Submit your comments on the RTC's Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment Report by 5 PM on Friday, January 17, 2025, to info@sccrtc.org with "CAVA" in the subject line.
The report is available at: bit.ly/scc-cava
Unfortunately, the report is highly biased toward the rail corridor, diverting significant funds from other critical areas needing attention for climate change adaptation.
Natural disasters in our area and recent events in Los Angeles County show that rail systems are ineffective for relief. Using Climate Adaptation as an excuse to fund these areas without a proper cost-benefit analysis is concerning, especially when mountain residents are still dealing with storm damage from nearly a decade ago.
The Santa Cruz County Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment (CAVA) raises concerns by prioritizing the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) over more critical infrastructure. While the SCBRL is touted for future transit and evacuation purposes, its limited ridership, high maintenance costs, and vulnerability to climate risks like fires and flooding undermine its practicality.
Road-based evacuation routes, offering greater flexibility and accessibility, should take precedence. Additionally, maintaining the rail corridor risks significant environmental impacts, including ecosystem disruption, community equity, and coastal erosion. It also poses noise and disturbance issues for nearby neighborhoods.
The focus on SCBRL diverts resources from essential transportation assets like roads, bridges, and culverts, which serve a broader population and are crucial for daily commutes, emergency services, and economic activities. Equity is also at stake, as rail investments benefit only a limited demographic, while road improvements would better serve disadvantaged communities.
Santa Cruz County must prioritize more practical, equitable, and impactful transportation infrastructure to address climate vulnerabilities effectively.
Below is the official statement submitted by the Coastal Trail Conservancy to the Regional Transportation Commission in regards to the Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment Report:
Dear Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission,
The Santa Cruz County Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment (CAVA) has provided a comprehensive analysis of the county's transportation infrastructure vulnerabilities to climate change.
However, the inclusion and prioritization of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) within this assessment raise several concerns that warrant critical examination.
Questionable Cost-Benefit Analysis: The report emphasizes the potential benefits of maintaining and upgrading the SCBRL for future transit and evacuation purposes. However, the cost of such investments must be weighed against the actual usage and benefits. The rail corridor's current and projected ridership does not justify the extensive financial resources required for its maintenance and enhancement, especially when compared to other critical infrastructure needs within the county.
Limited Utility for Evacuation: While the SCBRL is highlighted as a potential evacuation route, its practical utility in emergency scenarios is questionable. The rail line's capacity to handle large-scale evacuations is limited, and the infrastructure may itself be vulnerable to the very hazards it is supposed to mitigate, such as fires, flooding and landslides. Road-based evacuation routes, which offer greater flexibility and accessibility, should be prioritized over the rail corridor.
Environmental and Community Impact: The development and maintenance of the rail corridor could have significant environmental impacts, including disruption to local ecosystems and increased erosion along coastal areas. Additionally, the rail line runs through several residential neighborhoods, potentially leading to noise pollution and other disturbances that could negatively affect community well-being.
Opportunity Cost: Focusing on the rail corridor diverts attention and resources from other critical transportation assets that serve a larger portion of the population. Roads, bridges, and culverts, which are essential for daily commutes, emergency services, and economic activities, should receive higher priority. The opportunity cost of investing in the rail corridor is too high when these other assets are in dire need of upgrades and maintenance.
Equity Concerns: The report claims to prioritize equity and accessibility, yet the emphasis on the SCBRL may not align with these goals. The rail corridor primarily benefits a limited demographic, whereas improvements to road infrastructure would have a broader impact, particularly for disadvantaged communities that rely heavily on road transportation for access to essential services.
Data and Methodology: The methodology used to assess the rail corridor's vulnerability and prioritize it over other assets may be flawed. The report should provide a more transparent and detailed explanation of how the rail corridor's risk scores were calculated and how they compare to other transportation assets. Without this clarity, the prioritization of the rail corridor appears arbitrary and unsupported by robust data.
In conclusion, while the SCBRL may have some potential benefits, its prioritization within the CAVA report is not justified given the significant costs, limited utility, environmental impact, and opportunity cost. Santa Cruz County should refocus its efforts and resources on more critical and widely-used transportation infrastructure to ensure a more equitable and effective response to climate change vulnerabilities.
Recommendations:
Reevaluate the cost-benefit analysis of the SCBRL and consider reallocating resources to higher-priority road infrastructure.
Prioritize road-based evacuation routes that offer greater flexibility and accessibility.
Understand the environmental impacts of attempting to re-utilize the rail corridor as an evacuation route.
Ensure that equity considerations are genuinely reflected in the prioritization of transportation assets.
Provide greater transparency in the data and methodology used to assess and prioritize transportation assets.
By addressing these concerns, Santa Cruz County can better allocate its resources to protect and enhance the resilience of its transportation infrastructure in a manner that truly benefits the entire community.
Respectfully,
Jack Brown
Executive Director
Coastal Trail Conservancy of Santa Cruz County
Please feel free to resend or borrow portions of this content in your own letter to the RTC. Note that all responses to info@sccrtc.org must be received by 5 PM on Friday, January 19. 2025 and you must include CAVA in the subject line.
We also suggest that you copy the RTC members and their alternates directly. With the recent election and retirements, at least 6 of the members and their alternates are no longer with the commission and their replacements will not be fully known until after the commission meets in February. The RTC member webpage is out of date as of this post.
Here is the list we used when we submitted our response:
manu.koenig@santacruzcountyca.gov
shane.mckeithen@santacruzcountyca.gov
fkeeley@santacruzca.gov
openup@ucsc.edu
kimdeserpa@cruzio.com
Comments