.
Feedback

Sonoma's Bike Trail in Limbo on Railroad Land

Why does the city bike trail end at 4th St. East? Because Union Pacific thinks their unusable rail line is worth a million.

After a summer of bicycle "accidents" - some might call them collisions, crashes or in at least one case in Oakmont, assaults - the number of cyclists on Sonoma roads shows no sign of letting up.

Fortunately, here in the Sonoma Valley there are a number of bike-friendly routes and even bike paths where family cyclists as well as more ambitious athletes can pedal their way through the Valley of the Moon. Visit this page or see the attached map for several.

Recently an inquiry came to Sonoma Patch from about the incomplete nature of Sonoma bicycle routes.  "The town of Sonoma has well-used trails in the city limits, and for better or worse, roads in the county, like 7th street, also see a fair number of cyclists and morning walkers," wrote Jim Riley earlier this week.

He goes on to ask a valid question:

"I am new in town so maybe the answer is obvious, but I can't understand why the part of the railroad right-of-way that was used for the Sonoma bike path sits apparently unused once it leaves the city and comes under the county. It is clearly visible along 8th street, and where it meets 7th street. It is on county bike route plans, and probably has been for a long time. Why has it not happened?"

On inquiry to the Sonoma County Bike Coalition, aka BikeSonoma.org, it turns out that executive director Gary Helfrich had recently responded to this very same question from another bicyclist, as follows:

"The railroad right-of-way along 8th Street East has a complicated chain of title. When Northwest Pacific went out of business, Southern Pacific bought their assets. Southern Pacific then went into receivership and all of the old NWP property was transferred to SMART with the exception of the 8th Street East line.

"This was not an oversight, but relic of the complex system of granting right-of-way to railroads. Union Pacific then bought the assets of Southern Pacific and ended up with this abandoned railroad to nowhere. Union Pacific's property division and the County are at odds on how much this land is worth, so it might be a long time before the right-of-way can be acquired."

When I called to clarify, Helfrich - a former Sonoma County Transportation Planner - pointed out that the railroad right-of-way is on county maps as the potential Sonoma-Schellville Trail in case state or federal funds become available to purchase it.  "You've got to keep it in the plan or it won't be eligible for funds," he said.

It's unlikely to happen anytime soon, however, since Union Pacific values the land at "pre-economic crisis" rates, while the current assessment is much lower, according to Helfrich. The railroad's property extends from the end of the city bike path at 4th St. East to curve south, parallel to East 8th St., all the way to Hwy. 121.

However, the route cannot be used for rail transport, because it no longer links to the federal rail system - SMART has purchased the intervening track between Schellville to Napa Station.

"As a railroad, it [the property] doesn't have any practical use," said Helfrich. "They'd be happy to sell it - for an unreasonable price."

So until Union Pacific reduces their price tag on the 50-foot wide, 3 miles-long property (thought to be over $1 million), southbound cyclists still try to battle the big rigs on East 8th St. - where bicyclist Brian Laurie lost his life on June 21.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 20, 2013 at 01:25 pm
I still say Preserving Sonoma will get way more than enough votes and present to City Council.Read More Instead of doing the right thing City Council will punt the ball and not vote to do the ballot anyway. They can save money and do the right thing but they are so far conflicted with Darius and his free gifts, campaign gift, parties and the like they are blinded. Same with Chamber of Commerce.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.