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.
“Coastal Trail Conservancy of Santa Cruz County” seems like a greenwashing effort to reanimate the failed Greenway organization’s effort to remove the railroad.
Jack Brown was the official spokesman for the Yes Greenway campaign.
I’m glad the RTC, TAMC, and other public agencies agree with the 74% of County votes that rejected Greenway Measure D in 2022.
Kind of funny that Barry Scott uses fake profiles to post as women and people of color (aka Anna Martinez, Hector Mendez, Nyanko_Nyasu, Cinephile Santacruz, …) but forgot to change his profile picture. Oopsies. I can only respect commenters that are courageous enough to use their own name.
Jack, you were caught with multiple Nextdoor accounts. You’re not any better.
I have one active Nextdoor account, but thanks for the continued stalking. Please stop calling my employers making up false allegations.
Jack Brown definitely has two active Nextdoor accounts right now.
He seems unhinged in his creepy replies to his own article on this platform.
I happen to know that Anna, Hector, Nyanko, and Cinephile are separate people, not fake accounts.
Jack #1: https://nextdoor.com/profile/01SCKmrnbcdShPhpc/
Jack #2: https://nextdoor.com/profile/01TpCyttYcKCXB3RZ/
Sorry, only one is active, but thank you for using a fake account.
These same greenway supporters keep pushing for railbanking even though it jeopardizes the trail funding, like They are doing to the Capitola segment that is fully funded. They are convincing folks that cramming the trail onto the tracks is best even though it is less scenic, way more expensive and environmentally more destructive. Because They want the rail line railbanked and torn up despite the beating Their ballot initiative took. Even threatening to sue Capitola. (Again) All this while a South county publication printed the article detailing the millions in payouts property owners receive from Our taxes and what law firm to contact for a claim. Maybe it would be a good idea to require the commenters to devulge Their land interests. I know it will never happen, but one has to ask oneself why the same folks are at every meeting, on all social media and influencing election outcomes to enhance Their agenda to abandon the so called “rail boondoggle” while the real boondoggle is seen on a daily basis on highway one. I’m glad Vanessa Quiroz Carter rebuked Kim De Serpas ridiculous statement that a trail only will somehow ease the burden on South county commuters.
Frank, you are just a mean curmudgeon spouting lies and conspiracies about those against a train. Even your Land Title Guru wrote in the Sentinel “RTC owns nearly all the land along rail corridor: …The RTC owns outright nearly all of the land in the 32-mile corridor. Among 113 distinct segments, just 14 of them are 19th century easements. Only four of these affect the full width of the corridor. The original deeds by private land owners in 1876 and 1877 for another four short stretches have reversionary clauses. The risk of loss by the public is vanishingly small as it stands….” The supposed article published by the Times Publishing Group was analyzed and found it was a direct copy of the Lewis Rice website. with no mention of the Santa Cruz Corridor. Patrice Edwards, the publisher, was even noted as saying “I agree, we should print a retraction…. I am devastated by this!” when it was pointed out to her that the ‘article’ was pure plagiarism. The only boondoggle is the $5 billion train project that no one will take and will bankrupt many in south county.
I also noticed that Mr. Rimicci spread the same conspiracy theory to the Santa Cruz Sentinel in a letter to the editor on 3/30/2025. I went ahead and sent the Sentinel Editorial Board the entire 10-page plagiarism analysis of the Times Publishing Groups false article that simply copied the Lewis Rice website and changed some pronouns.
If You say so Jack. You and the greenway gang have flooded the media with letters that use such terms as boondoggle and deride the efforts of the RTC to provide the county with a meaningful alternative that will serve for decades and decades in the future, yet You are unwilling to admit to Us that You and most of the rail opponents have land interests relating to the rail right of way. Choosing name calling instead of admitting the facts that You have been in contact with the law firm is a diversion. You seem to be the best at this. Admit that that the law firm told You to get the line railbanked, and then They will act on Your behalf. You can also admit that losing the rail option will delay and forfeit funding and construction of the trail, which is a bonus that comes with planning for future rail transit, which county residents voted to support by a landsllde. Stop being a sore loser and please stop the personal attacks, I only intend to expose facts that You seem to omit.
Dear Mr. Rimicci, I have have noted many many time I live adjacent to the tracks in Aptos. I have noted I would never participate in any Railbanking lawsuit. I also noted that the deed to the corridor adjacent to the rail is water-tight and owned by the RTC and that claim is backed up by James Weller, FORT’s land title guru. I am choosing “Stating the facts” while every single remark you have on this article has name called “greenway gang”, “Sore Loser”, and that is not even counting the name calling on Nextfdoor that got you kicked off the platform. So please stop with the Lewis Rice conspiracy, they were called in by Laura (… I mean Barry Scott (who also attended every call with Lewis Rice even though he does not own property adjacent to the corridor, he has a beach condo he bought at a foreclosure auction during the great recession…) just before the Measure D election and now being brought up 3 years later just before the Capitola vote for some bizarre reason. Your conspiracy theories continues to be debunked yet you continue to keep posting it. Please, give it a rest.
Why is the trail now and greenway groups so intent on stopping progress on Our trail while They portend to be for its construction? It is being built to the North of Us and within the next 3 years will be a 12 mile trail that unfortunately will end in Capitola, which may never be built due to these groups forcing the RTC to build in the rail corridor which is more expensive and less scenic, is prone to erosion and causes more butterfly and bird habitat destruction. They complain the rail trail will displace some residents, but wrote a measure to keep the trail on the rail corridor while knowing this would mean sure removal of some homes. The “conspiracy theory” as You call it is not a theory but is fact and You must admit the property owners are aware of the prospect of payouts, even if You claim You personally would not participate. What needs to be put to rest is the notion that the groups mentioned are for a trail, while They stymie the efforts of the RTC because the plans include rail. Your posts on social media have been removed more than once and you have served multiple suspensions for being both unkind and untruthful. And We all know of the tactic being used these days to excite the imbeciles and silence the intellectuals. We may never find common ground as a true democracy intends to, because the obstructionism continues, denying all of Us the chance for true progress of the trail construction all because the minority wants no planning for future clean rail transit. You may continue to argue, but You have stated nothing that “debunks” these facts.
LOL really Frank? Yes, I’ve been suspended several times from Nextdoor, mostly by a network of Pro-Rail moderators publicly working together to suspend my account, many times the suspensions have been overturned on appeal with proof of this collision. I am curious though, how long are you suspended from Nextdoor? Permanently?
Let’s end the multi-billion dollar fiasco.
Build the trail correctly down the centerline. Fix Metro and provide free door to door on demand service in Lift Line and Paracruz.
This could all be done for a fraction of the cost, literally pennies on the dollar and completed before the next mile of inadequate rail and trail could be completed.
Money for rail projects needs to go to rail projects. Stop the misinformation. As the spokesman for the anti-rail group , I can see You are frustrated with the trouncing that measure D took. Rail is being planned as voters approved. And the beautiful rail trail is happening. Go ride it and discover why rail with trail is the best. I love it! I think its ironic that the opponents complained that the rail trail through Capitola (segment 10) would displace residents, cause much environmental harm, and be too costly, yet when given the option for a cheaper, less invasive, more accessible, more scenic, fully funded buffered trail They turned it down because of an ambiguous law written by a rail opponent. Residents were somehow duped into believing the trail will use the dilapidated trestle. All this does is delay the trail Capitolans and really all county residents would be getting. Now We will continue sharing the roadway with traffic along a narrow or non existent bike lane and will put funding in jeopardy and planning and permitting will take years. Nice going!. Is this what the rail opponents plan to do for the South county segments, while complaining that the RTC is short changing Us? Oh and try to stay on topic please. Thank You Jack.