SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — Construction of the long-discussed, much-debated rail line to Santa Cruz using a former Southern Pacific branch line could cost up to $4.3 billion, according to a document released Friday (June 6, 2025).
The draft version of the executive summary of an upcoming report on the project, known as the Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail, outlines the plan to develop 22 miles of rail line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro, Calif., as well as 12 miles of the Coastal Rail Trail.
The cost in part reflects earlier assessments that 28 of the 33 bridges on the line will require replacement, which could cost nearly $1 billion [see “Santa Cruz rail project could require …,” Trains News Wire, March 15, 2025]. Other infrastructure requirements would include new or rebuilt right-of-way, including new sidings; signals and positive train control; stations; and upgraded grade crossings. The $4.3 billion figure includes $1.96 billion for construction; $1.04 billion for land, professional services, and rolling stock ($144.3 million); and a $1.3 billion contingency fund.
The system would have an estimated annual operating cost ranging from $34 million to $41 million, with the report attributing the variation to the Santa Cruz transit agency’s experience with labor agreements and uncertainty over costs associated with potential use of hydrogen-fueled trainsets.
Operational planning assumptions in the report are based on the use of Stadler FLIRT zero-emission trainsets — which could be hydrogen, battery, or hybrid equipment — although the summary says final equipment selection would come later in the process. It calls for a fleet of 10 two-car trainsets, which could be coupled together to provide for larger trains.
The report projects daily weekday ridership of 3,500 to 6,000 passengers, with slightly lower numbers on the weekends. Trains would operate on 30-minute headways from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and serve nine possible station sites. It allows for possible freight service outside of passenger-service hours, says a possible connection with the existing seasonal Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific tourist rail operation will be considered as the project develops. It also notes says potential direct rail service to San Francisco could be pursued at a later date as part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Corridor Identification and Development Program. Such service was envisioned as part of the 2025 California State Rail Plan [see “California rail plan calls for $310 billion program …,” News Wire, Jan. 8, 2025].
The news site Santa Cruz Local reports two meetings are scheduled for this week to discuss the project: an online session on Monday, Jan. 9, with staff of the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission discussing ridership estimates and costs; and a June 12 commission meeting in which staff will present the executive summary.
The other catch is that for this service to prosper there would have to be a lot of new residents along the line. Given the NIMBY population in California, especially where people can afford to buy expensive coastal housing, plus the absurd leftwing politics of Santa Cruz, future development will not happen.
For context: the current estimated population of the whole county is 256,161. Ignoring the most northerly portion of the rail line (built to serve a now-closed cement plant), the two largest cities at the endpoints, Santa Cruz and Watsonville, are both about 50,000. Traffic congestion along parallel Highway 1 during commute times is terrible, and widening the highway (an ongoing project that started about 15 years ago) has made little difference, hence the felt need in the community to do *something* with the rail corridor.
Having lived for 20 years about two blocks from one of the proposed stations, I can say the draft gets absolutely right the need for massive investment in bridges and other infrastructure to make things safe, and I have no reason to doubt the projected expense (as other commenters have noted, even with the contingencies it might be hard to bring this in on budget). But there’s no way I can imagine any level of government that would be involved, now or in the future, green-lighting this kind of financial commitment.
What is the general rule on such government projects? Take the calculation of development cost and double it. And the way California works, also double the estimated date for completion. With fully California money support – their money, their call. By the way, what is the estimated equipment purchase and maintenance cost for hydrogen versus diesel trainsets? Not to mention daily operating cost.
Wasn’t there a song some time ago about “Califirnia Dreaming”?
Mr. Landey:
Pax Vobiscum.
‘t spijt me, ik spreek geen Latin. Care to translate???
I get the “pax” but not the other word.
Happy Sunday!!!!
Peace be with you.
Good morning people, happy and blessed Sunday! Over the years, I have done the math on various proposals, but it’s Sunday my day of rest. Your turn. Take the annual capital recovery, divide by 365. Take the annual operating cost and divide that by 365.
Add the two together, and divide by the projected number of daily passengers. That’s how much each ride will cost. Assuming the project comes in at projected cost and assuming the projected ridership materializes.
So am I for or against this project? Can’t say. I haven’t run the numbers and I don’t know the territory. What I can say is that this service is predicated on local ridership. Doesn’t connect to much of anything at the east end. Thirty minute headways locally connecting to Amtrak which is (for now, anyway) 24 hour headways.
Ticket cost between $100 and $200, depending on ridership — by my rough calculations