Planned passenger rail faces nearly $1 billion price tag to replace or repair dozens of Santa Cruz County bridges

Bringing passenger rail service to Santa Cruz County would likely require entirely replacing 28 bridges and repairing or strengthening five others at a cost of nearly $1 billion, staff from the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and Nebraska-based engineering consultant firm HDR, Inc. told a community meeting Wednesday.

Last April, RTC staff issued preliminary recommendations to replace 23 of the 33 bridges along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line as part of the Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail project, which envisions a 22-mile passenger train and a 32-mile pedestrian and bicycle path named the Coastal Rail Trail. 

At the time, the agency warned that many of the bridges in the area were not built to modern rail standards and are not capable of carrying passenger train loads. That included 16 wooden bridges, five steel-girder bridges, one steel-truss bridge and one wrought-iron truss bridge. The trestles in Capitola and over the San Lorenzo River near the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk were among those recommended for replacement.

The possibility of replacing numerous bridges across the county, especially the historic trestles, has been a flashpoint for some residents who are skeptical of passenger rail’s local feasibility. Understanding how many bridges will need to be repaired or replaced, and how much that will cost, is an important part of the rail project’s concept report, which is now set to be released in the fall, after it was delayed from a spring completion date.

Peter Graff, a project manager with HDR, said the RTC has identified six possible bridge types that could replace the current infrastructure. Of those, five use steel as the main material and one uses concrete. HDR recommended using concrete for 12 of the bridge replacements and a combination of steel types for the rest.

Graff said the preliminary cost estimate of $980 million to replace and repair the bridges does not include costs to build trail segments and other aspects of the rail line, such as stations, maintenance, labor facilities or vehicles. He added that the RTC will consider improving vertical clearances — the space from the bottom of the bridge to the road running beneath it — where needed, and also consider adding bike lanes and sidewalks where possible.

Graff also said that the agency’s next steps include working with geotechnical engineers to ensure the new bridges will meet vertical and horizontal clearance requirements, not block the flow of water for bridges over drainages, and to create layout drawings. After that, the hope is for a clearer picture of cost and materials for each bridge replacement. However, he added that there is no timeline for when actual construction on the replacements would start. Graff said the firm will report its findings to the RTC, but did not say when.

Community members sent in questions during the online meeting, many of which related to funding, ways to preserve some of the historic bridges and options to move the project forward. 

Asked if the project would be less expensive if the bridges were designed for only passenger trains rather than both freight and passenger trains, RTC associate engineer Riley Gerbrandt said commissioners asked staff to include freight service in its plans for the rail line, but that designing for only passenger rail wouldn’t be significantly cheaper. 

HDR Vice President Mark McLaren added that a multiple-unit train requires similar infrastructure to freight trains; a multiple-unit train is a popular option for commuter rail services because it can be built to meet a specific level of ridership. He also said that a multiple-train unit is meant to be interoperable at the Union Pacific Railroad’s main line in Watsonville, allowing intercity rail service.

“We’ve got to remember that while the multiple-unit doesn’t look like a freight train, it’s still a heavy piece of railroad equipment,” McLaren said. “The standard for that type of equipment is not much different and there is not a significant savings at this point.”

While it’s possible to keep historic bridges intact and simply build a new bridge to accommodate passenger rail above them, Gerbrandt said that would be even more expensive and challenging.

Gerbrandt and Graff also talked about the decision to have separate bridges for a train and the trail in some areas. Gerbrandt said that separate structures allow for more design flexibility and are more practical and less costly than combining the two structures. Maintenance is also a big factor.

“Railroads need work on tire replacements, hand rail work and surfacing to keep the track level smooth for enjoyable passenger rides,” said Graff. “With a trail attached, it just becomes another element that has to be potentially shut down, impacting public access.”

On funding, Gerbrandt said that the plan is to pursue federal grants for the project. He said that the plan to run the train on the rail owned by Union Pacific in Watsonville, to a proposed Pajaro station, provides a federal funding advantage, because it would be considered intercity rail — a type of project that can receive funding through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which earmarked $1.2 trillion in federal infrastructure spending. However, immediately after his return to office, President Donald Trump paused funding to IIJA projects.

“Targeting that specific program, which would require intercity rail service on the branch line, is a key aspect that the project team has been honing in on,” Gerbrandt said.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.