August 29, 2026
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Item 17 – Response to the 2025–2026 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Report on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line
Chair Montesino and Commissioners:
Trail Now has reviewed the RTC’s proposed response to the 2025–2026 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury report, The Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line: Competing Visions, Emerging Realities.
The Grand Jury conducted an important examination of the history, physical condition, governance, financial realities, and planning of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. Its report provides the RTC with an opportunity to learn from the past and establish a more disciplined, financially responsible, and achievable path forward.
Trail Now urges the Commission to revise portions of the proposed response before submitting it to the Superior Court and Civil Grand Jury.
Trail Now’s key requested changes to the RTC’s current Grand Jury response are:
• Establish the Interim Trail as the preferred design approach for Segments 12–17, with the Ultimate Trail evaluated as an alternative.
• Conclude from the ZEPRT findings that a future passenger rail system is not financially or practically viable and end further RTC staff, consultant, engineering, environmental, grant-development, and planning work to advance passenger rail.
• Determine and publicly disclose the RTC’s continuing Proposition 116 obligations, including whether a finding that passenger rail is infeasible would trigger repayment and, if so, the amount and conditions.
1. Acknowledge the lack of a clear, implementable corridor strategy
The Grand Jury found that the RTC lacks a unified strategic plan for delivering capital projects and allocating limited resources and that changing political priorities have contributed to paralysis over the rail corridor.
RTC proposes to disagree, pointing to the Regional Transportation Plan and the Commission’s December 2025 direction establishing near-term trail and long-term rail as its overarching vision.
But a broad 25-year Regional Transportation Plan is not the same as a corridor-specific implementation strategy establishing priorities, financial limits, decision criteria, funding requirements, and measurable milestones.
Nor does adopting a new direction in December 2025 erase the years of changing policies, studies, escalating costs, and delayed decisions that preceded it.
Trail Now recommends that the RTC acknowledge these historical problems and accept the Grand Jury’s recommendation to establish a genuine strategic framework for major transportation investments.
2. Do not claim the Capital Project Advancement Framework recommendation has already been fully implemented
The Grand Jury recommends that RTC develop a Capital Project Advancement Framework establishing the information required before major projects advance through policy, funding, and implementation milestones.
Importantly, the Grand Jury calls for cost estimates, schedules, contingencies, and other assumptions to include an assessment of their level of confidence and uncertainty.
RTC marks this recommendation as “HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED,” citing its existing project funding plans, milestones, risk management, cost estimates, and schedules.
Trail Now believes the Grand Jury is asking for something more rigorous: a formal and transparent framework establishing when a project has sufficient engineering, financial, and implementation certainty to justify advancing to the next major decision.
The history of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line demonstrates why such safeguards are needed.
3. Establish the Interim Trail as the primary design, with the Ultimate Trail evaluated as an alternative
The Grand Jury recognizes that escalating costs, physical constraints, and funding realities require RTC to reconsider how the Coastal Trail is delivered.
RTC itself acknowledges that it historically prioritized the Ultimate Trail configuration—trail next to rail—but has now “shifted its approach” and is “advancing the Interim Trail as the near-term priority.”
Trail Now believes the next step should therefore be clear:
The Interim Trail should become the primary design approach for future Coastal Trail planning, including Segments 12–17, with the Ultimate Trail evaluated as an alternative where it can be demonstrated to be financially, environmentally, and practically feasible.
This would reverse the historical approach in which the Ultimate Trail was treated as the preferred configuration and the Interim Trail as a fallback.
The information now available—including escalating construction costs, corridor constraints, limited funding, and the need to deliver a continuous trail sooner—supports making the Interim Trail the starting point.
RTC’s own proposed Grand Jury response states that the agency is now advancing the Interim Trail as its near-term priority. The planning and environmental process for Segments 12-17 should reflect that policy direction.
Trail Now therefore asks the Commission to direct staff and its consultants to develop the Interim Trail as the primary project configuration while retaining the Ultimate Trail as an alternative for objective comparison.
This policy choice is especially urgent because the RTC is moving forward with a $4.5 million contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Project Approval and Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) phase of the Southern Segments Project between Aptos and Pajaro without first establishing which trail configuration should be the primary project. Committing millions of dollars to engineering before making that fundamental policy decision risks perpetuating the lack of clear direction, disciplined project advancement, and financial oversight identified by the Grand Jury.
The physical realities of the southern corridor further support making the Interim Trail the primary design. Between Rio Del Mar (Segment 13) and Pajaro, there are approximately 11 railroad bridge and trestle crossings, several consisting of multiple individual bridge structures. Aging railroad structures that might be repurposed for trail use could require substantial reconstruction or replacement to support a future passenger rail system. That distinction has major implications for cost, environmental impacts, permitting, construction schedules, and overall feasibility.
The so-called Ultimate Trail should also not be treated as a permanent final design. If passenger rail were eventually implemented, portions of a trail constructed next to the existing tracks could still require redesign, relocation, or reconstruction to provide the separation, safety improvements, and infrastructure needed for passenger rail operations. Spending millions to engineer an Ultimate Trail that may prove unaffordable, infeasible, or subject to later reconstruction risks repeating the costly planning problems already experienced on Segments 9–11.
Coastal Act compliance creates an additional reason to avoid presuming the Ultimate Trail is the preferred configuration. The Southern Segments traverse sensitive coastal resources, wetlands, agricultural lands, waterways, flood-prone areas, and locations vulnerable to sea-level rise. The Coastal Commission's review of projects such as the North Coast Trail demonstrates that protection of coastal resources, public access, habitat, and long-term resiliency can materially affect project design and permitting. RTC should not spend millions engineering an Ultimate Trail before determining whether it can realistically satisfy those requirements.
The more pragmatic approach is too direct HDR to advance the Interim Trail as the preferred project, using the existing rail corridor and infrastructure wherever feasible, while evaluating the Ultimate Trail as an alternative. The governing question should be straightforward: which trail can actually be funded, permitted, and built? This approach offers the strongest opportunity to deliver a continuous Coastal Trail sooner, at a more realistic cost, with fewer environmental impacts and substantially less financial risk to taxpayers. It is time to stop engineering the unaffordable and start building the achievable.
4. The ZEPRT study demonstrates that a future passenger rail system is not viable and RTC should end further passenger-rail work
The RTC agrees with the Grand Jury that the ZEPRT Concept Report provided significantly greater engineering detail than previous studies and estimated approximately $4.3 billion to construct passenger rail.
The ZEPRT findings should not trigger another round of passenger-rail study. They provide the evidence needed for the RTC to make a decision: a new passenger rail system on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line is not financially or practically viable.
ZEPRT’s billion-dollar capital estimate, $41 million-dollar annual operating cost, low projected ridership, and the physical constraints of the corridor demonstrate that the proposed passenger rail system is not a realistic transportation investment for Santa Cruz County.
The ZEPRT analysis is the RTC’s most detailed examination of passenger rail. Trail Now believes its findings should be treated as the conclusion of the passenger-rail evaluation process—not the starting point for additional studies intended to keep the concept alive.
Trail Now therefore recommends that the Commission formally conclude that a future passenger rail system is not viable and direct that no additional RTC staff time, consultant work, engineering, environmental review, grant development, planning, feasibility analysis, ridership analysis, cost estimating, or other public resources be spent evaluating, developing, or advancing a future passenger rail system on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line.
Trail Now believes ZEPRT has provided sufficient evidence for that decision: the proposed passenger train is not a viable transportation investment for Santa Cruz County.
RTC should end further passenger-rail evaluations and redirect staff time, consultant resources, and available transportation funding toward projects that can realistically be funded, permitted, and built—most importantly, completion of the continuous Santa Cruz Coastal Trail.
5. Clarify the RTC’s continuing Proposition 116 obligations before using them to justify further passenger-rail work
The RTC’s proposed response to Finding F8 cites Proposition 116 and the funding used to acquire the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line as part of the basis for preserving passenger rail as a long-term objective.
Before Proposition 116 is relied upon to justify continued passenger-rail planning or expenditure, the RTC should determine and publicly disclose what continuing legal or financial obligation actually remains under Proposition 116 and the associated California Transportation Commission funding agreements.
That disclosure should specifically address whether a formal RTC determination that passenger rail is financially or practically infeasible would trigger any repayment obligation, and, if so, the amount that could be subject to repayment, the conditions that would trigger repayment, the party to whom repayment would be owed, and any available alternatives or remedies.
The Commission should not continue spending staff time, consultant resources, or public funds on passenger rail based on an assumed Proposition 116 obligation without first establishing, through a clear and authoritative legal and financial analysis, what obligation actually exists today.
6. The ZEPRT peer-review recommendations are no longer relevant to advancing passenger rail
The Grand Jury recommends that RTC follow best practices by directing staff to follow the recommendations of the independent ZEPRT peer review and continue working with peer organizations.
Although a separate formal peer-review report was not prepared, RTC did conduct a peer review of the ZEPRT work, and the conclusions were presented to the Commission in slide format at a prior public meeting. The review was not merely an internal RTC exercise. It drew on recognized passenger-rail professionals from peer agencies with substantial rail expertise, including SMART, San Bernardino-area transit, BART, Caltrain, and other agencies. Importantly, that expert review validated the ZEPRT study and its overall technical approach and findings. This provides additional independent support for relying on ZEPRT as a sound basis for the Commission’s decision-making rather than treating the absence of a stand-alone written peer-review report as a reason to reopen or extend the passenger-rail evaluation process.
However, the ZEPRT Concept Report has now provided the detailed cost, ridership, operating, and corridor information necessary to determine whether a future passenger rail system is viable. As explained above, those findings demonstrate that a new passenger train on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line is not a financially or practically viable transportation investment.
Because the underlying passenger rail project is not viable, peer-review recommendations intended to refine, improve, or guide continued development of that rail project are no longer relevant. Implementing those recommendations would only perpetuate additional staff work, consultant analysis, planning, and public expense for a passenger rail system that should not proceed.
Trail Now therefore recommends that RTC not use the peer review as a basis for further passenger-rail work. Instead, the Commission should formally conclude the passenger-rail evaluation process based on the ZEPRT findings and direct staff and consultants to devote no additional resources to implementing peer-review recommendations related to developing or advancing a future passenger train.
The appropriate response to the peer review is not another round of rail planning. It is to recognize that ZEPRT answered the threshold question: the proposed passenger train is not viable, and RTC should move on to transportation projects that can realistically be funded, permitted, and built.
7. Take greater responsibility for providing complete and authoritative public information
The Grand Jury found that RTC historically failed to effectively communicate complete and accurate information regarding the financial, engineering, and legal challenges associated with building infrastructure on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line.
The Grand Jury concluded that the result has been competing advocacy narratives and the absence of a sufficiently timely, objective, and authoritative source of information for the public.
RTC proposes to disagree with this finding.
Trail Now believes a more constructive response would be to acknowledge that communication can and must improve.
This is especially important regarding realistic capital and operating costs, the condition of rail infrastructure, assumptions and uncertainty underlying cost and ridership estimates, available funding, differences between Interim and Ultimate Trail alternatives, legal and regulatory issues affecting the corridor, and the financial consequences of competing transportation investments.
The Grand Jury’s Recommendation R7 calls for RTC to develop a plan to strengthen public communication and ensure the timely and accurate dissemination of information, with the goal of improving public understanding and reducing misinformation.
RTC instead marks R7 as “HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED,” largely based on its Equitable Outreach and Engagement Toolkit.
That toolkit may improve community engagement, but community engagement and authoritative project information are not the same thing.
RTC should establish a publicly accessible and regularly updated source of authoritative Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line information containing major cost estimates, funding commitments, assumptions, engineering findings, legal developments, project schedules, and Commission decisions.
A Better Path Forward
The Civil Grand Jury report should not be viewed as an attack on the RTC. It provides the Commission with an opportunity to improve how major transportation investments are evaluated, communicated, and delivered.
Trail Now asks the Commission to revise its proposed response and take the following actions:
1. Acknowledge the historical lack of a consistent implementation strategy for the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line.
2. Accept the Grand Jury’s recommendation for a formal Capital Project Advancement Framework rather than declaring existing practices sufficient.
3. Direct HDR Engineering and other RTC consultants to establish the Interim Trail as the primary design approach for Segments 12-17, with the Ultimate Trail evaluated as an alternative.
4. Conclude, based on the evidence developed through ZEPRT—including the approximately $4.3 billion capital estimate, projected ridership, operating costs, required subsidies, and corridor constraints—that a future passenger rail system is not viable, and direct RTC staff and consultants to perform no further work evaluating, planning, engineering, studying, seeking grants for, or otherwise advancing a future passenger rail system.
5. Direct staff and legal counsel to determine and publicly disclose the RTC’s continuing Proposition 116 obligations, including whether a finding that passenger rail is infeasible would trigger repayment and, if so, the amount and conditions of any repayment obligation.
6. Develop a comprehensive strategic framework for major transportation investments rather than treating the existing Regional Transportation Plan as a substitute.
The RTC itself agrees with significant portions of the Grand Jury’s assessment: the rail infrastructure has deteriorated; the agency historically operated primarily as a planning organization; financial resources are constrained; Ultimate Trail costs have increased dramatically; and the much more detailed ZEPRT analysis now estimates passenger rail at approximately $4.3 billion.
These findings should result in more than explanations of why past decisions were made - they should result in changes to how future decisions are made and changes in the direction of transportation investments (Trail vs. Train) by RTC.
Trail Now believes the most immediate changes should be straightforward: prioritize construction of the continuous Santa Cruz Coastal Trail; direct HDR and RTC staff to establish the Interim Trail as the primary near-term design; evaluate the Ultimate Trail only as an alternative; formally conclude from the ZEPRT findings that a future passenger rail system is not viable; determine and publicly disclose the RTC’s continuing Proposition 116 obligations, including any actual repayment trigger, amount, and conditions; and direct that no further RTC staff time, consultant work, studies, engineering, environmental review, grant development, or other public resources be devoted to evaluating or advancing future passenger rail. The RTC should focus its limited resources on transportation investments that can actually be funded, permitted, and built.
Finally, the Commission should also recognize that its response to the Grand Jury report will have consequences well beyond the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. Santa Cruz METRO has identified a potential 0.5% sales-tax measure as a means of addressing its future funding deficit. Too much of the public, RTC and METRO are not viewed as separate institutions; their leadership and transportation decisions are closely associated. Public confidence in one therefore affects public confidence in the other. If the RTC refuses to acknowledge the financial conclusions of ZEPRT and continues pursuing an unaffordable passenger-rail system, or fails to make the Interim Trail the preferred plan needed to deliver the Coastal Trail sooner and at a realistic cost, those decisions are likely to influence public willingness to support a future METRO sales-tax measure. Voters cannot reasonably be expected to approve additional transportation taxes while they perceive existing transportation agencies as unwilling to make difficult choices, establish clear priorities, or focus limited public resources on projects that can actually be funded and built. The RTC's response to the Grand Jury is therefore also an opportunity to restore public confidence in regional transportation leadership—confidence that may be essential to METRO's ability to secure future taxpayer support.