(UPDATE 6/28: The second paragraph in this original post inaccurately implies that members of the Timber Heritage Association “agreed” on the final Bay Trail Plan.
By “we” I was referring to the Bay Trail Advocates alone. By the time the plan was finalized, Don Banducci, a long-time member of THA, had joined Bay Trail Advocates as well.
I apologize for any misunderstanding. A updated, more complete version of this column appears in this week’s Journal and on the website here.)
We have a plan — please help Tuesday
(This is a preview of a column by Journal Publisher Judy Hodgson that will be updated after the supervisors meet and run in the next edition of the Journal.)
I’ve been busier than usual these past four months on a project not related to the Journal.
In March I joined Dennis Rael (co-owner of Los Bagels) and Rees Hughes (a retired HSU administrator) to form the Bay Trail Advocates. We began meeting regularly with three other people: the president of the Timber Heritage Association and two other Timber Heritage board members. Our meetings were informal and unofficial. We had one purpose: to see if we could find enough common ground to put a plan on paper with goals we could all support — a plan based in reality. In other words, at every step we asked, “Can we find money to do this?”
Our motto became: “We love trails and trains — and we have a plan.”
The Bay Trail Plan includes three things we support: Timber Heritage Association’s proposed Redwood Heritage Museum, a tourist train between Samoa and Arcata, and a multi-modal, paved bicycle and pedestrian trail around northern Humboldt Bay.
The trail would start in Eureka behind Target, run north along the waterfront through Arcata and end at Timber Heritage’s leased property behind the Samoa Cookhouse, where historic train and logging equipment is currently stored. The trail could be built within the North Coast Railroad Authority’s right-of-way, possibly beside the rail line, which has not been used or maintained in 15 years.
The key to museum/tourist train/trail plan is the 1983 federal law that allows unused rail corridors like ours to be “railbanked” — saved for future passenger and freight train use forever. But in the interim, the property can be used for a trail or a tourist train.
If you travel much outside Humboldt County, you will see hundreds of communities across the nation that have used this law for rails-to-trails and rails-with-trails projects. A good source of information is the Rails-to-Trail Conservancy, www.railstotrails.org. You will also see there are now more than 30 examples of the return of freight service.
In 2007, the Humboldt County Association of Governments commissioned a study on how to create a Humboldt Bay Trail between Arcata and Eureka, a “highest priority” link in the California Coastal Trail. That study has been sitting on the shelf for five years. Option Four is a blueprint on how to create this trail relatively soon for a price we can afford: $4 million.
In addition to meeting regularly with some Timber Heritage folks, we started seeking advice from the staff of the cities of Eureka and Arcata, Humboldt County, the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG), Caltrans, the Harbor District, the Coastal Commission — and other potential stakeholders. We began reaching out to community groups that could be affected by this plan. Finally, we began lobbying our elected officials in Eureka and Arcata, and our Humboldt County supervisors, one-on-one.
We are asking Humboldt County supervisors to cast an important vote on Tuesday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. We are requesting that they send a letter to the North Coast Railroad Authority asking the NCRA board to form a committee of stakeholders to study railbanking and bring back recommendations in four months — in November.
This is not an issue of freight vs. trails. Trails are an interim use for railbanked lines. To use the right-of-way for a trail until the railroad’s private operator, Northwest Pacific Railroad (NWP) has a viable business plan and capital would not be in conflict. When freight service returns, trains have priority. The right-of-way can be shared and the trail relocated alongside.
The upside for those working today on the return of freight service is that the rail corridor would be preserved and maintained, and the line would be kept whole and unfragmented. If we don’t do something to protect these railroad easements, they could revert to private property owners, according to several attorneys who have looked at this issue.
This is an important fork in the road for the Bay Trail Plan. We need to show our supervisors that the community supports a serious look at railbanking and what it could mean.
If you can, please be there Tuesday at 9:30 a.m., Board of Supervisors chambers in the County Courthouse.
For more information and to register support for the Bay Trail Plan, visit: www.baytrailplan.org
This article appears in What’s Organic?.
I understand the tourist train idea because its departure times can be synced with the tides. But… when driving between Arcata and Eureka at low tide, have you opened your window? The air is filled with a scent oddly reminiscent of manure. Do people who want to walk or ride around Humboldt Bay plan to carefully time their excursions, or do they just not know what they’re in for? If I was going to spend $4 million on trails, I’d place the trails in nicer environments closer to people. The Hammond Trail and Arcata Ridge Trail are great examples.
Manure scent is preferable to the money wasted on an idle set of tracks. Shoot – were you living here when the pulp mills were blasting?
I say go for it…..what a waste not to have this accessible to all. I will be really excited to follow the progress on this.
~James Stutsman~
I would wiff fermented vomit if it meant I could safely ride my bike from Arcata to Eureka and not be at peril for losing my life by some idiot who veers into the skinny little bike lane that is now what we are expected to ride on. As gas rises and rises in price, this trail will be essential to people who need to get to work on their own power.
http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/02/17/railbanking-flopping-in-the-courtroom/ is the reason the $4 million tail plan is bogus.
Further, it must be understood the public does not own the land. Easements along the way say “for railroad use only”. A trail is not a railroad use. So the public must buy a new easement as though the railroad never existed. This will cost much more than trail advocates will admit.
THA supports no such plan. These are fabricated lies. The excursion train is not financially viable unless it is all the way around the bay into Eureka. Don’t believe these lies. The federal courts have deemed Railbanking as unconstitutional and a violation of property owners rights. This is another attempt to keep Humboldt undeveloped. This is not “sustainable Development” This is a small minority of special interests pushing their agenda. These people will do or say anything to get their way. DO NOT BELIEVE THESE LIES!!!!
I didn’t say the THA supported the Bay Trail Plan, so Theodore, please stick to facts. I said some of its members — Don Banducci among them — worked with us to draft a common visions — a list of things we’d like to see happen. That would be a trail, tourist train and yes, we support THA’s proposed museum. Don is a long-time member of THA and now officially a member the Bay Trail Advocates. And we welcome him.
Lawrence LaBranche hates the Gay community
http://capdiamont.wordpress.com/tag/same-sex-marriage/
The NCRA is a complete joke
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2011/sep/2/north-coast-railroad-authority/
Good luck reasoning with those deniers Judy
It seems trail advocates will stop at nothing with their lies. This times, they are claiming to speak for THA.
No I do not hate the homosexual community. Nor will I be silenced.
Now, Judy…. THA plans have always been to have the tourist train around the entire bay. That has never changed. Don has not been speaking with the board, and cannot speak for the board, or the president. By including THA like you did, you mislead folks in to believing THA supports the proposed railbanking. It does not, nor to the vast majority of THA from what I have seen. I am not a board member or president.
What else could we do with 4 million?
personal insults aside this is a good plan. Regardless of any possible merits of a tourist train around the bay it is time to move on. It has been too long for this right of way to lie dormant. The trail can be done now and there is no time frame for the train.
And yes I know Lawrence will resort to bashing me. But I ask him here to address the issues and not the people involved.
Mike, the speeder can be run on the tracks today, just by clearing the brush and trees. No track improvements are needed. I have traveled on the speeder from the Arcata Marsh to the lumber company just North of Eureka not long ago. This is the lowest cost way to preserve the right of way. It is also the only fully legal, and constitutionally proposed way.
With all due respect Judy, I am stating facts. Let me also note, that I fully respect the passion and tenacity the trails folks have shown in advocating for this project. And I am pleased to hear that you support THA’s proposed museum and excursion train. they are a great bunch of people. As I am sure, the folks in your camp are also. So I respectfully ask you to please stick to the facts. Don B. is no longer a board member nor an active member and as such has no right to speak on their behalf. This whole issue lies between the trails folks and NCRA not THA.
what ncj not being truthful? lol, par for the course.
The east west railroad route must be gaining traction, so there is a need to tie up the right of ways. Good move. Why now, all of the sudden?
I still don’t understand why the THA and trail advocates can’t find common ground here… can’t we simply have some type of document that guarantee’s the railroad right of way upon it’s glorious return?
We know it’s not happening anytime soon, so why not enjoy a trail right now?
1. Read the plan itself at http://www.baytrailplan.org — especially “Railbanking FAQs.” You’ll see three attorneys (Eureka attorney Phil Arnot, who researched those easements for Eureka Southern; NCRA’s attorney, and HCAOG’s special railbanking attorny) pretty much in agreement about what could happen if the line is not railbanked. 2. Why now all of a sudden? The line’s been down 15 years. The 2007 plan is now five years old. Remember all the those telling us the Eel River Canyon would be open by 2009, 2011 … If anyone wants to discuss off-blog, my email’s readily available.
THEODOR WOODINGS said:
“This is another attempt to keep Humboldt undeveloped”
I’m so sick of this argument, is that the best your can scrounge up!?!
If Woodings and the homophobe LaBranche are typical members, that’s a sad statement about Timber Heritage.
And the east west railroad route “gaining traction”? Good luck with that.
JJ: When some of the supporters are the same ones who fight tooth and nail against the railroad, and are suing the railroad, Caltrans, etc, then yes it does apply.
Jody: There are business, labor, and other community leaders hashing out a plan to restore and operate the railroad. We do not have to have the canyon running in order to have a viable railroad around the bay. There is no danger to losing the railroad to landowners. The various speeder runs by various groups, not just by THA help satisfy this requirement. Strangely these same people have fought against the speeder runs. There has never been a loss of land to landowners until the railroad has deliberately abandoned their right of way. We have control of the railroad in this case. There has been railroads who have disused their right of way for twenty-five years, and were able to resume trains, after the required maintenance.
I’m convinced now that nobody here has gotten a whiff of the bay at low tide.
AG: Did you know that some people already bicycle by the bay daily? I’ve seen ’em!
AG: I have walked on the mud in the middle of the bay, a long time ago. So I do know that smell. I don’t find it bad. Also the windows on the train are usually closed. The ones in the past were not open-able.
Jody: The line has been used for railroad purposes since it was closed.
The way I see it, a tourist train twice year is much less important than a bay trail that can be used 365 days a year. If I had to choose between train and trail, train takes second place.
The tourist train will be running more than “twice a year”. In the past it was more than “twice a year”
Lawrence, I’m not questioning the train. I presume the wind usually blows south-east carrying the stench away from the Samoa side because I don’t smell it. I usually take that route to Eureka to avoid the stink, because I do usually drive with my window down, or at least cracked. But speaking to your issue, you can easily time the train rides to avoid low tide.
Ryan, ya, I know a few people ride around the bay. So, widen the bike lane. That’s got to cost a lot less than $4 million and serve the few people riding bikes for their daily commute.
How many times a year is the train currently running Lawrence?
As for the stench argument: the Arcata Marsh and water treatment ponds frequently have an odor about them, yet many people use the trails to run, bike, walk, watch birds, etc. I would use the bay trail regularly, no matter what it smelled like.
Please attend the Board of Supervisors meeting this Tuesday, June 26th at 9:30 to express your support!
Kind of sheds light on the NCJ’s bashing of the rail all these years….all well and good…just try and present yourselves as an unbiased news source when you are a biased advocacy rag.
The “bashing” of the NCRA by various NCJ writers has been well-deserved, and the recent “bashing” of the east-west fantasy railroad was a good piece of journalism.
what I find interesting is the publisher didn’t cite the 2011 Humboldt County Coastal Trail Implementation Strategy that clearly states the “rails WITH trails” approval from the NCRA is already part of the plan for around the bay. This is also driven by DFG being unwilling to allow public access to the levee system for trails.
http://naturalresourcesservices.org/cct.html
Joel,
It was an advocacy piece, not an independent, unbiased story. Just look at the headline, and the constant derisive tone that the NCJ takes whenever speaking of the railroad; hell, look at your term of it being a “fantasy”.
Is it a fantasy? Maybe, pushing the mesage that it is helps Judy’s pet project, the trail/railbanking.
Just because you say the bashing has been “well deserved” doesnt make it so in all cases.
It certainly was an independent story, but “unbiased” typically means reporting that one agrees with. And if you think that Mr. Burns was trying to write favorably of “Judy’s pet project,” then you obviously don’t know much about him.
Sorry Joel, but a decade of anti rail bias has been shown by by the NCJ. Thats an opinion backed up by ample evidence, including the last article about choo choo fantasies.
Maybe the fact that you’re an NCJ cartoonist and these folks are your peers and or friends blinds you to this bias.
“Joel Mielke The anti-trail train nuts will be there.
Yesterday at 2:13pm · Like”
Ah yes, Joel, the standard of objectivity.
I didn’t say that NCJ writers are unbiased. Their discrimination is based upon the incompetence and malign neglect of the NCRA over many years, the loony confidence of oddballs like Mr. Barnum, and the demonstrably false arguments recently put forward by the east-west rail schemers.
“loony confidence of oddballs like Mr. Barnum”
Are you referring to local attorney Bill Barnum?
“Loony”? “Oddball”??
Are you fucking serious, Joel? You are biased beyond credibility. Hey, I know, why don’t you draw another funny cartoon with a dog shitting in Eureka.
Facts are that an east west rail would put a monkeywrench in the trail that Judy and her biased writers at the NCJ are proponents of.
Unrelated but – why is it that EVERY fucking TIME Bob Doran posts something online it FUCKS up the blogthing?
JEEBUS people.
Of course I’m “biased.” I’m posting an opinion. And instead of whining about NCJ writers editorializing, why don’t you argue with the facts that they’ve presented?
Joel, the facts are so misconstrued, as to be unrecognizable.
Thanks for your impressive lack of effort, but as I said, why don’t you argue with the facts that they’ve presented?