I recently posted 10 questions the RTC really needs to answer about the plans for a trail that prioritizes rail on the unusable train tracks that stretch through Santa Cruz County. I wanted to focus on the sixth, seventh and eighth questions: How much of the cost will be paid for by local taxpayers? Where will the tax increase be applied and how much will it be? And what will the subsidy per trip cost?
The idea of a zero-emission train running along Santa Cruz County’s scenic coastline sounds appealing—a vision of sustainable transit that aligns with California’s green future. However, the financial reality of such a project paints a much different picture, one that could burden taxpayers for decades with sky-high subsidies and operational costs.
Estimated Costs are Going Sky High
Santa Cruz County taxpayers are being asked to support a rail system that lacks clear funding for construction, let alone the massive subsidies required to operate it. The original estimate for rail and trail placed the project cost at $120 million and it has taken off like a rocket since then. Speculation is that the costs for the project are staggering. A pre-pandemic study placed the price tag at $1.3 billion, and experts now caution it could soar past $5 billion due to inflation and the complexities of implementing a zero-emission system. Yet, there’s no confirmed source for these billions, leaving local taxpayers as the likely financiers through new taxes or bonds. Will this be a sales tax increase? We are near the state limit of 10.25% for sales tax rates already, yet a realistic revenue match would require around a 20-25% increase in the tax rate to cover local costs which would fall hardest on our low-income communities.
Costs are More than a Fare
Beyond construction, the operational costs are an even greater concern. Public transit systems do not and should not operate at a profit, and rail systems are among the most expensive to maintain and operate. The County’s existing Metro bus service provides a sobering comparison: taxpayers subsidize Metro rides at $12 to $20 per trip for fares that range from free to $2. While challenging, it is something that Metro and Santa Cruz County have been able to make work. A zero-emission train, with its entirely new specialized infrastructure, maintenance requirements, and relatively limited capacity, will require significantly higher subsidies per passenger in the range of $150-$250 per trip.
Who will use this train, and will its ridership justify the cost? Santa Cruz County is home to just over 270,000 residents, and the proposed train’s capacity will never rival the volume of highway traffic. If we were to see a similar ratio of riders to population as SMART in Sonoma and Marin County, we are looking at around 570 daily users. A significant portion of local commuters already depend on personal vehicles, making the train more likely to serve as a niche alternative rather than a transformative solution. Yet, every trip will still demand substantial taxpayer contributions to keep it running.
We Need to Learn From Our Mistakes
California’s high-speed rail project offers a cautionary tale. It began with lofty promises of low costs and high utility, but has since ballooned into a multibillion-dollar quagmire with uncertain completion. Santa Cruz County risks falling into a similar trap unless it carefully evaluates the true costs and long-term implications of a zero-emission train up front and is transparent to the public before asking questions like “Do you want 10 stops or 20 stops?”.
Before asking taxpayers to foot the bill for this ambitious project, local officials must provide clear answers to pressing questions that are usually provided up front for any major project plan. What will be the total construction and operational costs? How much of that burden will fall on local taxpayers? What will the per-trip subsidy be, and how does that compare to alternative solutions like enhanced bus systems or dedicated bike and pedestrian trails?
Taking Action
If you share these concerns, now is the time to speak up. Contact your local representatives from the links at linktr.ee/coastaltrail , attend public meetings, and demand a reevaluation of the Rail Trail project. Support grassroots organizations such as Santa Cruz County Greenway sccgreenway.org and the Santa Cruz County Coastal Trail Conservancy coastaltrail.org that are advocating for more fiscally and environmentally responsible solutions. Share your voice through letters to the editor, petitions, and social media campaigns.
A zero-emission train should not become a zero-accountability project. Santa Cruz County deserves a transportation plan that balances environmental goals with fiscal responsibility. Without transparency and viable financial planning, this train could derail our county’s budget long before it ever leaves the station.
Comments