WATSONVILLE, Calif. — The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission has approved pursuing intercity rail service between Santa Cruz and Pajaro, Calif., rather than a light-rail alternative, while asking its staff to find an alternative to bridge repairs or replacement on that route that could cost almost $1 billion.
The news site Santa Cruz Local reports that at a March 20 meeting in Watsonville, the commission voted 9-1 to establish its preference for intercity rail service, which would offer a faster trip with fewer stops than light rail. That choice aligns with the California state rail plan [see “California rail plan calls for $310 billion program …,” Trains News Wire, Jan. 8, 2025], and is considered more likely to qualify for state and federal funding. It could also eliminate the need to string catenary along the 22-mile route.
However, the commission was not willing to accept the estimate of a consulting firm that all 33 bridges on route would need to be replaced or strengthened, at a cost of $980 million [see “Santa Cruz rail project could require …,” News Wire, March 15, 2025]. The commission staff had previously recommended replacement of 23 bridges, including 16 wooden structures.
“I don’t believe that there can’t be alternatives that would have less of a cost,” said Andy Schiffrin, representing commission member Justin Cummings, a county supervisor.“What I’m asking for is just taking another look.” But the commission’s executive director, Sarah Christensen, said replacing fewer bridges might save money initially while increasing long-term maintenance costs.
This line is very scenic but it is a single track freight line and I doubt the ridership would justify the cost of doing anything with it.
Note that construction was expected to begin no earlier than 2032, but the changes in available funding may have delayed the timeline.
Dr. Güntürk Üstün
How about bus on public highway?
I recall that traffic in and out of Santa Cruz, at least going north to San Jose, is pretty terrible at peak hours. A bus without dedicated bus lanes, which would also be expensive (but not as expensive), is just as prone to those jams as a car is. Also, rebuilding the railroad line would allow for at least the potential of resumed carload freight service if it was requested.
Perhaps a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system to be introduced?
Dr. Güntürk Üstün
Light rail or heavy rail, passengers would still have to change trains in Pajero, so I am not sure if that was even an issue in the service type discussion.
A blanket “replace the bridges” recommendation was probably more driven by risk and liability than what would work incrementally fiscally.
I would just be careful about the aggressive nature of the trail constituency. They have been caught shunting and interfering with crossing signals to sway people away from rail service. It was one of the reasons one of the freight operators vacated their contract.
If they can sort things out, I could easily see a Stadler USA battery-electric system with the flash chargers at each station serving this line.
Great point on the blanket “replace the bridges”. I would agree and even more function of our engineers who no longer solve problems but essentially have simply embraced the lawyers, risk managers and insurance folks mentality
.
I assume this is essentially picking a SMART system type build out that you have in Sonoma/Marin county to the north. However, I do think the SMART system does preserve a freight corridor, service and possibly more freight/transload opportunities once it get a little further north into Sonoma County. Not sure if their is truly only opportunities exist here.