Why did NRG throw its hat in the ring? Well, it’s our Mission to promote & improve the parks & pathways in Aptos.

Turns out all 3 of Santa Cruz County’s primary transportation corridors converge in Aptos! This positions Aptos as either a chokepoint, a hub, or both. NRG’s Vision is one of Aptos as a healthy, interconnected hub.

Plus, we think people here in the community should get along, not bicker! After all, you can’t spell community without unity! ✌️🤝👍

Really - NRG has always been neutral on the rail corridor and has always advocated for bipartisan collaboration.

NRG encourages diverse perspective within our supporter base, board of directors, and advisory board. In fact, NRG’s boards include board members of both FORT and Greenway.

It’s kind of obvious that the city of Santa Cruz would benefit most from trail-only and the city of Watsonville would benefit most from rail development.

Here in unincorporated Aptos, we’re at the center of it all. We’re choked by converging transportation corridors, sorely lacking in basic accommodations for pedestrians & cyclists, and would clearly benefit from both trail AND rail transit.

But something’s gotta give. In order to back down from trail-only development, we have to give up freight.

*Stay tuned for the answer!

*Stay tuned for the answer!

Of course!

Well, I mean, that is as long as we plan for that. It’s unlikely the tracks would ever come back if removed for trail-only development.

But if we don’t railbank, developing light rail transit would be complicated by the active freight line. For example, FRA wouldn’t permit streeetcars, trams, or trolleys to operate on the tracks at all!

So let’s deactivate freight, railbank the corridor, and develop trail & transit!

*Stay tuned for the answer!

According to SCCRTC, “Another freight operator can make an Offer of Financial Assistance (OFA) to maintain the line and assume the legal obligation to provide freight service. A freight rail customer or the owner of a potential stranded line would have grounds to object to abandonment and railbanking. The STB will not refuse to issue a railbanking order based on third-party objections about the desirability or appropriateness of the proposed use.”

Since there are currently no active freight rail customers north of Watsonville and Roaring camp is the only owner of a potentially stranded line, this means that Roaring Camp is the only entity with legal grounds to object to railbanking. Doesn’t really matter how much the public kicks & screams one way or another - the fate of the rail corridor rests between SCCRTC, Progressive Rail, and Roaring Camp. Since Progressive Rail has previously expressed intent to abandon, it’s really SCCRTC & Roaring Camp that need to come together here.

“The best path to railbanking is to have the mutual support of all affected parties, including the freight operator, affected freight customers, and owners of potential stranded lines.”

NRG is a nonpartisan nonprofit and has no financial motives here, and our support for trail+transit is independent of railbanking.

Accusations against Greenway have claimed that “they” would get a big payout from the federal government if the corridor is railbanked. These claims have never been substantiated or (more importantly) quantified.

Accusations against rail transit supporters have claimed that “they” are backed by wealthy developers that would exploit transit to build new high density development for a big profit. No evidence has been provided to legitimize this claim.

Accusations against freight preservationists have claimed that, wait, no… these aren’t accusations these are assertions by the preservationists themselves! Retaining active freight would financially benefit Roaring Camp and other local businesses by expanding or reducing cost of their operation.

Wow, I appreciate your candor. I don’t really hear anyone legitimately proposing this, but I suspect there may be a number of influential NIMBYs & BANANAs behind the scenes here.

Santa Cruz has long been characterized as “anti-development,” so this isn’t an unreasonable suspicion. “If you don’t build it, they won’t come.” Still, it would be a wildly unpopular position to oppose development of the rail corridor.

So, how might a covert NIMBY support this agenda? Well, fanning the flames of endless debate might keep the corridor perpetually ensnarled.