How much would it cost to build a multi-use trail from Arcata to Eureka paralleling 101? At the final Stakeholders meeting with regard to the Arcata-Eureka Bay Trail feasibility study last Tuesday we finally got to see some preliminary dollar amounts for three different options for how the trail might be put in. The final numbers, which will be available when HCAOG makes the study public, are sure to fuel the debate about rails and trails around Humboldt Bay.

Alta Planning, the consulting firm that did the feasibility study came up with some eye-opening figures in terms of the benefits that a trail would provide. A model taking into account climate, population, percentage of bike ridership, tourist visitation and other factors predicted 660,000 users per year. That�s 1,800 people per day! The trail would eliminate 30,000 vehicle trips annually and generate $3.8 million of economic activity per year for the local economy. There would also be $70 million in health benefits over an unspecified time frame. So this trail is likely going to be worth the price tag, but there are different options for how to build it, with different costs.

The option we can throw out straight away is putting the trail next to freeway, more or less in the Caltrans right-of-way. Few people, if anyone at the workshops or public hearing thought this was a preferable place to put the trail, right next to all that noisy traffic, and it�s the most expensive way to do it anyway. The southbound lanes would have to be shifted over where the eucalyptus trees by the Simpson property don�t allow for westward expansion, generating a total price tag of $45.6 million.

The most politically palatable option for the various parties involved is a �rail-with-trail� design, with sheet piling retaining walls used to widen the top of the railroad bed on both sides to accommodate the rail and trail. This places the trail next to the bay providing aesthetic and bay-interpretation benefits. This came in at $30.9 million.

Of course, when people travel down the 101 and look over at the tracks, many of them are thinking about a trail in place of the rails. This could conceivably be pursued through rail-banking or some lease agreement with the North Coast Rail Authority (NCRA), the public entity that controls the rail right-of-way. A rail banking option would cost only $14.5 million, but $10 million of that is for removal and replacement of rail. If rail doesn�t return, putting in a rail-to-trail would cost only about $5 million.

But there are some political difficulties. The NCRA has been resistant to rail banking because they claim the train will be running again by 2011. Most grants require a 20 year commitment of the facility for that use. So if we wanted to put a trail there temporarily we might have to push the timeline for rail�s return out 20 years. My guess is that the NCRA is just not willing to do that before the cost of repairing and maintaining the rail through the Eel River canyon becomes clearly infeasible.

While funding a rail-to-trail with a less-than-20-year life-expectancy has its problems, so does finding six times the funding to build the trail-with-rail because of a shaky assumption that rail is returning to Humboldt Bay. If grant providers see that it will cost $25 million more to build a trail with rail as without rail, they may scrutinize the probability of rail�s return and choose to wait it out.

I have been told that an NCRA Environmental Impact Report may come out in about a year that would put a more precise dollar amount to restoring the rail. Estimates we have heard until now range from as little as $39 million (with $250 million more in improvements over 25 years)1 to as much as $520 million followed by continued capital improvements2. With the California Transportation Commission recently rejecting $170 million in funding for the locally popular Willits 101 bypass, you can bet that they will not easily hand over the funding for a landslide-prone railroad of questionable viability.

Whatever the challenges, we ought to find a way to build this trail soon. When you consider we could have been reaping the $3.8 million in economic benefits over the last ten years, it seems it was a mistake not to rail bank earlier. Mike Wilson, this district�s harbor commissioner and probably the most vocal proponent of rail banking said at the meeting, �We have lost $40 million in trail benefits over the last 10 years.� For a trail that would have cost even less than $5 million to build back in 1997 when the railroad stopped operating, it is quite a loss of opportunity. John Woolley, a boardmember of the NCRA, countered that we shouldn�t base our decisions on hindsight.

The analogy to the Iraq war is hard to avoid. Many a politician has argued that, just because getting into Iraq was a mistake, doesn�t mean pulling out would be the best decision. In this case, just because failing to rail bank has lost us $35 million so far, doesn�t mean we should rail bank now. Most Americans are for a pullout from Iraq, but the railroad may or may not be a different case.

There are a few different routes to go procedurally at this point. We could all just sit around and wait for the NCRA to get their EIR back, possibly with an unaffordable price tag for rail�s return, or we could try to find ways to keep working together using phasing as a way to build bits and pieces of the trail.

At the meeting, Karen Diemer, deputy director of Arcata Environmental Services talked about building out from Arcata to Bracutin a first phase. This would at least allow northbound cyclists on 101 to access South G Street into Arcata instead of being forced into the clover leaf at Samoa Boulevard, and it would provide trail access between the Arcata Marsh and the Bracut Marsh. Attendees considered the possibility of using the railroad bed in the most expensive sections, such as bridges and the narrowest portions of the railroad bed, and initially just installing the retaining wall on one side to control costs in the event rail doesn�t return for a while. Selling the additional benefits of the project, such as the strengthening of levee protection of 101 that this project would provide, and the benefit of a connected coastal trail, could help garner the substantial funding needed for rail-with-trail. A combination of these types of strategies could get us moving forward.

I hope we figure it out soon. Every year we are losing millions dollars in benefits that this trail could be providing to our economy and health. And this is just one segment of a huge potential trail network. The nine-year delay on the Annie and Mary Rail Trail from Arcata to Blue Lake left us with deteriorated trestles and contested rights-of-way making creation of a trail that much more challenging.

When one sees that rail-to-trail is a fraction of the cost of rail-with-trail, it�s hard not to let your mind drift to the possibility of the railroad finally stepping aside, allowing an easily feasible trail network connecting McKinleyville, Blue Lake, Arcata from West End Road to the Marsh, Manila, Eureka, College of the Redwoods and points south. Suddenly, Jennifer Savage and other Manilans could ride directly to downtown Arcata from Manila without logging trucks bearing down on them. Kids could skate over to the skate park without having to be in traffic. Nature lovers could walk or bike to the marsh along a trail from L Street. College of the Redwoods students could bike from Eureka to campus on a path instead of the freeway. Tourists could flock to a mecca of incredible scenery and friendly trails. Novice bicycle commuters afraid of riding to work on the 101 freeway would feel safe to do it on a trail and get incredible health benefits. Hopefully, it won�t be too many more decades before we get it done somehow, with or without the rail.

Chris looks forward to taking his twins (due in October) on bike rides to Eureka when they are old enough. He is a member of Green Wheels and sits on the Arcata Transportation Safety Committee. He says you should attend the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) meeting at Eureka City Hall room 208 on Thursday, July 26 at 7 p.m. if you want to encourage HCAOG to keep moving forward on the trail.

1 Willdan/HNTB. 2002. NCRA Capital Assessment Report. Available at northcoastrailroad.org/Acrobat/CapitalAssessment/NCRA%20Capital%20Assessment%20Report%207-2002.pdf

2 The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) cites this from a FEMA Environmental Assessment released in early 2000 which I couldn�t find online to confirm. See wildcalifornia.org/pages/page-241

[This article originally appeared in the Arcata Eye on June 19, 2007.]