Posted 06 December 2011 - 07:33 PM
OK, now for my opinion. I happen to be a fan of excursion trains, having ridden some of the best, including the Combres and Toltec (NM and CO), Georgetown Loop (CO), Durango-Silverton, one of the best in the world, the one in Santa Cruz, as well as the Sacramento River train, the one in Woodland, the Folsom run from Iron Point to White Rock and, of course, the Zoo Train. I've also biked on some great rails-to-trails, such as the Biz Johnson trail in Susanville, the Little Miami Trail in Ohio and the existing portions of the El Dorado Trail (I designed part of it, too), all of which were constructed after removing the rails.
I think the idea of rails with trails is great (one reason is because it allows bicyclists to combine a bike ride and train ride to double their range; people do it using light rail to Folsom all the time; I did it with the Durango-Silverton). But I also think that it's important to recognize that, as has been pointed out already, building a bike path alongside the existing tracks will be significantly more expensive than building along the rail bed because of the terrain in the foothills. The trails in Folsom built alongside the tracks did not have to deal with the terrain constraints found in many places along the SPTC corridor.
One of my pet peeves with this whole decision-making process is that no-one has done a basic feasibility study to put some real numbers on these costs (and ditto for the financial viability of an excursion rail). So we have folks trying to make significant decisions about a 30-mile corridor without much in the way of data.
Another thing I think is generally missing from this discussion, although one person mentioned it, is that the proposed compromise would remove portions of the rails (between Latrobe and Shingle Springs, while still leaving significant chunks of track for the proposed excursion trains from Folsom and El Dorado. The question that has to be asked is, is it realistic to expect excursion trains to run over a distance of nearly 30 miles, particularly given the fact that the two railroad groups have been working at this for nearly 20 years and still do not have scheduled service? Granted, there are long excursion train routes -- the D-S has 46 miles of track they use -- but most excursion trains are only a couple of miles long. Is it really necessary to tie up long sections of track that will not realistically ever carry trains, at great expense to a multi-use path of national significance (because it will be both part of the CA cross-state trail and the Western Express bike touring route).?
As for usage, there is no question that a bike path would be dramatically more heavily used than an excursion train (see my other reply), if for no other reason than availability and cost. An excursion train, at best, will have several runs a day on weekends, and maybe, a couple on weekdays. Multi-use paths get used by walkers, joggers, bicyclists, equestrians and people in wheelchairs from before sunrise to after sunset 365 days a year. And while a train certainly has the potential to get some people farther along than they might on foot or in a wheelchair, most excursion trains travel slower than casual bicyclists, so a multi-use path would provide many more people the opportunity to see more of the corridor than an excursion train (or even two). Many people who use the trails, use them several times a week (I use them 5 to 7 times a week). Most people will only ride an excursion train once or twice.
As for economic benefit, I'm sure both have the potential, and I am aware of several studies documenting the economic benefits of paths. So, this is at best a toss-up. Both would be better than just one. Anecdotally, my brother is part owner of a bar/restaurant in Loveland, OH that relies heavily on traffic on the adjacent rail-to-trail. Ask Karen Holmes or the owners of the Sutter St. Grille if the ARP brings in any business.
Yes, I think the rails should be preserved...in part. I am not convinced that there is good reason to keep them all the way from Folsom to Missouri Flat Road, just in case sometime in the distant future there might possibly if folks are really lucky be an excursion train that wants to get longer, at great additional cost to construction of what will be a spectacular doubling of the American River Parkway. Check out the portions that are built already from Missouri Flat to Forni Road (where the existing RR bridge was converted to trail use) and from Placerville to Camino. They are fabulous to walk or ride, and many, many people do it every day. Again, I think having both, for portions of the corridor would be great, and may even help in obtaining funding, but a real feasibility study needs to be done in order to make some informed decisions. And I suspect that would show that the certain segments of the rails would best be removed, while others should be saved...something like the compromise on the table.
Final note, it should be noted that there are very few places for a safe family bike ride on the western slope of El Dorado County. The SPTC is a spectacular opportunity.