville to Buena Vista Road (Milepost 7) for transportation use. Progressive Rail uses this section of the corridor to build-up freight trains for long haul transportation. The corridor travels through Harkins Slough and the current RTC plan is to divert the trail along San Andreas Road. Cost associated with Collisions UCIS places a lot of emphasis on reducing automobile accidents. However, the UCIS does not take into consideration vehicle technology in new cars today that prevent accidents. By 2035, the majority of cars on the road will have vehicle technology that prevents accidents. The UCS assumes vehicle operations will be the same in 2035 as they are today. We think a more practical cost assessment should be time wasted from sitting in traffic congestion. Rail Funding The UCIS makes broad assumptions that Santa Cruz County will receive millions for passenger rail system. It does not provide any assessment on the “likelihood of getting funds”, rather claiming there is a lot of funds for rail. Based on Federal and State grant policies, it is not likely that Santa Cruz would receive any funds for a train. https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/final- capital-investment-grant-program-interim-policy

Not Electric Trains Diesel Motor Units (DMUs) are proposed as the train. Many people assume that the train will be light-rail or electric, however the proposed train plan is to operate DMUs. There is a cost estimate to build light-rail, but it is not clearly stated in the report and it does show the cost is not economically practical. Train along Coast The railroad tracks in La Selva and Capitola travel along the cliffs. The UCIS does not consider the impact 60 trains a day (6 am to 9 pm) would have on the cliffs. Lawsuits Proposing 60 trains a day (6 am to 9 pm) will result in lawsuits by members of the community who do not want trains speeding through their neighborhoods. UCIS does not consider cost or delays from lawsuits.

180 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

Implementation Timeline The UCIS does not provide metrics based on “when” the transportation solution will be implemented, but rather on what the metrics will be when all upgrades are completed in 2035. This reduces the savings that would be with a Trail Only option – because it can be implemented sooner than a train.

Relative Qualitatively-Assessed Economic Benefits For Scenario B, the Coastal Trail will be diverted 35% of the time to surface-streets due to limited physical space for train and trail. The benefits of rail transit are over-rating for Scenario B because the benefitting community must be located within a ½ mile from the station. All other neighborhoods will have less benefit and more disruptions from 60 trains a day travelling through their community. A good example of how Scenario B has reduced economic benefits is Aptos Village – where the tracks are preventing Parade Ave from being connected to Soquel Drive. This will significantly increase traffic congestion in the village and has resulted in the property owners to reduce lease rates with new tenants.

Best regards,

Brian Peoples Executive Director Trail Now

From: Inani Eggleston Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:21 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Rail Trail - Feedback

I attended the Oct. meeting at L.O. Elementary and have the four scenarios on hand. I would like the Rail ROW from Scenario A, but the Highway 1 Projects and Soquel/Freedom proposals from Scenario Bin conjunction with Rail ROW. In my view, the bike and pedestrian trail only are the right way to go, regardless of the $40 million return. We should build what we need. And build a light-rail system along Highway 1. It would be an amazing lift for our community in so many ways, bringing income, safety for kids and all the public for getting around, creating an eco-tourism draw, psychological ease, healthy exercise!

From: Pablo Reyes Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 3:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: input

I want to provide input on the unified corridor investment study. When is the deadline and what format should I follow?

- Pablo

181 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Ivo Obregon Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 9:30 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Ivo Obregon

182 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Brian Peoples Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 8:30 AM To: Zach Friend; 'Patrick Mulhearn' Cc: Ginger Dykaar; Grace Blakeslee; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; John Leopold; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Clifford; [email protected]; [email protected]; Laurie Negro; 'Becky Steinbruner'; budd; Carey Pico; ryan; Will Mayall; Miles Reiter; Jack Brown; Donald Hicks; Robert Stephens; Robert Quinn; Manu Koenig; Gail McNulty Greenways Subject: Aptos Village DEAD-END

Zach/Patrick,

So it is official, new Parade Street in Aptos Village is a dead

This is truly unacceptable for our community since the traffic flow design through the village was based on Parade Street being open. The only way for Parade Street will connect to Soquel Drive is the removal of the tracks. As long as the tracks remain, the Parade Street will remain as a dead-end.

The community has continued to ask you to address this important issue and we are hopeful that you understand this at the time of the Unified Corridor Study vote. Aptos Village, as well as many other detailed issues are not effectively addressed within the UCS. Aptos is the constraint to traffic flow between Watsonville and Santa Cruz, and transportation designs need to focus on this issue.

Please help our community resolve this major transportation issue.

Best regards,

Brian Peoples Executive Director Trail Now 669-224-2020

183 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received The SCCRTC received the following letter by the individuals listed below:

SAFER STREETS AND RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC

CALLES MÁS SEGURAS Y ALIVIO DE TRÁFICO

October 19, 2018 Jordan Nebenzhal

184 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

From: Doug Huskey Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 11:44 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission; Ryan Coonerty; Sandy Brown; Cynthia Chase; Mike Rotkin; [email protected] Subject: Please do not rush - Get it right.

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

In reviewing the UCS study, I would like to recommend the following:

1. Do not rush to pick a scenario - now that we have detailed analysis of the various components of each scenario, it would make sense to look at the individual projects and rank them as opposed to picking an arbitrary grouping of projects.

2. Please consider the time required for implementation - some solutions require many years of planning, fund raising, grant seeking, and are subject to increasing construction costs and overruns as time passes. Please prioritize short term projects that can achieve transportation solutions now or in the short term.

3. Please consider the new developments in technology and shared transportation vehicles that are happening now. We need dedicated and safe routes not only for the traditional bicycle and pedestrian, but also for these new e-vehicles that travel in speeds of 10 - 20 mph and can provide transportation solutions for many commuters. Just because most of these may be far more likely to be used in fair weather does not mean that we should ignore them. We can use the rail corridor now to support multi-modal transportation solutions, i.e. separate e-bike, e-scooter, bicycle and separate pedestrian paths ... This wide divided trail could be the backbone of a county wide ebike, bike and pedestrian network. Why tie this up and lose this opportunity in order to support a mammoth train program that does not match our small population base, cost millions to build out, and most importantly based on progress made since the corridor was purchased will take 40-50 years to achieve. Do we really think that large diesel trains will be a major mode of transportation in urban areas in 2060? Will we have the population of the New Jersey/New York Northeast corridor? Alternatively will we get funding (2-5 billion) or even have the population (2-3

185 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments received

million) to support a state of the art light rail system? These solutions are not solutions for us ... just idealized fantasy for our county.

We are in grid lock on our highways, have ranked first for wrecks with cyclists involving injury or death. We need to make biking and walking safer in our County. We need to improve bus service between South County and Santa Cruz... we need dedicated bus lanes that avoid grid lock. We need a separate bicycle corridor across the county. We need these in the next 10 years, not in 40.

Please act sensibly... do not rush, lets start getting it right.

Sincerely, Doug Huskey

From: Peter Emanuel Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:59 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Cc: [email protected]; Manu Koenig; Carey Pico; Jacques Bertrand; [email protected] Subject: Why is railbanking not part of any UCS scenario?

When I asked the question about railbanking at the Live Oak Elementary School RTC meeting, I was told that the RTC had removed consideration of it as it wasn’t realistic. I couldn’t disagree more in that to me it is the only realistic solution. The Congress passed a law to deal with the scenario of small locally owned rail corridors being able to keep local ownership while converting the corridor to a trail when the business model for rail is not feasible at that point in time. When we look at the costs of a rail/trail, the timeframe to implement it and the funds available, the railbanking option should be given its due process.

I commuted Highway 17 for 30 years prior to retiring and on the day that San Jose State went on vacation, there were 2% less cars on the road but the traffic appeared to move 50% faster. I say this because traffic flow modeling is an extraordinarily complex problem. I would like to make a case for the railbanking solution having the capability to reduce the number of cars on Highway 1 by a small percentage which would in turn have a significant impact on traffic flow. You should check this hypothesis with your own traffic experts Frederick and Mike who were at the meeting. You might be pleasantly surprised. Together with the proposed HOV lanes and other Highway 1 solutions outlined in the UCS, the overall impact should definitely be studied.

My scenario for using the corridor as a trail to reduce cars on highway has multiple components which I will continue to outline. Firstly, a trail only solution will not require the amount of engineering as the rail/trail solution. It might be narrower in certain parts and if these prove to be bottlenecks, the best bang for the buck solutions to widen the path at these points can be studied. The middle of the trail will be dedicated as a fast lane supporting the new and emerging e-transit solutions with the outer lanes being regular recreational lanes. I can also imagine rainbow bridges over the major intersections like 41st Ave to ensure uninterrupted travel. It will require good LED lighting for 24x7 usage and a state of the art

186 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

camera surveillance system for security and an automatic emergency call system. The cost of this solution needs to be evaluated but I seriously cannot imagine that it would be more than the funds available for the corridor under Measure D. In other words, this is the only realistic affordable solution.

A key component of the solution to reduce car traffic is to introduce an autonomous electric bus to use the faster lane together with other 2 wheeler electric vehicles. These buses exist today and are a much more cost effective solution to any train. Look at the following cost analysis of train versus autonomous electric bus.

• $6.67 million for each two car trainset (diesel hybrid) • 130 passengers over a two car trainset • $51,307 per passenger (not including the cost of installing new tracks and the operating cost of the train driver) • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma%E2%80%93Marin_Area_Rail_Transit

• $250 thousand for one, self-driving Olli bus • 12 passenger capacity • $20,833 per passenger • https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604116/a-self-driving-bus-that-can-speak-sign- language/ • https://www.engineering.com/IOT/ArticleID/12421/Meet-Olli-The-First-Autonomous- Vehicle-Featuring-IBM-Watson.aspx

In other words, the cost is 2.5 passengers can be carried by an Olli for every 1 that can be carried on a train. The Olli has much lower variable costs (no driver) and fixed costs (no tracks or track maintenance or stations or sidings). It can also meet the needs of more customers with routes that can be changed on demand. The Olli can be called like an Uber/Lyft from a smartphone. It can use smart routing to group passengers going to Cabrillo, UCSC, the Capitola or the Pacific Garden Mall or to local hospitals. This could easily result in that small but significant percentage drop of cars using Highway 1. Furthermore, this solution is already electric and doesn’t require the extra $500,000,000 solution specified in the UCS to electrify the train. The UCS study is coincidentally being made available right at the same time as the UN Climate Change study. The UN study calls for radical changes in addressing transit solutions over the next 10 years. Also, coincidentally, the Progressive Rail contract is potentially going to be signed for the next 10 years and in no way is this conformant with any new transit solution. It will be a very serious mistake to sign the Progressive Rail contract without giving the railbanking solution serious consideration. By signing the contract, Santa Cruz County should brace itself for serious gridlock over the next 10 years and expect that after 10 years a train solution will no longer be recognized as a viable transit solution in our brave new world and we will have achieved nothing. I implore the RTC commissioners, the Santa Cruz Supervisors and the elected representatives on the RTC to give serious consideration to a future looking solution to our transit problems rather than the backward looking one that I personally believe that the UCS represents. We should not “railroad” through any solution that the citizens of Santa Cruz will surely regret. Sincerely,

187 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Peter Emanuel Capitola resident

From: Anderson Shepard Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS questions

Hello. I'm hoping to add to some of the questions to help build up the FAQ so that the community can better understand the step 2 UCS report. If any of these are not FAQ-worthy but you have an answer, I'd love to hear back from you. Thank you very much!

Anderson Shepard Live Oak (SC)

Q: Under Scenarios B and E (rail on the ROW), were transit time estimates adjusted to account for local gridlock on N-S streets (e.g. 41st, 7th, Seabright, Almar, etc.) due to train crossings? The E-W traffic issues in the County are obviously a big issue, but N-S gridlock also currently exists and I imagine would be exacerbated due to a train.

Q: The UCS has data showing general increases in property values in association with proximity to transit hubs/stations, but it does not address the negative impacts that an active train line will have on values of residential and commercial properties adjacent to the tracks (e.g. due to noise, vibrations and other disturbances, loss of access, etc.). Were these impacts accounted for?

Q: "Ramp-metering" improvements are a part of Scenarios A, B and E. Table 31 shows a (- 34) reduction in collisions from ramp metering for both Scenarios A and E, but a (-108) reduction from ramp metering for Scenario B. Why is this? Is it because A and E also have HOV and Aux lanes, and if so, do these improvements somehow increase collisions? The current dashboard shows Scenario B standing above the rest in terms of collision reductions, yet these numbers don't quite add up.

Q: I understand that the scenarios were pre-selected prior to the quantitative analysis, but now that I see all the data, the fact that active transportation improvements such as buffered bike lanes are part of Scenarios B and E, but not A seems out of place, short-sighted and unrealistic. Opting for trail only on the ROW (Scenario A) would signal an all-in commitment to improving active transportation in the County, and it seems far-fetched that such a commitment would not be accompanied by other improvements such as buffered bike lanes. Why were buffered bike lanes not included in Scenario A?

From: Anderson Shepard Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:30 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: lets use all this new data and come up with a new truly optimal scenario

188 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

I am pleased that Step 2 of the UCS has been completed, but I feel very strongly that the Commission should not rush into any decisions. This in-depth quantitative analysis provides huge amounts of insight into the benefits and costs of each of the various projects comprising each of the scenarios.

I fully understand that this process has been lengthly and that the scenario selection step was completed over a year ago (after much work and debate). HOWEVER, those decisions were qualitatively made, whereas now we have reams of quantitative data associated with each project, so that a truly optimal solution can be found. Lets look at the suite of projects, cherry- pick the best of the best (e.g., most benefit, lowest cost, quickest enactment) and select a new scenario that blows the others out of the water.

Selecting one of the existing scenarios rather than using the data to come up with an optimal solution would be short-sighted and would further divide the community. Lets use the data and come up with a scenario that everyone likes.

Regards, Anderson Shepard

From: Manu Koenig Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Transit Ridership

What is the projected daily ridership of a passenger train? Based on how many trains and what frequency?

How does bus on shoulder impact METRO ridership? Bus in HOV?

Thank you, Manu Koenig Santa Cruz, 95060

From: Manu Koenig Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: New Sales Tax for a Train?

The SMART train couldn't proceed until Measure Q, a quarter-cent sales tax, passed. Would building passenger rail in Santa Cruz County require the passage of a new sales tax? If so, would it be a quarter-cent, half-cent or other amount?

Manu Koenig Santa Cruz, 95060

189 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: ANDREA RATTO Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:58 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now. The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario. What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years? Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right. Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Andrea Ratto

From: ANDREA RATTO Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:29 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Abominable commute conditions on Highway 1

It was helpful to glance at your website and find that according to the wording of Measure D 8% of funding will be used to study rail trail options and potential future use of the corridor. So, that leaves a whole lot to build that third lane on Highway one immediately to remedy the intolerable commute conditions on this commute lane. This is particularly a problem for south county where multiple commuters to Santa Cruz and over 17 spend one to two hours commuting to work and same time returning as well. You have not provided any study to prove that the proposed train will alleviate this problem, as there is none. It will do nothing to solve this problem. We voted on Measure D to get a third lane built, not to waste it on a tourist train. I am sympathetic to the business in South County who uses the freight to transport and receive goods. So let it roll down there, but give the majority of your constituents a solution for our commute issues. With all of the proposed growth in Santa Cruz county can you see how a commuting shit storm is on the horizon for us without a better solution than a tourist train?? We really don't want to look like Los Angelos, if we liked living on the freeway we would move there. You are not listening to us, the voters, who are supportive of Measure D for solutions to our problems now! I am in favor of rapid mass transit but in the interim this third lane that we agreed to pay for needs to happen now! The proposed train service is a money suck that will bleed our funds dry and leave nothing left to complete the work that we need on Highway one for all us to take advantage of.

Sincerely,

Andrea Ratto Resident of Santa Cruz County for 40 years Corralitos, CA

190 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Tiffany Theden Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:22 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Tiffany Theden

-- -tiffany >^x^<

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:35 AM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: good to see you last night

Hi Ginger,

It was nice to talk to you last night.

Darryl of KH said that you had more detailed info on the model re bike usage on Trail Only and Trail Next to Rail. Could you share that with me? I'd like to understand how the usage numbers were derived.

Thanks,

Bud

191 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:29 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: To SCCRTC for Oct. 18, 2018 Agenda Packet

Dear Commissioners,

The orchestrated UCIS public presentation and comment with its predetermined scenario summations was anything but consensus building. The marching orders were given from the top: Get 'er Done! Public input, Check! Now rush it to the commissioners for their vote of approval!

The UCIS public input meeting in Live Oak was a dog-and-pony show with a clear purpose of presenting conclusions and not accepting further citizen concerns or suggestions. RTC staffers tactfully limited group discussions in favor of one-on-one dialogues with attendees. Their position was clear; the time for open discussion had passed. Staff had done their work; further public input would only be redundant, irrelevant or disruptive. Written comments were welcome, but this was a courtesy meeting, a rounding of the obligatory bases on the way to submission to the SCCRTC for their stamp of approval.

The clear dysfunction and public mistrust that has emanated from the SCCRTC Executive Director to the SCCRTC staff has gone on too long. Thankfully, and new Director is imminent. There is no reason to accept the woefully flawed conclusion of the UCIS from this tainted prism.

I ask that the commissioners defer the UCIS from their agenda until a new Executive Director has been appointed and been allowed a brief period to assess transportation options, community consensus, and other variables before charting a course of action. There is a rush to solve our transit needs and its impacts on our community and environment.

Let's be sure we've got it right. Please stop the rush. Wait for the new Executive Director to give his/her insight.

Respectfully, Peter Stanger

From: Joseph Ward Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:34 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

I voted for Measure D because it promised that the priority would be helping alleviate the congestion on HWY 1 by widening it. It implied that money for

192 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

a train would be the lowest priority. Since its passage all we hear about is the train! If I had to vote again I would vote NO!, I feel I have been fooled! Do any of you live in South County? Do You sit in traffic every day including weekends? Why don’t you ask all of us who do what we would want? A train may be a fun idea but it will not solve the problem. Its time to do your job and move ahead with the task voters gave you! Widen HWY 1. and leave the rail trail to hikers, and bikers.

Joseph Ward

From: Manu Koenig Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Cost / VMT

Is there any data on the avg. cost of a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) between travel modes or between scenarios? What is the cost of a mile traveled on a bus compared to a train? A jump bike? A personal automobile?

Manu Koenig Santa Cruz, CA 95060

From: Manu Koenig Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Question on Electric Bikes

What factors are used to account for the rising adoption of electric bikes?

Manu Koenig Santa Cruz, CA 95060

From: Ann Whitlock Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 7:20 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners

193 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years? I live in Seascape and would love to bike (safely) to the Aptos Post Office and Aptos Library and the Aptos Safeway. Making the current train path a walking/bike trail is the perfect solution. It seems we needed this solution yesterday.

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Ann Whitlock

From: Ellen Martinez Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 5:46 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Input on the Unified Corridor Investment Study

Dear RTC Commissioners and RTC Staff,

I live in Aptos and need to deal with almost daily gridlock on Highway 1. The traffic has reached a completely unacceptable level. And the problem has now bled onto our parallel surface streets. The Highway 1 traffic problem needs to be your #1 priority.

The Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS) is not a well thought out plan for our community’s short and long-term needs. The scenarios outlined do not include or address the Highway 1 traffic issue. Instead, in studying the various scenarios, it’s clear that the UCS seems to try to justify rail service on the rail corridor. Passenger rail service is prohibitively expensive. It’s an antiquated 20th Century idea. We need a 21st Century solution. A solution that includes fixing the Highway 1 traffic problem. A solution that keeps major transit on Highway 1.

Please focus your time and energy on creating an action plan, complete with timeline and budget, that addresses the highway 1 traffic congestion. Please stop spending your time and our tax dollars on feasibility studies. We do not need a long-term strategy that spans 15+ years and includes more costly, feasibility studies.

I’m shocked and frustrated at the RTC’s inability to focus and execute a plan that will benefit Santa Cruz County NOW and in the future. A plan that includes Highway 1.

Thank you. Ellen Martinez

From: Pam Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 3:52 PM

194 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Investment Study

Hello.. As president of Capitola Aptos rotary and also as a member of ED-TAC I have reviewed the study and listened to several presentations on it. I thought I might share with you some of the comments and concerns I have heard about the rail portion of it. Please note that both as an ED TAC member and a Rotary Club member I am trying to reflect the views of older adults who live in the Aptos area. There are many people who love the idea of train travel and are interested in Santa Cruz County investing in any form of travel that is an alternative to cars or that may help to relieve our traffic woes. However there appear to be many concerns. I will summarize them as well as I can:

1. The route of the proposed train. I have heard the comment that it goes from ‘nowhere to nowhere’. People think that for it to be really useful it needs to get closer to Cabrillo/UCSC/ go over hghwy 17 2. The cost. Each time we hear a presentation it goes up . If my notes are correct scenario E ( the all inclusive one) now exceeds one billion and I admit I am a bit fuzzy on whether or not that includes ongoing operating costs 3. The fact that RTC has quite honestly admitted that the rail trail option may not affect hghwy 1 traffic at all. 4. They are also concerned about the lack of parking at the train stops. They can’t really envision biking/walking to get to the train.

I am guessing this is not surprising. Most older adults feel at this point that the rail trail will not happen in their lifetimes and are somewhat removed from the discussion. There would I think be a lot of support for expanding Metro services to hit more rural/underserved areas and offering free bus passes to seniors in off peak hours such as is done in many cities now around the country. I was recently at a Museum of Art and History meeting for a proposed exhibit on elder loneliness. Almost everyone attending brought up the crucial issue of cheap available public transportation as the major intervention to reduce the problem of elder isolation and depression (which is much higher in our area than elsewhere).

So.. hope this helps! Pam Arnsberger, PhD President Capitola Aptos Rotary District 2 Rep EDTAC

From: Mark Mesiti-Miller Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 2:23 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] cruz.ca.us; 'Ryan Coonerty'; [email protected]; [email protected] cruz.ca.us; 'Bertrand, Jacques'; [email protected]; 'Randy Johnson'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Michael Rotkin'

195 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Cc: 'Lowell Hurst'; 'Richelle Noroyan'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Andy Schiffrin'; [email protected]; 'Patrick Mulhearn'; [email protected]; [email protected]; George Dondero; Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Friends of the Rail & Trail - Statement on the UCS Step 2 Analysis Results

Greetings Chair Leopold, Commissioners and Commissioner Alternates,

With two public workshops and your Transportation Policy Workshop this week all devoted to the recently published study titled “Unified Corridor Investment Study - Step 2 Analysis Results”, I trust you will find the attached easy-reading statement helpful in digesting the exhaustive and detailed information contained in the study.

Thanks for your time and tireless efforts in moving us all towards a safer, more equitable and more sustainable transportation future.

As always, should you have any questions or comments or just want to think together around this matter, call me anytime.

Happy trails,

Mark

Build the Trail ‐ Keep the Rail

Statement on the SCCRTC’s Unified Corridor Investment Study - Step 2 Analysis Results

Rail with Trail - Scenario B - is the clear winner

Friends of the Rail & Trail has reviewed the over two hundred pages, including five appendices, from the Unified Corridor Investment Study - Step 2 Analysis Results1 recently

196 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

published by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC). This comprehensive study confirms using the rail corridor for both rail and trail is far and away the best option when considering public safety, protecting the environment, promoting cycling, improving social equity, increasing use of public transit and benefiting the local economy. Below are a few of the most important findings from the study.

Best for Public Safety: Under the Rail with Trail Scenario B, the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS) predicts there would be a total of 118 fewer collisions every year than under the Trail Only Scenario A, 114 fewer than under the Bus Rapid Transit Scenario C. In other words, with Rail with Trail there would be one less collision every 3 days and that means safer travel for everyone. As stated in the UCS, “Safety is a critical measure for community well-being, quality of life, and particularly in the case of active transportation facilities, accessibility.” We agree, making travel safer for everyone, especially for our loved ones, is at the top of the list. In addition to making travel safer, the study tells us that reducing collisions will save us a whopping $26 million every year over the trail only scenario. Saving lives and money is a win-win, but the Rail with Trail Scenario B provides even more benefits. Environmentally Superior: The Rail with Trail Scenario B will result in a reduction of 230,000 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) every single day when compared to the Trail Only Scenario A. This is huge and much better than we had expected. Thinking annually, this means there would be a total of 84,000,000 fewer vehicle miles traveled within our County year after year under the Rail with Trail plan. Reducing VMT is widely recognized by experts as the most important metric to consider when evaluating transportation projects, and explains why the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research now requires VMT to be used as the primary evaluation metric under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). Reducing VMT by 84 million every year would be like planting a forest of trees every year. Most Cyclists: Under the Rail with Trail Scenario B, the study predicts the share of people riding bicycles would be higher than under both the Trail Only Scenario A and the Bus Rapid Transit Scenario C. While this prediction may surprise some, it fits with the common experience that more people will use bikes when cycling is an integrated part of a multi-modal transportation system such as that provided by the Rail with Trail scenario. Most Equitable: Under the Rail with Trail Scenario B, the mode share for public transit will be 46% higher than the Trail Only Scenario A and 25% higher than Bus Rapid Transit Scenario C. This metric is the best indicator of how much more public transit will be used under the Rail with Trail plan. Greater mode share of public transit is an excellent measure of the superior reliability and efficiency offered by multimodal public transit systems. Similarly, predicted total public transit vehicle miles traveled under the Rail with Trail Scenario B will be almost 16% greater than under the Trail Only Scenario A reflecting how much more accessible and equitable a rail with trail transportation system would be. Most Economic Benefits: The Rail with Trail Scenario B really shines when it comes to benefitting the local economy. Under every economic metric considered, Scenario B came out on top. Because tourism is an important part of our local economy, the UCS examined the increase in visitor generated tax revenue associated with each scenario. What the UCS found was the increase in visitor related tax revenue under the Rail with Trail Scenario B will

197 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

be as much as 60% greater than the other scenarios. Clearly, Rail with Trail Scenario B will be good for local business and good for local government. Other Issues: The benefits outlined above provide a compelling case for why the Rail with Trail Scenario B is far and away the best way forward for our community. The UCS explored many other issues including funding. We offer the following comments on this important aspect of the study: Local Share of Cost: While the local share cost predicted for Rail with Trail Scenario B is not the lowest (bus heavy Scenario C is the lowest) the local share cost of Rail with Trail Scenario B is estimated at $141 million less than the cost of Trail Only Scenario A. Furthermore, the UCS did not account for the probable funding available through the 2018 State Rail Plan2 (SRP) adopted only a few weeks ago. The SRP specifically allocates $1.5 billion targeted at the Central Coast of CA to “Implement Regional Rail Connecting Monterey and Santa Cruz to the Statewide Rail Network” amongst other projects (SRP p.194). To put that $1.5 billion figure in perspective, that is about five times what is needed to pay for adding modern commuter rail service between Santa Cruz and Watsonville estimated at about $325 million in the UCS. It is our opinion that if SRP funds are taken into consideration, implementing the Rail with Trail Scenario B is likely to be hundreds of millions less than the Trail Only Scenario A and may well be substantially less than Bus Rapid Transit Scenario C. Puzzling Operating Costs: Surprisingly, the UCS predicts the ongoing operating cost of the Rail with Trail Scenario B are highest, higher even than the Bus Heavy Scenario C. This prediction is surprising as it contradicts the operating cost figures found in the National Transit Database3 published last October 2017 by the Federal Transit Administration. An analysis of these figures indicates the per passenger mile operating costs for rail service are only about 60% of the operating costs for bus service. We have contacted the SCCRTC for additional information and an explanation of these figures. Litigation Risk: One obvious big money issue that has been overlooked in the UCS is the question of property rights litigation associated with both the Trail Only Scenario A and the Bus Heavy Scenario C. Both of these scenarios require abandonment of all or part of the existing rail right of way. As has been previously documented by the SCCRTC, about two thirds of the existing rail right of way exists as easements granted for the construction, maintenance and operation of a railroad. When the rail line is abandoned these easements will likely cease, leading to substantial litigation to re-establish these easements for trail only and/or bus use. The cost in both time and money to settle the inevitable property rights litigation arising from abandoning the rail line are likely to be substantial. For example, as reported in the Seattle Times4 in 2014, settling this type of litigation in the East Regional Corridor (a rail corridor very similar to ours), cost $140 million. Given the magnitude of probable litigation costs arising in our local real estate market, we suggest a $100 million “place holder” be included in the costs for both Scenarios A and C. One clear advantage of the Rail with Trail Scenario B is the rail line remains eliminating the expensive and time consuming property rights litigation associated with Scenarios A and

C. This issue alone may well be one of the best reasons to support the Rail with Trail

198 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Scenario B. Summary: The substantial benefits offered by the Rail with Trail Scenario B over all other Scenarios, especially over the Trail Only Scenario A, is convincing evidence that building the trail and keeping the rail is the best path forward especially when you consider safety, environmental sustainability, social equity and local economic benefits. Rail with Trail is simply the best at addressing climate change, providing equity for everyone, supporting economic vitality and developing a truly sustainable transportation system that will serve Santa Cruz County now and well into the future. Friends of the Rail & Trail will continue evaluating the findings of the UCS and will issue updated statements after the upcoming SCCRTC public workshops and public hearings have been completed and/or as otherwise needed to keep the community informed. For example, one obvious modification to the proposed Scenario B would be to add freight rail service. Adding freight rail service to Scenario B should be a no cost add and will get trucks off our roads further improving safety and further reduce GHG emissions. Stay tuned…

Footnotes: 1 https://sccrtc.org/projects/multi‐modal/unified‐corridor‐study/ 2 http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_Final.pdf 3 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/66011/2016‐ntst.pdf 4 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle‐news/was‐public‐railroaded‐in‐trail- deal/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1

About Friends of the Rail & Trail Friends of the Rail & Trail exists to expedite development of a 32-mile biking/walking trail running the length of Santa Cruz County, while keeping the rail line for future transit. Rail and Trail together will support a variety of transportation modes meeting the needs of the greatest number of residents. More information is available at www.railandtrail.org and on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

From: shahe moutafian Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:44 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

199 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

I don't believe the rail option is achievable or timely. There are more cost effective and immediate solutions such as: Electric bikes on trail only, subsidized Metro rides, commuter lanes.

I don't want Progressive rail to dictate how we use our 32 miles corridor. They are interested and focused on freight, not commuters. Are they going to clog up our one rail line by storing freight cars? I don't believe they have our best interests of alleviating commuter congestion.

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Shahe Moutafian

From: Gary Sultana Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:05 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Gary Sultana

200 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: GARY PLOMP Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:16 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Regional Transportation Commission; Luis Mendez Subject: RE: Scenario B (rail with trail)

To whom it may concern:

Though I am unable to attend the SCCRTC workshop in Watsonville, please log it down that I support and advocate Scenario "B" In my opinion, this is the best use for the Santa Cruz Branch rail line.

Thank you for your attention and my vote!

Gary V. Plomp Rail Advocate

From: Sawhill Bruce Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 10:09 AM To: Cory Caletti Cc: Sawhill Bruce; Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar Subject: Re: 20 Questions about the UCIS

Thanks~ I figure Sally is a better source for questions than myself as I am so steeped in this whole process that I am “too close” to the source and she is interested and committed but hasn’t been so involved.

Cheers,

Bruce

From: Bruce Sawhill Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:45 PM To: Cory Caletti Cc: Sawhill Bruce Subject: Fwd: 20 Questions about the UCIS

Hey Cory:

Sally Arnold created these 20 questions about the UCIS. Since she is an engaged individual but not a long standing advocate, these questions might be the basis of a FAQ from the RTC.

Cheers

Bruce

201 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sally Arnold Subject: 20 Questions about the UCIS Date: October 12, 2018 at 8:47:08 PM PDT To: Mark Mesiti-Miller <>, Jack Nelson <>, Barry Scott <>, Sawhill Bruce <>, Mike & Elizabeth Saint <, Rick Longinotti <>

Hi Guys, I just finished reading the UCIS. I found it interesting but grueling. This is not myarea of expertise. I have lots of questions. I am guessing that many of these are answered within the doc but I just didn’t understand how to read it. I am emailing my list of questions to you because I think of you as my team of experts. If any of you has the time or patience to answer any of my questions I’d sure appreciate it. I’d like to understand the doc better before I try to put together my "public comments.”

Thanks! Sally p. 9 “The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has incorporated triple bottom line sustainability principles in prioritizing projects for funding in the long-range planning process, as well as, programming of funds for project implementation. The legal requirements of Senate Bill 375 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and land use...” so does the UCIS consider TOD? p 14 As I understand it we have to repay the state the $11 million (but in today's dollars) for the ROW if we pull up the tracks for Trail Only. Is that also true if we pull up the tracks for BRT? On p 162 I don’t see that pay back listed. p. 14 Why isn't freight service included in all except A and C? As long as the tracks are there, why not use them? Especially why isn’t in scenario B? And aren’t the easements dependent on a working rail line running both passengers and freight? Do we risk losing the easements if we don’t run freight at all? p 22 I assume they mean Bay STREET on the westside (not “Drive”)? p 23 Are these out of order? Are the street names correct? I can't envision some of these sections as they are presented here.

202 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

p 23 Why does the chart only cover Bay St from Beach to Calif St? Why not go all the way to UCSC? p 80 There seem to be several spots where the ROW will be affected by erosion and/or flooding related to climate change. Have mitigations been included in the approved design for the Rail Trail? p 90 What's being done to the surface streets in A & C that isn't done in B & E? p 91 “ The analysis shows that the countywide mean peak period speeds are greater for the scenarios that include HOV lanes on Highway 1” Is this HOV lane assumed to be a third lane in each direction? What if it were one of the two existing lanes? p 93 table 34 What are these the mean of? minutes? Between what 2 points? p 101, table 37 Does this mean that the number of people crossing our county by any mode is greatest with scenario E and least with scenario C? How can that be? Do people just stay home? Or not move here? p 103 “ Funding sources that could be available if rail or bus rapid transit on a fixed guideway is implemented in Santa Cruz County are assumed as potential revenues in the UCS scenarios with eligible projects.” Does this include money from the state rail plan? p 103 “ Measure D-funded auxiliary lanes (Soquel to 41st , Bay/Porter to Park, and Park to State Park) will be funded by Measure D Highway funds and implemented in every UCS scenario.” How much money do they estimate these aux lanes will cost? What else could that money buy? Does measure D require the building of aux lanes or just allow it? p 107 table 38 In several places the costs and funds avail for a given project are different in different scenarios. Why would that be? p 107 table 38 I’m looking at the far left column and project “ local rail transit with interregional connections **” Shouldn't the math be cost - funding = New investment? This number seems to off by a factor of ten! What am I not understanding? p 108, table 39 How could it be that roads have no maintenance costs, but the trail does? p 109 “... peak-hour commuters benefit most significantly from improvements that reduce travel times – such as HOV lanes on Highway 1 –” But a previous chart says HOV will not significantly improve travel time. So which is it? p 110 “ Finally, “industrial” activity nodes require auto mobile and freight access to support their employee and supply chain needs.” Why can't people take transit to an industrial job?

203 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

p 121 “ Transportation projects have a range of economic benefits ..... Reduced traffic congestion on roadways can mean less time in traffic for individuals and an improved quality of life” I thought we all agreed that reducing congestion cannot happen except in the very short term. Even their charts indicate this. So how is this assertion justified? p 121 “Scenario A: This scenario includes several highway and road-related improvements, like new HOV lanes on Highway 1, that would be expected to reduce time spent in traffic “ But your own travel time projections show no significant difference in travel time on hwy 1 between the scenarios! How do you support this statement? p 123, table 42 Why is the education and enforcement cost different in different scenarios? Aren’t they showing the impact of the education and enforcement in each scenario? I can understand how the different capital improvements will have different impacts, but how does education and enforcement?

p 136, table 46 Is the difference between these scenarios (55 metric tons/day) significant? p 137 TVMT– But if the transit vehicles are empty, what does it matter? it seems a more useful number would be projected ridership. What am I missing here? p 151 I understand why you don't include freight maintenance costs – they are borne by the common carrier. But the roads maintenance costs are borne by the taxpayer. If it's through local jurisdictions or Caltrans it's still our public money and so it seems like it should be included here. What don’t I understand? p 154, table A-3 Would those Aptos rail bridges need to be rebuilt for scenario B too? p 155 “Expand bridge to seven lanes, three southbound and four north bound” Why the odd number of lanes? Seems like 8 lanes would be more standard p159 Table Daily Revenue Hours How can it operate 42 hours a day? Or 26 on weekends? Clearly I don’t understand something. p 162, 164, 168 The cost listed for rail removal is different in each of these tables. Why? And no where does it seem they have accounted for the cost of repurchasing the easement once the rail is removed. Would that be a significant cost to consider? p.180, table C-1 What is the “segment 17 alternative”? Why is it proposed?

204 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Dana Abbott Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:09 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Transportation is such a vital issue impacting the lives of people in Santa Cruz County. I have lived in the SF Bay Area for nearly thirty years, and have never seen the gridlock worse than now. I too want transportation alternatives. We shouldn’t be forced into one vision, however, that may not even impact the gridlock, especially for the vast expense.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you!

Dana Abbott

From: Janelle Cox Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:50 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Re: Reminder: UCS public workshops next week

Though I am very interested in your organization and this planning effort, I don't live in Santa Cruz County. Our daughter lives there and we have a family beach house in Capitola, so we are over there 1 - 2 times/week. We are always affected by the traffic in the area. I suggest that many people in Santa Cruz County commute long hours and vacation home owners, though visit the area, are not there often Monday-Friday, and propose that a Saturday @ 11:00 community meeting may accommodate those people. I am unable to attend these meetings, though would be interested in doing so.

Thank you! Janelle Cox

From: Brooke Elliott Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Input

I vote for scenario B. But where are you going to mitigate the parking on Soquel Ave and Soquel Dr.? There are a lot of businesses here which would be hurt if you take away their parking.

I'm adamantly opposed to HOV or lanes with fees. This caters to the people who can afford to pay, and will only make traffic worse as most people pile into one lane. A bus on the shoulder

205 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

is a good idea, helping to speed up the trip for those riders, making it worthwhile to take an "express" from Watsonville.

From: Linda K Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:31 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

It was wonderful to participate in Open Streets on West Cliff Dr. yesterday and see how many families and individuals came out both on bike and foot to enjoy our amazing community. This shows that folks will use safe transportation alternatives if available.

Our community needs realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Yes this process seems to be very slow but Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Linda Kishlansky Live Oak

From: Elizabeth Clifton Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 7:26 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

206 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Elizabeth Clifton-Doolin

From: Margaret Wessels Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:20 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Margaret Wessels

From: Piet Canin Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 10:27 PM To: UCS; Grace Blakeslee; Ginger Dykaar; Cory Caletti Subject: UCS bike questions & comments

Hi UCS Team,

Thanks for all your work on this comprehensive transportation document. I have a few questions and comments related to the bike projects and data in the UCS. Is it possible to meet with one or more of the UCS team to talk about my questions and comments?

The first attachment is regarding the bike mode share increase which seems relatively minor given all the bike projects in the UCS. The second attachment covers a few other UCS bike topics.

207 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Thanks for your time in answering EA’s questions and responding to our comments.

Piet Canin | Vice President Transportation Ecology Action | EcoAct.org

Ecology Action questions and comments on UCS Bike projects

1. Bike Mode Share

Low bike Mode Share Numbers From my reading of the UCS, the bike mode split numbers seem low. The baseline % based on the National household Survey indicates a current 3.4% mode share for bike trips for the entire county of Santa Cruz. The projected growth is only a high of 4.4% or an approximate 1/3 increase even with the construction and implementation of all the bike projects listed in the UCS such as the Rail Trail, protected bike lanes on Soquel, improved intersections for cyclists, improved bike facilities throughout the urban area closing gaps in the network, increased carry capacity for bikes on transit, and increased bike amenities. This doesn’t include the ever-increasing number of ebikes that are attracting new people to biking as they can climb hills, ride further and faster with less much physical effort. This seems like an underestimation of bike growth especially compared to other counties where they have implemented such large scale and diverse bike improvement projects.

In comparison transit is projected to increase from some 3% to 10% in one scenario.

If we are going to ask the public and public agencies to invest 100’s of millions of dollars for bike improvements, we should have a lot more to show than a 1/3 percent increase in travel mode share. Caltrans has a goal of tripling biking and that seems like a reasonable and attainable goal for Santa Cruz County given our climate, healthy, active and environmentally conscious residents, the population density of our urban areas, the increasing popularity of ebikes, JUMP bike share and the increased comfort, convenience and safety that the UCS bike projects will afford people riding bikes.

How did the UCS project team develop the bike mode share numbers? Did they look at the City’s new JUMP ebikeshare data (250 bikes, used an average of 6 times a day which is some 1,500 bike trips a day). BikeShare.This is only a portion of ebikeshare trips that will increase with the expansion of JUMP. Ebikeshare is scheduled to increase to 500 bikes by first half of 2019 with UCSC expansion. County and Capitola are actively looking at expanding bikeshare to their jurisdictions which will very realistically add another 250 bikes to the JUMP service for a total of 750 ebike bikeshares.

UCS bike share forecast is 50 bikes * 20 miles/day *75% of trips replace auto trips. Estimated reduction of 750 miles. seems low compared to the current city bikeshare count of 250 bikes being ridden some 86,000 per month which is 2,774 miles a day vs the UCS estimate of 750. The current ebikeshare use and miles is very likely to increase with the expansion of the new program. Early success indicates a realistic 3 to 5 times as many ebike miles in the next few years.

208 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Did the UCS team look at similar bike ridership increase once a car-free bike path was constructed in an urban area such as Santa Cruz to Capitola? Did they research the increase of ebikes in the US and locally? Almost every bike shop in SC sells ebikes and one shop only sells ebikes. From 2000 to 2007 EA along with funding support from the RTC initiated an ebike commuter incentive program where 1,634 residents bought ebikes and rode. On average program participants rode their ebikes 3 times a week at distance of 20 miles. About half of their total ebike miles per week displaced a solo car trip based on follow up participant survey data.

Supporting data for the correlation of sizable increase in biking with robust bike infrastructure improvements:

People who live near multi-use trails are 50% more likely to meet physical activity guidelines and 73-80% more likely to bicycle. Huston et al., Pierce et al., and Moudon et al. - in Active Transportation: Making the Link from Transportation to Physical Activity and Obesity, Active Living Research research brief, Summer, 2009

One study of cities across the US estimated that for every 1% increase in the length of on- street bicycle lanes, there is a 0.31% increase in bicycle commuters. Dill, J., and T. Carr, 2003 - Bicycling commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: If you build them, commuters will use them, Transportation Research Record, 1828, 116-123

Multi-use trails have been shown to be particularly beneficial in promoting physical activity among women and people in lower-income areas. Brownson, R., et al., 2000 - Promoting physical activity in rural communities: Walking trails access, use, and effects, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 235-241

After two streets in Minneapolis were converted to be more bicycle friendly, bike traffic increased 43%, total vehicle crashes decreased, traffic efficiency was maintained, and parking revenues remained consistent. City of Minneapolis, 2010 - Hennepin and 1st avenues two-way conversion leads to fewer crashes, better access

After New York City installed a protected bike lane on Columbus Avenue, bicycling increased 56 percent on weekdays, crashes decreased 34 percent, speeding decreased, sidewalk riding decreased, traffic flow remained similar, and commercial loading hours/space increased 475 percent. New York City Department of Transportation, 2011 - Columbus Avenue parking-protected bicycle path preliminary assessment

EA would like to ask the UCS consultants/RTC staff to take another look at the bike mode share numbers and revise upward based on several factors that will reasonable lead to an increase in bike ridership.

Ecology Action questions and comments regarding the UCS

209 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

UCS bike topics questions/comments

1. Why doesn’t the Rail Trail include the 41st to 47th avenue and Capitola Trestel section of the trail in the rail corridor? 2. What would be the cost of these two sections of the Rail Trail to be built within the rail corridor? 3. Where would the source of funds come from to build protected bike lanes on Soquel Ave. and Freedom blvd? 4. In the cost estimate for protected or buffeted bike lanes on Soquel Ave. and Freedom blvd what is the length of these two roads and how many miles are estimated to be protected vs buffeted bike lanes? 5. If the entire length was protected bike lanes do you have a cost estimate for that project? 6. How would you determine where to place protected bike lanes vs buffeted lanes? 7. It would be great to have more information on the Soquel/Freedom protected/buffeted bike lanes as they are a big part of UCS’s bike improvements. 8. What is the funding potential, source, for protected bike lanes? 9. If safety education and enforcement is listed as a main component to reducing the some 3,000 plus crashes on county roads why isn’t the current level of implementation and cost listed in the UCS? 10. Why doesn’t the UCS call for more safety education and enforcement since crashes cost some $500M per year? 11. Why is the Rail Trail cost higher than the current $127M estimate to build the rail trail? 12. Did you use bike and pedestrian counts from West Cliff and the Monterey Rec Trail to help with forecasting bike and pedestrian use numbers for the Rail Trail? - Why doesn’t the UCS consider Active Transportation a health benefit whereas it is noted in Caltran studies, objectives and grant programs as such?

Thank you so much for your time and thought in answering these questions.

From: Mike Schmidt Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 7:41 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

210 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

I favor bus rapid transit over rail. We need a BRT along with a bike and pedestrian trail. Please don’t place rail as part of our transportation solutions.

Thank you Mike Schmidt

From: Pete Haworth Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 5:51 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: More time is needed to study and develop the UCS

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to “Get Everyone Moving” will thank you.

Measure D promised to “”Perform in-depth environmental and economic analysis of future transit and other transportation options on the right-of-way through an open, transparent public process”. The current UCS does not fulfill that promise since the various uses of the rail ROW are grouped together with unrelated projects on Highway 1 and various surface streets.

In addition, the target for hiring a new Executive Director is December 3rd, only days before the currently scheduled vote. Surely the new Executive Director should have time to formulate his/her thoughts on the county’s future transportation needs rather than accept the philosophies of his/her predecessor?

This decision will affect the county’s transportation methods and their costs for years to come and should not be rushed.

Peter Haworth

211 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Felix Sorrentino Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 4:29 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Felix Sorrentino

From: Steven Plumb Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 3:15 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed in Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Steven Plumb

212 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Peter Goodman Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 3:10 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Peter Goodman

From: Joseph Romani Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 2:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: scenario B

Hello

Guess what. I support Scenario B.

Joe

213 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Cindy Plum Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 1:16 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Cc: Cynthia Plumb Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

We have lived in Santa Cruz County for almost 50 years, and have envisioned what a safe walking and cycling route across the county would mean for our quality of life. Our children and grandchildren could still benefit from that dream. We believe that prioritizing pedestrian and cycling would bring the most benefit to everyone in the county, those in cars as well as those on foot or bikes. Rail service anywhere besides Watsonville does not make sense for our county. We need the trail now!

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Cynthia Plumb

From: Harold R. Mancusi-Ungaro, Jr. Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 11:25 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: The UCS needs careful consideration for changing times.

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Biking myself in Santa Cruz the other day, I took notice of all the new, pooled e-bikes. I was riding my own bike from Santa Cruz. Then, I look at the NY Times today: the e-bike is taking NY City by storm as a convenient and affordable means of transportation. And NY needs to deal with year-round rains, which we do not have. Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

We need a rail to trail from Monterey to Santa Cruz! We do not need a diesel train to nowhere like the SMART (= DUMB) train in the North Bay.

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

214 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Harold R. Mancusi-Ungaro, Jr.

From: Gary Sultana Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 7:21 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

I am in favor of the development of a pedestrian/cycle right of way from Watsonville to Davenport without a train. I believe our funds should be spent improving Highway one so desperate commuters can stop using our neighborhood streets. The constant gridlock creates dangerous driving situations.

Gary Sultana

From: Marilyn Schultz

Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 7:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Input

I believe we need to do everything possible to make top of the line bicycle lanes (safe, wide, smooth surfaced, separated from cars) on Soquel Drive, Soquel Avenue, Freedom, and elsewhere. Then we need to upgrade the cross streets that will connect them to a pedestrian and bicycle trail where railroad tracks will have been removed.

215 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

This is what our community needs. Period.

Marilyn Schultz

From: Nadine Schaeffer Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Please Make Rail and Trail a Reality!

Hi Nice People,

I just looked through the RTC’s presentation slides at https://sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/

Please select option B! I look forward to construction starting and sticking to the original plan.

I live in Watsonville, and the traffic to Santa Cruz has gotten so bad, I dread going there. We really need better options.

Thank you,

Nadine Schaeffer Birdsong Orchards www.birdsongorchards.com

From: Leslie Altman Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 4:46 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

216 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Leslie Altman

From: Gregory C Glasgow Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 3:37 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Gregory Glasgow

From: Catherine Marino Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 12:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: I support Rail Corridor Scenario B!

Dear RTC Commissioners,

Thank you for your dedication towards determining the best use of our invaluable rail corridor. I appreciate that you have done your work amidst much constant criticism, yet still carry forward your committment to our citizens.

I am a native of Watsonville, now living in Santa Cruz, and working seasonally in Watsonville. I would like to voice my support for Scenario B, Rail and Trail use for our rail corridor. I have seen widening of our roads and Highway 1 in my 65 years here, and I have also seen our population and transit needs increase faster than increased roadways. I am a retired Senior Electric Estimating Engineer, and the larger jobs that I designed, prepared costs and contracts for involved costs for road realignment & widening, rebuilding of infrastructure and relocation of utilities. Doing this work gave me a keen awareness of the costs and scope of work associated with such projects. My work experience, and also use of light rail public

217 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

transit in other cities, and the recently released Corridor Study all convince me that without a doubt, scenario B will provide the best use of our rail corridor, utilize the most levels of available funds, be the most reliable transit service cross county, initiate the lowest amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, and most of all will incur the fewest collisions, property damage, and death/injuries.

The Corridor Study also provides more improvements that will lead to more and better Metro service, safety improvements to bike lanes, and significantly more transit/travel options for our senior citizens, including me.

Sincerely, Catherine Marino Santa Cruz, CA

From: Hannah Caisse Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 11:52 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Hannah Caisse

From: Wendy Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 11:52 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

218 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Chris Miller

From: Peter Emanuel Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 11:50 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: UCS is not forward looking

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Nowhere in the UCS could I find any reference to new and emerging E-transit modes of transportation. A study needs to look to the future for sustainable solutions. Is that not one of the primary purposes? It is not sufficient to look at past rail solutions like the commuter train in San Diego which has lines in both directions, doesn't cross busy streets and can go fast. Furthermore, San Diego has a much larger population center than Santa Cruz County and as such can make a case for a commuter train.

The RTC needs to get the UCS right and not rush into something that the whole community will likely regret for years to come.

Peter Emanuel Capitola

Peter Emanuel

From: Marcia White Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 11:39 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

I ride my bike and drive from home near the harbor to both downtown and 41st ave frequently. Your rail with trail proposal doesn’t do much for me….I will still have to ride across the dangerous harbor bridge to get to

219 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

downtown and along Portola where in spots the bike lanes are full of pedestrians to get to 41st ave.

The rail with trail in my area would be severely impacted by frequent rail traffic, especially during the already very difficult commute hours.

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Do the right thing.

Marcia White

From: Woutje Swets Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 10:56 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

My grandchildren ride their bikes to school. I fear for their lives every school day. Drivers here do not know how to look out for bicyclists - on the contrary, they seem to think that it is in their right to cut off cyclists while making turns or trying to squeeze by a bicycle. We need safe routes for people of all ages on bicycles, in wheelchairs, with strollers, on skateboards and walkers. We do not need a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere, only to please an occasional tourist. We need a substantial TRAIL that will accommodate all of the above, not a narrow trail alongside a useless train track. I am from Holland. In order to pass your driver's license you need to make turns in areas where bicyclists will be on the road as well. If you do not look over your shoulder to ascertain that there are no bicycles nearby, you automatically flunk your driver's test, even if you scored 100% on everything else. That is how it should be here, but it is not. My grandchildren's lives are in your hands. Please do the right thing.

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

Wouterina Swets

220 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: david allen Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 10:37 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Please slow down and get the UCS right!

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Those suffering daily in gridlock need realistic, achievable solutions and people of all ages and abilities need safer routes for biking and walking now.

The UCS offers a selection of different transportation improvements, and the Commissioners should not be locked into any one fabricated scenario.

What affordable, sustainable options could help alleviate gridlock and make walking and biking safer in the next few years?

Please slow down and take the time to get the UCS right.

Everyone who believed the Measure D promise to "Get Everyone Moving" will thank you.

David Allen

From: Diana Chase Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 7:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Rail banking

Please rail bank the current tracks. There’s no prospect of funds for a train. Other options are much more viable (possibly light rail in a sensible configuration).

Proceed with trail without rail immediately.

Best regards, Diana Chase

From: Gary Sultana Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 7:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: UCS

I favor improvement of Highway 1 from the fish hook to Watsonville, improvement of bus service and development of the rail corridor from Watsonville to Davenport for pedestrian/ cycle usage without trains.

Gary Sultana Resident of Santa Cruz County

221 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Geoffrey Ellis Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 4:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Study

It is clear, after a review of the Study, that the listed projects leave out many essential transportation improvements. Projects that are missing, but should have been included, are:

Capitola Road, from Santa Cruz through Live Oak to 41st Ave has many choke points with just one lane in each direction. It should be two lanes in each direction throughout. Capitola Road is an important intercity thoroughfare which somehow got omitted from the Study.

Brommer Street, which ends and 7th Ave, needs to be extended northwest (compass direction) to connect to Broadway. This current disconnect adds travel distance, time, and fuel consumption to trips between Live Oak and downtown Santa Cruz.

There needs to be an eastern access road to UCSC, as was planned since the campus was built. This would start the junction of Highway 1 with Highway 17 and would run east to the campus.

Highway 1, from the junction with Highway 17 to Watsonville, needs to be three lanes in each direction.

The Study has other projects which appear to be driven by ideology, not transportation. The worst of these is passenger rail from Santa Cruz to Watsonville. Such a project have an enormous cost, around $500 million to $1 billion and would only slightly decrease congestion on Highway 1 and on Soquel Drive. Transportation funds should not be wasted on such white elephant projects.

Geoffrey Ellis

From: Bob F Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Quality of Life For those in Santa Cruz County

To those that it may concern,

I find myself being spread over many projects, so I may be behind on some. Please consider the following that was published (one pending) in the local newspapers, which probably reflects the attitude of the majority of those residing in the Santa Cruz area. This is just a sample, but please take these into consideration when making any decisions on the rail-train corridor through Santa Cruz County.

Thank You,

Bob Fifield

222 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Common Sense

It is much more likely that we will have subsidized self-driving vehicles taking anyone in Santa Cruz County safely and efficiently from their doorstep to their desired destination before we will have practical safe two-way passenger rail service on a single track only intended for slow-moving freight. (It is unfortunate that some locals are being duped into heavily subsidizing an outside organization only interested in increasing their profits. This organization already has a questionable reputation after deceiving many others.)

Until anything can be truly proven to better benefit the masses, let's at least be assured that the corridor through Santa Cruz County will be used in the best interest of locals as a safe and tranquil area for families and all those who desire the freedom to traverse through Santa Cruz County without polluting its amazing environment. Let's choose the trail without rail implementation that will also save millions.

Quality of life is precious

Transporting freight by rail may be profitable for outsiders, especially after locals are duped to pay out millions of dollars for upgrades to accommodate heavy (and maybe hazardous) freight cars. Also, that will have to include the millions to move existing rails to properly space a multi-use corridor.

“All things to all people” may be fantasized in return, but while a freight line can tolerate slow speeds on a single track, adding complexity of faster, two-way passenger traffic concurrently on this same single track is asking for trouble even without factoring in costs of stations, parking, lawsuits, etc.

Contrary to misleading information, the far less costly Greenway alternative that genuinely improves quality of life for locals is the only solution that could actually leave the tracks in place to result in a much sooner, totally functioning serene 32-mile corridor without preventing future improvements not envisioned at this time.

Why are we allowing outside interests to make excess profits at the detriment of our quality of life? Under guise of “solving” the housing shortage, will greedy outside developers next charge locals to remove all trees in the entire county so that the developers can squeeze in more housing and make exorbitant profits without having to deal with the consequences? Where do we draw the line? Isn’t quality of life for those who live in Santa Cruz County a factor in decision making? Don’t let outside money sacrifice our quality of life!

There is misleading information about rail trail Please get all the facts before favoring any rail decisions. In reality the rails will only be used for transporting freight while taxpayers will have to pay the extra millions to bring the rail system up to usability. Pedestrians and bicyclists will still not be able to make use of some very convenient level bridge crossings and instead will have to dodge traffic and traverse some steep hills. Also, in the other areas, squeezing in any type of train will require most of the rails to be relocated to

223 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

provide proper spacing (millions more again at taxpayer expense). Why not leave the rails in place and use as forms to expedite the Trail Only implementation? Please understand that virtually everyone favors alleviating traffic problems, but imposing a freight service of a very questionable nature only creates more problems. There are better means to actually improve traffic woes during rush hours.

A CLEAR AND PENDING DANGER

The Worst Case Rail AND Trail Scenario will not be cost overruns and disappointed ridership, but loss of lives. Mixing 3-year olds dashing in all directions within feet of a moving train would make for stressful situations and even disasters.

Illustrations show trains traveling next to families roaming along a misleading "wall" to maintain "safety". The reality is that this "safety net" is NOT contiguous. At EVERY railroad crossing, major openings exist. While cars will slow down to safer speeds at crossings and some will even come to a stop, trains never allow for unscheduled stops or even slow down unnecessarily, so unfortunately that will make for a Clear and Present Danger.

Let's put the ultimate value on quality of life and safety of the family. Let's expedite the Trail Only common sense implementation as soon as possible. Other means need to evove to genuinely alleviate traffic in a safer manner.

From: Bruno Kaiser Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 (via mail) To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: October 4 Meeting

I have reviewed the mailing for the upcoming meeting, and would like to just emphasize what, based on my experience, is the primary cause of the time wasted in crawling traffic in our county. It’s Hwy. 1 from Soquel Avenue to Aptos. The incremental widening of third lanes to date only moves the bottleneck a bit down the road, but saves a minimal amount of driving time. Until we have 3 lanes from Hwy. 1 to Aptos, we’ll be wasting over a half hour every day each way.

It’s nice to build bridges for bike riders, but that is a drop-in-the bucket benefit to the majority.

I am aware of the funding challenge, but wonder if it is possible to accelerate the funding for this need in some way to solve what appears to me the primary traffic need in our county.

Respectfully,

Bruno Kaiser

From: Mitchell Lachman Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:34 AM

224 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: Re: Unified Corridor Study

hello Ginger,

I read it and thank you for sending. You have my plan, unfortunately we are overpopulated, as in many of our popular cities dealing with traffic congestion.

I look at this aa legislators dealing in particulars, micromanaging, but not dealing with state incentives for population distribution into state regions more suitable, and willing to invite more employment enhanced with business tax incentives, and increased housing. The consequences of not doing so is overburdening local infrastructure , and environmental degradation.

Good bye, Mitchell Lachman

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:10 PM To: Ginger Dykaar Cc: George Dondero; John Leopold; Gine Johnson; Zach Friend; Patrick Mulhearn; Bruce McPherson; Randy Johnson; Greg Caput; Mike Rotkin Subject: Re: meeting next week

Dear Ginger,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to provide input and have a meaningful discussion in group meetings designed to give each participant a short period to speak. There are those of us who have spent almost four years studying the issue, contracting professional studies, and doing in depth analysis. To receive the standard email from [email protected] certainly leaves the impression that you are not interested in meaningful input and discussion. If this is the path that staff has chosen to validate the study and assure that the public has a fair study with data that everyone can agree is tested, it will not be successful.

I submit my request again and ask that you provide ample time to have a meaningful discussion with the questions and input we have submitted.

Regards,

Bud

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: provide detail please

225 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Thank you Ginger. I just sent an email to you re-requesting a two hour meeting. There is simply no way to get into the details in the group meetings you are offering. I truly believe the UCS offers a promising opportunity to energize a dialogue in the right direction with a common set of numbers so that policy makers can mix and match options available. But we first need to get to ensure everyone agrees on the numbers. Overview public meetings will not result in any meaningful dialogue.

Regards, Bud

From: Barbara Graves Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 11:31 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: NO on Capitola Measure L

Dear Sentinel Editors and Members of the Regional Transportation Commission, I’m voting NO on Capitola’s Measure L because it cripples future City Councils from ending traffic gridlock. Created by a few folks who oppose regional public transit, this deceptive measure has absolutely nothing to do with saving Capitola’s trestle (which will be saved regardless) or providing a bike/pedestrian trail (which is already part of the regional plan).

Is it even legal to close one of only two major transportation corridors in our county to future commuter transit? It’s like saying, “I live within earshot of the freeway, so I want to ban all car, bus, and truck traffic on Highway 1 through Capitola.”

Vote NO on Measure L to save our right to democratically plan how all future residents will be able to get around the Monterey Bay and link with other transportation centers such as airports, bus terminals, and statewide rail hubs.

Thank you,

Barbara Graves

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 10:33 AM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: provide detail please

Dear Ginger,

Could you help me understand the detail behind the Sentinel's statement about the $41M "reverse public policy" addition to the cost of trail only in the UCS? What was quoted is: RTC planner Ginger Dykaar said that included $28 million grants from the federal Surface Transportation Program and California Transportation Commission, a federal grant for the $10.5 million North Coast Rail Trail and $1.5 million in staff time.

226 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Regards, Bud

From: Pete Haworth Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 1:06 PM

To: Ginger Dykaar; Grace Blakeslee; [email protected]; UCS; Regional Transportation Commission Subject: UCS QUESTIONS

I have read both the UCS documents and have some questions and comments. I'm sending them to all of you as I am not sure who can supply the answers. I have organized my questions by each Performance Measurement but I have one general question: What level of confidence can be assumed in all the statistics, particularly those that relate to a 2035 numbers? I would appreciate a speedy response since the time to prepare for the Public input sessions on the UCS is short. MODE SHARE Please provide Baseline/No Build numbers for Goal 2 (the pie chart for drive alone, carpool, etc. What is the total number of trips used for the calculations for each scenario and what factors were applied to the baseline number of trips to arrive at the 2035 numbers provided in the documents? COLLISION COSTS The calculation of costs per collision appears to be incorrect because it multiplies the number of collisions by the average cost for all types of collision. However, the costs associated with PDO, Injury, and Fatal collisions are substantially different. as shown in Table 25 Using the costs for each type of collision and the number of each type of collision for 2015 as shown in figure 3, the baseline cost per collision for that year should be $120k, not the average cost used of $224k. I ask that the pie chart for each scenario be updated to reflect the correct cost. In order to calculate the collision costs accurately, please provide the the number of PDO, Injury, and Fatal accidents used for each scenario. It appears the the collision costs used for the calculation are current costs so they should be adjusted at least for inflation to correctly calculate the 2035 costs. In addition, I'm curious as to why no baseline costs are provided for this Performance Measurement. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED What is the number of vehicles used to calculate the Vehicle Miles Travelled for each scenario? Without that, it's impossible to determine whether the VMT is a result of less cars driving more miles or more cars driving less miles, an important factor. HOUSEHOLD TRANSPORTATION COSTS Are they based on today's costs or adjusted to 2035 costs? For comparison, household costs for bus and rail transit should be included. LEVEL OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT

227 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Are the annual costs expressed in today's costs or 2035 costs? In order to correctly ascertain the overall scenario costs over a give time period, the annual costs must be adjusted for inflation. The total cost of each scenario including annual costs, should be included in both documents. OTHER Is it possible to get the scores for each Performance Measure for each individual project, or at least for each of the three main sections of each scenario: Highway 1, Soquel Avenu/Freedom Boulevard, and Rail Corridor. No doubt that some of the projects have a synergistic effect on others but at some point, the PM's must have existed for each individual project or group of projects in isolation before the synergistic effects were introduced. Table 35 provides some very important information on travel times for each scenario and transport mode. I would like to see the data in Table 35 included in both UCS documents in graphic form. Tables 8 and 9 also include some very relevant information about auto travel times but as measured during February - September 2017. This data should be adjusted to 2035 levels for each scenario and included alongside the Table 35 date graphic.

228 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 9:35 AM To: Ginger Dykaar Cc: George Dondero; John Leopold Subject: meeting next week

Dear Ginger, We appreciate all the hard work and diligence that has gone into the Kimley Horn study. It appears that we have a framework now for establishing an accepted set of facts to make important investment decisions around Santa Cruz County's transportation challenges. Yesterday we submitted a letter (attached) with Greenway's preliminary questions and need for additional information to understand various conclusions or numbers asserted in the report. It would be helpful to meet for a couple hours to get these questions answered. I understand that there will be public forums to discuss the study, but it is simply impossible to do this type of detailed work in that context. We have spent the time and money to dig into the details, and I hope that the RTC is interested in establishing an accepted set of facts that all sides can use to help the public come to the right decisions in the biggest strategy and investment decisions we have before us for the next 20 years. Would you be available in the next week to meet to review the questions raised in Greenway's memo? Best regards, Bud

236 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Ryan Whitelaw [] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 7:28 AM To: Ginger Dykaar Subject: UCS Cost Estimates Hi Ginger, Thank you very much for all of your efforts associated with the Unified Corridor Study. I've had an opportunity to review the report, and noted errors and inconsistencies in cost estimates included in Appendix A. What is the best way to address these issues and ensure they are addressed? Regards,

Ryan J. Whitelaw, MAI Pacific Appraisers

From: Bud Colligan Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 7:31 PM To: John Leopold; Jacques Bertrand; Sandy Brown; ed bottorff; Zach Friend; Ryan Coonerty; Greg Caput; Bruce McPherson; Randy Johnson; [email protected]; Mike Rotkin; [email protected]; Cynthia Chase Cc: George Dondero; Regional Transportation Commission; Ginger Dykaar; Gine Johnson; Patrick Mulhearn Subject: Greenway preliminary input on UCS

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

We look forward to the presentation of the UCS at the RTC meeting Thursday morning. It is clear that Kimley Horn and RTC staff have put an enormous effort into the UCS. Thank you all for your diligence and hard work in this endeavor. We look forward to a robust discussion about future transportation investments in Santa Cruz County.

Greenway has had only three business days to review this large comprehensive report, so our comments on the substance of the report are preliminary in nature and we are anxious to learn more.

Please also find Greenway’s comments regarding the proposed process, timeline for decisions, and the need to ensure we have an agreed set of facts before proceeding. We have one opportunity to get this right, and our timeline should be geared to achieving the best possible outcome that has the broadest community support.

Sincerely, Bud

244 October 2, 2018

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to Ginger Dykaar, Grace Blakeslee, other RTC Staff and Kimley Horn who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Study (UCS) process. We appreciate that you all have taken on a critical responsibility that will have profound impacts on the future of our county and we are here to support your efforts to complete an effective plan.

The most important objective of everyone involved should be to ensure we get this right. Transportation investments are expensive and have long implementation timelines. We need to ensure the costs and potential funding sources in the plan are accurate and that all models, reference documents and assumptions have been vetted and tested. What has been missing from the transportation debate in our county to date is a common set of facts on which all sides agree. We suggest that a 30 day independent peer review be completed to answer the questions by ourselves (preliminary set in Appendix A) as well as others.

The timeline for consideration of the UCS is not currently sufficient to complete a peer review, ensure that the public has been heard, and all potential scenarios have been fully considered. We ask that the date for a recommendation be set not by an artificial timeline but when a peer review is complete and the public has had an opportunity to consider a common set of facts on which we agree.

Our eyes must be focused on the big issues:

● Highway 1 gridlock, particularly as it affects south county residents ● Worst in state safety for cyclists and pedestrians ● Sustainable, maintainable and affordable ways to optimize mobility options

At a high level, the benefits across the four scenarios examined are somewhat similar. The job of the Commissioners will be to find the best mix of realistic options that we as a

245 community can fund and maintain. With our roads, bridges, sidewalks, buses and bike paths suffering from chronic maintenance issues now, sustaining whatever investments we make is of utmost importance. We also need to make choices which support where transportation is going, not where it’s been. Taking advantage of decentralized, personalized and low cost transit modalities will be a key to optimizing our transportation mix.

We have never been fans of the Scenarios approach used in this study, but thankfully Kimley Horn has provided a clear matrix on pages 99 and 100 of the costs of the various options before us. We believe there is a mix of options (a new Scenario) that provides the highest benefit at a cost the county can afford and maintain. Our emphasis needs to be on progressive implementation of doable options. Residents of Santa Cruz County need relief over the next several years, not in 25 years. Preserving optionality is important.

As all parties get their questions answered and clarified, the best investments in accordance with the county’s values will be self-evident. We look forward to engaging in this dialogue. For the first time, we have the beginning of a framework to make that decision, and we hope that others will engage in good faith to find the best mix of options we can afford, maintain and progressively implement. Doing so is critical to maintain public support for the RTC and its work as well as ensuring optimum mobility for county residents.

Sincerely,

Santa Cruz County Greenway

246 APPENDIX

The questions and suggestions below are preliminary in nature since Greenway has only had the UCS for three business days. Alta Planning and Design also contributed to this document.

Costs

1. Page 156, 158, 160: Paving and Earthwork costs are not consistent for the three trail options. Higher overall paving costs for Trail Only are reasonable; however, based on economies of scale, the cost per square foot should be lower. This is not the case. Using the average trail width and total length, the following Earthwork and Pavement cost per square foot were calculated:

2. Page 156: It’s unknown if rail removal costs consider offsetting salvage value. Prior analysis completed by the RTC indicated salvage value exceeded removal costs. Reference 2005 Valuation Study of Railroad Improvements [1].

3. Page 156: No support is provided for policy reversal expense of $41.0 million. Additional detail should be provided for transparency purposes.

4. Page 151, 154: There is a discrepancy between contingency costs for BRT and Passenger Rail. Both are similar mass transit projects. Additional justification for the difference is needed.

5. Page 151, 154: BRT costs are high relative to Passenger Rail. Per UCS, BRT will requires 8.5 miles of new infrastructure in ROW (Shaffer Road to State Park). Rail requires 22.0 miles of ROW, but has a significantly higher cost per mile. While additional costs for BRT would be required to retrofit existing infrastructure, these expenditures would overlap with Bus on Shoulder. Suggest a breakout of BRT costs in and out of ROW. Ensure no “double dipping” of costs between BRT and Bus on Shoulder projects.

247 6. Page 151, 154: Passenger rail includes $32.9 million expense for Structures, Stations, and Maintenance Facility. BRT includes $50.0 million expense for Structures, Platforms, and Stations; a $17.1 million difference with no explanation. Provide additional detail for transparency purposes.

7. Page 151: Structure costs of $5.1 million are taken from 2012 JL Patterson Report [2]. However, a review of the JL Patterson Report indicates the cost is directed towards maintaining and expanding (at a limited level) freight and recreational rail service. Costs should be reviewed to ensure they are appropriate for modern mass transit passenger rail system with average speeds of 35mph.

8. Appendix A: It’s not clear why contingency costs for rail are set at 30% and contingency costs for all trail projects are set at 50%.

9. Page 156: There is no justification or back-up provided for the $41M in cost to reverse policy. Since this is 19% of the total project cost, it requires detailed documentation and justification.

10.Page 158: Trail Next to Rail includes 2.4 miles of on-street pathway. Yet, there is little difference in the bike and ped demand model for a discontinuous trail in the central part of the corridor used most heavily for transit. Greenway previously provided an analysis by Alta Planning and Design (Greenway Capacity [3]) that offers different results. The two modeling approaches need to be reconciled.

11.Appendix C, page 171: The averaging methodology of trail width used in the th th UCS does not take into account where the trail is narrow (e.g. 17 to 47 Avenue) or where it is off-street (in and out of Capitola Village). These locations in the heart of the potentially most heavily used transit locations mean that the “averaging” methodology needs to be refined (Trail Width Matters [4]). By contrast, wide trails in rural areas have less impact on transit usage. The overall model used for Bike and Walk Mode Share Calculations in Appendix C should be supplemented with actual outputs of existing trails with similar characteristics.

248 12.No consideration is given to timing of usage (when a project is implemented and available for service) and lost years of transit usage.

13.The Bike and Mode Share Calculation split between bike and pedestrian usage is not consistent with the City of Santa Cruz Bike Plan, where the split is closer to 50/50. Models should be explained and reconciled.

Safety

1. Page 172: Level of Service (LOS) grading for the three trail options is referenced on this page, but is not provided. Analysis should show LOS grade for each of the three trail types considering average width and anticipated demand. Reference, Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator [5]. 2. Potential mismatch between 1,110.6 total baseline yearly performance measure collisions in Table 7 and 2,916 total annual average collisions (2011-2015) shown in Table 31.

3. May be over-counting some crash reduction factors by not appropriately combining CMFs for a group of collisions. More information on how CMFs were combined would be useful.

Reliability & Efficiency

1. More information on how transit ridership was forecasted year-to-year would be useful for further review.

2. Page 87: Peak Period Mean Transit Travel Times for BRT are overstated. Travel times for BRT while in the ROW average 35 mph and are presumably equivalent to Passenger Rail. That said, BRT speeds outside the ROW (State Park to Pajaro) are based on average speeds reported in the Highway 1 EIR. These averages are inclusive of the most heavily traveled portions of Highway 1, during which time BRT would be traveling unimpeded in the ROW. The result under the best scenario is an average speed of 25mph from State Park Drive to Pajaro. Worst case scenario indicates an average speed of 18mph.

Economic Vitality

1. Page 95 (Revenues): “New funds identified as a result of updates to the 2040 RTP revenue projections are assumed as potential revenues for UCS projects

249 resulting from new laws, rules or requirements and/or new information available about grant awards” – Additional detail about these assumptions would be helpful to understand potential revenue.

2. Page 95 (Revenues): While federal, state, and regional funding sources are the most likely for the proposed project, should local funding sources, like those mentioned on Page 96 in relation to intersection improvements, be considered?

3. Table 38: New Public Investments for Capital Costs - Capital Cost Estimates and Potential Funding Amounts by Project and Scenario (page 99)

a. General comment: Consider adding footnotes to show differences in cost between ’Funding Potential- Capital’ cells within the same row, such as the ’Funding Potential – Capital’ for ’Bike and Pedestrian Trail’.

b. Funding potential back-up is described in the preceding section, but tying this information to specific line items would assist in understanding differences in funding potential. The same is true for the ’Cost Estimate – Capital’ columns.

4. Page 101: “Projects with a more localized impact – such as bike lanes in limited areas or local improvements for automobile circulation – primarily enhance access to local businesses.” While it is true that new bike lanes would provide access to local businesses near the new facility, the effect of first/last mile access to these destinations, particularly via a new long-distance route, should not be minimized.

5. Page 106 and Page 111: Consider also incorporating studies related to overnight visits. Figures seem skewed toward day trips. Overnight stays are the biggest contributor to visitor spending (Measuring Trails Benefits: Business Impacts [6]).

6. Page 112: These two sentences seem contradictory: “Scenario A also includes some improvements prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle traffic, but it does not include some significant bicycle and transit improvements. Scenario A, like all of the scenarios, includes the new pedestrian/bicycle trail on the rail right-of-way.”

250 7. Page 112: Mentions 2014 study of public transit funding and job creation, but does not mention similar studies related to active transportation funding and job creation and economic activity. Consider including to study potential trail-oriented development impacts.

8. Table 42 and Page 114: Interested in back-up concerning the estimated crash reduction from education and enforcement. At a high-level, these numbers seem higher than expected.

9. Figure 24 and Page 117: Could be helpful to separate costs associated with collision by mode.

Environment & Health

● Method looks sound and differences between scenarios is within the presumed margin of error.

Equitable Access

● Method looks sound and some of the differences between scenarios may be able to be mitigated based on analysis of each alignment included in the study.

[1] https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/040900-ValuationStudy-Rail-Improvements.pd f

[2] https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SCCRTC%20Final%20Bridge%20Rep ort.pdf

[3] https://sccgreenway.org/greenway-capacity/

[4] https://sccgreenway.org/trail-width-matters/

[5] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05138/05138.pdf

[6] https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/trails-library-business-impacts- overview.pdf

251 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Jonathan Longsworth Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 2:08 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process.

We want to help ensure that the extraordinary amount of time and effort you have put into this research results in an effective plan that will lead to meaningful transportation improvements for our county.

This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

EVERYONE needs to be onboard with the alternatives available, versus getting locked in to "Progressive Rail contract" plans.

Santa Cruz County Citizen, Jon L.

From: Tim Brattan Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 1:24 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: UCIS - please support Scenario A

We support Scenario A. A few initial comments on the the report:

- The report correctly shows that trail usage would be significant, yet the values for Scenario B and E are incorrectly shown as higher than Scenario A (page 167). Please clarify.

- Plans do not include implementation time or the impact of train tracks on surface transportation. It's already going on a decade since the coastal rail corridor was acquired with no effort to open it for trail use. Any scenario that includes an unfundable train will result in no traffic relief for years/decades more.

- Kurt Triplett, City Manager of Kirkland, WA example: Within three years of acquiring their rail corridor, they opened a 5.6 mile segment at a cost of about $1 million per mile. While long term plans are evaluated, our entire community would benefit by railbanking the line north of mile 3 in Watsonville, and opening the coastal corridor ASAP as an interim gravel or decomposed granite trail.

252 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

- The accuracy of the cost estimates (pages 154 and 155) needs re-evaluation. We already know that the cost to build Segment 7a, the easiest section of the trail, received bids that were twice the cost of City estimates. This lone example demonstrates how undoable the current rail with trail plan is. It’s time for the RTC to reevaluate their current direction before wasting more public resources.

Thank you for your thoughtful work,

Tim Brattan & Suzi Mahler Santa Cruz

From: Gregory Becker Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 12:23 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission; [email protected] Cc: Gregory Becker Subject: UCIS: Watsonville

Dear Commissioners and City Manager Huffaker

As the RTC staff has helpfully pointed out, there are no refineries in Santa Cruz. Why, then, are there over 100 fossil fuel tank cars blocking the rails north of Watsonville? With the seven mile Progressive contract extension there will be 400 more. The reason: the United States is at record-breaking fossil fuel extraction, and the Branch Line is being used to absorb, by storage and logistics, that glut. In the carbon-neutral world to which many voters aspire, this will be your legacy.

As for Watsonville, the UCIS identifies it as a low income, impoverished minority community. How do the tank cars benefit this community? Does cutting off access to the city by active transportation accomplish this? Anyone who has ridden or walked Beach Road, which UCIS identifies as the “alternate trail alignments”, knows that the lack of shoulder and drainage ditches on both sides make it unsuitable for bike or foot. Shame on whomever would call Beach Road a trail alignment.

The access to the natural wonders on the trail sections excluded by the tank cars, the farm fields, forests and wetlands on the part of the track most delightfully remote from car traffic, kills a recreational outlet for South County residents and the continued development of Watsonville as a birding destination. The option of a visitor center at the UP terminal and access to the transit center are obviated. The UCIS impact on Watsonville and South County goes beyond neutral, to profoundly biased and negative.

The use of the word “equity” in the UCIS is cynical and inaccurate. The environmental damage it imposes on the least among us is unconscionable.

253 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Sincerely,

Greg Becker South of La Selva

The email below was received on 10/03/2018 by the following individuals:

Francine Byers Kym DeWitt Jessica Hansen Mark Moreno Roni Shepherd Felix Sorrentino

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process.

This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

From: Michael Lavigne Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: The UCIS Draft deserves thorough scrutiny

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

I appreciate the staff time and resources that have been expended on the UCIS efforts and the Draft Review and release that is currently being discussed. In my opinion, however, the RTC has functioned for many years more like a Regional Train Commission, and not as a Regional Transportation Commission.

Against that backdrop, we need to build a consensus on the best way to spend tax dollars and staff time to improve our transit problems, rather than focusing so much staff time and energy on solutions that have been primarily oriented around passenger and freight train services.

254 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

The UCIS Draft at hand needs thorough scrutiny, and many areas need substantive clarification before any decisions are made, especially with respect to freight or passenger rail service.

We are a County of 260K residents---we don't have the population density or employer base to make a $500M taxpayer financed investment in local train service sensible. Study after study has already shown that a train will not make any appreciable difference in traffic flows on Highway 1, and a train will not attract enough daily riders to make it anywhere near cost-effective. The effort this year to ru sh through a contract with Progressive Rail for freight service will likely tie our hands for the next decade or more into a rail-based solution. Completion of the UCIS should not be used as a tool or a trigger to wedge us collectively into a 10 year contract with Progressive, or anyone else.

Furthermore, the "compromise solution" that train proponents continue to promote is to combine both a train and a trail along our narrow corridor.

Because of the narrow corridor, steep terrain, and numerous trestles over the length of the corridor, this is an absurdly expensive and impractical solution.

We already have a scenic corridor that could be developed into a beautiful trail without a train for bicycles, pedestrians, and disabled residents to use.

This has been done all over the United States on abandoned rail lines, at far lower costs than a freight or passenger train service combined with a trail would involve, and in far less time. With respect to the UCIS draft and its upcoming release, it is important that we get this right over both the short and long term.

We don't want artificial timelines driving the process, we don't need a rush decision on Progressive Rail or any other freight line proposals, and we certainly don't need predetermined outcomes based on RTC staff's and Commissioner's clear prejudices in favor of freight and passenger rail services.

Regards,

Michael Lavigne, Capitola Resident, Voter, Capitola Village Business Owner

From: Peter Stanger Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process. We want to help ensure that the extraordinary amount of

255 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

time and effort you have put into this research results in an effective plan that will lead to meaningful transportation improvements for our county. This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

The salient impropriety of the UCIS was the arbitrary and capricious combinations of improvement projects as submitted to the SCCRTC. Why would the only proposal for a trail only on the rail corridor be combined with the only full build-out scenario for Highway 1? Other proposals had the rail corridor used for freight and/or passenger (or is it tourist) service with only partial improvements to Highway 1.

I question the skewing on the projects to distort the focus and results of the UCIS>

Sincerely,

Peter Stanger

From: Deborah Wine Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 10:04 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process.

This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

I respectfully urge you to take more time to study the concerns and issues noted in the report. Greenway has identified a number of issues in the UCIS which will require further analysis and clarification. I am a voter in this County. Please do the right thing and evaluate the project further.

Sincerely,

Deborah Wine

256 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Jack Carroll Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 9:05 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Haste Makes Waste

Please allow adequate time for the pubic to read and analyze the draft UCIS Step 2 report. The details of these plans may prompt reasonable questions and they, in turn, will require time to answer.

-- Jack Carroll Soquel, CA

From: Martin Engel Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:34 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Cc: Santa Cruz County Greenway Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process.

This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

I would add that I urge you to put the interests of the Santa Cruz County population first and foremost. We are the people you represent. To put it bluntly, you work for us. We do not want freight rail or passenger rail on this obsolete rail corridor. We do not want our tax dollars wasted on the extensive refurbishment of the corridor that will be required to run heavy rail.

PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT THE FUTURE OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

Sincerely,

Martin Engel La Selva Beach

257 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Juanita Usher Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:29 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Bay Street Section -Money Saving Idea

I have been a regular user of the wonderful dirt path called “Barranca Park” that runs along Bay Street from California to Laguna Street. I believe the County of Santa Cruz could save lots of money on the development of this section by simply utilizing what is already in place. Is it necessary for the trail to run beside the rail at this point, requiring lots of digging out and shoring up of the hillside? No. Bicycles can be diverted to already existing bike lanes along Bay Street. Pedestrians can be routed along the already existing dirt path in Barranca Park. They could “rejoin” one another at Laguna Street whereupon the bike and pedestrian parts of the trail can dip down the hill. The only “construction” would be at the Laguna/Bay enjoinment and at the California/Bay corner. No need to widen along the rails to accommodate another path when we already have both an in-place path and bike lanes! I urge the planners to consider this option. It seems doable and will save money. Thank you.

From: Barbara Roettger Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:18 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission; UCS Subject: Unified Corridor Stidy

Dear Members of the SCCRTC, I am concerned that there no consideration in the study for the Rail Corridor in regards to the advent of the popular E- bikes, E-scooters, etc. There needs to be a trail dedicated for people on road bikes, e-bikes and other modes of transportation that will be moving faster than people moving walking. There needs to be a trail dedicated to fast moving people and another trail for people strolling. To have a rail line used for a freight train on this corridor will negate any chance for the corridor to be an effective, safe and efficient way to get people moving in an economical and environmentally sound manner. This study will define our transportation for decades to come. Please include this as an issue that needs to be addressed. Sincerely,

Barbara Roettger

From: keith schuler Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:16 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: The UCIS deserves a thorough review that "gets it right"

258 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

TRAIL ONLY!!

Dear RTC Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you to the RTC Staff who have invested their time and energy in the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCIS) process.

This extensive and complex plan for our county's transportation future deserves a process that "gets it right" and allows for consensus building efforts vs. an artificial timeline to a decision.

Sincerely,

Keith Schuler Capitola

From: Lou Cole Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Unified Corridor Investment Study Input Hello, I've looked at the Unified Corridor Investment Study & would like to give you my input. I would like to see Scenario E. I would also like to see the additional lanes added to the Hwy-1 bridge over the San Lorenzo River, but not as much as the Rail Corridor options in scenario E. Thanks for all of your work! Thanks, Lou Cole

From: Mitchell Lachman Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 8:12 AM To: UCS Subject: traffic congestion on Highway 1 and 17

I am suggesting a non cost, eclectic, plan to eliminate traffic congestion along Highway 1 and 17, We need our County representative to ask our regional state representatives to implement it. The Plan as follows:

Since both highways feed into another, and both are congested, open up one lane on each high way for mass transit use. Mass transit use is defined as car pooling, and buses. Buses could be train, " attached bases", along with double decker buses to handle great occupancy. Drives caught in the congested lanes would be induced to use the carpool , mass transit lane

259 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

as it would travelers would move faster than the congested lane. Another exception to the car pools transit lane would be for “commercial licensed vehicle” as commerce is more important than commuter drivers which have the mass transit alternatives.

Another suggestion to facilitate car pooling is that it be computerized or coordinated at the county level. Computerized car pooling always quick information and hook ups to drivers willing to take passengers to either mutual destinations or near by to their ultimate destination.

This plan should be tried first before costly road expansion, or pay to drive exclusive lanes for those whom maybe able to afford such a scheme. The above plan also moves in the direction to cut tail pipe emission “green house: gases, and toward the State goal to do so.

The above plan is my thought out plan to frugal, and practically eliminate traffic congestion rather than spend lots of money to widen roads yet soon get filled up. California State Highways Commission and Director have a saying now- and that is “We can’t Road our Way Out of Traffic Congestion"

Sincerely, Mitchell Lachman

From: Brett Garrett Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:44 PM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Errors in UCS draft document Hello, I have been studying the UCS step 2 draft and I wish to bring your attention to some errors that are causing confusion. I write in hopes that you can correct these items prior to printing or further distribution. Page 142, Table A-4: The capital cost column header should be "Scenario B", not "Scenario E" Page 198, both tables: These costs are in millions of dollars, not thousands! Some of the following statements include grammatical errors, and it's never clear if the electrification cost number should be added to or substituted for the diesel-based costs. This clarity is crucial, since most of us don't want diesel.

• Page 99: "Electrifying rail and operating electrical multiple unit vehicles is estimated to cost to $549.5 million." • Page 100: "Electrifying rail and operating electric multiple unit vehicles is estimated to cost $13.2million annually." • Page 146: "Electrifying rail for passenger rail service between Santa Cruz and Pajaro is estimated to cost to $474.4 million." • Page 148: "Electrifying rail for excursion rail service between Davenport is estimated cost $75.1 million."

Discrepancy: Pages 10, 11, and 170 do not include excursion service to Davenport, but most of the document assumes that Scenarios B and E include excursion service.

260 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

Possible discrepancy on Page 143, Table A-7: No distinction is shown between Scenarios A/C (which include Soquel/Freedom intersection improvements for bikes, pedestrians, and auto) and Scenarios B/E (which exclude auto improvements here).

Thank you, Brett Garrett

From: frank rimicci Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 9:37 PM To: UCS Subject: Measure D funding

Please dont consider any spending on widening before fixing the Bay/Porter fiasco and lengthening onramps.

Thanks, Frank

From: Amanda Wardein Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2018 4:42 PM To: UCS Subject: Please keep rail To the Regional Transportation Commission:

I was born and raised in Santa Cruz; third generation. I am a single mother, low income with two teenage boys living in Watsonville because I can’t afford to live in Santa Cruz any longer. My occupation is as an independent hairstylist for the 12 years.

I work in Santa Cruz and I am a commuter. I take the Riverside exit in Watsonville all the way to Mission Street on the Westside, Santa Cruz - Monday through Friday. My one-way daily commute takes approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. Every two days I put $20. 00 of gas in my car because I can’t afford to fill it up. This is about $300.00 every month in gas. (Gas is approximately $3.47 per gallon.)

If there was a rail/train I would definitely take it from Watsonville to the Westside of Santa Cruz. I would save so much money for my other bills, my boy’s college fund and my future retirement. I am unable to have a savings account because so much money goes for paying for gas.

My friend lives in Live Oak has a disabled son and isn’t driving at this time. Sometime she has to take her disabled son to Watsonville and taking the bus is very inconvenient. A rail would make it much easier for her. Please keep the rail and trail.

Sincerely, Amanda Wardein

261 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Robin Davis Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:46 PM To: UCS Subject: hwy 17 bus stop in Los Gatos

Hello,

I commute over the hill each week day in my car. I would like to use the hwy 17 bus and my bike to commute. However, there is no stop in Los Gatos, which is close to where I work. Taking the bus to Diridon would create a 2 hours commute. Please consider creating a stop in Los Gatos.

Thanks.

Robin Davis

From: Pete Haworth Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:36 PM To: UCS Subject: UCS Step 3 Scenario Analysis

Where is it? The link in RTC agenda does not include the report.

From: Cosmo Martinez Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:53 AM To: UCS Subject: re: UCS Draft Step 2 Analysis Hi, I went to the link for the Unified Corridor Investment Study but wasn’t able to find what the transportation options were that you wanted community input on. Could you please clarify?

Cosmo

The RTC is hosting public workshops to get your input on transportation options for our community based on the results of the Unified Corridor Investment Study (UCS) draft Step 2 scenario analysis. The UCS is investigating what projects on Highway 1, Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive/Freedom Boulevard, and the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line will provide the greatest benefit to the community. These meetings will feature an overview of the UCS draft Step 2 scenario analysis and seek your input on a preferred scenario for Santa Cruz County’s transportation future.

From: Mitchell Lachman Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:24 AM

262 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

To: UCS Subject: trans options

I economic, practical, to elevate dramatically, and timely, I suggest the two lane high way 17 - since both lane are congested, at commuter time one lane be designated use for car pooling, bus, and commercial licensed vehicles. This will incentify the congested drivers in that one lane that is congested, to use the expeditious, mass transit alternatives, Highway one would also be affected as it is a congested feeder road leading into Highway 17. Affected drivers on highway 1 would be inclined to also use mass transit and car pooling. I suggest the county reinstitute the past computerized car pooling program. It would more likely be tool for drivers to quickly coordinate their driving destinations. If need be get double decker buses, along with train trip buses. Double decker buses would need an added person to lift bicycles and packages onto a section of the rear of the bus.

My Plan Mitchell Lachman This plan is more practical, frugal, equitable, than road widening, and pay to drive schemes.

From: Dell Elliott Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:46 AM To: UCS Subject: Comment/Input for UCS Draft Step 2 Analysis

Getting stakeholder input is a crucial part of a system engineering study, which you seem to be doing. However, a study includes includes identifying alternatives and evaluating them against stakeholder approved criteria. To conduct a study, requires spending some money. I would think cost and effectiveness in getting people from one location to another would be important criteria to evaluate alternatives against. A study is not a summary of people's opinions. It is based on facts, The results need to be summarized in a easy to understand format. This does not appear to have been done. I see extensive lists of pros and cons. The study done by the SC Water Department and the Santa Cruz water supply advisory committee is a good example.

My opinion is that an additional lane needs to be added to Hwg 1 for buses, emergency vehicles, and car/van pools. Computer driven cars, vans, and buses (these will be electric), which take people where they want to go (e.g. over the hill and on campus) will make any fixed rail mode of transportation, in our community, obsolete. Soon we will not need to own a car. We will use our smart phone to find or call up a computer driven vehicle.

A. J. Elliott, MSCE, PE

From: Charles Bruffey Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:29 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Re: Save the Date! Public Workshops: UCS Draft Step 2 Analysis Here's my input:

263 Unified Corridor Investment Study – Draft Step 2 Analysis Comments Received

From: Charles Bruffrey Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:29 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: Re: Save the Date! Public Workshops: UCS Draft Step 2 Analysis

Here's my input:

1. WIDEN HIGHWAY 1 2. STOP WASTING MONEY ON THE STUPID RAIL-FAIL BIKE TRAIL 3. GET RID OF THE IDIOTIC STOP SIGN AT SOQUEL DRIVE AND ROBERTSON 4. TIME THE LIGHTS TO IMPROVE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC INSTEAD OF IMPEDING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC 5. STOP PLANTING TREES IN TRAFFIC LANES 6. BANISH MICAH POSNER FROM THE COUNTY FOREVER!

Chuck

From: Grace Voss Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:03 AM To: Regional Transportation Commission Subject: united corridors study question dear RTC…will the board of supervisors be discussing the united corridors study at its 10/4 meeting? is the UCS an action item? grace

264