1. Needed repairs of local streets and roads.
2. Improvements to the Santa Cruz Branch Line Rail corridor, including design and construction of a rail trail lying mainly adjacent to the rail tracks, and implementation of passenger rail service for either recreational or commute purposes.
3. Improvement and enhancement of our county-wide bus system.
4. Improved infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians.
5. Other measures aimed at reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), especially for single-occupant vehicles, so as to address global warming issues (CO₂ emissions, in particular).

Please indicate how you would prioritize projects as categorized above. Please express your reasoning.

CeCe Pinheiro: I think if we focus on the rail corridor first, and 2nd fix the local streets and roads in need of repair, the rest will work itself out. It is not feasible to focus on more than 2 projects and actually get anything done.

Steve Pleich: d, c, b, a, e.

Don Lane: I would pretty much prioritize them in the order listed. I might move D up a notch and take B down a notch. I think the rail trail is important but should not automatically be rated higher than other bike and pedestrian improvements that might be equally effective and not be as costly. I do think repair of existing local roads is essential because it serves most transportation modes and is in very poor condition. Waiting to do this work will cause us to spend even more later.

Micah Posner: b, d, e, c, a.
Bike/Ped projects have the most most bang for the buck and have a strong community of advocates behind them. The Rail Trail is the most exciting of these projects and will encourage other projects radiating from it. While I unequivocally support spending more money on the bus system, it primarily acts as a safety net and does not do a very effective job of changing land use patterns so as to encourage more biking and walking. Cycling, pedestrian, and train projects are far more effective at changing land use patterns. Cycling and pedestrian projects are also a lot cheaper than more buses. I entirely support repairs to local roads.

Because I support all of the above projects, the way I would prioritize any of them at any given moment will likely be determined by tactical considerations and potential alliances with other partners.

Pamela Comstock: In regards to transportation projects, my highest priority is local street and road repairs. Our roads are essential to all of our public use. I support always trying to smartly improve our bus system. Tourist, commuter and commercial use of our rail line and a trail is an important priority, too. This is a regional issue to be collaboratively worked on with all parties. I support the transportation goals of our city's Climate Action Plan and our General Plan 2030 as well as both our city's and county's Bicycle Transportation plans. All of which includes improving infrastructure for peds and cyclists and also other VMT reduction measures.

Jake Fusari: All of these issues to me are of equal importance. I feel that we MUST do all we can to get as many cars off the road as possible. With that we will also need to make it safer out there for bicyclists, like myself, and pedestrians.

Cynthia Mathews: All these areas need continued attention.

I support sustaining the City's commitment to road maintenance, which is important for car and bike safety as well as making economic sense. Long deferred maintenance only gets more and more expensive.

I support improvements to the Rail corridor and rail trail. This is an extremely long-term, very expensive proposition, so it would be reasonable to expect that some segments will be completed before others, and that progress will depend heavily on using local funds to leverage additional outside funds, either public or private/non-profit.

Realistically, the challenge for the metro system—given fiscal and political circumstances at the state and federal level—will be to sustain its core, priority services. New models for operation should be explored to find efficiencies, and stretch the existing dollars farther.

I am personally a dedicated pedestrian, and support continue infrastructure improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians. I believe it is appropriate to dedicate a portion of transportation budget to these non-car facilities, and I have been an active supporter of these over the years including the Beach Street contraflow bike lane, extension of the bike path under Hwy 1 to the Tannery Arts Center, pedestrian bridge over the San Lorenzo River near Hwy 1, handicapped-friendly curb design, among others. These are often expensive, multi-year projects that require cobbling together funding from a variety of sources, but are very much worth doing. Now that the City budget appears to be stabilizing after a decade of crisis, I would also like to see funds restored for filling in missing sidewalks, especially along heavily traveled pedestrian routes.

I support continued City commitment to reducing VMT, many of which are covered in section 5 below.

Richelle Noroyan:
(b). If we are going to be serious about transportation alternatives, creating a rail line for commute purposes that doesn't share the same space as cars is a necessity. Most people will not use a system that takes three times longer and requires waiting 30-45 minutes for a transfer.

(a). Our city roads are in bad shape in many locations. This doesn't work for both cars and bikes. I was saddened by the man who died riding his bike because of a pot hole.

(d). I believe this would encourage more people to ride and walk who are able.

(c). Our poor bus system has been cut continuously. Even when it was funded well or better, it still took me 1.5 hours to get from the west side of Santa Cruz to Cabrillo meaning I was on the bus at least 3 hours a day. I don't know if investing more in the buses without another transportation system for it to coordinate with would be effective at getting people out of their cars.

(e). I am not sure how we would accomplish this. Cities, along with many of our community non-profits have been raising the consciousness of the general population on how to use cars less. I think to see a significant drop in car use, we need a transportation system that doesn't compete with the same space as cars.

CeCe Pinheiro: Yes.

Steve Pleich: Yes, absolutely.

Don Lane: Yes but it still has to be weighed against bus rider needs.

Micah Posner: Yes, I have used it many times, including as part of a walk to my wedding!! I think that, because this is a recreational activity, and because it is such a long trip, it could cost more and people would be happy pay it. A sign on the bus and the metro guide could announce that passengers going past the Hwy 9 corridor would pay $5.00 each. The same price could apply to pick-ups at Waddell Beach.

Pamela Comstock: Again, I will always support improving our bus service, but this needs to be done smartly to make sure money isn't wasted providing costly service that isn't used or can't be subsidized.

Jake Fusari: I would actively support reinstating the weekend service to Big Basin. I would also support any other public transit that had enough demand. I believe that our public transit system in Santa Cruz is terrible. There isn't very many convenient alternatives to driving. You have to be motivated to use alternative transportation and people aren't that motivated.

Cynthia Mathews: The Metro has very serious budget constraints, and must legitimately prioritize optimum use of its most heavily traveled routes, such as the downtown-UCSC route, plus Cabrillo and Watsonville routes. These are the routes many, many people depend on for school and jobs. Exploring some kind of transit to Big Basin would be an appropriate topic for a working group comprised of transit representatives, state parks personnel, and tourism interests. Just as the downtown beach shuttle has demonstrated, a privately funded shuttle could be explored on a limited trial basis.

Richelle Noroyan: I would want to know how many people used this service before reinstating it and if the per person fare charged could pay for the cost of operating this route. Would businesses in SLV want to sponsor a Big Basin bus line?

CeCe Pinheiro: Collaborate with the Cabrillo College Board of Directors to come up with a plan to motivate and inspire their faculty and students to bus or ride. First part of plan is to make alternative transportation a unit-bearing class, you get general education units for participation. Faculty would receive paid days off or something like that.

Steve Pleich: A safe and direct bicycle trail would reduce certainly reduce traffic. Cabrillo already offers bus passes at a reduced rate.

Don Lane: Reduce the cost of bus passes and increase the cost of parking.

Micah Posner: Cabrillo needs to offer free bus passes to students just like UCSC. However, because they built so much parking at public expense, the car parking fees would likely not pay for the entire cost so People Power/ CFST/ the Cabrillo Bike Co-op and other activists would have to attempt to get the students to raise their fees a tiny amount to pay the difference. Offering discounted bus passes is not nearly as effective as giving every student a free pass. Also, Cabrillo should hire RideSpring to encourage staff and faculty to get to the school without cars. Also, bike parking should be scattered around campus as per a plan I helped worked on. Hmmmm, I haven't checked. Maybe it is.

Pamela Comstock: Big picture, I would love to see rail commute with linking bus service.

Jake Fusari: Having been a student at Cabrillo who did take the bus, I realize how difficult it is to get from the Santa Cruz Metro to the Cabrillo campus. I always have said there should be express routes from the metro and a couple other centrally located places that go straight to and from campus a few times a day. This way students can actually set their class schedules around the bus schedule.

Cynthia Mathews: It would probably be good to start with a fresh assessment of students' current commute patterns, needs, and possibilities. UCSC has been successful in decreasing auto trips to campus; a working group of Cabrillo personnel, transit experts an others could take a look at strategies that appear to me most successful, and which are appropriate to Cabrillo's students. I should think that with gas prices going up again., this could provide an increased incentive for students to look for economical alternatives.

Richelle Noroyan: I would encourage Cabrillo to continue using and opening more satellite locations throughout the county. This would cut down on people using the Highway One corridor to get to class.

Many, if not most Cabrillo College students, including faculty are not full time. Most are trying to juggle taking classes in between work and family. Most don't go to campus and stay all day and go home. Pushing the bus on people as a transportation alternative will work best for those who aren't struggling financially and will be a much bigger challenge, if not an impossibility, for cash strapped students. I don't think I could favor raising fees or making parking more difficult because of this. As a former Cabrillo College student who worked 30 hours per week while taking my general education classes, the bus was not a possible option for me. I discovered my first semester it took me 3 hours round trip to use the bus and made getting to my job on time an impossibility. I dropped out of one of my classes to accommodate the bus schedule.

1. Are you familiar with this plan?

   CeCe Pinheiro: Somewhat. I know mostly about the ideas around solar Santa Cruz and the sustainability through public partnerships, education and outreach.

   Steve Pleich: Yes.

   Don Lane: Yes.

   Micah Posner: Yes, I helped to revise it and pushed for its adoption.

   Pamela Comstock: Yes.

   Jake Fusari: I am familiar with the plan and visited it online to review chapter 5, page 46.

   Cynthia Mathews: Yes. The Climate Action Plan is built on at least two decades of cumulative commitment, reflected in countless areas including waste reduction, green building, planning and zoning patterns, bike and pedestrian improvements, safe routes to school, education and outreach partnerships, and more. As a four-term councilmember, starting in 1992, I have been involved and fully supportive of these initiatives over the years, and of the Climate Action Plan.

   Richelle Noroyan: Yes, I am very familiar with this plan. I am Vice-chair of the Public Works and Transportation Commission and had a hand in naming more specific goals for the CAP.

2. Please express your opinions on goals and policies outlined in this plan, especially those of Chapter 5, related to Transportation and Land use. (Page 46 of the draft plan has a summary table.)

   CeCe Pinheiro: My opinion has always been we must have our educational institutions on board first and second our employers. People will use alternative transportation if they are not penalized at school or at work. We can't depend solely on State sources of transit funding, they are not reliable or long term. There is much to be done, like establish walkable, mixed use, transit-oriented centers. Link local and regional centers with more bus services, and both employers and schools encourage their people to walk. Obviously interconnect bike network. Had this been in place the “open streets” wouldn't be at the same time as the SC AIDS ride.

   Steve Pleich: The “draft” plan offered neither achievable goals nor realistic plans.

   Don Lane: I have already voted in favor of all of these provisions when the council approved this draft of the plan. When first written, there was more funding for transportation projects through Redevelopment. That funding has almost all been lost...so accomplishing some of the capital projects will be challenging—though I will be working to secure new funding sources.

   Micah Posner: There are some good specifics here: the timeline for building high and very high priority segments of the bike plan, a commitment to planning rail trial segments and exploring a local trolley, and the rather arcane but very important commitment to revising the formula under which Transportation Impact Fee funds are allocated. The oversight committee with a city council person on it makes it much more likely that the plan will actually be implemented. I would like to be the council member on this committee.

   Pamela Comstock: Obviously the biggest impact would be from the reduction of within town car trips. I will gladly work with council and staff to develop innovative ways of accomplishing the 10% reduction and hopefully more.

   Jake Fusari: I like the goals. I feel that they are attainable. However I don't quite see anything happening to see these plans through. It would be great if we could reduce in-town car trips by 10% by 2020 but that will not happen if we don't first make the roads safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.

   Cynthia Mathews: Chapter 5 illustrates the range of opportunities to achieve gains in GHG reductions related to transportation, and which are reflected in the City's recently approved General Plan. These include new or improved facilities for non-auto transportation (bike routes, secure bike parking, safe and convenient pedestrian routes), support for alternative fuel and alternate vehicle solutions (charging stations in City facilities, parking spaces reserved for zip cars), “smart growth” relying on infill development and intensification along transit lines; support for telecommuting (high speed cable, support for co-working sites), continued partnership with UCSC as spelled out in the 2008 Comprehensive Settlement Agreement, resulting in a net decrease in cars going on campus. The Climate Action Plan goals in all sections are ambitious, but I believe achievable in this community.

   Richelle Noroyan: I will work with the community and city staff to meet the goals outlined in the draft plan. I support these goals, but without redevelopment funds, attaining them will be a challenge. My hope is to work with the state in giving cities the ability to form less restrictive infrastructure financing districts as a tool that can be used in light of redevelopment's demise.

CeCe Pinheiro: I only think that one way all the way is the most effective and cost efficient. There is no way to remain A.D.A. compliant and have 2-way traffic. It must be wheel-chair accessible.

Steve Pleich: I am not in favor of two way traffic. I have advocated for a “walking mall” pilot project for two years. One weekend a month for six months should give us sufficient data to determine the effect on overall traffic flow and retail sales.

Don Lane: I see some problems with that proposal and tend to favor the “one way all the way” approach, which will make things simpler for visitors to downtown and won't cost much money to implement.

Micah Posner: I am much more interested in exploring a pedestrian mall. This could easily be accomplished via weekly closures of parts of the mall. I am committed to having any discussion on traffic revisions include a discussion of the pedestrian mall concept.

Pamela Comstock: The current zig-zag routes are terrible. I will support either the two-way plan or an all one-way plan whichever is brought forth to council.

Jake Fusari: I am concerned with the idea of having two way traffic on Pacific Avenue. As I was quoted saying in the Santa Cruz Weekly, I would be open to trying Pacific Avenue being closed to cars once or twice a month. I would have to hear what the experts had to say about the impact this would have on businesses that are on Pacific but it makes sense to me that if people are out of their cars they have more opportunities to shop.

Cynthia Mathews: I don't have a strong opinion on this, one way or the other. It's important that the circulation pattern into and around downtown be inviting and functional. Beyond that, it's important that Pacific Avenue retain its intimate feeling, with cars moving very slowly, and informal pedestrian patterns that are safe and enjoyable.

Richelle Noroyan: I believe hearing from public safety staff is an absolute must before changing to two-way traffic on Pacific. My preference would be to make Pacific one way between Cathcart to Front, but I am willing to consider two way traffic options.

CeCe Pinheiro: Yes, but I would not hold it on the sme day as the Santa Cruz Surf City AIDS Ride, unless the “open streets” event waits until 5 p.m. so AIDS riders could come by after their ride. I would have checked before choosing date.

Steve Pleich: That's what I've been saying for two years. Anybody listening?

Don Lane: Yes. I played a key supporting role in helping Saskia Lucas launch the Open Streets project.

Micah Posner: I am supporting it and have put some serious work into it. It's called Santa Cruz Open Streets. Our first event will be on Sunday, Oct. 7th on West Cliff Drive until 1PM. Hope to see you there!!!

Pamela Comstock: Yes, provided it doesn't become too disruptive. Santa Cruz is a small community and has few alternative routes if certain streets are closed.

Jake Fusari: As I said in the previous question I am absolutely open to closing Pacific Avenue at least once a month.

Cynthia Mathews: Yes. Open Streets was a great community event. I have consistently supported—and will continue to support—a very wide range of events that utilize street space for special events, including parades, antiques fair, Cabrillo Festival, Strawberry Festival, the City-wide block parties, fun-runs, Museum activities, Children's Day and DTA promotions, and many more.

Richelle Noroyan: Yes I would. I think it's effective in showing people they can probably lessen their car use in some circumstances.

CeCe Pinheiro: Get rid of those round-abouts and put in well marked bike lanes on both sides. There should be speed bumps where the round-abouts are to slow traffic down, but with them there isn't adequate room in bike lanes. Also there should be stop signs at every round-about that doesn't already have one. But this plan would not be the first thing I work on while on the council, but I would like to see this or something similar come before the council.

Steve Pleich: The proposed (but unfunded) King Street corridor plan would be the project I would pursue.

Don Lane: I think the simplest approach is to simply find a way to add bike lanes. I am not opposed to consideration of a bike boulevard but I think there will be substantial opposition to this idea once it is clear what changes will be required to implement it.

Micah Posner: The best plan with the most support (it appears to be majority support) from neighbors is to create a diverter system on the corridor between Mission and Escalona so as to force through traffic onto Mission while allowing for neighborhood traffic to filter through and coexist with bike/ped traffic as it does south of Mission. A system like this was put in neighborhoods around UC Berkeley many years ago for similar reasons. The City Council has twice asked staff to design such a system and show it to neighbors and they have not done so. I would attempt to create a more forceful request on the part of the Council.

Pamela Comstock: Unfortunately, this is a heavily used corridor and there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Much of the traffic is actually parents driving children to and from school. Enhancing the safe routes to schools program could get some of the cars off the road. Other alternatives would be better mass transit up to UCSC. The use of other traffic calming methods can also be implemented.

Jake Fusari: Being very familiar with riding my bike and Skateboard on King street over the last 25 years I realize how unsafe it is. There are several places on King street where the bike lane is being blocked by parked cars. It seems to me that these parking spots should be eliminated to make a safe bike lane.

Cynthia Mathews: Increased signage; education for Mission Hill students and feeder schools; special regulations during school hours (including before and after for some period of time), Re-look at the drop-off/pick up patterns, which seem to cause the bulk of the school-related chaos and potential danger.

Richelle Noroyan: This road is not wide enough to do much improvement to it and it's a residential neighborhood. I think we need some “Share the Road” signs on King Street, similar to what it is on Mission. Fortunately King Street does have sidewalks, the same sidewalks I used to walk to Mission Hill. I think bikes and cars need to share the road and go a safe speed. Any alteration to the street from what it is now needs to be neighborhood driven as opposed to something that is imposed on the people who live on that street.

CeCe Pinheiro: Yes!

Steve Pleich: Of course; but how does the new downtown arena impact that proposal?

Don Lane: I do support these kinds of incentives...however, I am willing to support a new structure for parking if it meant that there would be a net reduction in the amount of land dedicated to parking downtown.

Micah Posner: Yes and I would not support more parking garages until it was in place.

Pamela Comstock: Not at this time, parking permit fees can be a burden on small business owners and in this time of economic difficulties this could be disasterous to our local economy.

Jake Fusari: I would support a program offering the downtown workforce incentive to get to work in other ways than driving a car.

Cynthia Mathews: I support continued efforts to improve commute alternatives. In fact, the parking district has already put many such incentives in place very successfully, including extensive secure bike parking facilities, elimination of most free parking, support for ride-share programs, requiring bus pass subsidies for some developments, etc. These incentives can always be updated and improved. I do not support increasing the parking fees to increase funding for these incentives. The current fees are an obstacle to filling downtown commercial space, which is a high priority for the City, and part of the General Plan concept for downtown density. I would, however, be open to taking a new look at how downtown parking district facilities are funded, with an eye to meeting a variety of needs while reducing the obstacles to businesses locating downtown.

Richelle Noroyan: I would be willing to discuss an incentive program, but I think raising parking permit fees is punitive to hourly wage workers. People who work downtown and earn an above average salary would not be nearly as impacted as those who make minimum or just above minimum wage. Also, some people, especially restaurant and bar staff, work hours that are outside of bus service times. Some people live in parts of the county that make biking next to impossible. I think incentives for customers that frequent downtown makes more sense.