It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:59 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:28 am
Posts: 2726
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
The county does have to petition the STB, from my understanding to get permission to abandon their portion of the line. RC can object.

Bottom line, this is far from a done deal.

_________________
David M. Wilkins

"They love him, gentlemen, and they respect him, not only for himself, for his character, for his integrity and judgment and iron will, but they love him most of all for the enemies he has made."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:44 pm 

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:46 am
Posts: 148
Location: Elko, NV
Adverse abandonments are not simple or easy or quick procedures, this case if initiated will drag on for a while. There's one in particular in Georgia on the Hartwell Railroad that has been dragging on for years in which a local baptist church is attempting a forced removal of what appears to be a mostly unused rail line that passes through the middle of the church's parking lot, the church wants to expand and improve the lot to make it easier for their patrons but they want to remove the railroad to make that job easier. A group of landowners in Colorado also just initiated a similar case against the Great Western Railway over another unused line.

One of the major issues at play here is that Roaring Camp's Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific Railroad (SCBG) only owns part of the line over which their trains operate, I don't remember exactly where their ownership starts but it is some distance north of the wye where the Felton line connects with the main branch in Santa Cruz. SCBG uses trackage rights over the now RTC owned railroad to get to the wye and then down the branchline to reach the Santa Cruz Beach & Boardwalk, where their trains load and unload. This part of the branch runs down the middle of Beach Street in Santa Cruz. A few years ago the city rebuilt the intersection of Beach and Pacific streets at the north end of the street running trackage into a roundabout, with the tracks cutting across one side of the roundabout. For a visual aid, see the followng:

https://goo.gl/maps/kfE5TX4mrntz3J267

The Greenway/Trail Now groups behind most of the drive to turn the Santa Cruz branchline into a trail have previously made a big issue out of this roundabout after a bicyclist got pretty badly injured in a bike wreck caused by one of the flangeways cut into the road surface. The groups have in the past proposed a new depot or unloading area for SCBG be built in the area of the wye, which is just to the left of the above, but SCBG has rejected that idea as it's about a half mile walk from the wye to the Beach & Boardwalk.

One of the other open questions if this effort is successful is if a SCBG stripped of its common carrier authorities would either be able to continue to hold on to whatever right-of-way it has and/or the ability to maintain its crossings of Highways 1 and 9.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:32 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
JDLX wrote:
The Greenway/Trail Now groups behind most of the drive to turn the Santa Cruz branchline into a trail have previously made a big issue out of this roundabout after a bicyclist got pretty badly injured in a bike wreck caused by one of the flangeways cut into the road surface. The groups have in the past proposed a new depot or unloading area for SCBG be built in the area of the wye, which is just to the left of the above, but SCBG has rejected that idea as it's about a half mile walk from the wye to the Beach & Boardwalk.


As much as I hate the Santa Cruz trail crowd, I also think that roundabouts suck. I disagree with their plan to truncate the Santa Cruz line a half mile from the Boardwalk. Such a change will eliminate the viability of the beach train.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 6:51 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
Go to https://www.roaringcamp.com/save-the-beach-train and please don’t let the Commission speak for you. Make your voice heard.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:48 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 2367
psa188 wrote:
JDLX wrote:
The Greenway/Trail Now groups behind most of the drive to turn the Santa Cruz branchline into a trail have previously made a big issue out of this roundabout after a bicyclist got pretty badly injured in a bike wreck caused by one of the flangeways cut into the road surface. The groups have in the past proposed a new depot or unloading area for SCBG be built in the area of the wye, which is just to the left of the above, but SCBG has rejected that idea as it's about a half mile walk from the wye to the Beach & Boardwalk.


As much as I hate the Santa Cruz trail crowd, I also think that roundabouts suck. I disagree with their plan to truncate the Santa Cruz line a half mile from the Boardwalk. Such a change will eliminate the viability of the beach train.



"Such a change will eliminate the viability of the beach train"

I'm assuming that might be a feature of the plan, not a bug?


Who are the "players" here? Who conceived of the idea, who is really behind it?

All too often, we forget political efforts have specific objectives and make for strange bedfellows.

Economist Russ Roberts calls this the "bootlegger and Baptist" problem. Well meaning people guided by some moral principle such as temperance pursue a policy they hope will advance their objective. Not so well meaning people support the well meaning people because they realize that driving up the price serves their profit margin.

When you realize what sort of truly hideous scum used eminent domain to deny the Kelo family their home, you realize what sort of an enormous groundswell it is going to take to upend the plans of politicians and rent seekers colluding.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:47 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
superheater wrote:
I'm assuming that might be a feature of the plan, not a bug?


I guess that depends on your point of view.

superheater wrote:
Who are the "players" here? Who conceived of the idea, who is really behind it?


As far as I can tell, Santa Cruz is chock full of militant trail advocates who see the ex-SP ROW as a potential trail, but are resistant to the "rail-with-trail" concept. My understanding is that they are vocal, inflexible and persistent. So, for this reason I ask people to visit https://www.roaringcamp.com/save-the-beach-train and send a public comment.

superheater wrote:
When you realize what sort of truly hideous scum used eminent domain to deny the Kelo family their home, you realize what sort of an enormous groundswell it is going to take to upend the plans of politicians and rent seekers colluding.


"Hideous scum" perfectly describes the Santa Cruz trail crowd.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:26 am 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3911
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
psa188 wrote:
superheater wrote:
I'm assuming that might be a feature of the plan, not a bug?


I guess that depends on your point of view.

superheater wrote:
Who are the "players" here? Who conceived of the idea, who is really behind it?


As far as I can tell, Santa Cruz is chock full of militant trail advocates who see the ex-SP ROW as a potential trail, but are resistant to the "rail-with-trail" concept. My understanding is that they are vocal, inflexible and persistent. So, for this reason I ask people to visit https://www.roaringcamp.com/save-the-beach-train and send a public comment.

superheater wrote:
When you realize what sort of truly hideous scum used eminent domain to deny the Kelo family their home, you realize what sort of an enormous groundswell it is going to take to upend the plans of politicians and rent seekers colluding.


"Hideous scum" perfectly describes the Santa Cruz trail crowd.


This is just another example of how this country may be unique in the world for its hostility to rail. I should know, I was called a Communist for proposing a light rail line as an alternative to a road project where I live!

More reading. . .


https://slvpost.com/roaring-camps-futur ... Y8P2TjS_nw

https://slvpost.com/accusations-abound- ... rolls-out/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:09 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
A friend pointed out that Marin County has upgraded their route to include rail transportation, bike and foot trails. It is a good example. Wasting such a resource not allowing for all forms of transportation would be failure seen by future generations.

that is a good example that I overlooked.

It is not too late to visit https://www.roaringcamp.com/save-the-beach-train and submit a public comment.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:59 pm 

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:06 am
Posts: 26
Topfuel wrote:
The Trail Nazis strike again.



so are you saying its impossible to be a supporter of both rail preservation AND the rails to trail movement? Its funny to see so many foks here whine and complain about museums, etc shutting down because of the older members dying off and there being no young blood yet here you are calling the rail to trails supporters a bunch of Nazis. Newsflash : a lot of those younger adults you need to replace the boomers are outdoor enthusiast!!

and for those questioning restoring rail service to former rail lines that have been converted to trails, you may want to check out he Capital Crescent Trail and the new Purple metro line.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:08 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
Son of a Coast Liner wrote:
So are you saying its impossible to be a supporter of both rail preservation AND the rails to trail movement?


I am not saying that at all. I support "rails with trails." For example, Marin County has upgraded their route to include rail transportation, bike and foot trails. It is a good example.

What I can't stand is the inflexible, uncompromising attitude of many Santa Cruz trail "advocates" who refuse to consider any alternatives to their "trail only" approach.

BH


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:11 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
More on the Roaring Camp situation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Jeanette Guire
jeanette@roaringcamp.com, (831) 335-4484
ROARING CAMP PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION ABOUT FORCED ABANDONMENT
CEO’s remarks address misinformation about freight vs. passenger rail,
“railbanking,” RTC’s closed-door discussions, RTC’s failure to fix bridges and more
FELTON, CA – JANUARY 26, 2022 – Roaring Camp, Inc. (Roaring Camp), operator of the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific Railway, today responded to misinformation that is targeting Roaring Camp related to the RTC’s consideration of forced abandonment of the rail line owned and operated by Roaring Camp. The following remarks are provided by Roaring Camp CEO Melani Clark:
Are Roaring Camp’s tourist trains actually threatened?
Roaring Camp’s tourist trains are absolutely threatened. RTC staff and some commissioners, aided by advocates from Greenway and Trail Now, have stated that Roaring Camp’s tourist trains will not be impacted by a loss of freight rail. Some have even said that Roaring Camp’s business “will be just fine.” This is absolutely not the case. An attack on our freight rights is an attack on passenger rail. Loss of our rights to freight service on the Felton Branch Rail Line will mean a loss of current federal protection of our line. Loss of federal protection will mean that our ability to reach the Boardwalk with our tourist trains will be entirely controlled by the RTC and subject to the whims of the current RTC board and leadership as well as those of the future. In addition, the Felton Branch Rail Line will become vulnerable to future eminent domain claims. The RTC is currently demonstrating an interest in breaking the promise made to my family at the time the RTC purchased the rail line 10 years ago, when we gave up our right to purchase the line.
They also are demonstrating an interest in breaking the promise they made to the State of California when the RTC accepted $14 million in Prop 116 funds that required a promise to maintain the rail line.
Is it true RTC commissioners worked behind closed doors on the issue of forced abandonment and that they will vote on 2/3?
Yes. Some have questioned the accusation that discussion has taken place behind closed doors at the RTC on the topic of forced abandonment. The fact is, RTC commissioners chose to discuss abandonment proceedings in closed session, rather than open session where public input would have been allowed. Not only did the discussion happen behind closed doors, but Roaring Camp was provided no advance notification that the RTC was considering forced abandonment of the Felton Branch Rail Line. On Feb. 3, commissioners will have the opportunity to vote to direct staff to continue working on adverse (forced) abandonment. We implore commissioners to reject any attempt during the Feb. 3 meeting to support the study of, or future consideration of, abandonment of either local branch rail line.
Shouldn’t Roaring Camp agree to abandonment because “railbanking” will ensure rail service can return in the future?
Railbanking is not a strategy. It is a fantasy. The RTC, including staff and some commissioners, as well as advocates from Greenway and Trail Now are pushing for so-called “railbanking” as a solution that allows tracks to be removed and rail service to return in the future. In fact, in the 40 years since railbanking was introduced, 25,000 miles of track has been pulled up and not one single mile has returned to rail service after being paved for a trail. Some have also said railbanking is needed to protect the rail corridor from lawsuits related to easements. This is untrue because, as long as there is active rail line in place, such lawsuits are not legally possible. Easements, some of which were signed over 100 years ago, cover rail lines, not trails. The simple and highly effective way to protect the corridor from lawsuits related to easements is to not rip up the tracks. The RTC’s recent success managing easements on the North Coast section of the corridor is testament to what’s possible when the rail line stays in place. Railbanking is a totally unproven concept for ensuring future rail service. Our community should be deeply concerned about our elected officials considering an utterly unproven concept as the foundation for policymaking that impacts our local economy, the lives of county residents and our future. Since there hasn’t been freight service happening for years, why is Roaring Camp opposed to freight abandonment?
The RTC is directly responsible for the lack of freight service north of Watsonville, due to the RTC’s failure to maintain the rail line and specifically due to the RTC’s failure to fix two bridges. The RTC is responsible for maintaining the rail line per agreement with Progressive Rail, and per the direction provided by local voters in 2016 through the passage of Measure D. That measure provides approximately $75 million over the life of the measure to support the rail corridor, specifically including “rail line maintenance and repairs.”
Currently there are requests for freight service, including at the north end of the line. However, Roaring Camp is unable to meet the requests, due to inactionby the RTC. It is frustrating, as well as ironic, that the RTC is citing lack of freight traffic on the line as a reason for abandonment, when the RTC itself has prevented Roaring Camp’s use of the line.
Shouldn’t Roaring Camp support abandonment of its line, as well as abandonment of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL), since it’s too expensive to fix the SCBRL in support of freight service and future passenger rail service?
The RTC has offered baseless, unverifiable estimates for repairing the RTC-owned SCBRL. Their estimates, created outside of public view just happen to align with their push to end service on the rail line. There has been no study available to the public for scrutiny or third-party validation. There is no report available and no information about who made the estimates or how. There are no schematics of specific bridges to show what repair or maintenance may be needed. Local taxpayers deserve full transparency about estimated costs. Following a transparent process to determine repair costs, the RTC should look to voter-approved Measure D funds as a source, since the measure designates approximately $75 million to support “rail line maintenance and repairs.” In addition, both the state and federal governments have made it clear that funding for rail infrastructure is a key priority. The state includes the SCBRL in Caltrans’ State Rail Plan.
California is sitting on the largest budget surplus in its history. The federal government recently approved funding for transportation infrastructure, including rail. Without any study or transparency with the public, it simply doesn’t pass the straight-face test to say it’s too expensive to fix the rail line.
To read Roaring Camp’s Jan. 19, 2022, statement on the RTC’s consideration of forced abandonment of the Felton Branch Rail Line that is owned and operated by Roaring Camp, click here.
ABOUT ROARING CAMP, INC.
Incorporated in 1958, privately held Roaring Camp, Inc. (Roaring Camp) operates two railroads, including the Redwood Forest Steam Train and the Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway. Roaring Camp also owns the historic Felton Branch Rail Line, which is eight miles long and runs across a 1909 steel truss bridge and passes through a tunnel in Santa Cruz that was built in 1875. Norman Clark founded Roaring Camp and ran the business until his passing in 1985, after which his wife, Georgiana assumed ownership and management responsibilities. She was succeeded as CEO by Georgiana and Norman’s daughter, Melani Clark. Roaring Camp is a woman-owned business, with majority shareholders that include Melani Clark and her two sisters. Visit www.roaringcamp.com for more information.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:49 pm 

Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 10:27 am
Posts: 223
Location: New Haven Ct area
For those of us who don't know railroad law, how does the whole abandonment process work?

I thought that when a railroad wants to abandon a line they must file for abandonment and since railroads are viewed as instruments of interstate commerce, during that time anyone else who wants to maintain service gets a crack at getting the line. Only if there's no takers then it gets approved for abandonment and then can be torn up. Am I off base? Otherwise what's the point of filing for abandonment? Doesn't the FRA need to approve terminating freight service and turning the line to a trail?

What is the basis the trails people are applying here to justify tearing up an active line? Do cities who own lines have the rights to terminate a lease and rip up rail if they so choose? While maybe the freight loading on this line doesn't quite make it justify as economically critical infrastructure it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario where say a city is leasing the rail line to a major port to a railroad when some idiot politician comes along and wants to turn it into a trail. Aren't the interstate commerce laws supposed to be applied in favor of the active rail line and not a trail?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:09 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Los Altos, CA
A reminder from Roaring Camp:

"The Vote Is 2/3/22. We Need Your Help."

https://www.roaringcamp.com/save-the-beach-train


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:59 am 

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:46 am
Posts: 148
Location: Elko, NV
adammil1 wrote:
For those of us who don't know railroad law, how does the whole abandonment process work?

I thought that when a railroad wants to abandon a line they must file for abandonment and since railroads are viewed as instruments of interstate commerce, during that time anyone else who wants to maintain service gets a crack at getting the line. Only if there's no takers then it gets approved for abandonment and then can be torn up. Am I off base? Otherwise what's the point of filing for abandonment? Doesn't the FRA need to approve terminating freight service and turning the line to a trail?

What is the basis the trails people are applying here to justify tearing up an active line? Do cities who own lines have the rights to terminate a lease and rip up rail if they so choose? While maybe the freight loading on this line doesn't quite make it justify as economically critical infrastructure it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario where say a city is leasing the rail line to a major port to a railroad when some idiot politician comes along and wants to turn it into a trail. Aren't the interstate commerce laws supposed to be applied in favor of the active rail line and not a trail?


To attempt an answer since nobody else has…

First off the agency with jurisdiction over abandonment issues is the Surface Transportation Board, not the FRA.

Your general understanding of abandonment is correct, a rail line operator can petition for either abandoning a line or discontinuing common carrier operations. The laws do generally prioritize rail service over other uses, the mechanism you mention is the Offer of Financial Assistance process, which allows interested parties to negotiate with the carrier seeking abandonment to either subsidize continued operations of the existing carrier up to forcing the sale of the line to the offeror for continued operations.

The specific circumstances at play here are generally as follows. Roaring Camp bought most of the Felton branch from the Southern Pacific back around 1985, they set up the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific (reporting marks SCBG) to operate the line. SCBG obtained trackage rights over the SP, consisting of the bottom part of the Felton branch they did not buy and then the main Santa Cruz branch to reach the Santa Cruz Beach & Boardwalk. Fast forward several decades and Union Pacific sold the Santa Cruz line to the Regional Transportation Commission who bought the line using state funds requiring rail service to continue.

Since buying the line the RTC has faced intense pressure from local bicyclist and trail groups to remove the railroad and convert the grade to a trail. The RTC has cycled through a couple operators, first Iowa Pacific’s Santa Cruz & Monterey Bay Railroad that vanished with the IP implosion and then a Progressive Rail company. Somewhere between IP and Progressive the line suffered a washout not far out of Watsonville that took a long while to fix, then last year or thereabouts a structural analysis of a couple large bridges showed them to be unable to handle trains safely. RTC does not have the money to replace the bridges, and that has given the trail people an opening. The RTC has been debating and exploring options for what to do with their railroad, with one of the leading options being abandonment and railbanking the line to permit its conversion to a trail.

The problem with this approach is the SCBG, which would become isolated from the rail network should the RTC be successful in railbanking their line. SCBG is on record as insisting they want to retain the rail connection to the outside world, and the STB takes seriously anything that looks like it might orphan common carrier operations. Adding to the story is that Progressive essentially exited the area last year, technically they still hold the contract to operate the RTC railroad but they have subcontracted operations to SCBG. At present operations are limited to a few customers in Watsonville, but in addition to reconnecting their railroad with the outside world the SCBG also has indicated they have requests for rail service from at least a couple potential shippers on the northern parts of the branch. SCBG also has serious doubts that the bridges in question actually need as much work or money as the RTC claims, and the RTC has apparently not been particularly forthcoming with details.

Taken together, SCBG is a major obstacle to the railbanking plans, and to try to head this off the RTC is debating whether or not to initiate adverse abandonment proceedings against SCBG. Adverse abandonments are allowed under the laws and regulations and provide for any party to force abandonment of or termination of common carrier operations over a rail line. In this case it appears the RTC is more likely seeking to terminate SCBG’s status as a common carrier, as they are otherwise apparently saying in the meeting today they want SCBG to continue running to the Boardwalk and are open to having them run tourist trains on the branch north towards Davenport. SCBG is opposed to this for some reasons already laid out in this thread, plus they feel betrayed by promises made to them when RTC bought the line and without thd common carrier protections they would be at the whims of the RTC deciding not to throw them off the RTC railroad in the future, not to mention potential loss of rights to cross public streets and other potential right-of-way maintenance issues.

Adverse abandonment proceedings are not short and not quick and not a sure thing, and SCBG would be expected to vigorously fight any attempts, both in the courts and in front of the STB. If the RTC decides to go that route the case would likely drag on for s long time before any decisions are rendered. And for that matter if/when the RTC moved forward with railbanking their railroad they would have to file for abandonment themselves, which would give Roaring Camp an opening to use the OFA process to continue operations over and maybe force the sale of the line to them. In all abandonment cases the OFA process has to end before any trail discussions can begin.

This saga will be unfolding for many years to come.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Roaring Camp facing forced abandonment
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:54 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3911
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
Meanwhile, in Indiana--

Quote:
The federal Surface Transportation Board’s final approval of the trail Dec. 21 made the property owners eligible to file suit for “just compensation” for their property, which is protected by the 5th Amendment. The federal government, and not the state or the cities of Fishers or Noblesville, would make the payments.

But even before the completion of the 18-month long STB railbanking application process, teams of out-of-town lawyers had been streaming into Hamilton County seeking plaintiffs. The attorneys, from three large firms in St. Louis, specialize in the arcane technicalities of “rail banking,” and have held dozens of local meetings.


https://www.indystar.com/story/news/loc ... i1aHMyxvqQ


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 114 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: