Barry
Scott
Rio Del Mar Blvd.
Aptos, CA 95003
The Great Santa Cruz Trail Group commissioned the Nelson/Nygaard report and uses it as a promotional tool
to influence public opinion and decisions made regarding use of the rail corridor. I've carefully reviewed the
report and compared its assumptions to the highly detailed FEIR and award winning MBSST Master Plan and
wish to report these findings:
The corridor goes where it needs to go to be successful as a rail-to-trail AND as a rail-with-trail.
Pages 5-8 make the case that the corridor is extremely well placed through a density of homes, schools,
businesses and development that make it an ideal location for a trail only design. Proximity to homes and
employment, and bikesheds and walksheds are discussed. That same data confirms that the corridor is
perfectly suited to public transit or, better still, transit + trail.
"On-street Detours":
Page 9, "Rail with Trail Constraints" is where this report departs from providing an objective overview of our
current rail-trail design. This section mentions "on-street detours" that might be required for a trail if the
tracks remain in place, completely ignoring the extensive design work that's already been done, described in
the Master Plan and Final EIR documents.
"Constrained Areas":
Pages 10-12 include maps that describe 51 "constrained areas" identified by "field observations". Included
among these are 14 "farmland constraints", a term that's new to the rail trail conversion community. The
same pages erroneously understate Right of Way (ROW) widths which are readily available at the RTC ARCGIS
webpage. It's surprising that professional consultants like Nelson/Nygaard would make such egregious errors,
all with the effect of painting the MBSST as more challenging than it is.
"Level of Traffic Stress" and "Out of Direction Travel":
Page 14 includes maps of what this report claims would be extensive "out of direction travel" routes if the
MBSST design somehow failed to address a design constraint. The top map shows unlikely detours through
Wilder Ranch State Park; the center map shows a 3-mile detour up the San Lorenzo River to Riverwalk
crossing; and the bottom map shows a very unlikely 9-mile detour from Seascape all the way to Lee Road in
Watsonville.
Pedestrian and Bicycle User Experience
Page 26 compares trail-only and rail-with-trail scores under a lowest impact assumption, meaning the study
disregards the improvements and actual trail dimensions described in the Master Plan and FEIR. The report
cites widths of 8 where the current design is 12-16. The scores should be recalculated based on valid widths.
As a final measure of the reports' credibility, pages 29 and 31 include sidebars that appear to quote New York
Times and Rails-to-Trail articles, but these appear to be fabricated statements not found at the source links
included. I refer you to the letter below, sent by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Western Regional to the RTC
in response to one such error and other statements found in the report.
I urge RTC commissioners and staff to treat the Great Santa Cruz Trail report with a critical eye.
Best regards,
