The Great Redwood Trail: A Boondoggle By Their Own Numbers

According to the Oxford English Dictionary: “Boondoggle, n. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value,” and, “A public project of questionable merit that typically involves political patronage and graft.”

In 2020 State Senator Mike McGuire commissioned the “Great Redwood Trail Feasibility, Governance and Railbanking Report,” which he used to gain Legislative approval for the Great Redwood Trail.

That Report says that “Trail demand projections are also important to consider. Not unexpectedly, where trail use demand estimates are high, they occur in segments within or near urban communities or towns along the corridor. Trail use through the remote center segments (generally between Willits and Ferndale) would be much lower and more oriented to serious, long-distance riders and hikers or visitors driving to remote access points for short day hikes.”

The cost?

“Planning-level cost estimates for fully developing the trail are nearly $750 million in 2020 dollars and over $1 billion in 2030 dollars. If the trail were fully developed, it would be projected to provide economic activity (estimated at approximately $24 million in annual local economic activity) [by whom? based on what?] and health benefits (reduced vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and carbon dioxide emissions resulting in improved air quality) to communities along its route. The costs for fully developing the corridor would not be incurred at any one time. Instead, these costs would be paid over a long period of time, based on project phasing and priorities.”

The Report authors add, “These cost estimates do not include unknown environmental remediation costs that may be required prior to project construction.”

But at the same time their own maps show several known toxic sites along the route. (This was an industrial, heavily used railroad back at the time when concern for dumping waste in rural areas was low.)

So, by their own ridiculous “planning level cost estimates,” the trail will only be used by a few hundred people per day in urban areas for short day hikes. And even fewer “serious, long-distance riders and hikers” outside those areas — the areas that happen to cost the most to rehabilitate.

Their own estimates also say that while the trail will cost at least $750 million, probably much more, it will only bring in at most $24 million annually — a preposterously high number itself without foundation. (Use your imagination and try to figure out what kind of “economic activity” a trail can generate. Then guess how in your wildest dreams how that could generate $24 million annually.)

Granted, the trail surface cost per mile in the rural areas will be less because the trail will not be paved, but such trailbeds will cost more to establish to begin with because of the poor condition of the right-of-way. It will be more prone to erosion requiring high ongoing maintenance costs and periodic closures — none of which are addressed in McGuire’s Report.

That Report also claims that the Trail will “reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and carbon dioxide emissions resulting in improved air quality.” But as quoted above it says, that “long-distance riders and hikers or visitors [will drive] to remote access points for short day hikes,” then walk or ride a bit, then drive back, thus not reducing any existing trips, but increasing vehicle traffic to get to the Trail and back. And if those hikers and bikers go one way, how will they get home?

Summary: $1 billion or more tax dollars for a few hundred hikers and bikers per day (at most) which will allegedly produce $24 million per day in (entirely unsubstantiated) “increased local economic activity.”

You be the judge: Does that meet the definition of a “boondoggle”?

* * *

MEANWHILE, the search for a replacement for former North Coast Rail Authority Director Mitch Stogner’s replacement begins. Millions in trail cash is up for grabs. (PS. Republicans need not apply.) This person will be in charge of handing out millions of consulting and planning dollars to NorthCoast Democrats and affiliated consulting outfits.

Last week the California Coastal Commission issued a “Request For Services: Organizational Development & Interim Executive Director for the Great Redwood Trail Agency”—

This request for services seeks consultant assistance to support organization development and interim staffing of the Great Redwood Trail Authority (GRTA). The goal of this contract would be to support the GRTA with organizational development during a start-up period of two years during which time the contractor would work with the GRTA Board of Directors to establish policies and procedures to govern its operation, to create a business plan, and to hire professional staff for the GRTA.

The Great Redwood Trail Agency owns the rail right of way for the approximately 252 mile section from the Sonoma/Mendocino County line to its end on the Samoa Peninsula in Humboldt County. The GRTA is created to, among other things, (1) inventory any parcel, easement, or contract related to its rail rights-of-way, (2) complete an environmental assessment of the conditions of its rail rights-of-way for purposes of trail development, (3) plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain a trail in, or next to, the rail rights-of-way, and (4) complete a federal railbanking process for the rail rights-of-way.

Specific goals and objectives for this scope of work include:

1. Develop and update agency policies and procedures for new public agency.

2. Provide an interim executive director for two years.

3. Coordinate with the Great Redwood Trail Master Planning consultants and Coastal Conservancy staff to provide review and information to support the development of the Master Plan and rail banking efforts.

4. Develop a business plan for the GRTA, including inventory of real assets, review of existing and potential revenues and expenditures and a funding strategy for the GRTA.

5. Support a hiring process for the GRTA Board to hire staff.

An electronic copy of your proposal should be submitted by email to mary.small@scc.ca.gov. [California State Coastal Conservancy) Submittals should be received by 5pm on May 1, 2022.

Mary Small, Deputy Executive Officer, California State Coastal Conservancy.