RTC Brings Rail-With-Trail Expertise to Coastal California

WHY ARE THE EL DORADO SUPERVISORS NOT OPEN TO FINDING SOLUTIONS THAT BENEFIT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY?  

RTC TrailBlog » RTC Brings Rail-With-Trail Expertise to Coastal California

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's (RTC) Western Regional Office has been watching with great interest the progression of plans for a rail-trail along Monterey Bay in the Central Coast of California.

So too have the people of Santa Cruz County, and the champagne corks were well and truly popping with the announcement recently that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) had closed the deal to acquire the right-of-way beside the 32-mile Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line.

This 135-year old transportation corridor parallels California State Route 1 from the town of Pajaro in Monterey County, to Davenport, linking major tourism and activity centers as it crosses the Pajaro River, Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor and the San Lorenzo River. In addition to providing non-motorized access to a number of state beaches, state parks, swim centers and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the proposed Santa Cruz Coastal Rail Trail would pass within one mile of more than half the county's population.

Now, trail advocates, such as the Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail Trail, are anxious to see work begin on a multi-use trail alongside the active tracks. Enter RTC.

Utilizing our technical and planning experience with rail-with-trail projects, RTC staff met recently with the SCCRTC and a large group of regional officials, engineers, planners and community advocates to begin designing a Santa Cruz Coastal Rail Trail.

The line will continue to carry freight and recreational passenger services, so great emphasis will be placed on designing a trail that is safe for all users.

Entering this phase of rail-trail planning was the perfect opportunity for RTC to bring the Healthy Transportation Network's "Designing for Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety" Workshop to Santa Cruz to share the safety record of rail-with-trail projects, successful strategies for community stewardship of trails, and methods to avoid user conflict.

"A lot of rail lines in California are still in use for passenger and freight service, so we are seeing some really great rail-with-trail projects," says Steve Schweigerdt, manager of trail development for RTC's Western Regional Office. "Combining both a trail and an active train line makesincredibly efficient use of these corridors in our transportation system."

A project of the California Department of Public Health's California Active Communities program, the Healthy Transportation Network has been presenting this free workshop in communities across California for the past four years. They were able to bring the workshop to Santa Cruz thanks to help of local sponsors including the University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County Cycling Club, Spokesman Bicycles, Family Cycling Center, Ibis Bicycles, Traugott Guitars, Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz and Ecology Action.

Some more great news for the people of California came with the announcement this week that land has been acquired for the development of another mile of the city of San José's burgeoning trails network.

A remarkable multi-jurisdictional effort involving the city of San José, the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (Open Space Authority) and the Parks and Recreation Department of Santa Clara County, the one-mile addition to the Three Creeks Trail will expand recreation and transportation options within the urban core, and create linkages between the Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek regional trails. It will also enable the continued growth in non-motorized commuting and errands that have been documented in annual San Jose trail counts since 2007.

Both of these projects are manifestations of a growing demand in California and across the country for healthier and more active options for getting from A to B.

"Growing active transportation mode share is critical to continued improvements in air quality, congestion mitigation,and health of California residents," Schweigerdt says. "Santa Cruz and San José are taking important steps in the right direction, and their residents and businesses will benefit."

Photo courtesy of Howard Cohen

Board Of Supervisors Meeting January 24 to decide the fate of the track in El Dorado County

These items are to be discussed and decided around 4:00 pm.  If you would like to call in and listen to the meeting the number is: (530) 621-6621
Please either support our license ratification in person or e-mail the Supervisors with a simple - "Please support the 5-year license for the P&SVRR" Vote yes to #38 and no to #39.


EMAIL OR CALL THE SUPERVISORS...
John Knight: bosone@edgov.us | 530 621 5650
Ray Nutting: bostwo@edcgov.us | 530 621 5651
Ron Briggs: bosfour@edcgov.us | 530 621 6513
Norma Santiago: bosfive@edcgov.us | 530 621 6577


Thank you for your support!!!

Mt Democrat
January 08, 2012 | Posted by Chris Daley
No. 10 Trails and/or rails?

TRAIN TRACKS, here located behind Walmart, will share the right of way with a hiking trail. Democrat photo by Pat Dollins

It was a bit of a banner year for the “rails/trails” issue. Advocates of one or the other or both turned out en masse on several occasions at the county supervisors chambers to pitch a particular perspective which often included one group and excluded another.  The board voted to adopt what became known as the Shingle Compromise or the Shingle Plan. That device grants seven or so miles between Missouri Flat Road in Diamond Springs and Shingle Springs to multi-use status, thus allowing train operations and trail activities within the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor. Prior to the Shingle Plan, rail use was technically limited to a couple of miles between Mother Lode Drive south of El Dorado and Missouri Flat.

By year’s end, the county had designated the 17 miles from Shingle Springs to the Sacramento County line as mixed use, including hiking, biking and equestrian. Rail use is proscribed, according to the board’s resolutions. Whether the county has the authority to dismantle rails, ties and train infrastructure as precursor to constructing a proposed Class I trail on that stretch of the right of way has not yet been resolved.  Early response from the Joint Powers Authority that administers the right of way indicated that El Dorado County does not have such authority, however, the county is looking into an appeal of that perspective.  The issue was last discussed at the Board’s Sept. 27 meeting wherein John Knight provided an update which included the JPA’s initial action and his letter asking that the decision be reconsidered.
As reported by the Mountain Democrat at that time, “the Shingle Plan Compromise enacted in March effectively ended the larger discussion of extending an excursion train capability from Shingle Springs to the county line. The newer issue for at least four of the five supervisors has moved on to determining what if any financial benefit can be realized by salvage and sale of  the rails and ties. As Knight’s letter suggests, proceeds would be used to fund further trail construction.”

As usual when rails and trails are on the agenda, the board room was packed that day with “trail people” and “train guys,” as the groups often refer to each other.  Knight, with some exasperation, told the audience that the matter at hand “was not to rediscuss the merits of rails versus trails, rather it was to inform the board of the JPA’s recent action.”  “This is not about whether or not to take out the rails,” Knight exclaimed. “Read my letter… The letter is out and we’re waiting for a response.”
Supervisor Jack Sweeney has remained adamant about keeping the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor’s railroad infrastructure in place pending results of exploring other alternatives for location of the trail.  “I believe there are alternatives for the trail that are cheaper and won’t require removal of the rails and ties,” Sweeney said. “People don’t want to go 10 miles to get on a trail, so it needs to be in an appropriate place. Don’t get rid of the bird in the hand.”  Sweeney’s mention of an “appropriate place” for the trail refers to the fact that, because of steep terrain, the railbed loops several miles south and east away from residential areas in the western part of the county.
Without a doubt, “rails and trails” are again likely to attract a good deal of attention from the public and from county government in 2012.
Share
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Email
This story falls on page "A1"
Short URL: http://www.mtdemocrat.com/?p=124407

Posted by Chris Daley on Jan 8 2012. Filed under 2011's Top Stories, Diamond Springs, Placerville, Shingle Springs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

MTDEMOCRAT.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
No. 10 Trails and/or rails? | Mountain Democrat | Programmer Solution
January 8, 2012 - 11:30 am
[...] Springs, News, Placerville, Shingle Springs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this [...]
Reply
Jim Harville
January 18, 2012 - 4:33 pm

It is good to see the railroad back in the paper again, but I must point out several glaring inaccuracies in the article above…
The article states that “Prior to the Shingle Plan, rail use was technically limited to a couple of miles…”. In reality, several thousand riders have enjoyed riding virtually ALL the rails in El Dorado County over the course of the last eighteen months, with full approval by the county. The two miles mentioned are simply the section previously approved for the development of the Railroad Park Demonstration Train, a joint venture between the County Museum and the El Dorado Western Railway Foundation. Rail use has not been “proscribed”, i.e. prohibited or forbidden, on ANY portion of the rail corridor.
The description of the March 28th, 2011 Board action is also largely in error. While it did state that the County’s “priority” between Shingle Springs and the county line was the development of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails, it also called for staff to explore the “legality and feasability” of removing the rails, and to look at alternatives to rail removal. This process is ongoing, but is not looking real positive for proponents of the “Shingle Plan”.
As a strong supporter of a Rails WITH Trails program for the corridor, in which ALL parties win, I look forward to the Board of Supervisors taking up this issue again in the near future.
Reply
ARNOLD LANGE
January 18, 2012 - 5:20 pm

How does one go about riding the trains? I agree that the railway should be multi-use,

10/19/11 | 747 views RATE THIS (AVG 5.0) Groups at odds over use of land Folsom supports preserving rail line as it asks for a denial of track removal by Eric Laughlin/Telegraph Correspondent A movement to preserve an 18-mile stretch of railway between Folsom and Shingle Springs for the potential development of an excursion train got a boost last week by way of the Folsom City Council. In a 4-1 vote, the council approved a motion requesting that the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority deny a request by El Dorado County to remove tracks from a portion of the corridor. The vote follows a September finding by the JPA that El Dorado County does not unilaterally have the right to pull up the track to be sold to salvagers. Trail proponents have argued that removal of the rails from Folsom to Shingle Springs (leaving tracks from there to Placerville for train development), would bring in as much as $1 million, which could pay for a trail on the already graded railway foundation. They have further argued that the private operation of an 18-mile excursion train is not feasible from an economic standpoint. But the JPA, which comprises several local governments and agencies including El Dorado County and Folsom, concluded the track’s removal could threaten the continuity of the rail corridor. Folsom Councilwoman Kerri Howell, who also sits on the JPA board, reaffirmed that finding prior to her vote. “I don’t see anyway that taking 18 miles of rail and tie out of the middle of a railroad does not result in discontinuity,” she said. “What these people are trying to do is take the rail up tomorrow to ensure there’s never a rail. El Dorado County doesn’t have five cents to build three feet of trail, let alone 18 miles.” Howell went on to cite a finding by the Department of Transportation that the proposed rail removal and sale would actually result in a net loss to the county of $150,000, since by law workers would have to earn prevailing wages. Council members Steve Miklos, Andy Morin and Ernie Sheldon joined Howell in voting in favor of the measure. “If the rails are lost, they’re lost forever,” Sheldon said. “They’re not coming back.” He later suggested that trail and rail enthusiasts work together to meet both of their goals. “I’m sure we can build that trail and build that train and do it together,” he added. The lone “no” vote came from Councilman Jeff Starsky, who said he wanted more information and feedback from the city’s cycle enthusiasts. Mike Kennison, who heads Friends of the El Dorado Trail, said he’s still hopeful that his side will prevail. He also questioned the DOT study cited by Howell. “There was absolutely no inspection done before making that finding,” he said. “All the DOT did was make two phone calls.” He went on to say that having both tracks and a trail is not possible, since grading a new trail could cost as much as $20 million. Philip Rose is president of the Placerville Sacramento Valley Railroad, an organization that has already been running a single car up a portion of the tracks as part of a licensing agreement with the JPA. He said he was pleased with the decision, but at the same time hopeful that the decision will stand and that other member entities will reach the same conclusion.

Train returns to Latrobe after 54-year absence

Photo by Margaret Snider • The TelegraphEric Olds, left, vice president of the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad, is shown here taking the Skagit for a short run earlier this year. The first passenger service to the town of Latrobe since 1957 will take place Aug. 6-7. Olds performs many volunteer duties in the organization including conductor and motorman.

8/2/11

By Margaret Snider Telegraph Correspondent

Aug. 6 and 7 will mark the first passenger train of the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad (P&SVRR) to the town of Latrobe since 1957. Although some freight trains have run, there has been no passenger service since the 1957 special.  This will be a beginning for the P&SVRR, which had been negotiating with the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) for a five-year license to run excursion rail the full length of the line from Folsom to Diamond Springs.  “We got that agreement with the JPA,” said Philip Rose, President of the P&SVRR. On Tuesday, July 26, 2011, the agreement was ratified by the County of Sacramento and the City of Folsom.  “Now we’re just waiting for El Dorado County,” Rose said. El Dorado County is scheduled to decide on Aug. 16.  In the meantime, with the previously washed-out portion of track repaired and safety tested, the rail is ready for use with the Skagit, the line’s light-weight rail vehicle.  Fortuitously, the train is running the same weekend that Folsom High School is holding its all-class reunion.  Eric Olds, vice president of the P&SVRR, and one of the conductors for the weekend, said they did not plan it that way.  “We weren’t aware of it ahead of time,” Olds said. “We think it’s just a great opportunity for people who want to experience something unique about the area.”  When Rose heard of the high school reunion, he contacted Dean Handy, who is one of the movers of the reunion.  “He was really excited about the idea that people would be able to ride the train,” Rose said.  Handy, Folsom High School class of 1964, sent e-mails about the railroad to some of the landmark reunion classes.  “With this being a special reunion weekend for you,” Handy’s e-mail said, “I thought you and your classmates may enjoy taking a couple hours out of the day to experience this wonderful rebirth of a railroad.”  Handy is an enthusiastic participant and organizer of the reunion. He emphasizes that he is not in charge, he’s “just the most vocal and boisterous.”

Departure times for the excursions to Latrobe, as well as those for the shorter trip to Carson Creek, can be found at psvrr.com or by calling Gary Davis at (916) 834-3094.

In October, the P&SVRR is looking forward to a pumpkin run, also with light vehicles, and another excursion near Christmas. The ticket proceeds from all the excursions go to the efforts of the all-volunteer organization to save the historic rails and keep the trains running.

“We replaced maybe 200 ties on the washout,” said Rose. “So we’re hoping that if all goes well we can run heavy equipment at Christmastime.”

* * *

KNOW AND GO

What: Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad Excursion to Latrobe
When: Aug. 6-7, Saturday and Sunday
Where: Departing from Hampton Station, 155 Placerville Road, Folsom
Info: For times, tickets and information call Gary Davis, 916-834-3094 or go to http://psvrr.com

Recently At Folsom Junction

We were swapping equipment around at the wye 6/23/2011 Assisting were Al Onadera and Carl Curtis flagging, Hank Stiles operating the Burro Crane 

Ethane Doty operating the Howard Terminal #8 and Frank Fuson switchman and photographer.

 

Historic Rail Line Coming Back

Share|

B. Moffitt/CPR News

A rail line that first linked San Francisco to the Sierra foothills in the 1860s is making a comeback…slowly. Volunteers are leading the effort to restore the Placerville and Sacramento Valley Railroad.

  By  Bob Moffitt

Permalink

Listen now:

(Folsom, CA)
Thursday, June 02, 2011

Ethan Doty and thirty other volunteers are working to lay new ties and track between Folsom and Shingle Springs. 

He is operating the Howard Terminal Engine today because it is big enough to carry the tools, ties, and track down the line to the next section the group will rebuild. 

Railroad President Philip Rose says while they rebuild the track to hold the big engines and cars, they are giving tours twice a month on a smaller engine called a Skagit…with plans for a Christmas line using the big engine.

PHILLIP ROSE: "Run Christmas trains on a short two-mile stretch of rejuvenated track this year..  That will create revenue for us to continue to develop the railroad…to improve the railroad."

Rose says they hope to have track laid and trains running to Shingle Springs by 2015…That is the 150^th anniversary of the opening of the original line.

Whose rails are they? Question clouds future

Thursday, May 26th, 2011 | Posted by Chris Daley

KEITH BERRY (yellow hat), president of the El Dorado Western Railway Foundation, nudges a new flatcar along the tracks near the Historical Railroad Museum in El Dorado. Berry said the foundation has acquired another "gang car" that holds eight riders and is intended to carry the public on future excursions. Photo courtesy from El Dorado Western Railway Foundation

El Dorado County supervisors directed their staff to determine the “feasibility and legality” of removing the rails from the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor several weeks ago. Tuesday, however, the issue seemed to become murkier than it was before.

After nearly two hours of testimony and deliberation, the board voted unanimously to direct county staff to create one or more proposals that would answer some of the outstanding questions and suggest a way forward.

Folsom City Councilwoman Kerri Howell told the board that the railroad hardware belongs to the transportation corridor’s governing Joint Powers Authority and not to El Dorado County, although the county is a partner in the JPA. Howell said she was relaying the opinion of the JPA’s legal counsel and that of “many but not all members.” Howell represents Folsom on the JPA board of directors.

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors designated the transportation corridor’s right of way from Shingle Springs to the county line to be a hiking, biking and equestrian facility earlier this year.

Since that time, there has been pressure by “trails” advocates to dismantle and possibly sell the rails to a salvage company. Revenue from such a transaction could be used to help finance trail construction, and estimates have ranged as high as $5 million according to some published reports. However, none of that information has been formally solicited through a request for proposal or a contract with a salvage company.

Emotions have run high for years among those who want to create a “Class 1″ trail on the railbed and those who hope to retain the historical function of the railroad by operating excursion trains on the original right of way. Often categorized as the “train guys” and the “trails people,” another perspective holds that the right of way is wide enough to satisfy the needs and visions of both camps. The right of way reportedly extends from a minimum of about 60 feet to as much as 200 feet in some spots along the nearly 30 miles between Missouri Flat Road and the county line.

Deputy county counsel Paula Frantz, who specializes in land use law for the county, told the Mountain Democrat Wednesday that a final determination of ownership would likely have to be made by a judge. The original purpose of the JPA was to “acquire and preserve” the right of way known as the Placerville Branch of the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. That acquisition was fully accomplished in 1996.

“Southern Pacific transferred ownership to the JPA, so the JPA owns the underlying land,” Frantz explained. “El Dorado County has an easement, so we control it but can’t alter its function.”

She added that it is far less “cut and dried than it would appear, and there’s money involved in all these things. And like any neighborhood dispute, it’s a question of the interpretation of the ‘sales contract.’ It doesn’t matter what one party or the other’s opinion is.”

Summarizing the board’s action of Tuesday, Frantz said supervisors want to know how much it would cost to pull up the rails and the relative value of the materials.

“If it’s worth it they might pursue it, and the JPA might be fine with that,” she said. “Finding out if it’s even financially feasible is the next step.”

Supervisor John Knight is the board’s representative on the JPA and the lead in moving forward on the issue.

“I don’t dispute that the JPA owns the assets and controls the right of way,” Knight said. “But if there’s enough value in the assets, we can move on this, but we need to find out if it’s feasible — or close it off to all use,” Knight added expressing some frustration. “I need more clarity, but I believe we can legally take the rails.”

Under the auspices of the federal Rails to Trails Act, the right of way may revert to rail use if or when, in the future, the original rail company (the abandoning rail line) determines that commercial railroading is once again viable on that right of way. In that event, the company would be financially liable to re-lay the track and upgrade other infrastructure, Steve Schweigerdt of the Rails to Trails Conservancy explained during the board meeting two weeks ago. The land would not revert to earlier owners or easement holders, he said.

And Tuesday, Board Chairman Ray Nutting noted that it was “Rails to Trails that allowed us to be where we are today. I believe everything about this board is pro-rail, pro-train, and we need to talk about interim uses. Rails to Trails ensures the right to revert to rails if and when the timber industry is ever restored.”

Nutting is the owner of a small timber operation and while he has passionately lamented the loss of rail commerce, he has also championed Rails to Trails legislation as a promise, dim as it may be, for protecting a future for heavy railroading in the county.

El Dorado County Director of Transportation Jim Ware has been tasked with leading the effort to find a “proposal” the board can pursue. In an e-mail Ware sent to the Mountain Democrat Wednesday, Ware clarified his role in the process.

“I see my role as the person that sets up and facilitates the meeting between our county counsel and the SPTC-JPA’s Counsel. The outcome of that meeting should result in a report to our board on counsel’s opinion (position) of the status of ownership as well as what we can and can’t do relative to this matter,” ware wrote.

Determining costs and risks associated with any project related to removing the rails and commencing trail construction are a major part of Ware’s assignment, he said. Risks include the actual constructability of a project as well as financial, legal and technical issues.

“I saw the purpose of yesterday’s meeting as an opportunity to present the implementation plan for this project to the board. The board quickly saw that a key component to this effort would be to secure a proposal(s) to see what the county could expect in the way of costs/revenues to implement their direction,” he concluded.

Ware had emphasized to the board Tuesday that a project manager should be assigned to conduct the day-to-day efforts of pursuing all issues relating to an “actionable” proposal. But he also cautioned that assigning staff to the rails project would necessarily take personnel away from other projects. The board must determine the priorities, he explained.

Under a recent reorganization plan, the county Department of Transportation had to lay off about a dozen engineers and other technical staff.

• Share this:
• Email
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Print

Short URL: http://www-new.mtdemocrat.com/?p=74199

Posted by Chris Daley on May 26 2011. Filed under Featured Stories,Folsom, News, Placerville. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

1. Eldorado

   May 26, 2011 - 1:57 pm

   

   To make things even more confusing, the preparation of the roadbed and the original ties were paid for by El Dorado County bonds, approved by the voters.

   Reply
   • Alex

     May 26, 2011 - 8:52 pm

     

     Didn’t the railroad have to pay the money back to the county?

     Reply
     • Eldorado

       May 26, 2011 - 9:53 pm

       

       No. The county actually defaulted and then got new bonds issued, at a lower rate, to replace them. The City of Placerville kicked in $300,000 and defaulted on them. The bond money went to the railroad.

       Reply
2. Railfan

   May 26, 2011 - 5:39 pm

   

   Funny how the mis-informed BOS are constantly stepping in it! The JPA owns it, not the Kings and Queen BOS as they thought. The pattern of conduct of some of the BOS makes most wish an election was near to replace several of the self proclaimed royalty sitting on thrones of mismangement and poor decisions. How about replacing the rails they ordered torn out, if not the JPA should demand it and then, if not done, file suit!

   Reply
3. Cris Alarcon

   May 26, 2011 - 6:16 pm

   

   The estimated salvage value of the removed section of rails is estimated at $470,000 (2,000 tons at $235 per ton) based on 16 mile, published weight of rails per mile, and the estimated salvage value made by Iron Horse in a recent public bid.

   Reply
   • CountyResident

     May 26, 2011 - 6:27 pm

     

     Dear Chris,

     This Iron Horse I’m assuming it is not a volunteer organization. Was that aprox. 500k for the entire 16mi? Is “estimated salvage value” what they would be expecting to earn as profit or thats what would be returned to the county?

     Reply
     • Cris Alarcon

       May 26, 2011 - 6:45 pm

       

       The bid made by Iron Horse claimed the salvage value of the Iron at $235 per ton. This would usually mean the selling price of the asset. My understanding of Iron Horse’s proposal to remove the tracks and grade the remaining grade, was to sell the rails for selvage value to pay for their work, and keep the $470K for their service. But this is second-hand, unconfirmed. Maybe someone else that has read the proposal can confirm or correct this.

       Reply
4. CountyResident

   May 26, 2011 - 6:23 pm

   

   Normally when people come in and salvage it is to cleanup what is not able to be used anymore. Then they sell it for a profit. The belief that it would fund the construction of a trail is sadly unreasonable. The trail funds should be secured FIRST then remove and begin construction. This is not a major corridor for traffic it travels far out to the locality of Latrobe and cuts back into Folsom crossing major traffic corridors.

   Flaggers have to be used to move rail equipment across once or twice during a weekend are motorists ready to be prepared to deal with potentially massive increases in pedestrian, bicycle and horse traffic at points of crossing?

   Wake up people, money is and has dried up in the state and nation here we are trying to build trails instead of repairing vital commerse infrastructure that is falling apart around us. I’m confident logic shal prevail in the future of the project.

   Reply
5. Railfan

   May 26, 2011 - 7:26 pm

   

   The removal of historic railroad infrastructure by the BOS without knowing the JPA, and not the county, is the owner, should be mind boggling and shocking to all county residents! Talk about a screw up and stupitiy, there needs to be a long overdue reckoning here, these kinds of actions are nothing new for some of the BOS who voted to tear out history which was paid for by county residents many years ago to allow many jobs to be created during many decades of growth, commerce and logging. Hard to believe the senseless actions of the misinformed BOS!

   Reply
6. Alex

   May 26, 2011 - 8:51 pm

   

   First off, the section of track in question (county line to Shingle Springs) was built during the US Civil War to give you an idea of how historical it is.

   There are no other railroad tracks left in El Dorado County besides this track which continues to Diamond Springs. If this section is removed, all that will remain is an isolated section of track and an isolated trail (if the funds ever appear).

   If the paved trail costs $1 Million per mile and the salvage value of the tracks is less than $1 Million total before subtracting removal costs, you can see that the Class I bike trail will be very short (less than 1 mile of paved trail and 15 miles of no trail and no track). Realistically, once the tracks are removed, it will never be economically feasible to relay the track (although it could legally be done).

   I really hope that we can all come together on this issue and have trains and trails together. I see no reason why most of our goals cannot be achieved together. We can stop wasting time and money on studies and disagreement.

   I love mountain biking and I love trains. Why can’t we have both?

   Tell your county supervisor.

   Reply
7. catsndogs

   May 26, 2011 - 8:57 pm

   

   So Railfan is in favor of the JPA, another government agency, that consists of 5 members, only 1 that comes from El Dorado County, having jurisdiction over our county. Talk about screwed up! I am not in favor of any government agency not in our county, telling us what to do!

   Reply
8. Mike Kenison

   May 26, 2011 - 9:17 pm

   

   Alarcon, lets see the bid you are refering to? IH has made no bid for the El Dorado Trail salvage Job. You must be referring to another project.

   Reply
   • Cris Alarcon

     May 26, 2011 - 9:56 pm

     

     Hi Mike, no not an El Dorado County bid. Source: Iron Horse Preservation Society FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions About Creating an Interim, Low-Cost Rail Trail. “3. How does Iron Horse make money? Iron Horse sells the iron rails for salvage value, which at a typical value of $235/ton more than covers the cost of the removal.”

     Reply
9. Mike Kenison

   May 26, 2011 - 9:28 pm

   

   Alex and County, I can bring you up to speed. The initial trail will be a free gravel trail. 2 inches of gravel conpacted into the rail bed. We can do this in two phases and the second would be to find money to pave a class one bike trail. So to pave on the rail bed would not be 1 million per mile. Our experience in EDC is 500k per mile on the rail bed. If the salvage company can get the bed close to a paving condition, just paving can be between 100k and 250k per mile.

   Reply
   • Alex

     May 26, 2011 - 10:06 pm

     

     Nice to know that it won’t cost as much.

     Reply
10. Mike Kenison

    May 26, 2011 - 9:41 pm

    

    Alex, relay the track for what reason? If you are talking about future commercial freight, you need to think about the low possibility of this. And if UP wants to reactivate, they have to pay to relay the track. They would also have to install crossings at all roads at 2 to 6 million per. That is 35 crossings. They would have to sue RT to get the ‘right of way’ back, win and reimburse RT, and they build the track into Folsom. And all this would be done for a bulky, extremely high value commodity that is discovered in EDC, that can not be profitably put on a truck? Alex any response?

    You need to get real, with the train. Why would a small group of train guys be given 25 miles of track, that will burden the trail with 30 million in trail cost? The majority of EDC does not own a speeder! Share it Alex, take some track for yorself and your friends and let the rest of EDC have a free gravel trail to Folsom.

    Reply
    • Alex

      May 26, 2011 - 10:11 pm

      

      What I was stating above was that in the event of track removal, I believe that although legally the tracks could be rebuilt, the economic incentive will never be present to do so.

      In the unlikely event that the Union Pacific Railroad wanted to run freight trains again, they could just tie into the light rail (RT) tracks and run at night while the RT is not operating (federal rules would allow that but that’s a non-issue).

      Reply
    • CountyResident

      May 27, 2011 - 12:04 am

      

      Mike how do you guys plan on dealing with those 35 crossings yourselves with such high speeds of traffic on those roads?

      I dont see how you seem so negative to those train guys thats their interest along with many others and bikes are yours.

      Reality is you DONT have the money in hand for the project. You are under the assumption that some day you will have the cash in hand to do the project.

      You already agreed to build the trail along side of the track up further on the line why not start there and prove that you can aquire the funds for the project. Most of the bike trail was built with a boom in our economy, now we are in a much different financial position.

      Reply
    • Judith Mathat

      May 27, 2011 - 8:51 am

      

      The US government has the authority to take back any and all railbes and remove any trails or whatever is needed to move heavy equipment in case of a national emergency so why destroy the tracks when the trails can be put to the right and left of the tracks in a well defined easement. too bad some people are so short sited and cannot think about the future for their county it’s children and future residents.

      Reply
      • Ken Steers

        May 27, 2011 - 10:12 am

        

        Judy,
        It’s been done but why not repeat history? We could call your Choo choo Amerika. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxeakfgEpi0

        Reply
11. Trails for Health

    May 26, 2011 - 10:04 pm

    

    This line was found ineligible for the historic register.

    Despite your opinions, 10,000 miles of tracks have been removed, while the corridors have been preserved for future trains. You don’t even know what that future train will look like, or that these rails will be useful to them. Look at light rail – cement ties. Look at high speed rail – not even compatible with the old rails. The whole purpose of rails to trails is to bring interim trails until the next real trains are needed. Period.

    Reply
12. Dave Lammar

    May 26, 2011 - 10:25 pm

    

    Night Train! That sounds cool. What they going to be hauling in the dead of night! I think those ties go bad over time. Will they last another 30 years and be sound when the Night Train runs? I like the “Night Train” thing!

    Reply
13. Mike Kenison

    May 26, 2011 - 11:21 pm

    

    Alex, we have a Mt bike ride on June 12th. Starts in SS and heads down the trail as far as you want to push it. I will leave a truck at Deer Creek and drive back. Get the bike our and come for a ride. We can talk trains and trails for a few hours and burn some calories as we go. I ‘ll give you are ride back if you want one. Check it out on fb or contact me on fb.

    Reply
14. CountyResident

    May 27, 2011 - 12:17 am

    

    Mike,

    Along with my earlier post I’m not bashing your position. Actuall I believe your position would be stonger. If you were to use the plan you have now, but without pulling rail in segment 1 and you build along side the proposed section to Shingle Springs depot. You would have solid proof that you are able to secure funding for the most expensive portion of the trail and tie into a major transportation section. After that you start heading into very rural parts of the line.

    I think the problem many of us outside of the bike community and not part of the train groups is your placing the buggy before the horse by cuting out a section of the line. What it appears to many as a posturing by the bike group to undercut the rail line integrity.

    So ideally you created a much larger conflict with yourselves because the El Dorado Western will most likely be able to get up and going because they are a sponsored organization by the county where as FEDS is based on private membership.

    See with any politics you have only appeared to show what you can “take” by adhering to your simple plan for segment 2 for rails with trail and placing your effort into that you will prove your sucess.

    As I have followed this argument over the going on 20years now trails folks have always shot themselves in the foot by choosing to fight the hardest battles first. You will never be able to take all of the corridor.

    It was very wise to divide up these segments and create a master plan but just like Paul Ryan with his bill in the House you created a huge arguement trying to tear out the track below shingle before the trail even reached that location.

    Reply
15. Jim Harville

    May 27, 2011 - 3:38 am

    

    Thanks for “bringing us up to speed”, Mike, but I still have a few questions.

    Since Joe Hattrup, the Chief Operating Officer of Iron Horse has told me personally that he “absolutely cannot do the work at prevailing wage” it would be a “deal killer”, and Supervisors Knight and Nutting have said that this is clearly a “public works project” and would have to be bid at prevailing wage or they would “both end up in jail”, what scenario do you see allowing your plan to remain “free”? Since the Supervisor’s comments were made March 3rd in a subcommittee meeting you and I both attended, I would think you would have had plenty of time to consider this, and would be eager to share your solution with the community.

    Will your group be taking full legal and financial responsibility for maintenance of the trails only portions of the corridor?

    What equipment/resources do you currently have in place?

    Do you have a fully developed financial plan that will pass muster with the county? I believe that was one of the conditions identified by the Supervisors back in March, was it not?

    Will you be paying back the $400,000 recently allocated by the county to repair the trail east of Placerville, so the county can apply those funds to other, more critical transportation infrastructure?

    The recommendation of the Supervisors in March was that the RFP specify that “the construction of the trail shall be at no cost to the County of El Dorado”, and that it shall include “having the completed rail bed ready for the installation of a Class 1 Bike Path.” In your comment, you express the hope that the salvage contractor can get the trail “close to a paving condition”. Can you give us your opinion as to how much “wiggle room” the Supes will give you on this point?

    I await your replies with bated breath!

    Reply
16. Jim Harville

    May 27, 2011 - 3:55 am

    

    Jackie,

    I can find no evidence that any aplication was ever made at the state or federal level to list this line on a historic register. Is it possible that this was under consideration as a possible way to preserve the corridor, but was set aside when they decided to railbank? If you recall, there was much talk in the beginning about keeping the line active as an independent short line, and placement on the historic register at that time could have been seen as problematic.

    I have also spoken to several people who would have been involved with that kind of action, and have not found anyone who supports your claim. Can you give me a name of who I might contact?

    Reply
17. Mike Kenison

    May 27, 2011 - 11:37 am

    

    Jim, I am done with your arguments. We both sound like broken records. You can’t do this and we can do something better. I think the public deserves a stop to it and a compromise. I make comments here to educated individuals about the issues and I think I am fair, and only bring information that is valid and correct. My comments to Alex and County are the best information I have and I use descriptors like “close to” and give ranges for cost or just scale a number back to be conservative and try not to overstate issues. If I am told my numbers are wrong and someone can give me a better estimate, I will listen. I have done this with the White rock crossing numbers. You can question everything I say, that’s your right. I would like to help build a trail from Shingle Springs to Folsom and you don’t agree. I have said this to you several time, that there are many things we can agree on, and there are some we will just never agree on. So that is what the Shingle Plan is about, a compromise to stop the argument! And I know you don’t agree with that either!

    Reply
18. Mike Kenison

    May 27, 2011 - 11:46 am

    

    County, that is what we have had for 15 years. The dirt trail has always been there. I am a Mt Biker so I am good. Most trail users will use the improved trail, gravel or paved. The reason we like the the rail bed is that it is graded and very inexpensive compared to the off the rail bed options. About a 30+ million dollar difference. The question you have to ask is,”how many miles or rolling train do we need to preserve history”, and how much more cost are you willing to add to trail development. Some will say they want 25 miles and some will say 3. Some will say I do not care about the trail and some think that trail will bring in huge economic benefits. How do we decide this? We have been at this for 15 years? How about a compromise? The Shingle Compromise, gives some to both and we stop this discussion and move on to building something great for EDC.

    Reply
19. Trails for Health

    May 27, 2011 - 1:40 pm

    

    Jim, do your own homework. It’s in print.

    Reply
20. CountyResident

    May 27, 2011 - 2:50 pm

    

    Jim and Mike,

    What I am saying to I guess is both of you guys put your bucks where your mouths are. Jim run your railroad from folsom to latrobe and Mike you guys build your trail with rail to shingle springs to accomodate the el dorado guys. If either of you fail then the argument is over if rail fails to be financially viable then they get pulled and trail built. If trail cant come up with money then the rail continues to remain.

    The problem with that is both of you guys dont want each other to exist on segment 1 from what it seems.

    Reply
21. P.S.Rose

    May 27, 2011 - 3:24 pm

    

    The “Shingle Compromise” is of course, just the name of the shop – like 24 hour cleaning – it actually takes 3 days to clean a shirt and the ‘compomise is trails folk to trails folk – it has nothing whatsoever to do with any rail interests.

    Of course the worst part is the misinformation about the current state – for example “the train folks are trying to take our trail” Surely it is the other way around – the corridor has been a railroad for nearly 150 years – it continues to be a railroad. It is great that other uses can be included in the railroad corridor – I am beginning to wonder why, all of a sudden it is so important to remove rail.
    Is there something we don’t know?
    Sometimes thou does’t protest too much……

    Reply
22. Mike Kenison

    May 27, 2011 - 11:11 pm

    

    county asset Phillip and you guys want it all. What is your compromise? Or do you want to chat for the next 15 years. Yes we want a section? Do we deserve something or should it all be yours?

    Reply
23. Mike Kenison

    May 27, 2011 - 11:46 pm

    

    Better idea County, you run the train from Shingle up and we build the trail Shingle Down. We can do it at no cost to the county and have a compacted gravel trail for free. There will be track available to give to the train seciton, to help with there effort. The connection is a big deal for the El Dorado Trail and would be regionally significant. A train run from Shinlge up would be nine miles of track to call there own. They have nothing now and seem to feel they have it all.

    Reply
24. CountyResident

    May 28, 2011 - 3:30 am

    

    Phillip I think you and I both know that both sides have a good portion of mis information floating around out there.

    Mike I just want you guys to build a trail that is fully connected I dont want rail pulled by guys who are in it to make some money and left with some paved trail here and gravel trail in one section and dirt in another.

    This project needs to start at one end and be completed to class 1 standard mile per mile why not apply for the grants in smaller segments and start up where you already agree to run next to the train? Please address that question because I keep asking it in different forms but I cant seem to get a straight answer. If you have a reason you dont want it done that way then just say that then. It just doesnt make sense to me and with 13 years of a development background I don’t see how it flows together to create a continuous class 1 trail!

    Reply
25. Mike Kenison

    May 28, 2011 - 9:29 pm

    

    County, you need to find $50 million. It is that simple. We are going to start in the trail section and the train guys should be in the train section. Why aren’t the Folsom Train guys running steam engines? Why did it take them several years to fix the washout? You want it all done in one project? Go get 50 million. We will start the work on the trail section, the same as the Train guys will start on the train seciton. We can first build a gravel trail for free. They will run Speeders and sell tickets for many years before they will be able to get a big train and cars the look like anything we expect as a Excursion Train. We will then attempt to raise money to pave the trail. The last part to build and consider is the Shingle up or Train section. County, you need to come to one of our meetings and explain you reasoning, as it is very hard to see your point. Call me if you want to have a real discussion. I know you won’t as most like to post and hide. Be brave, give me a call and lets talk about the whole issue. My number is out there. I deal with people in person, or on the phone. If you want to debate this, lets do it. Call me

    Reply
26. Mike Kenison

    May 28, 2011 - 9:31 pm

    

    County, we only agree to run trains and trails together Shingle up, because we get Shingle Down. You do get that, don’t you?