It’s two steps forward, one step back for Monterey-Salinas Transit’s SURF! project, a busway between Marina and Sand City that is proposed for the rail corridor owned by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.
In April, the Marina Planning Commission unanimously approved coastal development and tree removal permits for the project’s span through Marina; that decision was appealed to the City Council.
The Council considered the appeal on Tuesday, May 21, but delayed a decision until June 4 due to some unexpected events. On May 15, Kevin Kahn, manager for the California Coastal Commission’s Central Coast district, wrote to Marina planner Alyson Hunter to ask that the City not consider the appeal until the Coastal Commission has a chance to vote. (The project needs a coastal development permit from the commission as well as from Marina and Sand City, as 2.5 miles of the proposed road are outside of both cities’ jurisdiction.)
And on May 17, Kahn wrote to both the California Transportation Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission’s rail division, expressing a host of concerns about the project and asked both agencies to make a determination about its compatibility with Prop. 116 funding (TAMC used Prop. 116 money to acquire the land from Union Pacific) and its compatibility “with the intended future use of the rail corridor for rail.” (There are currently no active plans to revive the rail line.)
“The rail corridor in question is made up entirely of dune environmentally sensitive habitat area,” Kahn writes, “where only development dependent on the [environmentally sensitive habitat area] is allowed pursuant to the Coastal Act. A busway does not so qualify.”
The letter was forwarded to the City Council on the morning of May 21, which in part caused the meeting that night to go off the rails.
Carl Sedoryk, MST’s general manager, was exasperated when addressing the council, saying that he felt it was inappropriate for the agency to weigh in on a matter under the City Council’s purview. Also, he says the Coastal Commission staff – until Kahn’s email – consistently advised MST to get permits from the cities first, before coming before the commission.
The $91.5 million project is fully funded and construction is expected to take two years. Sedoryk hopes MST will be able to start construction this fall, advancing a goal of offering a way to avoid Highway 1 traffic.
(5) comments
The cost overrun is rather substantial. In August 2020, it was estimated at $50M. In August 2022, it was about $58M. By December 2023, it went up to $78M plus a $6M contingency.
And now we're at $91.5M with no statement of a contingency. So that's an 83% increase over 4 years.
From samsca... the date regarding Dave Potter and staff, was 2019, not 2029.
This project is very costly to the overall taxpayer; the large sand dune that tourists and others climb...will be cut into by 4-6 feet, which will cause a constant problem for MST, due to the a sand dune still moving towards where they want to have a turn-around for buses.
Statement of the so-called problem, needs to be addressed again, and solved by creating a different bus route. The problem per MST is congestion on Scenic hwy 1 resulting in a delay for riders caught in the congestion. Very seldom is the back up north of Lightfighter off ramp. (Solution): Bus route change to either Lightfigher or Imjin Ave take off, make additional pick up stops in new development areas and use General Moore Blvd to run parallel to the Hwy 1 congestion, go down Boardway and go to major shopping areas. (No need for any new Expensive - non-compliant environmentally project.
Come on decision-makers (Board Member of MST) reconsider this "Surf" Project!
P.S. Dave Potter and staff in 2029 TAMC meeting expressed concern about removing tracks...Prop 116 is very clear...not for buses. I think TAMC and particularly the Board of MST should figure out how to solve the problem of riders losing 14-15 minutes of delay by a freeway that has congestion. Go around it...I do it all the time, using existing roads. Don't build in such a pristine area; that buses traveling so close to bike trails etc,, is not comparable & also conflict with tourists enjoying the out-of-doors.
It appears unlikely the California Coastal Commission will take up the coastal use permit before the Fall.
In the last article regarding SURF (Dec 14,2023), the project was "fully-funded" at a budget of $78M with an additional $6M contingency for cost overruns. Where did MST find the remaining $7.5M for this new estimate of $91.5M? Is there now a new cost overrun contingency?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.