Quick Take
Matt Farrell’s recent Lookout op-ed is misleading and fiscally unrealistic, argues Will Mayall. He believes Farrell bases his argument on hope, not facts. He also criticizes Farrell’s continued insistence on the defeat of Measure D in 2022, insisting that voters did not greenlight a train system — only voted to keep the existing code unchanged. Citing the county-commissioned Zero Emission Passenger Rail & Trail study, Mayall points out the staggering costs, limited ridership and lack of local funding — warning that a massive sales tax hike would be required to move forward.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
Matt Farrell’s recent op-ed wrongly obsesses over Santa Cruz County voters’ defeat of Greenway’s Measure D in 2022. Instead, he should be looking at recent Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) data.
He argues that voters rejected removing the rail line and, in his view, signaled support for pursuing a future passenger train alongside the trail. Farrell is explicitly advocating building and funding a train system. He insists state and federal funding will eventually cover most rail costs.
What Farrell does not address is the new information from the RTC. Following the will of the voters, the agency commissioned the $9 million Zero Emission Passenger Rail & Trail (ZEPRT) study — the comprehensive rail analysis that Farrell and Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT) had demanded. The executive summary delivers sobering findings about the scale, cost and limited feasibility of the rail plan — information unknown in 2022.
Instead of engaging with those findings, Farrell and FORT are casting doubt on the report and calling for a third-party review. But this time, the messenger isn’t Greenway or even the public — it’s the RTC staff and the ZEPRT report itself. He attacks the facts because they don’t fit his narrative.
MORE RAIL & TRAIL: Lookout news coverage | Community Voices opinion
Farrell is right about one thing: Measure D was defeated in 2022, and voters rejected changing the county code to prioritize a trail. But let’s be clear what that vote meant — and what has happened since.
The defeat of Measure D left the county code unchanged. It did not establish rail as a priority, nor did it create a mandate for building a train. In response to the vote, the RTC followed its long-established pattern and commissioned ZEPRT, the most detailed rail study Santa Cruz County has ever done. And what did ZEPRT find?
The number says it all: $4.3 billion in capital costs.
Not just bridges and tracks, but everything: crossings, stations, vehicles, signals, quiet zones and more. Even under optimistic projections, this system would serve only a small fraction of daily trips — directly contradicting Farrell’s claims of affordability — and leave county taxpayers holding the bag for enormous, ongoing operating subsidies.
Farrell barely addresses the price tag.
Instead, he leans on the idea that outside sources will cover the bulk of the cost — claiming state or federal agencies will cover 80 to 90% of funding. But there are no committed funds, no dedicated local revenue streams and no serious plans to cover even the minimum required local share.
Even under the most optimistic scenario — 80% external funding (Farrell’s 90% is fantasy) — the local share still exceeds $1 billion. The only way the RTC can raise that kind of money is through a new countywide sales tax, and under California law, any such tax for rail would require a two-thirds supermajority vote. That’s a high bar.
And without it, state and federal agencies won’t even consider awarding major grants. In other words, no local tax, no rail funding. RTC staff are already modeling more realistic outside funding levels — 70%, 60%, even 50% — because they know major funding won’t materialize until local voters commit first.
For context, even the SMART train in Sonoma/Marin — an example Farrell cites — received less than 40% of its total funding from state and federal sources. Santa Cruz County is unlikely to fare better.
And even if someone else pays for construction, local taxpayers are responsible for 100% of operating costs — $30 to $40 million per year, every year, with no end. That’s a liability, not a legacy.
Farrell frames rail critics as ignoring voter will. In truth, voters asked the county to study the project — and the results, from over 40 years of reports, have pointed to the same problems:
- A narrow, deteriorating and constrained corridor.
- Limited ridership potential in our small county.
- Massive infrastructure costs.
- No relief for Highway 1 congestion.
- No connection to key destinations like UC Santa Cruz.
- No sustainable financial path to build or operate the system.
Unlike Farrell’s examples of SMART or Caltrain, which serve large regions and integrate into broader systems, Santa Cruz is a geographic cul-de-sac — a dead-end rail spur with no regional connectivity. It lacks the population, density, transit links and dedicated funding to support such a system.
FORT has long promised that we can have both rail and trail. But the current controversy isn’t actually about the trail — adding a trail has never been controversial. In fact, the concept is part of FORT’s name. But in many places — Capitola, Live Oak, mobile home park areas, South County — there simply isn’t room, and never was. Trying to fit both means cutting into homes, walling off neighborhoods, detouring onto streets and spending hundreds of millions more. Such a trail would be narrow, fragmented and compromised.
Farrell dismisses railbanking as a fantasy. But railbanking is real and the opposite of anti-rail: it legally protects the right to use the corridor for rail in perpetuity while enabling a trail today. Without it, we’re stuck with an expensive, decaying rail line serving no one. With it, we can build a wide, safe trail now and keep the right-of-way intact for future transit.
Let’s not rewrite history. Measure D specifically asked voters whether the county code should be changed to prioritize trail development over rail. It was not a referendum on the ZEPRT project or its staggering costs. Farrell misinterprets the results, implying that voters explicitly endorsed the expensive rail plan forever. In reality, voters simply asked the county to continue studying the options. The county did that — and now the numbers are in.
If even Farrell won’t defend the costs — why should taxpayers?
Santa Cruz County has waited long enough. The rail idea was never grounded in practical reality, and now the county has a valuable opportunity to pivot toward a data-driven, trail-focused solution that serves residents. The ZERT study gives us a full-cost picture to make informed decisions.
The facts are clear, and the path forward should be too — the county has an opportunity to make informed, practical choices that deliver real benefits without saddling taxpayers with unsustainable costs.
Will Mayall has lived in Santa Cruz County for 50 years. A lifelong train enthusiast — for both transportation and recreation — he has explored the local rail corridor extensively. He previously served on the board of Santa Cruz County Greenway, which advocates for a trail-only solution as the best use of the corridor.