RTC’s $4B Dilemma: A Reality Check on Santa Cruz’s Rail Fantasy
A recent study by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) dropped a political bombshell cloaked in technical language: building a 22-mile rail line through Santa Cruz County will cost more than $4.28 billion. The price tag includes rebuilding nearly every bridge on the corridor, laying new tracks, constructing stations and maintenance facilities, and acquiring electric trains. The project would then cost taxpayers another $34–41 million annually to operate.
To put that number in perspective: that’s more than the entire annual general fund budget of the County of Santa Cruz—three times over.
And yet, for all its futuristic promise, the proposed rail system would serve a maximum of 6,000 boardings, which is roughly 3,000 weekday riders—less than 2% of the county’s population (many studies have shown that consultants’ “ridership estimates” are generally 50% higher than actuals once implemented). A single train would travel once every 30 minutes, taking about 45 minutes to complete the full route from Santa Cruz to Pajaro. That is 50 trains a day running through our neighborhoods sounding their horns at each street crossing. Compare this to the staggering capital and operational costs, and the plan begins to resemble an expensive monument to indecision more than a practical transit solution.
Finding Solutions
There have been hundreds of posts that criticize the issues for and against the rail trail. Now, let’s contrast that with an alternative that’s barely been discussed by the agencies driving this narrative: e-pods on a railbanked greenway trail.
In this scenario, the corridor is railbanked—meaning the tracks are removed, but the public right-of-way is legally preserved for potential future rail use. The corridor is then converted into a greenway trail for cyclists and pedestrians, with the potential addition of 2–4 person electric “e-pods” operating as on-demand micro-transit. These smart EVs, which cost around $35,000 each, could serve local travel needs flexibly and efficiently.
Even assuming a generous fleet of 100 vehicles, the total capital investment would be under $4 million—a rounding error in the rail budget. Annual maintenance and operation would cost around $200,000—about one-half of one percent of the rail’s annual operating cost.
Across the country, e-pods and autonomous EVs are already being successfully tested and deployed. Amazon’s Zoox, for example, has begun operating its bi-directional autonomous pods in controlled environments in Las Vegas and the San Francisco Bay Area, with mapping and testing underway in cities like Seattle, Miami, and Austin. These vehicles are built for urban-scale mobility, but the model is adaptable to local needs: compact, electric, and safe for shared trails. They offer on-demand service at a fraction of the infrastructure cost—without the need to rebuild every bridge in the county. While Santa Cruz waits for a $4 billion train that may never arrive, communities elsewhere are already piloting the future.
This isn’t just a difference in price—it’s a difference in reality. And it brings us to the most troubling part of this entire saga.
For years, organizations like FORT (Friends of the Rail & Trail) and more recently ZEPRT (Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail) have sold voters an idealistic vision: an affordable, sustainable, equity-focused train through paradise. What they never disclosed—and what recent reports now lay bare—is the sheer scale of the costs and engineering challenges involved. They’ve promised “rail and trail” while glossing over the staggering taxpayer burden.
Worse, they’ve labeled any alternative—including railbanking and greenway planning—as anti-transit or regressive. But what’s truly regressive is spending billions on a rarely used system while cheaper, scalable, climate-friendly options sit on the shelf.
It’s time for a reality check. Santa Cruz voters deserve transparency—not utopian promises and never-ending studies. It’s not anti-rail to ask what $4 billion could really do for our community. It’s pro-reality.
Resources