94 replies to this topic

[caligirlz]

I disagree. Everyone I know moving into Folsom is moving here because of the trail. Although many of us have gone to the train museum downtown, I don't know anyone who has ridden the train. I know plenty of people who use the trail, and those who come down the 80 and 50 corridors to use the trail. Maybe it's just a generation gap between us.

Not me, while the trails are nice, really nice, it was way down on the list of my reasons to move to Folsom. Proximity to job was number 1.

[eVader]

Isn't there already an excursion train in Folsom over near city hall?

Seriously?!? This comment and the ride to LT

[chris v]

Seriously?!? This comment and the ride to LT

Ughhh, sarcasm for the excursion train.

Serious for the ride to Lake Tahoe. Why not?

[Carl G]

Ughhh, sarcasm for the excursion train.

Serious for the ride to Lake Tahoe. Why not?

Chris - what are your feelings about sharing the rails. Where space is available, build a path next to it. Where space is not available, find another path for the bike path.
Some places sharing the rails would not be possible while others would be pretty easy.

[Howdy]

People keep mentioning riding to Tahoe. I thought these tracks only went as far as placerville? How are you going to get the other 60 miles from placerville to tahoe? Take the back roads? Why not just ride to back roads from Folsom to Placerville. Make the right at MIT, over to 88, 89 and drop into Meyers? People are riding these routes all the time during the summer. Why tear out the only set of tracks that go up that way when there are probably 3 or 4 different roads the bike riders already use to get up there to placerville.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Funny this thread showed up. I've been traveling and haven't been here for a few days but on my flight last night I got it into my head that there's a great opportunity for the old rails in Folsom.

Here's my idea:

With the South of 50 building yet to commence, why not use the existing rails to run a trolley line between Bel-Air/Home Depot/Palladio shopping centers and the new residential area to be built? Half the track is already laid. It would be so nice for future residents in the South of 50 area to not HAVE to get in there car to go a mile to the stores.

[ducky]

People keep mentioning riding to Tahoe. I thought these tracks only went as far as placerville? How are you going to get the other 60 miles from placerville to tahoe? Take the back roads? Why not just ride to back roads from Folsom to Placerville. Make the right at MIT, over to 88, 89 and drop into Meyers? People are riding these routes all the time during the summer. Why tear out the only set of tracks that go up that way when there are probably 3 or 4 different roads the bike riders already use to get up there to placerville.

That's another good point. The bicyclists would probably only take advantage of the trails in good weather. A train wouldn't be hampered by snow, ice, or rain.

[Folsom_Blues]

That's another good point. The bicyclists would probably only take advantage of the trails in good weather. A train wouldn't be hampered by snow, ice, or rain.

Cyclists aren't hampered either...
http://www.icebike.org/

[ducky]

Cyclists aren't hampered either...
http://www.icebike.org/

Thanks for the info. Loved this quote: "Maybe you just found this web site while looking for something else. If so about now you are wondering just how crazy these folks are. Plenty!"

Doesn't really appeal to me. Wonder what percentage of the population would actually do this in bad weather? I know even around here in the lowlands if it's raining or cold, I pretty much have the trails to myself as a jogger.

[granto]

Belonging to both Rails to Trails and a Railroad preservation group, I can see both sides. Rails to trails offers a way to experience trails that follow a unique path and if done correctly (unlike sections of the Placerville trail) follow the railroad engineering of 2% maximum grades. Excursion trains brings visitors and revenue to the community.

For the most part, both could co-exist on this corridor as it is pretty wide in most areas and the bike trail can create its own path where there is not room. Excursion trains do not run all that often and don't move that fast. I doubt there will ever be enough population along this corridor for light rail.

"Why can't we all just get along?". It comes down to politics, money, and the frickin regulations (ADA, federal/state railroad rules). Doubt that the planets will align on this, some group is going to lose.

But it sure would be nice to ride a bike to Placerville and see a few trains along the way, or ride a train and see bike-riders along the route.

[SunshineServices]

Went to the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad Santa Train in Folsom today. Great ride. Met some bicyclists. Everyone got along, and nobody wanted to tear up the tracks. Great times!

[tony]

People keep mentioning riding to Tahoe. I thought these tracks only went as far as Placerville? How are you going to get the other 60 miles from Placerville to Tahoe? Take the back roads? Why not just ride to back roads from Folsom to Placerville. Make the right at MIT, over to 88, 89 and drop into Meyers? People are riding these routes all the time during the summer.

Indeed, the SPTC corridor goes only as far as Placerville, but the old Michigan-California RR ROW goes to Camino, and most of this portion has already been built as a paved, Class I path (if I recall correctly, tracks were salvaged long before the path was built along the RR bed). The CA Cross State Bicycle Route Study (warning: 7MB pdf) identifies two route options beyond Camino. Neither is a Class I path. The first follows Carson Road and the Pony Express Trail (some places the existing road, some places the actual dirt trail) and would combine portions of a couple of other back roads and existing dirt trails. The second would, as you suggested, follow Sly Park Road and Mormon Immigrant Trail to Hwy 88, with improvements done to both (MIT is currently pretty good to ride; Sly park Road, not so much). So, in either case, the goal is not really a paved path all the way to Tahoe, it's a combination of off-street and on-street routes, some of which already exist.

Why tear out the only set of tracks that go up that way when there are probably 3 or 4 different roads the bike riders already use to get up there to Placerville.

The main reason is that for the 30 miles from Folsom to Placerville, the existing roads that cyclists use have ever-increasing traffic and are not suitable for most cyclists (the vast majority who won't ride on them now). The question is: beyond the two segments where excursion rail has a fighting chance of getting off the ground in the next 20 years, why subject the bike path to significantly higher construction costs (which, without a feasibility study, no-one knows how significant) over those segments where excursion rail is unlikely to happen within 20 years, if ever? Given that the primary cost of a trail using the RR bed is paving, which generally needs to be replaced every 20 years or so, why not take the chance of building on the RR bed in areas between the two immediately proposed excursion trains, and if the trains end up being wildly successful and are financially ready to expand in between, then at that time you find the money to reconstruct the trail on a parallel alignment, and put the salvaged tracks back in.

If you build the bike path, it will be wildly successful (100s of thousands of users per year, if not millions like the ARP) and used 7 days a week, 12+ hours per day, 365 days a year (minus a couple for really bad weather). You only have to look as far as the completed portions of the trail to see that. Why would you hold this hostage for the potential to run a 30-mile excursion train, when the RR groups currently only have plans to run on a fraction of that? The compromise proposed seems to me a pretty good compromise for all.

[tulip95630]

The rails pass by two residential areas in Folsom and one of them is mine (a section of Prairie Oaks, between Riley and East Bidwell). That train is very, very loud and should not be allowed to run so close to residential areas. I'm sorry about that, because otherwise it would be nice.
There is also a safety concern. There are no substantial fences between the track and the bike path near our house. Who is going to repair the fences around the track? Of course, children should know better than to play on railroad tracks and no fence could really keep off a determined child, but there needs to be something substantial enough to make children stop and think before they get on the tracks.
I'm curious, how do they cross major streets like East Bidwell and Riley? There were some huge horn blasts soon after they passed our house (at around 5:45 pm on Memorial Day) and I wondered if they were connected to the train.

[chris v]

I love how because you support the train that tulip95630's opinion is completely discarded. Oh, its no big deal, dont worry about that noise you dont really hear it. Maybe the train is loud to her and a distraction. Who are you to say that it doesn't bother her. And then later in your argument you state that it is a slow moving noisy train. So... What is it? Smoke a little more...