Like it or not, we have to face facts: We can’t afford the third lane, but we can afford commuter rail. Due to the recession, and a shortfall of tax revenue for infrastructure projects which are supposed to be funded by the new countywide transportation tax measure (Measure A 2008), we’re not likely to see the third lane for at least 20 years.
The widening project you see happening now (funded by Measure D) only adds the third lane from Milpas to Olive Mill Road. That’s 3.5 miles, leaving 12-plus miles that Measure A hopes to fund. The County is currently at work to figure out when and how those 12-plus miles can be delivered.
Currently, commuters at peak hours have no choice but to hit the road, whether by car or bus, and deal with what befalls them—be it gridlock, accidents, or weather—and the frustration of having no other option. Amtrak’s Surfliner currently arrives from the south at 10:12 a.m., too late for morning commuters, and the afternoon train heads south at 4:31 p.m., too early for most commuters. Efforts to retime these trains have been in process for some time, but for a viable commuter rail service, three trains each way are needed.
HSR (high speed rail) is much in the news, and brings $2.3 billion to California’s table (of the federal government’s $8 billion) for rail infrastructure improvements. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments has applied for a piece of that. It’s a bit confusing, because HSR money is not exclusively for HSR, but also for upgrading rail corridors specified as HSR—which the coastal corridor is—for the time when they can become HSR. That means such things as new sidings, signals, and switching that will allow trains to move more efficiently. This will certainly help us reach the goal of commuter rail.
Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) was an American historian and philosopher of technology and science, whose observations came before the Highway Trust Fund was broken in 1991 with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which began to level the transportation playing field. His feelings in the 1960’s went like this: “What kind of half-baked planning has deliberately broken down our efficient many sided transportation network, based on the pedestrian, the railroad, the motorbus, and the private motorcar, in favor of a space wasting, city destroying system of mono-transportation, based on the private motorcar alone?”
Have things gotten better? Not much, mainly due to the entrenched bureaucratic culture which is so strongly biased toward roads. For example: At a recent meeting, attended by county and state officials, of a group that deals with the coastal rail corridor, one state official connected to rail—who was not invited there to talk about cars and highways—spoke about the importance of the Highway Department since only two percent of Californians use rail! Does this sound like someone who would fight for more funding for passenger rail? We think not!
When it comes to Measure A 2008, widening Highway 101 received a full measure of funding ($140 million), and was voted to be a priority by the County Supervisors. On the other hand, commuter rail was cut 80 percent from the rail-study estimate, receiving only $25 million. This leaves the best hope in the near future for commuter rail to the re-timing of a couple of Amtrak trains. And judging by the tone of remarks by the rail official and others at that recent meeting, we shouldn’t hold our breath—but we won’t be silent.
You’ve heard a few words from Mumford, along with our thoughts and observations, so now let us paint you a picture of the future:
The county budget is in trouble, the state budget is in trouble, and we hear daily about the federal budget and its challenges. While the Federal Stimulus Package was to help improve our infrastructure (and SBCAG has applied for a share) it’s been slow in manifesting any of the jobs or projects as advertised. That includes projects required for Measure A’s commuter rail service.
It’s clear that the recession is having an effect on projected funding going forward. A couple of snippets from the staff report for the March 4 meeting of the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC), where the Measure A Strategic Plan is being formulated, will give you a sense of the challenges:
* “The paradox of funding the highest priority project costing over $500 million (101 widening) with 22% of annual revenues so as not to interrupt an annual cash flow to local programs receiving 78% of annual revenue required that the … team examine seven cash flow scenarios….”
* “In Section 3 of the Investment Plan it states that a guiding principle used to develop Measure A is ‘Reducing traffic congestion, and improving safety on Highway 101 is our highest priority.’”
What’s being overlooked is the fact that the guiding principle “reducing traffic congestion” is not served by focusing an inordinate amount of resources and energy on “finding the money” for one long-term project, namely widening Highway 101.
We would like to see traffic congestion dealt with sooner than later, and it’s becoming clear that widening Highway 101 is not going to accomplish that any time soon. Not only that, but the decades of road construction to widen 101 will create more congestion.
Currently motorists on Highway 101 must traverse the chicane-like road layout south of Milpas, which borders on treacherous and definitely slows traffic.
On the other hand, the rail infrastructure is ready and waiting, and retiming the #799 and #798 Surfliner trains would bring the commuter rail option to the South Coast now.
Commuter rail is being used throughout the nation: Metrolink to the south, RailRunner in Albuquerque, and Tri-Met’s WES outside Portland, Oregon, are examples. Browse the Coastal Rail Now website to see details about these and other commuter rail services around the country.
The use of rail as mitigation for road construction’s added congestion on the 101, especially during commute times, was first suggested by Warren Weber, former head of Caltrans Rail Division. We continue to lobby for this as a way to help fund commuter rail. There is precedent: Rail as mitigation has been used in the Altamont Pass in Northern California to provide an alternative to driving during road construction. Political leadership is needed to go forward with this not out-of-the-box strategy.
It’s important to note that the 35th Assembly District election is coming up in June. This important regional office is currently held by Pedro Nava, a big supporter of commuter rail who has been termed out of office. Since the district covers parts of both Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, it’s vital that candidates are queried about regional transportation and about how important it is for the South Coast Region to have peak-hour train service.
In closing, one and all are invited to join the celebration of Amtrak’s Third Annual National Train Day event at the Santa Barbara Train Station on May 8th. You’ll have the opportunity to ride the Surfliner to Carpinteria, and join celebrants from the Ventura area on the northbound #799 back to Santa Barbara. Departure south will be at 9:20 a.m., with return to Santa Barbara at 10:12 a.m. There’ll be a press conference where you can ask officials from both counties when we can expect to have peak-hour rail service. Wouldn’t it be great to get people to Santa Barbara without their cars? That’s a goal worth pursuing!
Roger Horton is a former Santa Barbara City Councilmember. Dennis Story is the chair of CoastalRailNow.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Thank you for writing this visionary piece and how Measure A funding could be used now to alleviate traffic woes caused in part by commuter during peak-travel times.
Over 18,000 (or 72% of ) UCSB-commuters typically commute by UCSB-vanpools or MTD-buses or Carpool or Bike or Walk or Scoot or Skate or use one of the excellent Measure A-subsidized Long-Distance Bus Services such as the Coastal Express (Ventura/Oxnard) or Clean Air Express (Santa Maria/Lompoc) or MTD Valley Express (Solvang/Buellton).
We at UCSB provide a FREE taxi-shuttle to UCSB's Amtrak train-commuters in need of a lift between the Goleta Amtrak station and the UCSB campus. Hundreds of commuters and visitors from the north and south who work or shop or visit our community, eagerly await affordable commuter rail service that reliably delivers commuters to our County, on-time, during typical commute hours.
James Wagner
Program Manager
UCSB Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
http://tap.ucsb.edu
yojamey (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A system like this and more is long, long overdue for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. It would be nice to have an affordable wine country rail as well to help cut down on the tasting and driving...
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A few months ago SBCAG diverted $1.5 million from the highway widening project to the suicide barrier on the Cold Spring Bridge (which is now projected to cost $4 million). Now they're worried about running out of money for the highway widening project.
Is this stupidity or corruption?
Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In this time of budget cuts and using what we have more effectively, it's ludicirous to be putting over a half a billion dollars into a road project that won't produce results for 20 years!
This is the times to turn the corner on pouring money into a road project that doesn't pencil out. We have the power to change course.
If the Supervisors expect people will wait 20 years for congestion relief, when rail can do it quicker and cheaper, then it's time for a change at election time.
The $400 million+ savings could go a long way toward other needs!
GlennYago (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks very much for this insightful look at traffic congestion on the South Coast. It is great to see people who understand this issue are willing to take the time to write about it. The South Coast has been asking for improved rail service to Ventura for years, and the Supervisors have accomplished nothing. The freeway widening will create a horrific traffic jam for years at enormous expense. Pedro Nava may have talked about rail. The Supervisors have talked about it too. But what have any of them done? Little to nothing. Other communities have put rail into operation in a relatively short time. We have a viable project, but all we get is talk. Until the Supervisors recognize the need to prioritize rail, little is going to happen. It is cost-effective. It will help relieve congestion and give the public a good alternative to bringing their cars into SB. The problem is very simple. The Supervisors are not doing it.
Robertson (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where are you going to put the tracks? There is not enough room in the rail corridor. Further, how are you going to build these tracks without the cooperation of RR companies who have shown no interest in a commuter line through SB and Ventura counties?
lmeoriole (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are no new tracks needed for commuter rail, other than a siding or 2 between Santa Barbara and Ventura. Union Pacific Railroad owns the rail corridor, and will continue to show no interest in allowing for commuter rail service as long as our elected leadership shows no interest. As the article points out, electeds are busy finding a half a billion dollars for a road project to be delivered in 20 years (when they could have rail in 3-4 years). This is because the elected leadership only has an interest in building roads. One can only imagine that the money trail leads to the paving and construction interests who stand to gain from the road work.
GlennYago (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not all the trains in the world will reduce traffic on the 101. Get real people.
DanVac (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"All the trains in the world" is quite a lot of trains, and even just a few more of them would help relieve freeway congestion and help employers and business with getting their employees to work on time.
While the Star Fleet Transporter would make a better commuter transportation method, for now in the 21st Century a few more passenger trains and rescheduled Pacific Surfliner would be fine.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 16, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's interesting that SoCal (and other areas) have built lane after lane, reaching 10-12 lanes in places, and can still be one big gridlock at peak hours. Rail corridors with 1 or 2 tracks can simply be scaled up with more cars per train to carry whatever the demand is. The future problem with Santa Barbara is that when capacity of 101 is increased to 3 lanes each way, more people will chose to drive, and the 3 lanes north of Milpas will need to be widened to 4 lanes. Imagine that scenerio! That's what the studies show, and you already see the choke points at Los Positas and Fairview during peak drive times.
GlennYago (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rail, as proposed is not going to make a difference. First, Amtrak, except in the Northeast Corridor, does not provide commuter rail. "Retiming" for Santa Barbara is out. And if we retime for Santa Barbara, we "untime" for some other community.
The simple fact is 101 is a major North-South connector that needs three lanes from the Ventura County line to past Goleta. Should have been done years ago. If commuters are the problem, why does 101 back up every weekend?
And we need rail. But Metrolink is the answer, not Amtrak. And it will take forever, because the UP railroad has no interest in helping.
Tigershark (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Metrolink may be the future provider of commuter rail between Ventura County and Santa Barbara, but for starters retiming the Surfliner 798 & 799 will work.
The study for different scenarios has been done:
http://www.sbcag.org/PDFs/publication...
It's simple enough to understand that if government leaderhip is not interested in commuter rail, then UPRR will have no interest. You have to step up and ask for what you want, that's how commuter rail has gotten this far.
As for 101 widening, it looks like it could well take 20+ years to deliver it, and if congestion relief at commute hours is to happen any sooner, then rail is the way.
Thursday's SBCAG meeting showed that Supervisors are not happy with the Measure A Strategic Plan, which would not deliver many promised local projects till after 101 widening. For one Goleta project, that's 2027!
The answer is to either remove the priority status for delivering 101 widening, or to not widen 101 beyond what is being completed with 101 Improvements.
That would free up funds for much needed local projects all over the county. 101 congestion at commute hours can then be addressed with commuter rail that (according to the study) can be delivered in a few short years, .
So the third lane is a train, if you want congestion relief anytime soon..... like in my lifetime........how about you?
GlennYago (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this was a very well-written and well thought out letter.
But unfortunately, I think that in order to have a light rail system, you have to have a population that is willing to use it. And even though I realize a lot of people SAY they will use it, the fact is that it hasn't been built. It's not available yet.
I think that the reality would be very similar to other areas of California in that we just love our cars too much. I've no doubt that a rail system would be used. It definitely would, but not by a large enough amount of people to make a huge impact.
I'm not saying don't build it. I'd love to have it. I just don't have any delusions that it would do anything at all to mitigate freeway or surface congestion.
As for the freeway, even if it took three years (let alone 10-20) to complete we'd still have so much more traffic by then that it would be just catching up. It's not a solution either, but it's better than two lanes, I guess.
Native1 (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To clarify, the Union Pacific rail corridor that the Surfliner uses, and future commuter rail service would operate on, is called "heavy rail". Smaller gauge "light rail" is generally found in an urban setting, like the Blue Line and Red Line in LA.
I've heard it said that people just love their cars too much, but think it has more to do with Stockholm Syndrome.
However, there may be help coming for those held hostage. The county's RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) just squeaked through without addressing 2009 requirements in AB 32 and SB 375. Next time around (a few short years) it will have a lot to answer for, i.e. the car will not be king......think rail!
GlennYago (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Metrolink is a good solution. Since nobody in SB benefits from it, which I think is sad, I can attest to the fact that those trains are packed, daily, with commuters who make the trek from Ventura County to Los Angeles every day. There are 3 peak hour trains each day, and there probably could be a couple more. There are also several non-peak hour trains that will get you back into Ventura County from LA, but then you would be stuck in Simi Valley or Moorpark. Anyhow, Metrolink is great. It is not as expensive as driving/parking (where paid parking is your only option at the other end) and its more relaxing than driving a car to LA, or to SB. Its also a way to meet interesting people and enjoy the ride.
theresathefarmer (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2010 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)