The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s (RTC) $9 million Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail project study (ZEPRT) has generated heated debate and confusion.
While the project promises to combine passenger rail and active transit in one sweeping vision, fundamental questions about its feasibility, cost, and community impact remain unanswered. Before committing further resources, the RTC must provide basic, evidence-backed scoping answers to these concerns.
Contrary to common perception, voters in Santa Cruz County have never directly approved a rail project. The 2022 failed Measure D to amend the County’s General Plan to remove language promoting rail and instead supported railbanking—a more affordable and faster way to construct the trail did not mean that voters approved rail.
Railbanking would convert unused rail corridors into trails while preserving the right to reintroduce rail in the future. Despite this, the RTC has forged ahead with costly studies that imply the rail portion is further along than it is, despite no dedicated funding for train operations or infrastructure.
Cost is perhaps the most glaring concern. While a pre-pandemic study estimated the project at $1.3 billion, experts now warn that inflation and updated requirements could push that number to $5 billion or higher. The lack of an official updated estimate adds to the uncertainty, leaving taxpayers in the dark about the financial burden they may bear.
The project’s potential impact on local communities further complicates matters. Mobile home residents along the corridor face displacement, while businesses in Aptos Village could suffer disruptions or closures. The human and economic costs are too significant to ignore, yet they remain under-discussed in public forums.
Before moving forward, the RTC must address ten fundamental questions:
1) What is the total cost of the project? The lack of a detailed, updated budget makes planning speculative at best.
2) When will construction start and finish? Timelines remain vague, leaving stakeholders uncertain about the project’s long-term impacts.
3) What is the maximum capacity of the proposed train? This is key to understanding whether the rail justifies its cost.
4) How will train usage compare to existing highway traffic? Without this data, it’s unclear whether the project addresses congestion effectively.
5) How much of the cost will local taxpayers shoulder? Transparency is needed regarding potential tax increases—whether through sales, property, or other taxes—and how long they would last.
6) What will be the taxpayer subsidy per trip? Existing Metro subsidies range from $12 to $20 per ride. Will the train require even more?
7) How loud will the trains be, and how often will they run? With 140-decibel horn blasts expected, noise pollution could become a significant issue.
8) What is the timeline and cost for implementing quiet zones? Noise mitigation infrastructure and liability concerns must be planned in advance.
9) What safety measures will be in place? California saw 38 train-related fatalities last year, highlighting the need for rigorous safety planning.
10) Why spend $9 million on studies without addressing these questions? This premature expenditure raises serious concerns about prioritization.
Santa Cruz County deserves a transparent and honest conversation about this project. Without clear answers to these questions, the rail-trail project risks becoming an expensive, disruptive misstep. It’s time for the RTC to provide the community with the facts it needs to make an informed decision about the future of transportation and trails in our region. Let’s get it right before moving forward.
It is no surprise to hear that an owner of property adjacent to the rails has supported railbanking, which means costly payouts from Our federal tax dollars, which gets the public nothing. If the studies reveal that rail transit cant work here that is one thing, but prematurely demoting the project while the studies to answer the questions posed is serving only to add fear and doubt on the issue. it is clear that future transit needs are not going to be met by widening the highway, yet no mention of the hundreds of millions spent already for more auto infrastructure. The RTC owns the rail line and needs to explore the rail transit option for the good of present and future residents. The continued attacks from rail opponents has only meant delays and obstructions, which translate ultimately to higher costs. Let’s see if studies reveal that rail, a trail, METRO and rideshare will be the future of Santa Cruz County transit.
It’s essential to approach this discussion with clarity and focus on facts, rather than accusations or assumptions. Your concerns about rail transit are valid, but let’s consider a few key points:
First, the suggestion that property owners adjacent to the rail line support railbanking solely for personal financial gain is a serious accusation that overlooks the broader motivations people may have. Railbanking, as a federally authorized process, preserves the corridor for future use while addressing current realities—such as funding, feasibility, and actual community needs. The assumption that it provides “nothing” to the public ignores the fact that railbanking can allow for interim trail use, offering immediate public benefits while maintaining the corridor for potential transit.
Second, questioning the feasibility of rail transit based on the study’s results isn’t “fear-mongering” but rather responsible civic engagement. Public dollars—federal or local—should be spent wisely, and scrutinizing studies is a necessary part of ensuring resources are allocated effectively. Prematurely committing to a rail project without assessing realistic ridership, costs, and environmental impacts could lead to an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.
Third, while it’s true that highway widening alone won’t meet future transit needs, it’s misleading to position rail transit as the only viable solution. A comprehensive transit plan for Santa Cruz County might indeed include a mix of rail, bus (like METRO), rideshare, and improved trail infrastructure. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has a responsibility to explore all options, but that also includes the responsibility to critically evaluate the cost-effectiveness and practicality of each.
Finally, delays in transportation projects often result from the complexity of balancing community concerns, environmental regulations, and funding challenges—not simply opposition. Constructive criticism and alternative proposals are not “attacks” but part of the democratic process of determining what is best for Santa Cruz County now and in the future.
Let’s keep the conversation productive and focused on building a transit system that truly serves the needs of everyone in the community, rather than dividing into camps of “rail proponents” and “rail opponents.”
Well said. Focusing on the facts and shared goals is key. Building a transit system that serves everyone requires collaboration and solutions grounded in community needs, not division.
Jack’s written a great piece. People of Santa Cruz ought to look north to Marin and Sonoma counties. The RTC and FORT are repeating the incredible costly errors of their pro passenger rail peers in Marin and Sonoma counties.
Reality folks. There isn’t the population that can economically support passenger rail in Santa Cruz County. Marin and Sonoma voters have learned the hard way. They passed a tax measure in 2008 buying into the shibboleths foisted on the public about how a passenger rail system would reduce traffic.
Well it’s 2024. They are no longer buying it. They rejected a tax extension measure in March 2020 because they were tired of paying taxes that provided huge subsidies to those that find the train a convenient trip. It took years longer to implement. The current rail line is 45 miles, not the 70 miles promised voters. Over a billion dollars has been spent on construction and operations. And the current subsidy (FY 2023 is last published) is $45 dollars per passenger. Farebox recovery is now 5%, meaning 95% of the cost of the trip is not paid by passengers but by taxpayers.
Marin and Sonoma counties have almost 3x the population of Santa Cruz Co. Current weekday ridership is about 3,500 on 38 trains (19 in each direction).
The SMART system is a boondoggle. Passenger rail in Santa Cruz Co. would be an even bigger boondoggle.
Within suburban passenger rail systems simply can not pass the economic smell test.
They cost a lot to implement. Trains cost a lot to operate. But they won’t under any circumstance take a lot of passengers because it’s SUBURBIA.
Traffic is terrible on Hwy 101. Polilticians and their consultants produced studies describing the wonders of rail. Voters were conned.
No more. The rail agency is facing dissolution if it can’t pass a tax measure before the current sales tax expires in March 2029.
Learn from our mistakes. There is no repealing the fundamental economics of
providing passenger rail service within suburbia.
If the Santa Cruz residents truly wants to reduce traffic and provide safe and sane transportation corridor while protecting the environment, and reduce the cost by millions, build an elevated train down the middle of Highway 1, stops would be along each overpass where the majority of riders actually work where they could walk to buses, cars or bikes. This would completely eliminate the disruption to neighborhoods and to the environment and make a real impact in reducing the goal of reducing traffic because the train will have stops that make sense for commuters. Costs would be nominal compared to the uncertainties of tearing down and rebuilding bridges and infrastructure with the current rail corridor plan. A common sense solution if the real goal is to reduce traffic.
Frank’s comment “owner of property adjacent to the rails has supported railbanking, which means costly payouts from Our federal tax dollars” without stating the concept would only be if the RTC were to build a rail-trail. He insinuates that Jack would reap money from railbanking – which is not the same as building a trail. It’s just a step to preserve the rail corridor if it’s not being used.
Jack’s article speaks only of the train and not of a trail. Regardless, if Frank really wanted to know what’s going on, he’d actually read the railroad deed of the corridor behind Jack’s house (which I share) which is publicly available. Frank would educate himself then that the deed is not a railroad easement (which would mean money if a trail was to be built), but instead a fee-simple deed (meaning, the RTC owns it free and clear and no money would be due to Jack (or me)).
Uhhhggg. Actually, Frank actually knows this as he’s been told several times on NextDoor conversations. It’s really upsetting to see the misinformation used to undercut a position that Jack has written about: the train has problems.
Thank you Carey. There are certain people that try to inject the “Merchants of Doubt” strategy and conspiracy theories of “Billionaire Playgrounds” and “Tech Bros” getting rich while failing to state the positive aspects of a multi-billion dollar, multi-decade project that will not enrich the community. There is no reduction in traffic, no democratizing transportation and no reduction in greenhouse gasses as reported. What little information does happen to trickle out of this project only shows the complexity and cost to the community that is simply not a good use of taxpayers funds. It’s a shame that people like Mr. Rimicci continue to ignore the facts and continues to spread false information.
Waste of money and more homeless will be pooping and peeing and drinks throwing bottles how about the displacement of the mobile home parks how is solving the housing it will make worst and let’s not forget about the fetty junkies
Thank you, Jack, for your questions and commentary. It’s hard to understand how we are 12 years since purchasing the rail corridor and a few rail project studies along as well, and yet we seem to still not have answers to such basic questions (or at least none that the RTC commissioners or their constituents will accept?). We do have the experience of SMART since Covid changed the office work requirements affecting prospective passenger counts, and also their construction and operating costs to compare to. It’s beginning to seem that while some people would like to ride on a train, not so many will want to be stuck in traffic behind a train crossing while they pay the taxes to support it and funding gets sucked away from METRO, ParaCruz and LiftLine, and roads throughout the county to benefit the few who will be able to afford the train fares.
Jack great article and so true.
The article only serves to cast doubt on the rail concept, there was a letter from another greenway supporter almost identical printed in the SC paper nearly the same day. It shows that greenway supporters do not care about the will of the people that voted against the ill advised measure D to eliminate rail planning. Fortunately, despite the constant barrage from so called trail advocates, the RTC is doing the work that needs to happen to ensure better alternatives to auto infrastructure that simply does nothing for congestion. Those that own property along the line and have been very vigilant in fighting the rail concept at every stage over the years and conspire to silence the pro rail voices that support the rail and trail, which is progressing and We are seeing progress that will have lasting benefits for many people and the environment for decades to come.