1.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

This chapter of the combined Program Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact 

Statement (Program EIR/EIS) describes the need for conventional rail improvements to help 

relieve the growing capacity and congestion constraints on intercity travel using existing 

highway and passenger rail infrastructure between Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego 

Counties. This chapter also describes how incremental improvements would serve the purpose 

of augmenting the existing rail infrastructure, helping to relieve congestion and capacity 

constraints, while simultaneously offering reliable, safe and time-efficient travel. 

References to the sources used in the preparation of this document are provided in Chapter 11. 

In some cases to clarify a particular source, specific references are called out in the text. 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Los Angeles to San Diego travel corridor links California’s three most populous counties - 

Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego. Travel along this corridor is served largely by Interstate 5 

(I-5) and the intercity and commuter rail services that operate along the former Santa Fe 

Railroad corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego. This rail corridor is currently used by 

Amtrak, Metrolink, Coaster and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) freight 

service, and loosely parallels I-5 from Los Angeles Union Station through Orange County to San 

Diego's Santa Fe Depot. 

For the purposes of this study, intercity rail service refers to the passenger rail service, operated 

by Amtrak and jointly funded by Amtrak and the California Department of Transportation 

(Department) and known as the Pacific Surfliner. The Pacific Surfliner provides daily passenger 

service along the rail corridor that connects San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San 

Luis Obispo (and intermediate communities between these cities), and is more commonly 

known as the LOSSAN corridor. However, for the purpose of this study the LOSSAN corridor 

will refer only to the segment between Los Angeles and San Diego. Commuter rail refers to the 

services provided by Metrolink in Los Angeles, Orange and north San Diego Counties, and 

Coaster in San Diego County. Since three services regularly utilize the LOSSAN corridor, the 

expansion plans of each service, and those of BNSF (the freight operator), must be taken into 

account when considering improvements along the rail corridor. 

Southern California’s existing transportation network is currently operating at or near its design 

capacity, and building additional capacity is both expensive and increasingly problematic. This 

results in highway and railroad travel delays, has a negative impact on the region’s economy, 

and can result in environmental impacts and the reduction of the quality of life for all. 

Improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor would help meet the Southern California region’s 

transportation demands of today, as well as help to address the expected increase in intercity 

travel demand rising out of the growth in population over the next 20 years and beyond. 

Improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor would improve passenger rail travel between the Los 

Angeles, Orange and San Diego County major metropolitan areas; provide for a better interface 

with transit and highways; and provide added capacity within a multimodal strategy to help meet 

increases in intercity travel demand in Southern California in a manner sensitive to and 
1.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

protective of California’s unique natural resources. The overall goal is to improve mobility and 

reliability in this congested part of the state by decreasing trip times and improving the rail 

system in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. 

The Department is partnering with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) in its 

examination of the LOSSAN corridor. The Authority is the state agency responsible for the 

proposed statewide high-speed train system extending from Sacramento, the Bay Area, through 

the Central Valley to Los Angeles and San Diego. While this electrified, grade-separated 

system might run only as far south as either Anaheim or Irvine within the LOSSAN corridor, 

LOSSAN passenger rail service is important to the Authority in its role as a feeder network to 

the statewide system, and the improvements proposed by the Department would strengthen the 

corridor’s ability to serve that role.1 

The Department and the Authority worked together, within the framework of an Agreement, to 

develop the technical data and necessary public and agency outreach for the Department’s 

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS. LOSSAN corridor improvements were 

also considered as a feeder service in the Authority’s 2005 High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS, 

with shared corridor options as far south as Irvine. The Department and the Authority are 

responsible for making their own decisions, analyses, and determinations regarding the use of 

the shared technical data. (See Chapter 2, Alternatives, for more discussion of the relationship 

between the Authority and the Department in developing and evaluating options for rail 

improvements in the LOSSAN region.) 

The Department commenced this environmental review process to comply with federal and 

state laws, in particular the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. P.R.C. § 21000 et 

seq.). NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for 

proposed actions that have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Because 

of possible future funding and regulatory action, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 

the lead federal agency, working with the Department as the lead state agency, for the 

environmental review required by NEPA and related statutes. The FRA has further determined 

that the preparation of a program-level (tier 1) EIS for the proposed rail improvements is the 

appropriate NEPA document because of the comprehensive nature and scope of the corridor 

improvements proposed by the Department and the conceptual stage of planning and decisionmaking. The decisions related to advancing and ultimately constructing the proposed rail 

improvements would constitute major federal actions requiring environmental review under 

NEPA for several federal agencies in addition to the FRA. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), among others, have been active participants throughout project planning and the 

preparation of this Program EIS. 

The rail corridor improvements being proposed are subject to environmental review under 

CEQA, and the Department is both the project sponsor and the lead agency for purposes of 

CEQA compliance. The Department has determined that a program environmental impact 

report (EIR) is the appropriate CEQA document for the project at this conceptual stage of 

planning and decision-making, which includes selecting a preferred rail alignment option in 

some locations and identifying options for phasing the development of the incremental rail 

improvements. No permits will be sought in this phase of environmental review. If the rail 

 

1 As part of its proposed statewide high-speed train system, the Authority is also continuing to examine a dedicated high-speed train 

corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino). 
1.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

improvements alternative is selected at the conclusion of the Program EIR/EIS, separate and 

distinct improvement projects will be the subject of project-level environmental documentation to 

assess in more detail site-specific impacts. Project-level environmental documentation will also 

update environmental/regulatory settings as necessary in focused study areas. 

This document is being prepared as a combined program EIR/EIS for compliance with both 

CEQA and NEPA. The Program EIR/EIS will enable public agencies to evaluate the potential 

impacts of the proposed rail improvements, evaluate the improvements against the No-Project 

Alternative, select a preferred alternative, and define mitigation strategies to address any 

potentially significant adverse impacts. If the Rail Improvements Alternative is selected as the 

preferred alternative, the Program EIR/EIS will support the approvals and initial financing 

decisions necessary to implement the proposed rail corridor improvements. 

Preparation of a program-level document followed by more detailed project-specific documents 

that “tier”2 off the program document offers a number of advantages. As described in Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 C.F.R. §1508.28), FHWA Guidelines (23 C.F.R. 

Part 771; 52 F.R. § 32646 [August 1987]), and the state CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 

15168[b]), this approach offers the following advantages. 

• More exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an 

individual or project-specific EIR/EIS. 

• Consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. 

• An opportunity for decision-makers to consider broad policy alternatives and programlevel mitigation strategies at an early stage, when the flexibility to incorporate them is 

greater. 

• Avoiding reconsideration of policy issues in subsequent documents. 

• Early coordination with the USACE and EPA to identify avoidance and minimization 

opportunities that are likely to yield or will lead to the selection of a least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

• Less paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data through incorporation by reference in 

subsequent tiered documents. 

The required contents of a program EIR/EIS are the same as those of a project-level document. 

However, the level of detail provided in the two types of documents differs substantially because 

a program-level document analyzes a general conceptual design of the proposed program and 

alternatives rather than providing detailed analysis of a specific project proposal. 

A program EIR/EIS is an informational document intended to analyze and to disclose to the 

public and to public decision-makers the environmental effects and benefits of a proposed 

program and its alternatives. The preparation, circulation, and review of a draft program 

EIR/EIS provides for the evaluation of alternatives, including a no-project/no-action alternative; 

the assessment of all significant environmental impacts; and the opportunity for public input and 

comments to help inform the decision-making process. Evaluating alternatives as required by 

FRA’s procedures for considering environmental impacts (64 F.R. § 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and 

by other federal agency NEPA regulations and state CEQA guidelines helps ensure that 

 

2 Tiering refers to a multilevel approach where a first tier environmental document analyzes general matters and subsequent tiers 

analyze narrower projects/actions, referencing the more general document. 
1.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

avoidance and minimization of potential environmental impacts are addressed, and potential 

benefits, costs, and trade-offs of alternatives are considered. 

This Program-level document has been prepared to allow the lead agencies to consider a future 

program of improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor and to provide information to decide 

between the No-Project and the Rail Improvements Alternative. All site-specific location 

decisions will be made during project-level environmental review based upon site-specific 

analysis. 

Project-level analysis, engineering refinement, and documentation will be necessary for major 

improvements that have been identified and selected through this Program environmental 

review prior to permitting and construction. As described in Chapter 3 of this document, these 

requirements would include site-specific field studies and resource surveys, as well as agency 

coordination, specific measures to avoid or minimize impacts, and an approved mitigation plan. 

Several alternative improvements for some rail segments along the rail corridor have been 

selected for continued investigation, including the areas traversing coastal lagoons in northern 

San Diego County (between Oceanside and the I-5/805 Split). In these areas (as well as 

others), more detailed project-level study, additional refinement of the alignments and/or station 

locations, and further public and agency input are needed to make decisions among conceptual 

alignment options. This Program EIR/EIS has been prepared under the supervision and 

direction of the FRA and the Department and with input from federal, state and local agencies. 

It is intended that other federal, state, regional, and local agencies use the Program EIR/EIS to 

review the proposed program and develop expectations for the project-level environmental 

reviews that would follow should the Rail Improvements Alternative be selected. Section 3.17 

outlines some of the issues and possible approaches to project-level decision making. 

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR IMPROVED INTERCITY 

TRANSPORTATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Purpose and need are closely linked but subtly different. Need may be thought of as the 

problem and purpose as an intention to address the problem. Purpose describes why the 

sponsoring agency is proposing an action that may have environmental impacts and provides 

the basis for selecting reasonable and practicable alternatives for consideration, comparing the 

alternatives, and selecting the preferred alternative (40 C.F.R. § 1502.13; [“The statement shall 

briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing 

the alternatives including the proposed action”]; see also NEPA § 102.). CEQA requires that an 

EIR identify the project sponsor’s objectives which are similar to the purpose required by NEPA 

(CEQA Guidelines, C.C.R. Title 14, § 15124 [b]). The objectives provide benchmarks for 

selecting a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis, as required by CEQA. 

1.2.1 Purpose of Rail Improvements 

The purpose of the proposed rail improvements to the LOSSAN corridor is to develop a faster, 

safer and more reliable passenger rail system that provides added capacity in response to 

increased travel demand (through the year 2020) between Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego 

Counties (between Los Angeles Union Station and San Diego Santa Fe Depot). 

In the current California State Rail Plan (covering the period from 2001-02 to 2010-11), the 

Department has described its overall objectives and policies for intercity rail improvements. 

These objectives and policies include the following. 
1.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Increase the cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity passenger rail systems. 

• Increase capacity on existing routes. 

• Reduce running times to attract additional riders and to provide a more attractive 

service. 

• Improve the safety of State-supported intercity rail service. 

In addition to the policies set forth in the State Rail Plan, minimizing impacts to natural 

resources (e.g. wetlands, wildlife habitat) and human communities are also important objectives 

of the Department regarding any improvement within the rail corridor. 

The regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), which include the Southern 

California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the San Diego Association of Governments 

(SANDAG), state in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) a desire for rail improvements 

within their jurisdictions as part of a balanced, multimodal transportation system, and a 

willingness to cooperate with the Department in the development of this Program EIR/EIS. Both 

SCAG and SANDAG regard rail improvements as an integral component in improving the 

regional transportation system. 

The SCAG RTP states that Metrolink, the regional commuter rail service, has developed a $1.1 

billion long-range capital improvements plan, which will effectively double Metrolink’s passenger 

capacity. Projects within this long-range plan include the following. 

• Selective double-tracking on critical route segments. 

• Switching and signaling improvements. 

• Communication system improvements. 

• New stations and improvements to existing stations. 

• Additional rolling stock and maintenance facilities. 

In addition, the SANDAG RTP identifies actions supportive of the purpose including 

improvements of the existing commuter and intercity rail service. Examples of the improvements 

cited in the SANDAG RTP include the following. 

• Complete double-tracking from Oceanside to San Diego (conditional on appropriate 

environmental impact analyses). 

• Tunnels at Del Mar and University Towne Centre. 

• Grade separations (where practical). 

• New stations and expansion of parking at existing stations. 

These proposed corridor improvements could also help provide those who don’t own or operate 

an automobile (including minors, seniors, and disabled persons) with improved transportation 

choices. 

The Department’s proposed rail improvements are consistent with recent expressions of federal 

transportation policy, most notably the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 

(105 Pub. L. 178; 112 Stat. 107 [1998]) and its predecessor, the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (102 Pub. L. 240; 105 Stat. 1914 [1991]), which 
1.0-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

encourage public transportation investment that increases national productivity and domestic 

and international competition while improving safety and social and environmental conditions. 

Specifically, these policies encourage investments that offer benefits such as those listed below. 

• Link all major forms of transportation. 

• Improve public transportation systems and services. 

• Enhance efficient operation of transportation facilities and service. 

Together, these statements of policy support the purpose of the improvements being studied 

within the LOSSAN corridor. The following sections describe the need, or problems 

underpinning the purpose. 

1.2.2 Need For Rail Improvements in the LOSSAN Corridor 

The capacity of Southern California’s intercity transportation system is insufficient to meet 

existing and future demand, and the current and projected future congestion of the system will 

continue to result in deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The 

intercity rail system has not kept pace with the tremendous increase in population and tourism in 

the state. The interstate highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail 

system serving the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity and will 

require large public investments for maintenance and expansion in order to meet existing 

demand and future growth over the next 20 years and beyond. Simply stated, the need for 

improvements to the corridor relates to the following issues. 

• Future growth in travel demand for passenger trips between Los Angeles, Orange and 

San Diego Counties. 

• Rail capacity constraints that will result in congestion and travel delays. 

• Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, 

accidents and other factors that affect the quality of life and economic well-being of 

residents, businesses, and tourism in Southern California. 

• Increasing frequency of accidents on intercity highways and passenger rail lines in 

California’s congested travel corridors, and the potential for accidents at at-grade 

crossings as highway and rail traffic volumes increase. 

• Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of 

expanded highway construction, motor vehicle use and congestion 

The following sections provide additional information on these factors, emphasizing the 

transportation constraints and capacity limitations relevant to intercity travel in Southern 

California. 

A. TRAVEL DEMAND 

Although the primary focus of this study is the improvement of the intercity passenger 

rail system, the total rail travel demand along the LOSSAN corridor is the result of the 

combination of the intercity, commuter and freight services. The demand for each 

service is described in the following sections, followed by a summary of the overall 

existing and proposed capacity of the rail corridor. 
1.0-7

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Intercity Trips

Intercity travel in California is projected to grow by 35 percent over the next 20 years, 

from 155 million trips to 209 million trips. For Southern California, defined here as the 

Counties of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego, intercity travel is expected to grow by 

approximately 23.4 percent over a 23-year time span, from 36 million trips in 1997, to 

approximately 47 million in 2020.3 Between the years 2000 and 2020, the state’s 

population is expected to increase by 31 percent, from 34.7 million to 45.4 million 

residents. Southern California’s share of the population increase over the same period is 

forecast to be 3.4 million (or 23 percent), as shown in Figure 1.2-1. By 2020, just under 

half of the total statewide population will live in Southern California. 

Figure 1.2-1 Projected Population Growth for Southern California 

Statewide, automobile trips account for over 84 percent of all intercity travel and over 

58 percent of the longer trips. In Southern California, this is even more pronounced, as 

the automobile currently dominates intercity travel. Table 1.2-1 shows the expected 

growth in traffic volume on the major highway link between Los Angeles and San Diego 

from 2000 to 2025. Automobile travel between Los Angeles and San Diego is currently 

the second largest geographic travel market in the state, accounting for 34.9 million trips 

in 1997. 

Intercity Rail Trips

Currently, this intercity corridor is also the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the 

nation, carrying approximately 4,700 riders each day (1.7 million riders annually) along 

the entire Pacific Surfliner corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego (California 

Department of Transportation 2001). Of this service, the segment between Los Angeles 

and San Diego has a current daily ridership of 3,900 (1.4 million riders annually). 

Intercity rail travel is anticipating exponential growth within the next 20 years. In 2001, 

Amtrak’s 20-Year Improvement Plan projected 2005 and 2020 ridership along the rail 

corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, using the total travel demand growth and 

constant mode share. By 2005, ridership is forecast to increase to approximately 

 

3 Charles River Associates Incorporated, Independent Ridership and Passenger Revenue Projections for High Speed Rail 

Alternatives in California, January 2000. 
1.0-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

5,500 riders per day (2 million riders annually) and to 15,800 daily riders (5.77 million 

riders annually) by 2020. 

Currently, the Pacific Surfliner service provides 11 daily roundtrips between San Diego 

and Los Angeles (a total of 22 trains per day in both directions). To accommodate 

increasing travel demand, an additional 5 Surfliner roundtrips are planned by 2020, for a 

total of 16 daily roundtrips (32 trains per day in both directions). 

Table 1.2-1 

Average Daily Traffic Volumes between Los Angeles and San Diego 

Major Highway Avg. Daily 

Volume 2001 

Avg. Daily 

Volume 2025 

% Change 

2001 - 2025 

I-5 between Downtown Los Angeles 

and Downtown San Diego 221,900 270,193 18% 

Source: The Department, Orange County Transportation Authority, SCAG, SANDAG 

Regional and urban traffic is steadily increasing. This affects intercity travel by delaying 

travelers at specific highway chokepoints, therefore increasing congestion along the 

entire corridor. The proposed rail corridor improvements would help to accommodate a 

portion of this projected growth in travel demand. 

Commuter Rail Trips

Commuter service is one of three services that currently use the rail corridor between 

Los Angeles and San Diego. Commuter services within the corridor are operated by 

two transportation agencies. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) 

operates commuter rail services within Los Angeles and Orange County, while 

North County Transit District (Coaster) operates commuter service within San Diego 

County. 

Currently, a total of 28 trains each weekday are operated by Metrolink between Los 

Angeles Union Station and the Fullerton Transportation Center in North Orange County, 

a total of between 19 and 31 trains operate between the Fullerton Transportation Center 

and the Orange Metrolink Station, 31 trains between the Orange Metrolink Station and 

the Laguna Niguel Metrolink Station, and a total of 18 Metrolink trains operate along the 

rail corridor between Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, and as far south as 

Oceanside in North San Diego County. Headways vary between one-half hour to three 

hours, depending on the direction of operation, time of day, and the segment of the 

corridor in which the train is operating. 

The Coaster operates 11 trains a day in each direction (at total of 22 trains) between the 

Oceanside Transportation Center and Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego, at 

headways similar to those of Metrolink, with an additional 4 trains in each direction (8 

total trains) are operated on Fridays. Currently, 4 trains operate in each direction (8 total 

trains) every Saturday with headways of approximately 2 to 3 hours in each direction. 

By 2020, Metrolink service is expected to increase, to a total of 42 trains every weekday 

between Union Station and the Fullerton Transportation Center, 48 trains between 

Fullerton Transportation Center and Orange Metrolink Station, and 66 trains between 

Orange Metrolink Station and the Laguna Niguel Metrolink Station. Between Laguna 
1.0-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, and as far south as Oceanside, service is expected to 

increase to a total of 32 trains. New weekend service is also planned. 

Between Oceanside and San Diego, Coaster commuter operations are expected to 

increase by 2020 to a total of 54 trains each weekday, with an expected increase in 

weekend service as well. 

Figure 1.2-3 shows the existing and future train volumes along the Los Angeles to San 

Diego rail corridor. 

Rail Freight Movements

The LOSSAN corridor from Los Angeles to Fullerton is owned and operated by the 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and is their primary intercontinental 

corridor from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to all of North America. 

Currently, there are 45 trains within a 24-hour period that travel along this segment of 

the corridor. That number is projected to increase to approximately 99 trains by the year 

2020. The majority of these trains continue east past Fullerton towards the Inland 

Empire. 

The BNSF is the only rail freight operator between San Diego and Los Angeles. 

Currently, BNSF has no active customers between Del Mar and Oceanside. In North 

San Diego County, the only regular customer serviced by the BNSF is the Marine Corps 

Base at Camp Pendleton. According to BNSF, an average of 6 to 8 freight trains 

currently travel between San Diego and Los Angeles within a 24-hour time period. 

Freight service within this corridor is focused in the following three areas: 

• Auto Transload Service in San Diego 

• Lumber, Fly Ash, and Cement 

• Local Freight Service (Service to Escondido and Miramar) 

While business conditions and customer needs ultimately drive demand for freight 

service, future freight train volume along the corridor segment from Fullerton to San 

Diego is not expected to increase beyond 12 trains within a 24-hour time period, 

regardless of improvements along the existing rail corridor, according to recent forecasts 

developed by the Los Angeles Economic Development Council. 

B. CAPACITY OF THE INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Figure 1.2-2 illustrates the major roads, rail routes and airports currently being utilized 

for intercity travel within the Southern California region. The growing population and 

economic activity in Southern California has placed severe demands on the already 

congested transportation system serving the area. Many of the highways and airports 

are currently operating at capacity and current plans for expansion will not keep up with 

projected growth over the next 20 years. 

The three rail services along the LOSSAN corridor are constrained by a corridor that is 

significantly undersized for the volumes of traffic it accommodates. Currently, 41 percent 

of the 127.5-mile rail corridor consists of a single track. The extensive sections of singletrack greatly constrain the movements of trains through the corridor. By necessity, only a 

single train at a time can be present along any one stretch of single-track, causing other 
1.0-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

trains to stack at either end of the single-track section, resulting in delays, and reducing 

the attractiveness of rail as a travel mode choice. 

The proposed improvements to the existing LOSSAN corridor would allow for a more 

reliable, safe, and competitive intercity travel option. This more balanced transportation 

system would relieve some of the projected near- and long-term demand on the existing 

transportation infrastructure, potentially slowing the need to further expand highways 

and airports, or reduce the scale of those expansions, reducing their associated cost, 

community impacts and environmental impacts. The LOSSAN corridor rail improvements 

would augment the highway system, creating an interconnected, multimodal solution, 

allowing for better mobility throughout Southern California. 

C. TRAVEL TIME 

Among the most important factors that impact the public’s choice of transportation 

modes are travel time and reliability. Travel time is the time spent on the road, in the air, 

or on a train from a place of origin to a place of destination. Travel time is an important 

economic factor for business travel, as delays can affect worker productivity and planned 

business activities. Table 1.2-2 shows the approximate point-to-point travel time in 2000, 

which includes congestion effects, and the projected total travel time in 2020 for autos, 

compared with the existing and projected station to station travel time for Amtrak’s 

Pacific Surfliner, based on information collected from Amtrak and the Regional 

Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). 

Table 1.2-2 

Present and Future Travel Times between 

Los Angeles and San Diego during Peak Period 

Route Auto 2000 Auto 2020 Rail 2000 Proposed 

LOSSAN Goal 

Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown 

San Diego 2:35 3:15 2:44 < 2:00 

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority 

Table 1.2-2 shows that point-to-point travel times during peak period by rail and auto are 

comparable today, and that rail will be faster in the future because auto travel is 

projected to slow with increasing congestion. However, total travel time for rail includes 

time required to reach a station, time spent waiting for the next scheduled train, time 

spent getting to the boarding area, time spent checking or retrieving luggage, time spent 

getting a rental car or taxi, and time spent to reach the final destination. If rail is to be a 

viable alternative to the automobile, it must provide point-to-point times significantly 

better than the automobile, since rail cannot provide door-to-door service. (The lack of 

door-to-door service is partially offset by the advantage that rail destinations are usually 

located in the heart of a community, and close cooperation with local transit agencies 

can improve connecting travel to the final destination.) 

Intercity rail trip delays are mainly related to shared-track conflicts with commuter and 

freight trains. The proposed LOSSAN corridor improvements will reduce travel time over 

the next twenty years by increasing operating speeds and efficiency, while 

simultaneously enhancing grade crossing safety, and lessening environmental 

degradation. These improvements would benefit all rail services, including freight, 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 1.2-2

Los Angeles to San Diego Intercity Travel Routes

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

1.0-11
1.0-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
LAGUNA NIGUEL

22

UNION STATION

NORWALK

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

DANA POINT

SAN ONOFRE

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

UNIVERSITY

TOWNE CENTRE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

SANTA ANA

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO

SANTA FE DEPOT

FULLERTON

INTERMODAL

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

SAN CLEMENTE

ALAMEDA CORRI R

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

405

110

105

19

10

5

78

15

TO INLAND EMPIRE

REDONDO JUNCTION

ORANGE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

FULLERT FULLERTON

110

8 0 8 Miles

Legend

Amtrak

Metrolink

Coaster

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)

Intercity Station

Proposed Station for Further Study

California

Los Angeles – Fullerton

Fullerton – Orange

Orange – Irvine

Laguna Niguel – San Clemente

San Clemente – Oceanside

Oceanside – San Diego

45 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

98 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

2005 ESISTING VOLUMES* 2020 FORECAST VOLUMES*

* Train volumes as used in forecast modeling. Volumes represent total number of trains in both directions

FIGURE 1.2-3

Existing and Forecast Future Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

1.0-13
1.0-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
1.0-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

intercity and commuter trains, passengers, automobile drivers, and the communities in 

which the improvements are located. The proposed rail improvements would help 

ensure the efficient transport of goods and freight, a critical component of the state’s 

economic health. Consequently, the proposed improvements, and the strong 

cooperation between freight, commuter and intercity rail operators will provide for 

continued growth and efficient movement of people and goods within the LOSSAN 

corridor with statewide and even national benefits. 

Without the proposed improvements, the corridor’s capacity for greater movement will 

not be meaningful and reductions in travel time will not occur, rail passenger service 

competitiveness will not increase and reliance on highway travel will increase. 

D. RELIABILITY 

Beyond travel time, travelers are also sensitive to reliability (i.e. the degree to which they 

can be certain to arrive at a given time). As discussed above, roadway congestion, and a 

growing intercity travel market, are adversely impacting the reliability of intercity 

automobile travel. Based on current performance and forecasted congestion levels, the 

reliability of highway travel will be severely impacted in future years. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, there were approximately 104 million 

annual hours delayed in traffic by those who commuted by automobile in the Los 

Angeles and San Diego areas in 2003 (Texas Transportation Institute, The 2005 Urban 

Mobility Report, May 2005 (http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums). This is the highest delay 

experienced by any urban area in the nation. There are many causes of increased 

highway congestion throughout Southern California. For example, accidents, stranded 

roadside cars, or a routine traffic violation stop can create a “rubberneck” effect as 

drivers slow at the scene of the incident, delaying travelers for miles. In addition to 

typical congestion inducers, poor weather conditions (rain, wind, and fog) also negatively 

affect the reliability of highway travel times. Rain and wind can make roads dangerously 

slick, increasing the likelihood of accidents. Often times, fog, haze and glare impairs 

visibility and requires drivers to slow down. 

The need to share space with freight and passenger trains, coupled with extensive 

sections of single-track on the rail corridor, often lead to delays along the rail corridor, 

since the delay of a single train often has the consequence of affecting other trains 

operating within the corridor. Double track, as an example, eliminates the delays 

currently associated with trains waiting at a passing track for others to clear a single 

tracked-section. Elimination of this type of delay alone would provide for more 

consistent operating schedule for trains, significantly increasing on-time performance 

and reliability. Proposed grade separations would also reduce the impacts of inclement 

weather (such as the coastal fog experienced during much of the year. These gradeseparations would increase not only the reliability and operating performance of trains, 

but also provide for increased traffic flow on local streets that are presently subject to 

delays when trains are crossing. 

On-time performance (OTP) is also an important factor in attracting travelers. OTP 

varies by month, but primary factors which affect OTP include delays resulting from: 

• Speed restrictions (from signal or track maintenance issues, which require 

“slow orders” as the issues are being resolved), and 

• Interference with other trains, both passenger and freight. 
1.0-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

From 1999 to December 2006, Amtrak’s on-time performance within the LOSSAN 

corridor has improved 5.1 percent, from 71.6 percent to 76.7 percent. This performance 

increase shows that Amtrak is making gains toward reaching its ultimate goal of a 90-

percent on-time performance standard. The proposed rail improvements will improve the 

on-time performance and reliability of the passenger rail service by facilitating passenger 

and freight movements, accelerating Amtrak’s ability to reach this goal. 

E. SAFETY 

Safety is an overarching consideration in providing transportation. A key rail safety 

consideration focuses on reducing or eliminating interactions between people, 

automobiles and trains. These interactions occur most frequently at grade crossings, 

and where pedestrians trespass across rail lines to get to their destination. 

Projected growth in the movement of people and goods by auto and rail over the next 

two decades underscores the need for improved safety. With more and more vehicles on 

the roadways and more frequent and faster trains, the potential for rail/automobile 

collisions increase. 

Passengers must have confidence that the rail service provided is not only reliable and 

fast, but is also safe or safer than other modes. Nationally, passenger rail travel is one of 

the safest modes of transportation. Railroad safety in the United States has steadily 

improved over the past several decades, despite the increase in both highway and rail 

traffic. The California Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles publishes an 

annual summary of accident data for state highways. In 1998, there were a total of 

3,057 fatalities and 189,007 non-fatal injuries on California highways (California 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 1998). This corresponds to an 

estimated injury rate of 100 per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) or 160 million 

vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT) per year. These statistics are increasing; in 2000 and 

2001, there were 3,753 and 3,956 vehicle deaths in California respectively, according to 

the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Nationally, 42,116 persons were killed in 

auto accidents in 2002, compared with 41,945 in 2001, representing a 0.4% increase. 

The fatality rate per 100 VMT was 1.52 in 2001, with 1.09 persons injured per 100 VMT. 

California was one of three states in the United States with the highest number of 

persons killed in motor vehicle traffic accidents for the years 2000 and 2001 (the other 

two highest states were Texas and Florida). 

In comparison, throughout the State of California in 2002, there were 132 non-passenger 

railroad fatalities (for combined freight and passenger rail operations). Intercity rail travel 

in California is provided by Amtrak, which operates along four major corridors in the 

state, including the Pacific Surfliner (San Luis Obispo to San Diego). Nationally, there 

were 126 fatalities and 1,484 non-fatal accidents associated with Amtrak operation in 

2002. For all rail operations in 2002 (freight and passenger) there were about 13 train 

accidents per 1 million train miles (1.6 million kilometers) (Federal Railroad 

Administration, 2004). A variety of factors contribute to rail accidents. For instance, 

conventional railroad rights-of-way are typically unfenced and at-grade. Drivers and 

pedestrians may fail to comply with grade crossing warning devices. Approach 

pavement markings, such as turn arrows and other lane markings, are often worn and 

difficult to see. Pedestrians and drivers may not expect to encounter a train and may be 

forced to react quickly because they are “taken by surprise.” In addition, because large 
1.0-17

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Figure 1.2-4

2001 State Area 

Designation - Ozone 

objects appear to be moving more slowly than they actually are, pedestrians and drivers 

may misjudge the speed of trains. 

To help ensure that future increases in rail traffic occur without a corresponding increase 

in hazard, the State of California supports the extensive rail safety information and 

education program, Operation Lifesaver. Congress has also historically recognized the 

need to improve rail crossings and has provided funds to accomplish this in the past. 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative will address this need by reducing or 

eliminating the hazards of highway-rail crossings, as well as provide new or upgraded 

pedestrian crossings along the corridor. 

In addition, the FRA has also developed its own guideline to address safety concerns at 

grade crossings. This guideline states that “public and private crossings where train 

speeds are between 90 and 110 miles per hour (mph) should be equipped with special 

crossing protection devices, grade separated, or closed” (reference). 

Even though overall accident rates are relatively low for railroads, the LOSSAN corridor 

traverses several highly traveled roadways and pedestrian areas at-grade, which when 

coupled with higher levels of rail traffic could lead to higher accident rates, if grade 

crossings are not eliminated and access issues addressed. Grade-separations for both 

vehicles and pedestrians will be explored through this Program EIR/EIS. 

The safety improvements included in the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative will 

help in maintaining high overall rail passenger safety within the LOSSAN corridor when 

compared to other modes of transportation. 

F. AIR QUALITY AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) makes “transportation conformity” the affirmative responsibility 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation and regional Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs). Transportation conformity addresses air quality attainment and 

maintenance strategies contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), used to 

evaluate transportation alternatives, including the No-Project Alternative. 

Figure 1.2-4 shows the counties in California designated 

as “Ozone Non-Attainment Areas” (California Air 

Resources Board 2001). All of Southern California is so 

designated. Maintaining and improving air quality is one 

goal of the State Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP) and Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs). The 

challenges for metropolitan areas are to continue to 

reduce vehicle emissions to acceptable levels and 

maintain air quality standards by encouraging more 

efficient use of land resources, improving mobility, and 

providing alternative transportation facilities and services. 

Approaches aimed at reducing the demand for trips in 

single-occupant vehicles must be integral to all 

transportation plans and programs to ensure that these 

areas conform to federal air quality standards. Developing 

multipurpose corridors that combine designated lanes for 

high-occupancy vehicles, transit, and rail alternatives is a 
1.0-18

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

statewide transportation strategy for meeting air quality objectives. The proposed 

LOSSAN rail improvements would help implement this strategy. 

Meeting federal and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40 years will also 

require reductions in the total distance traveled by vehicles, integration of land use and 

transportation planning and development, development of transportation demand 

strategies, implementation of operational improvements, and use of new technologies 

that improve transportation efficiencies and provide a transportation alternative to the 

single-occupant automobile. 

Moving passengers by rail produces significantly less pollution per passenger mile 

traveled as compared to typical automobile use, and would aid in reducing emissions 

throughout the corridor. The extent to which the objective of improving air quality can be 

met by an increased use of the intercity rail system is explored in this Program EIR/EIS 

(see Section 3.3). 

The protection of important coastal environmental resources, such as the lagoons and 

coastal bluffs, will also be a consideration of any improvements to the segments of the 

LOSSAN corridor as it traverses the coastline. The improvements considered in this 

Program EIR/EIS would dovetail with other efforts to restore sensitive environmental 

habitat, as well as provide new funding opportunities to mitigate and reduce the impacts 

of rail service. Where practicable, improvements to the conditions of sensitive 

environmental habitat would be made, such as increasing the opportunity for tidal flows 

in the lagoons as part of improvements to lagoon crossings. Identification of additional 

improvements to habitat conditions is also explored in this report. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 10 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

The distribution of the LOSSAN Final Program EIR/EIS emphasizes the use of electronic media 

to insure cost-effective, broad availability to the public and interested parties. The entire Final 

Program EIR/EIS, appendices and supporting reports are available on the Internet at the 

Department’s Division of Rail website, www.amtrakcalifornia.com. The Final Program EIR/EIS 

is also on display at the repositories listed below. 

All persons, agencies and organizations listed in this chapter have been informed of the 

availability of and locations to obtain the Final Program EIR/EIS, as well as the timing of the 60-

day formal comment period. Repositories were sent both electronic compact disc copies 

(electronic) and hard copies of the Final Program EIR/EIS and appendices. Federal, state and 

regional/local agencies, corridor cities and selected interested parties listed below have 

received summary chapters and electronic copies of the Final Program EIR/EIS. All other 

organizations and interested parties on the Department’s project mailing list (approximately 

1,000 contacts) have been mailed a notification that includes information on how to access the 

Final Program EIR/EIS and timing for the formal comment period, as well as notice regarding 

public hearing dates, times, and locations. 

10.1 REPOSITORY LIBRARY LOCATIONS 

Sacramento 

Sacramento: California State Library, Government Publications Section, PO Box 942837, 

Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 

Phone: (916) 651-6813 

Contact: Janet Cole, Government Publications Librarian 

Los Angeles County 

Los Angeles: Richard J. Riordan Central Library, LA Public Library, Science, Technology, and 

Patents Department, 630 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Phone: (213) 228-7000 

Contact: Robert Thornhill, Science, Technology, and Patents Department 

Norwalk: Norwalk Regional Library, 12350 Imperial Highway, Norwalk, CA 90650 

Phone: (562) 868-0775 

Contact: Lead Reference Librarian 

Orange County 

Anaheim: Anaheim Public Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 

Phone: (714) 765-1880 

Contact: Ellen Fusco, Adult Services Manager 

Irvine: Irvine Heritage Park Regional Library, 14361 Yale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92604 

Phone: (949) 936-4040 

Contact: Patricia Noa, Branch Manager 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

San Clemente: San Clemente Library, 242 Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente, CA 92672 

Phone: (949) 492-3493 

Contact: Maureen Gebecocin, Branch Manager 

San Diego County 

Oceanside: Oceanside Public Library, 330 North Coast Highway, 92054 

Phone: (760) 435-5600 

Contact: Monica Chapa Domercq, Cultural Services Librarian 

Escondido: Escondido Public Library, 239 South Kalmia Street, Escondido, CA 92025 

Phone: (760) 839-4684 

Contact: Paul Crouthamel, Reference Librarian 

San Diego: San Diego Public Library, Central Library, Science Industry and Government 

Documents, 820 E Street, San Diego, CA 92101-6478 

Phone: (619) 236-5800 

Contact: Gary Klockenga, Government Documents Librarian 

10.2 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Carlsbad 

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Assistant 

Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation, Long Beach, CA 

U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles, CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA & Washington DC 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, State Supervisor, Sacramento, CA 

10.3 STATE AGENCIES 

California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Agency Secretary, Sacramento 

California Department of Transportation, Chief Deputy Director, Sacramento and District 

Directors from Districts 7, 11, and 12 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary for Environmental Protection, 

Sacramento 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California State Parks 

California State Water Resources Control Board – Dept. of Water Quality 

California Coastal Commission, Long Beach 

California Coastal Commission, San Diego 

22nd District Agricultural Association, Del Mar 

10.4 ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Federal Elected Officials 

U.S. SENATORS: 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senate, California 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, California 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The Honorable Howard Berman, 28th Congressional District 

The Honorable Ken Calvert, 44th Congressional District 

The Honorable John Campbell, 48th Congressional District 

The Honorable Brian Bilbray, 50th Congressional District 

The Honorable Susan Davis, 53rd Congressional District 

The Honorable John Doolittle, 4th Congressional District 

The Honorable David Dreier, 26th Congressional District 

The Honorable Sam Farr, 17th Congressional District 

The Honorable Bob Filner, 51st Congressional District 

The Honorable Jane Harman, 36th Congressional District 

The Honorable Darrell Issa, 49th Congressional District 

The Honorable Grace Napolitano, 38th Congressional District 

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, 47th Congressional District 

The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald, 37th Congressional District 

The Honorable Gary Miller, 42nd Congressional District 

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 46th Congressional District 

The Honorable Ed Royce, 40th Congressional District 

The Honorable Adam Schiff, 29th Congressional District 

The Honorable Brad Sherman, 27th Congressional District 

The Honorable Hilda Solis, 32nd Congressional District 

The Honorable Bill Thomas, 22nd Congressional District 

The Honorable Maxine Waters, 35th Congressional District 

The Honorable Diane Watson, 33rd Congressional District 

The Honorable Henry Waxman, 30th Congressional District 

State Elected Officials 

GOVERNOR: 

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Governor 

STATE SENATE: 

The Honorable Dick Ackerman, 33rd Senate District, Tustin 

The Honorable Christine Kehoe, 39th Senate District, San Diego 

The Honorable Alex Padilla, 20th Senate District, Van Nuys 

The Honorable Jenny Oropeza, 28th Senate District, Redondo Beach 

The Honorable Bob Dutton, 31st Senate District, Rancho Cucamonga 

The Honorable Carol Migden, 3rd Senate District, San Rafael 

The Honorable Gilbert Cedillo, 22nd Senate District, Los Angeles 

The Honorable Pat Wiggins, 2nd Senate District, Santa Rosa 

The Honorable Denise Moreno Ducheny, 40th Senate District, Chula Vista 

The Honorable Lou Correa, 34th Senate District, Santa Ana 

The Honorable Ron S. Calderon, 30th Senate District, Norwalk 

The Honorable Ellen Corbitt, 10th Senate District, San Leandro 

The Honorable Sheila James Kuehl, 23rd Senate District, Los Angeles 

The Honorable Dennis Hollingsworth, 36th Senate District, Temecula 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The Honorable Tom Harman, 35th Senate District, Irvine 

The Honorable Alan Lowenthal, 27th Senate District, Long Beach 

The Honorable Bob Margett, 29th Senate District, Diamond Bar 

The Honorable Mark Wyland, 38th Senate District, San Juan Capistrano 

The Honorable Mark Ridley-Thomas, 26th Senate District, Los Angeles 

The Honorable Gloria Romero, 24th Senate District, Rosemead 

The Honorable Jack Scott, 21st Senate District, Pasadena 

The Honorable Elaine Alquist, 13th Senate District, San Jose 

The Honorable Edward Vincent, 25th Congressional District, Inglewood 

STATE ASSEMBLY: 

The Honorable Hector De La Torre, 50th Assembly District, Southgate 

The Honorable Mimi Walters, 73rd Assembly District, Laguna Nigel 

The Honorable Tony Mendoza, 56th Assembly District, Norwalk 

The Honorable Charles M. Calderon, 58th Assembly District, Montebello 

The Honorable Jose Solorio, 69th Assembly District, Santa Ana 

The Honorable Van Tran, 69th Assembly District, Santa Ana 

The Honorable Lori Saldana, 76th Assembly District, San Diego 

The Honorable Todd Spitzer, 71st Assembly District, Orange 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAIRPERSON: 

Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County, District 3 

Mr. Chris Norby, Orange County, District 4 

Mr. Ron Roberts, San Diego County, District 4 

MAYORS OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR CITIES 

The Honorable Mayor Beth Krom, Irvine 

The Honorable Mayor Robert C. Fierro, Commerce 

The Honorable Mayor Shawn Nelson, Fullerton 

The Honorable Mayor Lou Bone, Tustin 

The Honorable Mayor Phil Leubben, Cypress 

The Honorable Mayor Norma A. Lopez-Reid, Montebello 

The Honorable Mayor Leonis C. Malburg, Vernon 

The Honorable Mayor Carolyn V. Cavecche, Orange 

The Honorable Mayor Ron Beilke, Pico Rivera 

The Honorable Mayor Joseph D. Serrano, Sr., Santa Fe Springs 

The Honorable Mayor Sam Allevato, San Juan Capistrano 

The Honorable Mayor Steve Jones, La Mirada 

The Honorable Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles 

The Honorable Mayor Jim Wood, Oceanside 

The Honorable Mayor Lesa Heebner, Solana Beach 

The Honorable Mayor Rick Ramirez, Norwalk 

The Honorable Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego 

The Honorable Mayor Curt Pringle, Anaheim 

The Honorable Mayor Miguel A. Pulido, Santa Ana 

The Honorable Mayor Melody Carruth, Laguna Hills 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The Honorable Mayor Richard T. Dixon, Lake Forest 

The Honorable Mayor Gail Reavis, Mission Viejo 

The Honorable Mayor Gary Capata, Laguna Niguel 

The Honorable Mayor Diane L. Harkey, Dana Point 

The Honorable Mayor Jim Dahl, San Clemente 

The Honorable Mayor “Bud” Lewis, Carlsbad 

The Honorable Mayor James Bond, Encinitas 

The Honorable Mayor Carl Hilliard, Del Mar 

Note: Other local elected officials not listed here have been notified regarding the availability of 

the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

10.5 REGIONAL/LOCAL AGENCIES 

Southern California Association of Governments, Executive Director, Los Angeles 

Gateway Cities Council of Governments, Executive Director 

San Diego Association of Governments, Executive Director, San Diego 

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, Board of Directors Chairperson, San Diego 

San Joaquin Hills Toll Corridor Agency 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Executive Director, Los Angeles 

North San Diego County Transit District, Board of Directors Chairperson, Oceanside 

Orange County Transportation Authority, Board of Directors Chairperson, Orange 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority – Metrolink, Board of Directors Chairperson, Los 

Angeles 

10.6 ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Amtrak, Senior Director, Public and Governmental Affairs, Oakland 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, Director of Public Affairs, Los Angeles 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Regional Director, San Francisco 

Planning and Conservation League, Executive Director, Sacramento 

Rail Passenger Association of California, Executive Director, San Francisco 

Train Riders Association of California, Executive Director, Sacramento 

Union Pacific Railroad, Special Representative, Sacramento 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 10.0-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 11 

REFERENCES 

AIR QUALITY 

California Air Resources Board. 2003. Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart. Published July 9, 

2003. Sacramento, California. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf. 

Accessed: January 2004 

_____. 2002 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Prepared by CARB Planning and 

Technical Support Division. Sacramento, California. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1998. High Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment. DOT-T-95-16. Washington, D.C. 

GIS References 

Landsat 1985 

ENERGY 

California Department of Finance. 1998. County Populations With Age, Sex and Race/ethnic 

Detail July 1, 1990–2040 in 10-year Increments. Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Transportation. 2001 Congressional Budget Office in Energy and 

Transportation Systems. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. 

Sacramento, CA. 

______. 1983. Energy and Transportation Systems. Prepared for Federal Highway 

Administration. Sacramento, California. 

California Energy Commission. 1999. Fuels Report (Commission Final—P300-99-001). July. 

Sacramento, California. 

______1997. Critical Changes: California’s Energy Future. The California Energy Plan. 

Publication No. P 105-97-001. 

______. 1990. Energy Efficiency Report. Sacramento, California. 

———. 2002d. California Electricity Consumption by Sector. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov./ electricity/consumption_by_sector.html>. Accessed: 

February 13, 2003. 

California High Speed Rail Authority. 2000. Independent Ridership and Revenue Projections 

for High-speed Rail Alternatives in California. Prepared by Charles Rivers Associates. 

Boston, MA. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Delorme. 2000. Southern and Central California Atlas and Gazetteer, 5th Edition. Delorme 

Publishing Company.. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2002. Transportation Energy Book: Edition 22. Center for 

Transportation Analysis: Oak Ridge, TN. 

U.S. Congress, Budget Office. 1977. Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings 

of Different Modes. Washington D.C. 

———. 1982. Energy use in Freight Transportation. Staff Working Paper. Washington D.C. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2002. Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century. 

Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/h240subb.htm#1203>. Accessed: June 2002. 

LAND USE 

South Coast Water District. 2002. San Juan Creek Property Draft EIR. August. 

Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Regional Transportation Plan. April. 

San Diego Association of Governments. 2002. Regional Transportation Plan. April. 

General Plans 

Anaheim, City of. 1984. General plan. July. 

Artesia, City of. 1993. General plan. June. 

Bell, City of. 1996. General plan. October. 

Bellflower, City of. 1995. General plan. 

Buena Park, City of. 1997. General plan. October. 

Carlsbad, City of. 1994. General plan. September. 

Cerritos, City of. 1988. General plan. May. 

Commerce, City of. 1987. General plan. July. 

Costa Mesa, City of. 1990. General plan. 

Cudahy, City of. 1992. General plan. May. 

Cypress, City of. 1993. General plan. February. 

Dana Point, City of. 1999. General plan. July 1991; land use, 1999. 

Del Mar, City of. 1985. General plan. July. 

Downey, City of. 1992. General plan. Adopted 1973, revised October 1992. 

El Segundo, City of. 1992. General plan. 

Encinitas, City of. 1995. General plan. May. 

Fullerton, City of. 2000. General plan. November. 

Garden Grove, City of. 1995. General plan. October. 

Huntington Park, City of. 1991. General plan. February. 

Inglewood, City of. 1990. General plan. 

Irvine, City of. 1999. General plan. March. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

La Mirada, City of. 1981. General plan. July. 

La Palma, City of. 1999. General plan. March. 

Laguna Hills, City of. 1994. General plan. 

Laguna Niguel, City of General Plan, August 1992 

Laguna Woods, City of. 2001. General plan. January. 

Lake Forest, City of. 2000. General plan. May. 

Los Angeles, City of. 2001. General plan. March. 

Los Angeles County. 1992. General plan. Adopted November 1980, revised 1986 to 1992. 

Maywood, City of. 1990. General plan. February. 

Mission Viejo, City of. 1992. General plan. April. 

Montebello, City of. 1990. General plan. October. 

Norwalk, City of. 1996. General plan. February. 

Oceanside, City of. 2000. General Plan. 

Orange, City of. 1989. General plan. August. 

Orange County. 2000. General plan. 

Paramount, City of. 1990. General plan. October. 

Pico Rivera, City of. 1993. General plan. August. 

San Clemente, City of. 1993. General plan. May. 

San Diego, City of. 1989. General plan. May. 

San Diego, County of. 1997. General plan. January. 

San Juan Capistrano, City of. 1999. General plan. December. 

Santa Ana, City of. 1998. General plan. September 1982; land use, February 1998. 

Santa Fe Springs, City of. 1994. General plan. 1991–1994. 

Solana Beach, City of. 2001. General plan. 1986, amended through 2001. 

South Gate, City of. 1986. General plan. November. 

Stanton, City of. 1992. General plan. January. 

Tustin, City of. 2001. General plan. January. 

Vernon, City of. 1992. General plan. Adopted April 1989, revised June 1992. 

Whittier, City of. 1992. General plan. August. 

GIS References 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census Block Groups. 

———. 2000. City Boundaries. 

San Diego Association of Governments. 2000. San Diego County Existing Land Use. 

Southern California Association of Governments, 1993. Los Angeles County Existing Land Use. 

———. 1993. Orange County Existing Land Use. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

California Department of Transportation. 2000. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways 

Information. July 25. Sacramento, CA. 

State of California. 2001. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, CEQA Appendix G 

Environmental Checklist Form. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact 

Assessment for Highway Projects. Washington D.C. 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

———. 2003. GIS Files of Petroleum Resources. 

California Energy Commission. 2003. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov>. Accessed: 

January 2003. 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2001. California Natural Gas Infrastructure 

Outlook 2002–2006. 

———. 2003. Available: <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov>. Accessed: January 2003. 

Pennwell MAPSearch. 2003. GIS Files of Electricity Resources. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1527-00). 

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2001. Standards Related to the Phase II 

Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1903-01). 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). January 2003. Environmental Geodata. 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 2001. National Vadose Zone 

Project. Prepared for the Department of Energy. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Priorities List (NPL)/Superfund 

Sites in California. Website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ca.htm 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The Archaeology and Archaeological Resources of the Amargosa – Mojave Basin Planning 

Units. In Cultural Resource Overview of the Amargosa – Mojave Basin Planning Units, 

edited by Eric W. Ritter, pp. 1–134. Riverside, California: Bureau of Land Management, 

1980. 

Berger, R., et al. New Radiocarbon Dates Based on Bone Collagen of California Paleoindians. 

Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Research Facility 12:43–49, 1971. 

Blackburn, Thomas. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Los Angeles: 

UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Reports 5:1–50, 1963. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Blackburn, Thomas C., and Lowell John Bean. Kitanemuk. In Handbook of North American 

Indians, Vol 8. pp. 564–569. Edited by R. F. Heizer. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution, 1978. 

Byrd, Brian F. Camping in the Dunes: Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations of 

Late Holocene Settlements West of Rogers Dry Lake. San Diego, California: Prepared 

by AMS Affiliates, 1970. 

Costello, Julia G., et al. Historic Archaeology at the Headquarters Facility Project Site. Los 

Angeles: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. On file, South Central 

Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton, 1998. 

Curtis, F. Arroyo Sequit. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California, Paper 

No. 4. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum, 1959. 

______.Arroyo Sequit: Archaeological Investigations in Leo Carrillo Beach State Park, Los 

Angeles County, California. Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation, Division 

of Beaches and Parks. The Resources Agency, State of California Archaeological 

Report No. 9, 1963. 

Davis, E. L., et al. The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 6. San Diego: 

San Diego Museum of Man, 1969. 

The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. J. Moratto. Orland and London: Academic 

Press, 1984. 

Douglas, R.C., et al. Archaeological, Historical/Ethnohistorical, and Paleontological 

Assessment, Weir Canyon Park-Road Study, Orange County, California. Tustin, 

California: Larry Seeman Associates. Ms. On file, University of California Institute of 

Archaeology, Los Angeles, 1981. 

Drover, Christopher. A Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory for the 1,226 Acre Planning Area 9, 

Irvine, California. Fullerton, California: On file, South Central Coastal Information 

Center, 2001. 

Erlandson, Jon M. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. New York: Plenum Press, 

1994. 

Gallegos, Dennis. Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. Casual Papers 2(1):1–13. San Diego: 

Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1985. 

Gallegos, D. R., and R. L. Carrico. Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131, 

Carlsbad, California. San Diego: Ms. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San 

Diego State University, 1984. 

Gallegos, Dennis R., and Nina Harris. Cultural Resources Literature Review for the North Coast 

Transportation Study Coaster Alternatives, San Diego County, California. San Diego: 

On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, 1999. 

Gallegos, D. R., and Carolyn Kyle. Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast 

Point Prehistoric Site Sdi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. San Diego: Ms. On file, 

South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, 1988. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Johnson, J. J. A Preliminary Survey of the Archaeological Resources of Lower Mill Creek. 

Davis, California: Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of California, 

1966. 

Kaldenburg, Russell. Rancho Park North, a San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in 

Coastal Southern California. Occasional Paper 6. El Centro, California: Imperial Valley 

College Museum Society, 1982. 

King, Chester, and Thomas C. Blackburn. Tataviam. In Handbook of North American Indians, 

Vol 8. pp. 535–537. Edited by R. F. Heizer. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 

1978. 

Koerper, Henry C., et al. Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange 

County. In Cultural Complexity on the California Coast Late Holocene Archaeology and 

Environmental Records, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones. Los Angeles: 

Perspectives in California Archaeological Sites, Institute of Archaeology, University of 

California, Los Angeles, 2001. 

Kroeber, Alfred L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

American Ethnology Bulletin 78, 1925. 

Loumala, K. Tipai-Ipai. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 8. pp. 592–609. Edited by 

R. F. Heizer. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978. 

Mason, R. D., and M. L. Peterson. Newport Coast Archaeology Project: Newport Coast 

Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion. Fullerton, California: On file at the South 

Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, 1994. 

McGuire, Kelly R., and M. C. Hall. The Archaeology of Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino 

County, California. Redlands, California: Unpublished report on file at the 

Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, 1988. 

Meighan, C. W. Archaeological Site Record, CA-LAN-7/H. Los Angeles: On file, South Central 

Coastal Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, 

University of California, Los Angeles, 1951. 

______. A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of 

Anthropology 10(2):215–227, 1954. 

Merriam, C. H. Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the 

San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19:912–917, 1914. 

Miller, Jacqueline. The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four 

Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. San Diego: University of 

California at San Diego, 1966. 

Moriarty, James R. III. The San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural 

Relationships. Anthropological Journal of Canada 7(3):2–18. 1969. 

Moratto, Michael J. California Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1984. 

Rogers, Malcolm J. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and 

Adjacent Desert Area. San Diego Museum Papers Vol. 3. San Diego: San Diego 

Museum of Man, 1939. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Rolle, Andrew F. California: A History. New York: Thomas C. Cromwell, 1963. 

Ross, L. A. The Irvine Complex: A Late Prehistoric Horizon Archaeological Complex for the 

Newport Bay Area, California. M.A. Thesis. Pullman: Department of Anthropology, 

Washington State University, 1969. 

Treganza, A. E., and A. Bierman. The Topanga Culture: Final Report on Excavations, 1948. 

University of California Anthropological Records 20(2). 1958. 

True, D. L. Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San 

Diego County. Los Angeles: Archaeological Survey Monographs 1, University of 

California, Los Angeles 1970. 

Van Horn, D. M. Excavations at the Del Rey Site (LAN-63) & Bluff Site (LAN-64), City of Los 

Angeles. Sun City: Archaeological Associates, 1987. 

Van Horn, D. M., and J. R. Murray. The Loyola Marymount Archaeological Project: Salvage 

Excavations at LAN-61A-C. Environmental Impact Report, July 30, 1985. 

Walker, E. F. Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Los 

Angeles: Publications of the F. W. Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 6, 1951. 

Warren, Claude N. The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 

32(2):168–185, 1967. 

Warren, Claude N., and M. G. Pavesic. Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological 

Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County. Los 

Angeles: Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962–1963:407–438, 1963. 

Warren, Keith, Dina M. Coleman and M. Colleen Hamilton. Results of Phase II Testing, 

Analysis and Evaluation, and Development of a Phase III Research Design, Caltrans 

District 7 Headquarters Replacement Project. Hemet: Applied EarthWorks, Inc., 2001. 

www.sandiegohistory.org.: Chapters from The History of San Diego written by Richard F. 

Pourade, Time of the Bells and The Glory Years. 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS). No Date. Map of 

California, Principal Mineral-Producing Localities--1990. 2000. 

California Department of Conservation, California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, 

Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2001. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields in California 

District 1 Oil Fields Maps. Sacramento, California. 

CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology), 2000. Digital Images of Official Maps of 

Alquist-Priola Earthquakes Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, CD 2000-003. 

California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 2000. GIS Shape-files of Official Maps of 

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California. 

Frank, David G. 1999. An Arc/Info Point Coverage of Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) 

Location in Eleven Western States. United States Geologic Survey, Open File Report 

99-169. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Hart, E.W. and W. A. Bryant. 1997. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special 

Publication 42. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 

Sacramento, California. 

Jennings, C. W. 1997. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and 

Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. Geologic Map of California. California Department of 

Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, California. 

Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California: Faults, Volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and 

Thermal Wells, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1, 

Scale 1:750,000. 

Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas; California Division of 

Mines and Geology, Geologic Map 6, Scale 1:750,000. 

Jennings, C.W., 1997, Geologic Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, 

scale 1:750,000 

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2003. Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report, Los Angeles to 

San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, San Diego to San Juan Capistrano, California. 

January 27, 2003. 

Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V. 1981. Geologic Map of Orange County Showing Mines and 

Mineral Deposits, California Division of Mines and Geology: Bulletin 204, Plate 1. 

Mualchin, L. (1996) California Seismic Hazard Map, California Department of Transportation. 

Mualchin, L., 1996. A Technical Report To Accompany the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard 

Map 1996 (Based On Maximum Credible Earthquakes). 

Weber, F.H., Jr. 1963. Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California: 

California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3. 

Ziony, J. I., Yerkes, R. F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in 

Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth-Science 

Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43-91. 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. Section 303(d) Listed Waters. Available: 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Terminology reference system. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/trs/>. Accessed May 2003. 

Wilkinson, Robert, et. al. 2002. Preparing for a Changing Climate, The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for California – The California 

Regional Assessment. September 2002. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

Abrams, L. 1923. An Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Vol I. Stanford University Press, 

Washington, Oregon and California. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Abrams, Leroy.1944. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Vol II. Stanford University Press, 

Washington, Oregon and California. 

Abrams, Leroy.1951. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Vol. III. Stanford University Press, 

Washington, Oregon and California. 

Abrams, Leroy and Ferris, Roxana. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Vol. IV. Stanford 

University Press, Washington, Oregon and California. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1993. Checklist of North American Birds, 6th Edition. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, 7th Edition. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Buckingham, Nelsa M., Edward G. Schreiner, Thomas N. Kaye, Janis E. Burger, and Edward L. 

Tish. 1995. Flora of the Olympic Peninsula. Northwest Interpretive Association: Seattle, 

WA. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. NCCP Program. Website: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp/. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. California Natural Diversity Database Rare 

Find 2. October 2002. 

Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, A. D. Hollander, K. A. Thomas, P. A. Stine, D. Odion, M. I. Borchert, 

J. H. Thorne, M. V. Gray, R. E. Walker, K. Warner, and J. Graae. 1998. The California 

Gap Analysis Project – Final Report. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA. 

[http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/gap/gap_rep.html] 

California Native Plant Society. 2000. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and 

Endangered Plants of California. Special Publication #1 Sixth Edition. 

Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names. 2001. Scientific and Standard English 

Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico. Society for the 

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. St. Louis, MO. 

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward LaRoe. 1979. Classification 

of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fancher, Jack. USFWS, pers. comm., January 7, 2004. 

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California 

Press. Berkley and Los Angeles, California. 

Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle. 

Hitchcock C. Leo. A. Cronquist, M. Owenby, and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular Plants of the 

pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptograms, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. 

The University of Washington Press, Seattle. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Hitchcock C. Leo. A. Cronquist, M. Owenby, and J.W. Thompson. 1964. Vascular Plants of the 

pacific Northwest. Part 2: Vascular Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. The University of 

Washington Press, Seattle. 

Hitchcock C. Leo. A. Cronquist, M. Owenby, and J.W. Thompson. 1961. Vascular Plants of the 

pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. The University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Hitchcock C. Leo. A. Cronquist, M. Owenby, and J.W. Thompson. 1959. Vascular Plants of the 

pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae to Campanulaceae. The University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Hitchcock C. Leo. A. Cronquist, M. Owenby, and J.W. Thompson. 1955. Vascular Plants of the 

pacific Northwest. Part 5: Compositae. The University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 

State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 

Miller, J. Y. 1992. The Common Names of North American Butterflies. Washington: Smithsonian 

Institution Press. 

Robins, C.R. R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 

1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada. 

Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 20. 

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native 

Plant Society. Sacramento, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003 updates. Critical Habitat GIS Data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory GIS Data Obtained From 

Parsons-Brinkerhoff. 

Wilson D.E. and Cole F.R. 2000. Common Names of Mammals of the World. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution. 

Zeiner, D.C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer and M. White eds. 1988. California’s Wildlife: 

Volume I – Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship 

System. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 

Zeiner, D.C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer and M. White eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife: 

Volume II - Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND 

RECREATION) 

Federal Highway Administration. 1987. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. October 5. Washington D.C. 

_____. NEPA Federal Highway Administration, Section 4(f). Available:http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

ReNepa.nsf/home?openform&Group=Section%204(f)%20. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

Amtrak. 2001. California Passenger Rail System, 20-year Improvement Plan Technical Report. 

Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

Los Angeles Economic Development Commission. 2002. Growth Rate Projections. July 2002 

Metrolink. 2000. 2020 Projections Based on Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(SCRRA) 30 Year Strategic Plan. 

North County Transit District. 2003. NCTD 2020 projections based on SANDAG Regional 

Transportation Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments. 2003. SANDAG 2020 Population and Employment 

Forecasts. Available at: http://www.sandag.org/resources/ demographics_and_other_ 

data/demographics/forecasts/index.asp. 

Southern California Area Governments. 2001. Regional Aviation Plan for the 2001 Regional 

Transportation Plan. August. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 11.0-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

REFERENCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 12 

GLOSSARY and ACRONYMS 

A

Abatement: Reduction; used to describe mitigation of noise. 

Accessibility: The ease with which a site or facility may be reached by passengers and others 

necessary to the facility’s intended function. Also, the extent to which a facility is usable by 

persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users. 

Action Alternative: An alternative that proposes some management action, as contrasted to 

the No Action (No-Project) Alternative. 

Actual Use: The amount of use that actually occurs. 

Adverse: Negative. 

Affected Environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic setting within which 

human activity is proposed. 

Air Pollution: A general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the 

quality of the atmosphere. 

Alignment: The horizontal and vertical route of a transit corridor. 

Alluvium: Sedimentary materials deposited by running water. 

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California law passed in 1972 to prevent 

construction of buildings used for human occupancy on surface traces of active faults. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Federal regulation establishing legal requirements for 

accessibility. 

Aquifer: Subsurface geologic unit (rock or sediment) that contains and transmits groundwater. 

At Grade: At ground surface level; used to describe roadways, river crossings, and track 

alignments. 

Attainment: An air basin is considered to be in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets 

the federal or state standards set for that pollutant. See also Maintenance, Nonattainment. 

A-Weighted Sound Level: A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the 

response of the human ear, so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a 

noise source. 

B 

Baseline: Foundation or basis to use for comparison purposes. 

Beneficial Visual Impact: Impact resulting if a project alternative eliminates a dominant feature 

that currently detracts from scenic qualities or blocks vistas in the landscape. 

BTU: British Thermal Unit, equal to the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 

degree Fahrenheit at 1 atmosphere of pressure. 

Buttressing: An action that provides support or stability to a structure. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

C 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): “Legislation enacted in 1970 to protect the 

quality of the environment for the people of California by requiring public agencies and decisionmakers to document and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. CEQA is 

the state equivalent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” 

Capital Cost: The total cost of acquiring an asset or constructing a project. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth’s 

atmosphere; significant quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban environment 

primarily by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. 

CEQA: See California Environmental Quality Act. 

CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. A 24-hour Leq that has been adjusted to add a 

“penalty” of 5 dBA for evening noise (between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and 10 dBA for 

nighttime noise (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). 

Community Cohesion: The degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their 

neighborhood, a level of commitment to the community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, 

groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. 

Congestion Management Plan: A planning document that addresses strategies for reducing 

traffic congestion. 

Connectivity: Describes the degree of “connectedness” of a system such as a transit network, 

or the ease with which passengers can move from one point to another on the network. 

Construction: Any activity that directly alters the environment, excluding surveying or mapping. 

Corridor: A geographic belt or band that follows the general route of a rail system. 

Criteria Pollutants: Refers to pollutants for which federal and state air quality standards have 

been established: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone 

(O3), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a 

diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). 

Cultural Resources: Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural 

systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the 

culture. They include, but are not limited to, sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects 

associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. 

Cumulative Impact: (1) As defined by CEQA, the result of two or more individual impacts 

which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other 

environmental impacts. (2) As defined by NEPA, and impact on the environment that results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. 

Cut and Cover: Construction technique in which a trench is excavated, infrastructure is 

installed, and the trench is closed. 

Cut and Fill: Construction technique involving excavation or grading followed by placement and 

compaction of fill material. 

Cut Slope: A slope that is shaped by excavation or grading. See also Fill slope. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

D 

Decibel (dB): A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity. 

Dewatering: The process of removing water from an area or substance, such as fill material. 

Disturbance: A discrete event, either natural or human induced, that causes a change in the 

condition of an ecological system. 

E 

Easement: An interest in land owned by another individual or organization that entitles its 

holder to a specific limited use. 

Ecosystem: A system formed by the interaction of living organisms, including people, with their 

environment. 

Emergent: (1) Arising naturally. (2) Of vegetation, rooted in periodically or continuously 

inundated substrate, but with a portion of the plant extending above the water. 

Eminent Domain: A jurisdiction or agency’s legal right to take private property for public use in 

exchange for fair compensation. 

Endangered Species: Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as being 

in danger of or threatened with extinction throughout all or most of its range. 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A detailed informational document that analyzes a 

project’s potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable 

alternatives to avoid the significant effects. This document is part of the CEQA environmental 

review process. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed informational document that analyzes a 

project’s potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable 

alternatives to avoid the significant effects. This document is part of the NEPA environmental 

review process. 

Environmental Justice: Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

Erosion: Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or 

wind. 

Ethnicity: A grouping or category of people based on shared cultural traits such as ancestral 

origin, language, custom, or social attitude. 

F 

Fault: A fracture in the earth’s lithosphere (brittle rocky shell) along which movement has 

occurred. 

Feasible: Capable of being implemented. 

Feeder route: Branch routes that feed into main (arterial) routes. 

Fiber Optic Cable System: A data transmission technology that relies on light rather than 

electricity, conveying data through a cable consisting of a central glass core surrounded by 

layers of plastic. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Fill Slope: A slope shaped by the placement and compaction of loose “fill” materials, which may 

be reused from elsewhere on the construction site, or imported. 

Fiscally or Financially Constrained Plans: Plans that are limited by the foreseen availability 

of project funding in a region. 

Footprint: Area of the ground surface covered by a facility, or affected by construction 

activities. 

G 

General Plan: A planning document, usually at the city or county level, that encapsulates 

policies for land use and development over a specified period of time. A general plan may be 

supplemented by specific plans that address land use and development policies for specific 

portions of a planning jurisdiction, such as historic districts or areas slated for redevelopment. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): An information management system designed to store 

and analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates. 

GIS: See Geographic Information System. 

Grade Crossing: The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an 

intersection of two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. 

Grade-Separated: At different elevations; on separate levels. 

Greenhouse Gases: A class of air pollutants believed to contribute to the “greenhouse” global 

warming effect, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Groundwater: Water contained and transmitted through open spaces within rock and sediment 

below the ground surface. 

Growth Inducement: Contribution to the rate or extent of development in an area. 

H 

Habitat: An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by 

animals for a particular purpose, such as roosting habitat, breeding habitat, etc. 

Headway: The time between buses, trains, or other transit vehicles at a given point. For 

example, a 15-minute headway means that one bus arrives every 15 minutes. 

Herbaceous: Describes plants that have little or no woody tissue. Herbaceous plants typically 

survive for only a single growing season. 

Heritage Resources: An alternate term for cultural resources used in some planning 

documents. See Cultural Resources. 

High-Speed Steel-Wheel-on-Steel-Rail Train: An improvement of traditional railroad 

passenger technology that has been designed to operate at speeds of 100 to 150 mph (160 to 

240 kph) on existing rail infrastructure. 

High-Speed Train: Refers to a train designed to operate safely and reliably at speeds near 200 

mph (350 kph). 

High Visual Impacts: Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are very obvious, 

such that they begin to dominate the landscape and detract from the existing landscape 

characteristics or scenic qualities. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Hydrocarbons: A wide variety of organic compounds, including methane (CH4), emitted 

principally from the storage, handling, and combustion of fossil fuels. 

I 

Impact: A change the condition or function or an environmental resource or environmental 

value as a result of human activity. Also called effect. 

In Lieu of: Instead of or in place of. 

Indigenous Species: A native species; any plant or animal species that occurs naturally in a 

wilderness area and was not introduced, deliberately or accidentally, by humans. 

Infrastructure: The facilities required for a societal function or service; e.g., transportation 

infrastructure, utilities infrastructure. 

Initial Study: An environmental study carried out in compliance with CEQA, with the goal of 

evaluating whether a proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts on the 

environment. 

Insertion Loss: The actual noise-level reduction at a specific receiver due to construction of a 

noise barrier between the noise source (e.g., traffic) and the receiver. 

In-Situ: In the original or natural position. 

Intermodal: Describes transportation that involves more than one type of carrier during a single 

journey. 

Inversion: A region where atmospheric temperature increases rather than decreasing with 

height, suppressing atmospheric mixing and tending to trap pollutants near the ground surface, 

where their effects on health and materials are greater. 

Investment-Grade Ridership Forecast: Ridership forecast that is sufficiently detailed and 

reliable to permit responsible decision-making about capital expenditures. 

K 

Kilo: Prefix meaning 1 thousand. 

L 

Landscape Unit: An area of distinct, but not necessarily homogenous, visual character. 

Landslide: Movement of earth or rock materials downslope under the influence of gravity. 

Land Use Compatibility Assessment: an assessment of the compatibility of a proposed 

project or land use with existing and projected land uses in nearby areas, based on the 

sensitivity of various land uses to changes and the impact of these changes on activities. 

Lead (Pb): A stable element that persists and accumulates both in the environment and in 

humans and animals, and can have toxic effects. 

Lead Agency: The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or 

approving a project, and is thus responsible for preparing environmental review documents in 

compliance with CEQA and/or NEPA. 

Leq: A measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Leq(h), dBA: Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A-weighted 

decibels.

Less than Significant: In CEQA usage, describes an impact that is not sufficiently adverse, 

intense, or prolonged to require mitigation. 

Level of Service (LOS): A rating using qualitative measures that characterize operational 

conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. 

Liquefaction: A type of ground failure in which soils or sediments lose their internal cohesion, 

cease to behave as a solid, and flow like a liquid. 

Logarithmic Scale: A measurement in which the ratio of successive intervals is not equal to 1 

(which is typical for linear scales) but is some common factor larger than the previous interval (a 

typical ratio is 10, so that the marks on the scale read: 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc. Logarithmic 

scales are useful for graphing values that have a very large range. 

Low Visual Impacts: Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are consistent with 

the existing line, form, texture, and color of other elements in the landscape and do not stand 

out. 

M 

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev): A high-speed train technology that relies on attractive or 

repulsive magnetic forces to lift and propel the train along a guideway. 

Mainline: A principal highway, exclusive of connectors, ramps, etc. 

Maintenance: An air basin is considered to be in maintenance for a given pollutant if it was 

formerly in nonattainment but is now meeting the established standards for that pollutant. See 

also Attainment, Nonattainment. 

Major Investment Study (MIS): A study that evaluates project alternatives for their ability to 

solve an area’s transportation problems. 

Master Plan: A comprehensive planning document intended to guide the long-range growth 

and development of a community or region, or the long-term management and use of a 

parkland. 

Mean High-Water Mark: The elevation reached by the water surface at the mean (average) 

high water level (average high tide elevation or average flood elevation), often indicated by 

physical characteristics such as erosion, lines of vegetation, or changes in type of vegetation. 

Medium Visual Impact: Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are readily 

discernable but do not dominate the landscape or detract from existing dominant features. 

Midden: Refuse accumulation associated with prehistoric use of a site or area. 

Mitigation: Action or measure undertaken to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the 

adverse impacts of a project, practice, or activity. 

Modal: A transit system defined on the basis of specific rights-of-way, technologies, and 

operational features. 

Monitoring: The collection of information to determine the effects of resource management and 

to identify changing resource conditions or needs. 

Monoculture: The cultivation of a single product to the exclusion of other uses of land. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Federal standards stipulating the 

allowable ambient concentrations of specific criteria pollutants. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): “Federal legislation requiring federal agencies to 

consider the environmental impacts of major federal projects or decisions, to share information 

with the public, to identify and assess reasonable alternatives, and to coordinate efforts with 

other planning and environmental reviews taking place.” 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): A class of pollutant compounds that include nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

and nitric oxide (NO), both of which are emitted by motor vehicles. See Criterial Pollutants. 

No Action: Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). See No-Project. 

No-Project: Under CEQA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). See No Action. 

Nonattainment: An air basin is considered to be in nonattainment for a particular pollutant if it is 

exceeding federal or state standards for that pollutant. See also Attainment, Maintenance. 

Non-Electrified Steel-Wheel-on-Steel-Rail Train: Conventional intercity diesel locomotive 

train equipment (e.g., Amtrak). 

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution that cannot be traced to a single source, but collects 

from a wide area. Examples include pesticides or fertilizers that wash into rivers or percolate 

through the soil into groundwater. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): Formal notice stating that an environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for a proposed project, published in the Federal Register by the federal lead agency. 

Notice of Preparation (NOP): Formal notice stating that an environmental impact report will be 

prepared for a proposed project, issued by the state lead agency. 

NPL/Superfund List: Federal list of sites that have been identified as posing an immediate 

public health hazard and where an immediate response is necessary. 

O 

Ordinary High-Water Mark: The line on the shore of a body of water established by the 

fluctuation of water. 

Ozone (O3): A photochemical oxidant that is a major cause of lung and eye irritation in urban 

environments. 

P 

Paleontological: Related to the study of life in past geologic time. 

Particulate Matter: Liquid and solid particles of a wide range of sizes and compositions; of 

particular concern for air quality are particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns and 2.5 

microns in size (PM10 and PM2.5 respectively). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Point Source Pollution: Pollution that can be traced to a single source. An example is a 

smokestack at a factory. 

Poverty Level: For a family of four, the poverty level is defined as a income of $16,700 or less 

in 1999 dollars. 

Practicable: See Feasible. 

Preferred Alternative: The alternative identified as the optimal solution by the lead agency. 

Program-Level: Refers to a CEQA or NEPA environmental review that covers the broad 

spectrum of a large, complex, regionally extensive effort comprising a number of smaller, 

regionally focused projects or phases. 

Project-Level: Refers to more detailed environmental analysis focusing on a single project that 

is part of a larger program. 

Public Transportation: Includes workers bus, trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car, subway or 

elevated, railroad, ferryboat, and taxicab service. 

Purpose and Need: The reason(s) why a project is undertaken, and the need(s) it is intended 

to meet or fulfill. 

R 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG): Reactive hydrocarbon pollutants. 

Regional Transportation Improvement Plan: A capital listing of all transportation projects 

proposed over a six-year period for a given region. The regional transportation improvement 

program (RTIP) is prepared to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP and is 

developed in compliance with state and federal requirements. 

Regional Transportation Plan: A long-range (20+ year) transportation plan. The regional 

transportation plan (RTP) identifies major challenges as well as potential opportunities 

associated with growth, transportation finances, the future of airports in the region, and 

impending transportation system deficiencies that could result from growth anticipated in the 

region. There are typically two components of the RTP, a financially constrained and financially 

unconstrained version. The financially constrained version of the RTP includes projects and 

programs that fit within existing and planned funding sources. 

Richter Scale: A logarithmic scale measuring the severity of earthquakes, based on the 

magnitude of ground motion. 

Ridership: The number of people who ride public transportation system. 

Right-of-Way: A legal right of passage over another person’s ground. In transit usage, refers to 

the corridor along a roadway or track alignment that is controlled by a transit or transportation 

agency/authority. 

Riparian: Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse, lake, or tidewater. 

Riprap: Armoring consisting of randomly placed rock or concrete, used to strengthen an 

embankment or protect it from erosion. 

Rolling Stock: Wheeled railway vehicles. 

Ruderal: Weedy vegetation, commonly including or dominated by introduced species, 

characteristic of areas where native vegetation has been disturbed or removed. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

S 

Scenic Corridor: Corridor with landscapes and vistas of high scenic quality. 

Scoping: A process used under both CEQA and NEPA to determine the coverage and content 

of an environmental impact report or environmental impact study. 

Screenline: An imaginary line across parallel roadways. 

Section 4(f): Refers to provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (23 C.F.R. 771.135) and subsequently codified in 49 U.S.C., Subtitle 

I, Section 303(c). The “Section 4(f)” provisions address the potential for conflicts between 

transportation needs and the protection of lands for recreational use and resource conservation 

by regulating the use of publicly owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic sites. 

Specifically, they prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or project 

that would require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, 

wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as determined by 

the officials having jurisdiction over these lands, unless there are no feasible and prudent 

alternatives to the use of these lands. In addition, a proposed program or project must include 

all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the proposed use. 

Section 6(f): State and local governments often obtain grants through the to acquire or make 

improvements to parks and recreation areas (16 U.S.C. § 460-4 through 460-11, September 3, 

1964, as amended 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972–1974, 1976–1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 

1993–1996). Refers to Section 6(f) of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, which 

prohibits the conversion to a non-recreational purpose of property acquired or developed with 

funds granted through the Act without the approval of the National Park Service. Section 6(f) 

directs the Department of the Interior to ensure that replacement lands of equal value 

(monetary), location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. 

Consequently, where such conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation 

projects, replacement lands must be provided. 

Sedimentary Rock: Rock resulting from the consolidation of sediment. 

Seiche: Oscillation or “sloshing” of water in a lake, bay, or other enclosed body as a result of 

landsliding or seismic groundshaking. 

Senate Bill 45: Bill that instituted consolidation of various funding programs into the STIP and 

increased accountability for programming and delivery of STIP projects to the regions around 

the state and the various Caltrans’ districts. 

Sensitivity Analysis: An analysis that assesses how sensitive the outcomes predicted by 

modeling are to changes in different model inputs (assumptions or variables). 

Shadow impact: shadow impact ranking would be high if a new (not existing) elevated 

structure were within 75 ft (23 m) of residential or open space, natural areas, or parkland. 

Significant: In CEQA usage, describes an impact that is sufficiently adverse, intense, or 

prolonged to require mitigation. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District: The regional regulatory agency with the 

primary responsibility for improving air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. 

State Implementation Plan: Statewide plan for complying with the federal Clean Air Act. The 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) consists of narrative, rules, and agreements that California will 

use to cleanup polluted areas. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

State Transportation Improvement Program: A multi-year capital improvement program of 

transportation projects on and off the state highway system, funded with revenues from the 

State Highway Account and other funding sources. STIP programming generally occurs every 

two years. 

Strike-Slip Fault: A fault along which the dominant direction of movement is parallel to the fault 

trace (the expression of the fault on the ground surface). 

Stub End: A track connection with a difficult curved configuration. 

Subsidence: Sinking or lowering of the ground surface. 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx): Sulfur-oxygen compounds that include the important criteria pollutants 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3). 

T 

Take: As defined in Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act, “to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 

Tiering: Refers to the practice of addressing general issues in broader environmental impact 

reports or statements such as program-level documents and providing more detailed analyses 

in subsequent (typically project-level) documents that “tier off” the initial broad analysis and 

incorporate it by reference. 

Total Organic Gases (TOG): A pollutant classification that includes all hydrocarbons, both 

reactive and non-reactive. 

Trainset: A complete unit of rolling stock. 

Transit-Dependent Population: The population over the age of 16 (workers) who use public 

transportation as a means of traveling to and from work.

Transit Node: A connection or terminal on a transit network. 

Transportation Demand Management: The operation and coordination of various 

transportation system policies and programs to provide the most efficient and effective use of 

existing transportation services and facilities. 

Transportation system management: actions that improve the operation and coordination 

transportation services and facilities to realize the most efficient use of the existing 

transportation system. 

Travel Time: The time spent on the road, in the air, or on a train from a place of origin to a 

place of destination. Total travel time includes the time required to reach a station or an airport, 

time spent waiting for the next scheduled train or flight, time spent getting to the boarding area, 

time spent checking and retrieving luggage, time spent getting a rental car or taxi, as well as 

time spent to reach the final destination. 

Tributary Watercourse: A stream feeding a larger stream or a lake. 

Trinomial: An alphanumeric abbreviation for a previously identified historic or prehistoric 

resource, such as CA-ORA-1352, representing the state (e.g., California or CA-), the county 

(e.g., Orange or -ORA-), and a unique number assigned by the State Historic Preservation 

Office (such as -1352). 

Tsunamis: Waves that travel in the open ocean and are caused by an undersea earthquake, 

landslide or volcanic activity. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

U 

Unavoidable: In CEQA and NEPA usage, describes an impact that cannot be entirely avoided, 

reduced, or compensated for. 

Units of Measure: 

Unit Approximate 

U.S. Equivalent 

Length 

kilometer 0.62 mile

meter 39.37 inches

centimeter 0.39 inch

Area

square kilometer 0.3861 square miles

hectare 2.47 acres

Capacity 

liter 1.057 quarts

Mass and Weight

metric ton 1.102 short tons 

(2,204.6 pounds)

kilogram 2.2046 pounds

gram 0.035 ounce

Speed

kilometer per hour 0.621 mile per hour

Uplift: The action of a portion of the earth’s surface as it rises above adjacent areas. An area of 

higher elevation than surrounding areas; an area that has been uplifted. 

V 

V/C Ratio: Volume to capacity ratio; describes the relationship between the amount of traffic a 

roadway was designed to carry and the amount of traffic it actually carries. Related to the level

of service (LOS) the roadway can provide. 

Viaduct: A bridge that conveys a road or a railroad over a valley and is constructed of a series 

of arches supported by piers. 

Viewshed: Total visible area from a single observer position, or the total visible area from 

multiple observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, 

campgrounds, towns, cities, or other viewer locations. Examples are corridor, feature, or basin 

viewsheds. 

Visual Resources: The natural and artificial features of a landscape that characterize its form, 

line, texture, and color. 

Visual Unity: The visual coherence and compositional harmony of a landscape when 

considered as a whole. 

W 

Watershed: The area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Weir: A small dam that restricts flow in a stream in order to raise water level, or diverts flow into 

a desired course. 

Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface water or groundwater and is 

characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 

Wildlife Corridor: A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, 

walls, and development, and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to 

move between physically separate areas. 

GLOSSARY SOURCES USED 

www.155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-34.343/gloss.htm 

www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/definitions.cfm 

www.bpa.gov/Corporate/KCC/defn/defnsmal/fgh.htm 

www.bpa.gov/Corporate/KCC/defn/defnsmal/no.htm 

www.ca.blm.gov/GoldenQueen/pub-glos.htm 

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn 

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn or www.windmill.co.uk/glossary.html 

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/ glossary.htm#E 

www.dot.ca.gov/ser/glossary.htm 

www.envisionutah.org/glossary.htm 

www.faa.gov/arp/app600/5054a/5054a1.htm 

www.fao.org/docrep/V8350E/v8350e0f.htm 

www.fcit.coedu.usf.edu/network/glossary.htm 

www.geology.er.usgs.gov/paleo/glossary.shtml 

www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/pbrf/glossary.htm 

www.inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrailroad6.htm 

www.members.tripod.com/AMRZ_Home/Glossary.html 

www.Merriam-Webster 

www.mortgage-rates-mortgage-rates.net/ glossary.htm 

www.ncat.org/neaap/resources/glossary.htm 

www.octa.net/center/intro/def.asp 

www.projectauditors.com/Dictionary/C.html 

www.techfest.com/networking/cabling/cableglos.htm 

www.tfcbooks.com/mainpage/glossary.htm 

www.transweb.sjsu.edu/comglos.htm. 

www.ucop.edu/facil/pd/CEQA-Handbook/glossary.html 

www.wave-guide.org/library/glossary.html 

www.wrh.noaa.gov/Phoenix/general/glossary/ 

U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: 

A Handbook for Scenery Management. U.S. Forest 

Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 701, Glossary-6. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

A 

AB Assembly Bill 

Ac acre 

ADT average daily traffic 

AFB Air Force Base 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

APE area of potential effect 

Authority California High Speed Rail Authority 

B 

BP years before present 

Btu British thermal unit 

C 

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970 

Cal-ISO California Independent State 

Operator 

CalOSHA state Occupational Safety & Health 

Administration 

Caltrans California Department of 

Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CCAA California’s Clean Air Act 

CDFG California Department of Fish and 

Game 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEPA California Environmental Protection 

Agency 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality 

Act 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response and Liability Act 

CESA California Endangered Species Act 

CHRIS California Historical Resources 

Information System 

cm centimeters 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data 

Base 

CNEL community noise equivalent level 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

Commission California Intercity High Speed Rail 

Commission 

CPUC California Public Utilities 

Commission 

CRHR California Register of Historical 

Resources 

CWA federal Clean Water Act 

D 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DOF California Department of Finance 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DTSC California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control 

E 

EIR environmental impact report 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ESA federal Endangered Species Act 

F 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCC Federal Communications 

Commission 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 

Program 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

ft feet 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

G 

gal gallons 

GAP California Gap Analysis Program 

GIS geographic information systems 

GPI greatest potential impact 

GSP gross state product 

GWh gigawatt-hours 

H 

ha hectare 

HC hydrocarbons 

HCP habitat conservation plan 

HOV high-occupancy-vehicle 

hrs hours 

I 

I-5 Interstate 5 

in inch 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 

ITS intelligent transportation system 

K 

Km kilometers 

kpg kilometers per gallon 

kph kilometers per hour 

kV kilovolts 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L 

L liters 

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power 

Ldn day-night average level 

LEDPA least environmentally damaging 

practicable alternative 

Leq equivalent noise level 

LESA Land Evaluation and Site 

Assessment 

LEV low emission vehicle 

Lmax Maximum Sound Level 

LOS level of service 

LOSSAN Los Angeles–Orange County–San 

Diego 

LPI least potential impacts 

LUSTs leaking underground storage tanks 

M 

m meters 

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station 

mi miles 

min minutes 

MMBtus million Btus 

MOA memorandum of agreement 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

mpg miles per gallon 

mph miles per hour 

MPOs Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations 

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation 

Program 

MSHCP Multi-Species Habitat Conservation 

Plans 

MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development 

Board 

MW megawatt 

N 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NCCP natural community conservation 

plan 

NCRS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NCTD North County Transit District 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHRP National Register of Historic Places 

NO nitric oxide 

No-Project No-Project/No Action 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOI notice of intent 

NOP notice of preparation 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

O 

O&M operations and maintenance 

O3 ozone 

OSHA federal Occupational Safety & 

Health Administration 

P 

P.L. Public Law 

Pb lead 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in 

diameter or less 

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in 

diameter or less 

PMT passenger miles traveled 

Program EIR/EIS Program Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement 

R 

ROG reactive organic gases 

RTP regional transportation plan 

RTPAs regional transportation planning 

agencies 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control 

Board 

S 

SANDAG San Diego Association of 

Governments 

SB Senate Bill 

SCAG Southern California Association of 

Governments 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCG Southern California Gas 

SCR-6 Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 

SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company 

SFHA special flood hazard area 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP state implementation plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SO3 sulfur trioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

SP Southern Pacific 

sq km square kilometers 

sq mi square miles 

SR-14 State Route 14 

STIP State Transportation Improvement 

Program 

SUVs sport utility vehicles 

SWLF solid waste landfill 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control 

Board 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

T 

TCU transportation, communications, 

and utilities 

TDRs time domain reflectometers 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century 

TGV Train à Grande Vitesse 

TMDLs total maximum daily loads 

TOG total organic gases 

TSM Transportation System 

Management 

U 

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UTC University Towne Centre 

V 

V/C volume-to-capacity 

VHT vehicle hours traveled 

VKT vehicle kilometers traveled 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

W 

WAPA Western Area Power Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 12.0-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
2.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Chapter 2 

ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the proposed rail improvements considered in this Program-level 

environmental document. Because this is a program-level analysis and is intended to define 

broad differences between alternatives, the level of detail for alternatives is conceptual or 

general rather than project-specific (40 C.F.R. § 1508.28; 14 C.C.R. § 15385). Subsequent 

project-level environmental documents and analysis would assess preliminary engineering 

information and provide more details on environmental impacts for individual projects should the 

Rail Improvements Alternative be selected. 

The California Department of Transportation (Department) and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) developed and evaluated alternatives through an iterative process that 

included considering work done by others, independent planning and feasibility studies, scoping 

process, and the LOSSAN Strategic Plan. All alternatives that have been considered by the 

Department and the FRA are described in this chapter, including those rejected from further 

consideration in this Program EIR/EIS and the basis for their rejection. The No-Project/No 

Action Alternative and the Rail Improvements Alternative are described in this chapter and their 

development is summarized. 

This chapter is organized into the following seven sections. 

• Section 2.1 describes the development of initial alternatives. 

• Section 2.2 summarizes the initial alternatives considered. 

• Section 2.3 summarizes the alternatives considered and eliminated. 

• Section 2.4 describes the No-Project Alternative. 

• Section 2.5 describes the Rail Improvements Alternative, including the systemperformance criteria, alignment alternatives, and station alternatives considered and 

rejected, as well as those carried forward for further consideration in this Program 

EIR/EIS. 

• Section 2.6 summarizes the alternatives analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS. 

• Section 2.7 describes the general construction and maintenance activities associated 

with the Rail Improvements Alternative, and the types of impacts that these activities 

could have on environmental resources. 

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the process used to evaluate conceptual alternatives presented in 

previous feasibility studies and identified through the scoping and screening process for both 

the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements project and the California High-Speed Train (HST) 

project1. The combination of these efforts led to the final set of conventional-rail improvement 

options for the LOSSAN corridor that are analyzed in this Draft Program EIR/EIS. Key criteria 

used to distinguish between alternatives have been described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need 

 

1 As part of the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Program-level EIR/EIS for the High-Speed Train project 
2.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

and Objectives. Those criteria include reliability and travel time, safety, connectivity, and 

ridership potential. In addition to these criteria, the alternatives had to be practicable and 

constructible, given right-of-way constraints and sensitivity to environmental and community 

impacts. 

2.1.1 Background 

Since 1998, three planning and feasibility studies have been completed that are relevant to 

LOSSAN corridor alternatives development. The first of these was conducted by the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), building on previous work from 1996 done by the past 

California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission (Commission), in conjunction with a statewide 

High-Speed Train project. The other two are statewide rail plans prepared by the Department 

and others, which include long-term goals and improvements needed in the LOSSAN corridor, 

A. PREVIOUS STUDY FOR THE STATEWIDE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT 

As explained in Chapter 1, the Department has worked with the Authority to develop the 

technical data and perform public and agency outreach for the Department’s LOSSAN 

Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS. (LOSSAN corridor improvements are 

also considered in the Authority’s statewide High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS.) This 

section briefly describes previous studies that provided input to the Department’s 

development of the rail improvements evaluated in this document. Specific descriptions 

of corridors/alignments within the LOSSAN region that were evaluated and either 

eliminated or carried forward on the basis of this previous study are presented in 

Sections 2.2 and 2.4, respectively. 

The Department adopted the findings and conclusions of this study, and built on those 

conclusions in its continued work with the Authority that led to the Department’s 

LOSSAN Strategic Plan. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority Corridor Evaluation (1998-1999)

In September of 1998, the Authority commissioned a Corridor Evaluation study to 

assess and evaluate the viability of various corridors throughout the state for 

implementation as part of a statewide High-Speed Train system. The study focused on 

identifying potential system alternatives (train technologies) and corridors for the 

implementation of high-speed train (HST) service and evaluating the feasibility and 

viability of those alternatives. Environmental constraints and potential for impact were 

considered in the study with the objective of avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to 

sensitive resources, where possible. 

The Authority and its consultants evaluated potential corridors on the basis of capital, 

operating and maintenance costs, travel times and engineering, operational, and 

environmental constraints. The corridors were compared and evaluated on a regional 

basis and as part of a statewide system. This study is documented in the California 

High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Final Report, 19992. 

Most of the corridors considered follow existing railroad rights-of-way or highways, 

particularly in the urban areas, to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. Many of 

the rail alignment options and station location options emerged from regional and local 

 

2 California High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Final Report, 1999 
2.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

agency input. Potential locations for new stations and improvements to existing stations 

were identified for operational and forecasting purposes, and alternative sites were 

considered as part of the corridor evaluation; however, specific station sites were not 

selected. 

This study provided the Authority with a basis for recommending a feasible network of 

HST corridors. In addition, other potential corridors and new issues were identified as 

regional and local agencies provided their input. To address these issues, further 

corridor investigations and evaluations were conducted in several areas of the State and 

compared in the context of updated information on previously studied routes. 

At the conclusion of this study, the Authority found: that dedicated3 high-speed rail 

service in the LOSSAN rail corridor south of central Orange County would result in 

extensive environmental impacts and may be infeasible. The 1999 study concluded that 

further evaluation of conventional rail improvements in the LOSSAN corridor should be 

carried forward, and that the I-15 corridor continue to be evaluated (by the Authority) for 

dedicated high-speed rail. 

B. STATEWIDE RAIL PLANS 

Two statewide rail plans were prepared by the Department and others, addressing 

proposed capital improvements and service goals for the state rail system, including the 

LOSSAN corridor. In addition to the previous HST studies described above, these rail 

plans helped form the basis for the Department’s alternatives development. These plans 

are briefly described below, and specific alternatives evaluated are described in 

Section 2.2. 

California Passenger Rail System 20-Year Improvement Plan (2001)

This 20-Year Improvement Plan was developed as a comprehensive blueprint for a 

passenger rail system in California4. This document was developed with the involvement 

of four task forces, one for each intercity corridor, which includes the Pacific Surfliner 

(LOSSAN corridor), San Joaquin, Capital Corridor and a proposed Coast Route. 

This plan provided a baseline for potential rail improvements to be performed along the 

LOSSAN corridor and outlines an operational vision of the next 20 years for the corridor, 

including hourly service between Los Angeles and San Diego and specific double track, 

bridge, tunnel, highway crossing and station improvements along the current alignment 

from San Luis Obispo to San Diego. 

The 20-Year Improvement Plan was the source of several of the options considered in 

this document. 

California State Rail Plan (2002)

Government Code Section 14036 requires the California Department of Transportation 

to complete a 10-Year State Rail Plan with both passenger and freight rail elements. 

This Plan must be updated every two years. In the 2002 Plan5, the passenger rail 

element reviews the current operation of State-supported intercity rail passenger service 

 

3 “Dedicated” service would not share tracks with existing passenger and freight rail services. 

4 California Passenger Rail System 20-Year Improvement Plan, March 2001. Sponsored by Amtrak California. 

5 Caltrans 10-Year State Rail plan; (2002).
2.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

and outlines 10-Year plans for the period 2001-02 through 2010-11 for capital 

improvements and service expansions. 

This Plan outlines the following 8 objectives for the LOSSAN corridor to be achieved by 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011: 

• Increase annual ridership 52 percent, from 1,662,000 to 2,518,000 passengers. 

• Increase annual revenues 68 percent, from $20.4 million to $34.3 million, for the 

State-supported 67 percent of the route operation. 

• Increase revenue/cost (farebox) ratio from 53.5 percent to 57.7 percent. 

• Reduce the State cost per passenger mile from 16 to 13 cents. 

• Increase frequency of daily round-trip service, from 11 to 16 trains between Los 

Angeles and San Diego, from 4 to 6 between Los Angeles and Santa 

Barbara/Goleta, and from 1 to 2 trains extended beyond Goleta to San Luis 

Obispo. 

• Reduce train running times to less than two hours between Los Angeles and San 

Diego, two hours between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara/Goleta and two hours 

between Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 

• Improve the reliability (on-time performance) of trains 

• Provide real-time information to passengers on train status (e.g. anticipated 

arrival time), particularly at unstaffed stations. 

The Department considered these objectives in its formulation and evaluation of a range 

of reasonable and practicable alternatives for the LOSSAN Rail Improvements Project. 

Both the California Passenger Rail System 20-Year Improvement Plan and the California 

State Rail Plan are consistent for their common 10-year timeframe. 

2.1.2 Formulation of Initial Alternatives 

The Department formulated its initial alternatives for the LOSSAN corridor rail improvements 

based on previous analyses (described above) and information relevant to the LOSSAN corridor 

gained during the Authority’s scoping and alternative screening processes conducted for the 

Authority’s statewide HST project. These processes culminated in the Department’s final 

screening of alternatives in the LOSSAN Strategic Plan, and the carrying forward of the rail 

improvement options for the LOSSAN corridor analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS. The 

statewide and Department processes are summarized below. 

A. STATEWIDE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT 

As the HST program moved to the environmental review phase, the Authority and FRA 

began the process of defining reasonable and feasible alternatives to be considered in 

the statewide HST Program EIR/EIS. This effort involved the development of an HST 

alternative (including design options), a No-Project/No Action Alternative, and a Modal 

Alternative addressing expansion of roadway and airport facilities in the state. More 

detail regarding the Authority’s scoping process and public and agency involvement 

program can be found in the California High-Speed Train Project Draft Program EIR/EIS, 

(2004). 
2.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The early definition of the HST project and characterization of a feasible range of 

alternatives to evaluate in the statewide Program EIR/EIS involved frequent coordination 

with public agencies, including the Department, and the general public. Public and 

agency input was obtained by the Authority during a series of public meetings held 

between February and April 2001, at which Department staff also participated. 

Additional agency and public input was obtained during the scoping process (April and 

May, 2001) pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. The scoping process and outcomes, 

including comments and concerns pertaining to the LOSSAN region, are documented in 

the California High-Speed Train - Statewide Scoping Report6. The Department used the 

scoping process input in their subsequent development of alternatives pertaining to the 

LOSSAN corridor. 

On the basis of the statewide scoping effort and the information developed in the earlier 

studies discussed above, the Authority and the FRA defined a range of promising 

corridors for development of the HST system. 

In addition to the general corridors being defined, the Authority, in consultation with FRA, 

developed an initial set of potential HST alignment, station, and technology options at 

the beginning of the screening evaluation process. These options for the LOSSAN 

region are illustrated, defined and described in detail in the Los Angeles to San Diego 

via Orange County Conventional Improvements Screening Report7 . 

HST Alignment/Station Screening Evaluation (Authority, 2000)

The Authority and the FRA initiated their alternatives screening process in February 

2000 to identify the most reasonable and practicable HST alignment and station options 

for analysis in a Program EIR/EIS. The purpose of the High-Speed Train 

Alignments/Stations Screening Evaluation was to consider all reasonable and practical 

options within each corridor being investigated by the Authority and the FRA at a 

consistent level of analysis. This initial alignment and station evaluation was 

accomplished through the following key activities. 

• Review of past alignment and station options identified in previous studies. 

• Through the environmental scoping process, identification of alignment and 

station options not previously evaluated. 

• Evaluation of alignment and station options using standardized engineering, 

environmental, and financial criteria and evaluation methodologies. 

• Evaluation of the ability of alignment and station options to attain defined 

objectives. 

The state was divided into five geographic regions or travel markets for the purposes of 

evaluating high-speed train alignment and station options: Bay Area to Merced; 

Sacramento to Bakersfield; Bakersfield to Los Angeles; Los Angeles to San Diego via 

the Inland Empire; and Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County (LOSSAN). 

Previous Authority studies were reviewed and re-assessed to develop HST alignment 

and stations options in the five regions. The results of the High-Speed Train 

Alignment/Stations Screening Evaluation were documented in five regional reports. The 

 

6 California High-Speed Train - Statewide Scoping Report, April 2002 

7 California High-Speed Rail Authority, May 2003
2.0-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

technical data from these reports, combined with public and agency input, provided the 

Authority and FRA with the necessary information to direct further studies on those 

alignments and station locations that represent a reasonable range of alternatives to 

attain the following objectives established by the Authority and FRA. 

• Maximize ridership/revenue potential. 

• Maximize connectivity and accessibility. 

• Minimize operating and capital costs. 

• Maximize compatibility with existing and planned development. 

• Minimize impacts to natural resources. 

• Minimize impacts to social and economic resources. 

• Minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with geological and soils constraints. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with potential hazardous materials. 

Input from agencies and the public was incorporated into the screening of alternatives 

and alignment/station options. For the LOSSAN region, the Department concurred with 

the analysis and the recommended screening decisions. The alignment alternatives 

analyzed for the LOSSAN corridor are illustrated in Figure 2.1.2-1. The results of the 

detailed screening evaluation are described in the California High-Speed Train 

Screening Report8, which was presented to the public at the Authority Board Meetings in 

August 2001 through January 2002. 

At the Authority’s January 2002 Board Meeting, board members reviewed the process 

and results and voted to identify the alternatives that would be considered in the HST 

Program EIR/EIS. The Board recommended a number of alignment and station options 

for further consideration in the program level environmental analysis. The LOSSAN 

corridor is recognized as an important conventional-rail feeder system to the statewide 

HST system, and the portion of the corridor from Los Angeles to Irvine is still under 

consideration as a preferred concept for direct High-Speed Train service. The FRA and 

federal agencies concurred with the recommendation for alternatives to be evaluated as 

part of the Authority’s environmental review process. The Department also concurred, 

and initiated a separate environmental process to further evaluate the LOSSAN corridor 

rail improvements project. 

 

8 California High-Speed Train Alignment/Station Screening Evaluation Report, 4-15-02 
8 0 8 Miles

8 0 8 Kilometers

Legend

I-405/I-10

Harbor Sub

I-105/I-110

I-105/Greenline

PE ROW

UP Santa Ana Sub

LOSSAN

I-5

SR-73/San Joaquin TollRoad

Foothill Toll Road

Station

Source: IBI Group

to Oceanside

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

710

405

110

105

19

10

10

405

5

78

15

22

LAX

UNION STATION

JWA

LONG BEACH

AIRPORT

NORWALK

ANAHEIM

IRVINE EL TORO

LAKE FOREST

MISSION VIEJO

LAGUNA

NIGUEL

DANA POINT

RANCHO SANTA

MARGARITA

SAN ONOFRE

PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

SAN DIEGO AIRPORT

M.C.A.S.

MIRAMAR

LA JOLLA

UCSD

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

September, 2001 - California High Speed Rail Authority

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 2.1.2-1

Alignment Alternatives Evaluated in HST Screening Report

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-7
2.0-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
2.0-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

B. LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 

Following the Authority’s regional screening evaluations for its HST alternative corridors, 

the Department and the Authority agreed to share technical data and analysis for the 

continued evaluation of the LOSSAN corridor as a conventional rail feeder system to the 

statewide HST system. The Department and FRA initiated a separate environmental 

process for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS, described 

below. 

The development of alternatives to be evaluated in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor 

Improvements Program EIR/EIS was based on all previous work related to the statewide 

High-Speed Train Project as well as the two state rail plans described previously. The 

formal environmental process for the LOSSAN corridor began in early 2002, and 

included public and agency coordination and scoping, on-going agency involvement and 

working groups, and development of a Strategic Plan for the LOSSAN corridor. 

Public and Agency Coordination and Scoping

The Department’s early definition of the project and characterization of a feasible range 

of alternatives to be carried forward in this LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements 

Program EIR/EIS involved frequent coordination with public agencies and the general 

public. Prior to the Department’s separate environmental process initiation, potential 

improvements to the LOSSAN corridor had been included in the agency and public 

involvement processes sponsored by the Authority. 

Additional agency and public input was obtained during the Department’s scoping 

process pursuant to CEQA and NEPA requirements. The Department’s Notice of 

Preparation (NOP) was released March 11, 2002, and the Notice of Intent (NOI) was 

published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002. Written responses were received 

from interested parties in response to these notifications. The scoping activities for the 

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS were conducted between April 2 

and April 30, 2002 (scoping period). A LOSSAN regional agency and public scoping 

meeting was held on April 2, 2002 in Los Angeles to obtain public and agency input. A 

series of six additional scoping meetings followed throughout the region as well as other 

meetings, briefings, and involvement activities conducted jointly by the Department and 

the Authority. 

The scoping process identified areas of potential concern related to the proposed 

LOSSAN corridor improvements. Throughout the corridor, comments consistently 

indicated the need for an improved transportation system focusing on safety and new 

alignments located away from environmentally sensitive areas. The concerns with 

respect to environmental issues typically focused on potential noise and visual impacts, 

and impacts on air quality and sensitive habitats. The scoping process and outcomes 

are documented in the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Study – Public 

Scoping Report9. 

 

9 California Department of Transportation (?) – LOSSAN Corridor Improvements Study - Public Scoping Report, June 2002 
2.0-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Agency Involvement

Following the response to the NOP and NOI, and a series of public scoping meetings, 

the Department and FRA (as the lead CEQA and NEPA agencies responsible for the 

preparation of the Program EIR/EIS) formed a working group of representatives 

comprised of eight key federal and state agencies to assist in the environmental review 

process. The interagency group has met periodically during the EIR/EIS development to 

discuss major issues from the perspective of each of their agencies and to provide input 

to the lead agencies and consultant team to help focus the analysis and streamline the 

review process. The federal and state agency representatives have been included in 

this process to provide input and timely review for the following specific areas: 

• Define the scope of the Program EIR/EIS 

• Review and provide input to the Purpose and Need Statement 

• Review and provide input to the technical methods of analysis and study area 

definition 

• Identify substantive issues of particular concern 

• Suggest sources of information and data relevant to their agency 

• Define avoidance, minimization and mitigation strategies 

• Review and provide input to the screening process and definition of alternatives 

to be analyzed in this EIR/EIS 

• Review and provide input on preliminary findings pertinent to agency expertise 

• Identify procedural requirements and permits or approvals necessary for 

subsequent phases of environmental review. 

The Department, together with FRA and the Authority, also invited input from regional 

and local agencies within the project area. Regional transportation agency Board 

meetings and working-group meetings have provided forums for discussion of the 

environmental process and the development of alternatives that could meet travel needs 

in the LOSSAN region. These meetings have been held in San Diego, Oceanside, 

Orange County and Los Angeles to provide convenient on-going opportunities for 

regional and local participation and input. 

As a result of early public involvement, the following additional routing options were 

developed: 

• Trabuco Creek (San Juan Capistrano) 

• Long Tunnel (Dana Point/San Clemente) 

• South Orange County Inland Bypass 

• Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass 
2.0-11

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LOSSAN Strategic Plan

Based on the Authority’s System Alternatives Definition Report, the Department and 

FRA defined a No-Project Alternative specific to the LOSSAN corridor, to be evaluated in 

the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS (see Section 2.3). Inclusion 

of a Modal Alternative (highway and airport expansion) was also considered. However, 

in discussions with resource agencies and transportation agencies, the Department and 

FRA determined that evaluation of a Modal Alternative for this Program EIR/EIS was not 

relevant, based on the Purpose and Need for the LOSSAN-specific project. As stated in 

Chapter 1, the Department has described its overall objectives and policies for intercity 

rail improvements in the current State Rail Plan (2002). These include increasing the 

cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity passenger rail systems, increasing 

capacity and reducing running time on existing routes, and improving safety of intercity 

rail service. The need for these improvements to rail service between Los Angeles, 

Orange County and San Diego is demonstrated by growth and travel-demand 

projections, existing rail capacity constraints in the LOSSAN corridor, continuing air 

quality issues, and pressures on natural resources from highway construction, motor 

vehicle use, and congestion. An alternative involving highway and airport expansion 

would not address either the purpose of or the need for rail improvements in the 

LOSSAN region. While it is appropriate to evaluate a Modal Alternative for comparison 

for a statewide rail proposal such as the Authority’s High-Speed Train Project, the 

Department and FRA determined that the region-specific needs addressed in this 

Program EIR/EIS relate to existing and future intercity rail service currently served via 

the LOSSAN corridor. Therefore, a Modal Alternative is not examined in this document. 

The Department defined rail improvement alignment and station options based on the 

Authority’s previous screening evaluation for the LOSSAN region, the LOSSAN scoping 

comments and meetings, and additional refinement studies conducted by the 

Department and the Authority. 

After the initial definition of alignment and station alternatives, the Department 

determined that the creation of a Strategic Plan would be a useful step in its ongoing 

Program EIR/EIS process for studying conventional rail improvements for the LOSSAN 

corridor. This complementary planning document looked at the proposed rail 

improvements from a corridor-wide perspective. In supporting the EIR/EIS work, the 

Strategic Plan met the Department objectives listed below. 

• Provide an additional opportunity for public outreach, beyond that provided as 

part of the EIR/EIS process. 

• Foster better communication and understanding among stakeholders at all 

levels. 

• Provide an opportunity to screen out design options at key locations, so as to 

focus future work on the most promising alternatives. 

• Develop short- and long-term visions for the corridor, contemplating a program of 

projects for the next twenty years. 
2.0-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Strategic Plan met these objectives through a series of five public workshops held in 

cities along the corridor. The workshops provided the public with an overview of the 

corridor and the rail improvements under study, including information on the following 

topics. 

• The purpose and goals of the Strategic Plan. 

• The need for improvements to the corridor. 

• Current and projected weekday train volumes. 

• Corridor facts, including rail owners and operators and details on freight services. 

• Types of services provided (Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight). 

• Ranges of costs, rail performance issues, and community/environmental issues 

of projects throughout the corridor. 

• Design options and alternatives at four key locations along the corridor where the 

range of options was sufficiently broad to allow the screening out of some 

options, the recommendations for screening, and the rationale and criteria used 

to reach the recommended screening decisions. 

• The Planning Process, including timelines for the completion of the Strategic 

Plan and the Department’s Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

In addition to the public workshops, meetings were held with elected representatives and 

staff of corridor cities, working groups consisting of transportation agencies and other 

stakeholders, resource agencies at the state and federal level, FRA and the Authority. 

These meetings helped to foster a collective sense of understanding regarding the 

corridor, its current and future needs, and how the proposed improvements could not 

only meet train service and performance goals, but could offer solutions to long-standing 

issues of community and environmental concern. 

Through the consultative process used in the development of the Strategic Plan, new 

alignments were presented by local working groups, leading to additional design options. 

The Strategic Plan process also resulted in the screening of design options at four 

locations (Del Mar, Encinitas, San Clemente/Dana Point, and San Juan Capistrano), and 

provided an evaluation of whether or not to conduct an Inland Bypass Alternative Study. 

Results of the process are documented in the LOSSAN Strategic Plan. 10 

A description of the alternatives rejected from further consideration and those carried 

forward for evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS are detailed in the following sections. 

2.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

During this Program-level study, numerous alternatives have been considered. Some have 

been eliminated based on analyses conducted during previous studies, while others were added 

or eliminated during the development of the Department’s LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. 

Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of all alternatives considered, and their status (eliminated or 

carried forward for further study): 

 

10 Los Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Studies, LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan, June 2003 
2.0-13

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.2-1 

Summary of All Alternatives Considered 

Alternative Considered

Eliminated Based 

on Previous 

Studies

Eliminated 

in Strategic 

Plan

Carried 

Forward in 

EIR/EIS

Further 

Discussion 

in Section

No-Project Alternative X 2.4 

Dedicated High-Speed Rail in the LOSSAN 

Right-of-Way X 2.3.1 A 

LA Union Station to Central Orange County (Anaheim) 

Interstate 5 Freeway X 2.3.1 B 

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way X 2.3.1 B 

Union Station Run-through Tracks (Los 

Angeles) X 2.4.2 

Addition of Fourth Main Track (Commerce to 

Fullerton) X 2.5.1 

Station Locations

Paramount (San Pedro Branch at I-105) X 2.3.1 B 

Norwalk (I-5 at Imperial Highway) X 2.3.1 B 

Garden Grove (PE ROW at SR-22) X 2.3.1 B 

Central Orange County (Anaheim) to Oceanside

Interstate 5 Freeway X 2.3.1 B 

San Joaquin Corridor (SR-73) with I-5 X 2.3.1 B 

Foothill South Corridor (SR-241) X 2.3.2 B 

Double-tracking and Curve Straightening – 

including partial or full Grade Separation 

(Fullerton to Irvine) 

X 2.5.1 

Dedicated High-Speed Rail or MAGLEV 

South of Irvine X 2.3.1 C 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment (San Juan Capistrano) X 2.3.2 A 

Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel (San Juan 

Capistrano) X 2.3.2 B 

I-5 Tunnel (San Juan Capistrano) X 2.5.1 

Trabuco Creek Cut-and-Cover Tunnel (San 

Juan Capistrano) X 2.5.1 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment (Dana Point/San Clemente) X 2.3.2 A 

Short Trench (Dana Point/San Clemente) X 2.3.2 B 

Long Trench (Dana Point/San Clemente) X 2.3.2 B 

Long Single Tunnel - no station in San 

Clemente (Dana Point/San Clemente) X 2.3.2 B 

South Orange County Inland Bypass X 2.3.2 B 

Short Tunnel – I-5 (Dana Point/San 

Clemente) X 2.5.1 

Long Split Tunnel with station in San 

Clemente (Dana Point/San Clemente) X 2.5.1 
2.0-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.2-1 

Summary of All Alternatives Considered (continued) 

Alternative Considered

Eliminated Based 

on Previous 

Studies

Eliminated 

in Strategic 

Plan

Carried 

Forward in 

EIR/EIS

Further 

Discussion 

in Section

Station Locations

Irvine (I-5 at Jeffery Road) X 2.3.1 B 

Oceanside (I-5 at Oceanside Boulevard) X 2.3.1 B 

Oceanside to San Diego

Interstate 5 Freeway X 2.3.1 B 

Double-tracking in existing alignment (Camp 

Pendleton) X 2.5.1 

Double-tracking in existing alignment, 

including partial or full Grade Separation 

(Oceanside to Carlsbad) 

X 2.5.1 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment (Encinitas) X 2.3.2 A 

At-grade double-tracking with Grade 

Separations (Encinitas) X 2.5.1 

Short Trench (Encinitas) X 2.5.1 

Long Trench (Encinitas) X 2.3.2 B 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment (Del Mar) X 2.3.2 A 

Trench in Bluffs (Del Mar) X 2.3.2 B 

Camino del Mar Tunnel #1 (Del Mar) X 2.5.1 

Camino del Mar Tunnel #2 (Del Mar) X 2.3.2 B 

Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass Tunnel X 2.5.1 

Tunnel under I-5 at University Towne Centre X 2.5.1 

Tunnel under Miramar Hill at University 

Towne Centre X 2.5.1 

Double-tracking and Curve Straightening – 

including partial or full Grade Separation (San 

Diego – State Route 52) 

X 2.5.1 B 

Station Locations

Solana Beach (I-5 at Lomas Santa Fe Dr.) X 2.3.1 B 
2.0-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED 

This section summarizes the alternative train technologies, corridors, and alignment and station 

options that have been evaluated for the LOSSAN region and eliminated from further 

consideration in this Program EIR/EIS. The reasons for the elimination of these alternatives are 

also briefly described. The options carried forward for further evaluation are described in 

Section 2.4. 

The Department conducted a comprehensive screening of alternatives during the scoping 

period for its environmental process and during preparation of the LOSSAN Strategic Plan 

(2003). However, as described in the previous section, the Department also reviewed and 

concurred with previous decisions regarding the LOSSAN region made by the Authority in its 

studies related to a statewide high-speed train system. This previous work led to the elimination 

of some initial design options, train technologies, and several potential rail corridors within the 

LOSSAN region. The Department adopted these decisions and, therefore, eliminated the same 

options from further evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS. To provide a complete history of 

alternatives considered and eliminated, previous decisions from statewide high-speed train 

studies that applied to the LOSSAN region are first described below in Section 2.3.1. 

Section 2.3.2 describes the rail improvement alignments and design options within the LOSSAN 

rail corridor considered and eliminated during the Department’s scoping and strategic planning 

efforts. 

2.3.1 Alternatives Eliminated in LOSSAN Region Based on 

Previous Studies 

A. LOSSAN CORRIDOR DEDICATED HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SERVICE 

A dedicated HST system utilizing the LOSSAN rail corridor was investigated by the HighSpeed Rail Commission and its successor the Authority. Based on the Commission’s 

and Authority’s work, the Department concluded that a dedicated HST corridor with 

completely separate tracks for the HST service was impracticable in the severelyconstrained LOSSAN corridor. 

The existing LOSSAN rail corridor is the second-most traveled rail passenger route in 

the United States. In addition to Amtrak’s intercity service, there are also two thriving 

commuter rail services (Metrolink and Coaster) operating on this corridor, as well as a 

significant amount of freight traffic. Although the corridor provides the most direct rail 

route between Los Angeles and San Diego, it passes through some of the state’s most 

populated regions and environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, coastal lagoons, 

fragile coastal bluffs, and coastal communities). 

The technical investigations and public input during the Commission’s feasibility studies 

identified significant environmental obstacles to implementing a dedicated HST service 

along the LOSSAN corridor. Comments received during the Authority’s study (as well as 

during the 1996 feasibility study by the Commission) raised the following issues: 

• The bluffs are narrow in some areas and susceptible to failure, in particular the 

Del Mar Bluffs. 

• The existing right-of-way is narrow. Additional service in the corridor could 

restrict access to and enjoyment of the beach area by visitors and residents. 
2.0-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• To prevent dangerous pedestrian crossings of the HST tracks, the railroad rightsof-way could be fenced. This could restrict beach access and concentrate the 

crossing of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at fewer locations. 

• Noise and vibration from trains could be disruptive to ecologically sensitive 

coastal areas and lagoons. The saltwater marshes and lagoons are a winter 

habitat for several sensitive bird species. 

• A dedicated right-of-way would require two more tracks at-grade (with fencing) or 

a double-deck configuration, to accommodate existing rail services and highspeed rail. In Encinitas, there may not be room in the existing right-of-way to add 

two more tracks at grade, so this could mean a double-deck configuration. The 

structures and overhead catenaries could block highly sensitive ocean and 

community views, creating a negative aesthetic impact on tourism-related 

businesses and potentially reducing property values adjacent to the corridor. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN CORRIDORS AND STATION OPTIONS 

Evaluation Objectives and Criteria for High-Speed Train Project Corridors

The range of alternative corridors and station options identified by the Authority and FRA 

and concurred with by the Department were evaluated against a list of objectives and 

criteria. These objectives and criteria built upon previous studies and incorporated 

performance goals and criteria described in Section 2.1. No formal thresholds were 

applied; instead, alignment and station options were compared based on these 

objectives and criteria. Table 2.3-1 presents the objectives and criteria applied by the 

Authority and FRA. 

These objectives and criteria were also used as a base for the development of the 

criteria used by the Department and FRA for the screening of potential incremental 

improvement alternatives in its LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. 

The screening evaluation criteria focused on cost and travel time as primary indicators of 

engineering viability and ridership potential. Items such as capital costs and travel times 

were quantified for each of the alignment and station options considered. Other 

engineering criteria such as operational, construction, and right-of-way issues were 

evaluated qualitatively. 

C. RAIL TECHNOLOGY 

Four primary technology groups were initially considered in the development of the 

statewide high-speed train system, as listed below. 

• Electrified Very High-Speed Steel-Wheel-On-Steel-Rail. 

• Magnetic Levitation. 

• High-Speed Steel-Wheel-On-Steel Rail. 

• Non-Electrified Steel-Wheel-On-Steel-Rail (Conventional). 

Because of the need for early implementation, other less developed technologies (those 

not currently in operation or ready for implementation) were not considered. 
2.0-17

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.3-1 

High-Speed Rail Corridor/Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria 

Objective Criteria 

Maximize ridership/revenue potential Travel time 

Length 

Population/employment catchment 

Maximize connectivity and accessibility Intermodal connections 

Minimize operating and capital costs Length 

Operational issues 

Construction issues 

Capital cost 

Right-of-way issues/cost 

Maximize compatibility with existing and 

planned development 

Land use compatibility and conflicts 

Visual quality impacts 

Minimize impacts on natural resources Water resources impacts 

Floodplain impacts 

Wetland impacts 

Threatened and endangered species impacts 

Wildlife corridor impacts 

Minimize impacts on social and economic 

resources 

Environmental justice impacts (demographics) 

Farmland impacts 

Minimize impacts on cultural resources Cultural resources impacts 

Parks and recreation impacts 

Wildlife refuge impacts 

Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic 

and soils constraints 

Soils/slope constraints 

Seismic constraints 

Maximize avoidance of areas with potential 

hazardous materials 

Hazardous materials/waste constraints 

In the Authority’s High-Speed Train Screening Evaluation Report, these technologies 

were evaluated against known operational and environmental constraints. As stated 

above, the studies by the Authority rejected the alternative of dedicated rail service in the 

existing LOSSAN corridor, as well as dedicated service in the I-5 corridor. The Authority 

subsequently determined (and the Department concurred) that the two technologies that 

require dedicated infrastructure would need to be eliminated from further consideration 

in the LOSSAN corridor south of either Anaheim or Irvine -- Electrified Very High Speed 

(VHS) Steel-Wheel-On-Steel-Rail, and Magnetic Levitation. 

D. RAIL CORRIDORS CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED IN LOSSAN REGION 

This section describes previous work performed in the Los Angeles-Orange County-San 

Diego region (LOSSAN region) and considered by the Department and FRA to eliminate 

certain alternative corridors and station options from further consideration. Reviewing 

this work is essential in understanding the reasons for the Department’s selection of the 

rail improvement alternatives that have been carried forward for consideration within the 

LOSSAN corridor. 

As part of the initial alternatives developed, the Authority had looked at the feasibility of 

high-speed train service along several corridors through the LOSSAN region. A number 

of alignment and station options were further analyzed by the Authority in a subsequent 

screening evaluation for the region (Authority 2000), and this analysis was utilized by the 
2.0-18

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Department in its considerations, and its findings presented in the LOSSAN Corridor 

Strategic Plan. These options are summarized below. 

The alignments and stations considered and eliminated for this region are shown in 

Figure 2.3.1-1. The reasons for elimination of each of the options are categorically 

summarized in Table 2.3.1-2 and further described in the subsections that follow. 

Table 2.3.1-2 

Alternative HST Corridor Alignments and Station Options Considered but 

Eliminated for the LOSSAN Region 

Reason 

Alignment or Station 

Construction Environment Incompatibility Right of Way Connectivity/ Accessibility Revenue/ Ridership Alignment Eliminated Environmental 

Concerns 

LA Union Station to Central Orange County (Anaheim) 

Interstate 5 Freeway P P 

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way P S 

Station Locations

Paramount (San Pedro Branch at I-105) P 

Norwalk (I-5 at Imperial Highway) P 

Garden Grove (PE ROW at SR-22) P 

Central Orange County (Anaheim) to Oceanside 

Interstate 5 Freeway P P 

San Joaquin Corridor (SR-73) with I-5 P S 

Interstate 5 and Foothill Corridor (SR-241) P S Natural resources 

Station Locations

Irvine (I-5 at Jeffery Road) P 

Oceanside (I-5 at Oceanside Boulevard) P 

Oceanside to San Diego 

Interstate 5 Freeway P S S P Visual 

Station Locations

Solana Beach (I-5 at Lomas Santa Fe Dr.) P 

San Diego Airport 

Notes: 

Reason: Primary (P) and Secondary (S) reasons for elimination. 

Construction: Includes engineering and construction complexity, cost and sub-optimal systems operations influence (i.e., 

slow train speeds). 

Environment: Includes any factor that can be assigned to the environmental disciplines studied as part of this EIR/EIS. 

Incompatibility: Incompatibility with current or planned local land use. 

Right-of-Way: Includes lack of available rights-of-way, extensive right-of-way needs, and high cost. 

Connectivity/Accessibility: Includes limited connectivity with other existing or future transportation modes (highway and/or 

transit systems). 

Ridership/Revenue: The alignment or station would have a negative effect on the revenue or ridership for the system. 

Alignment Eliminated: Station or connection eliminated because the connecting alignment option was eliminated. 

Environmental Concerns: Notes of specific environmental areas of concern. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 2.3.1-1

Alternative HST Corridor Alignments and Station Options

Considered but Eliminated for the LOSSAN Region

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-19
2.0-20

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
2.0-21

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Los Angeles to Central Orange County

• Interstate 5 Freeway - This alignment would follow I-5 south of the US-101/I-5/I10/SR-60 interchange (East LA interchange) and involve a dedicated bypass of 

the freight and commuter rail corridor, and a reasonably direct alignment to 

central Orange County and on to San Diego. 

In this segment, the I-5 Freeway alternative would be a very slow rail route due to 

the number and size of curves on the I-5 alignment. It would be impracticable as 

a result of high costs and due to extremely constrained right-of-way in the 

corridor, which would require construction of high aerial structures. It would 

provide a Central Orange County station in Anaheim, which would have good 

freeway access and intermodal transit connections. Third or fourth level aerial 

construction would be required along I-5 due to elevated freeway sections and 

freeway interchanges along this right-of-way. This freeway alignment would also 

require relocating and maintaining freeway access and capacity during 

construction. Available space along this freeway alignment would be limited 

since available right-of-way is generally planned for use for needed expansion 

projects such as additional lanes, HOV lanes, and additional interchange 

improvements. 

• Pacific Electric (PE) Right-of-Way – This alignment would be along a lightly-used 

rail line between the cities of Paramount and Stanton, and an abandoned corridor 

through to Santa Ana. Its long, straight (tangent) sections could support HST 

operation. 

The PE right-of-way would provide for reasonably fast travel times, due primarily 

to its straightness. This alternative would not meet the Department’s objectives 

since it would not provide sufficient accessibility and connectivity, because it 

would be convenient only to a single freeway and it would not directly serve 

major Orange County Transportation Hubs (in Anaheim and Irvine) and because 

of its incompatibility with local land uses. 

Central Orange County to Oceanside

• Interstate 5 Freeway – This alignment would continue from Anaheim along I-5 in 

Orange County through Camp Pendleton to Oceanside, providing a dedicated 

high-speed alignment and bypassing constrained sections of the LOSSAN 

corridor. 

In this segment, the I-5 alternative would be a fast rail route but also very costly, 

since the number and size of horizontal and vertical curves on I-5 would require 

extensive aerial and tunnel construction to maintain speeds. Third or fourth level 

aerial construction would be required along much of I-5 due to elevated freeway 

sections and freeway interchanges along this right-of-way. This freeway 

alignment would also require relocating and maintaining freeway access and 

capacity during construction. Available space along this freeway would be 

limited, since virtually all available right-of-way has been used for recent 

expansion projects such as additional lanes, HOV lanes, viaduct structures, and 

additional interchange improvements. This option would avoid sensitive areas in 

San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, but would result in potential land use 
2.0-22

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

impacts alongside the I-5 corridor, which is abutted by commercial and industrial 

uses in both areas. This option is considered to be impracticable due to high 

construction issues and costs, and high right-of-way constraints. 

• San Joaquin Corridor (SR-73) with Interstate 5 - This option would provide a 

dedicated alignment, continuing from the PE right-of-way in Garden Grove. This 

is a southern highway alternative to the I-5 Freeway option (which would follow 

I-5 through Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine), and would pass through some less 

developed parts of Orange County. 

The SR-73 alternative would be almost as expensive as the I-5 Freeway option. 

Due to its rolling terrain, it would require extensive tunneling. The SR-73 

alternative would not be as accessible as the LOSSAN and I-5 Freeway 

alternatives, since it would be convenient to only a single freeway. Moreover, 

this alternative would not serve either Anaheim or Irvine and it would only 

connect to the PE right-of-way alignment (between Union Station and Central 

Orange County) that has been eliminated from further evaluation. This option 

would not meet basic connectivity and accessibility objectives and was 

considered impracticable due to high right-of-way constraints and high 

construction impacts and costs. 

Oceanside to San Diego

• Interstate 5 Freeway – This alignment would continue from Oceanside along I-5 

to San Diego, providing a dedicated high-speed alignment and bypassing 

sensitive coastal and other constrained sections of the LOSSAN corridor. This 

would provide the only option for a dedicated rail alignment along the coast in 

San Diego. 

In this section, the I-5 Freeway dedicated option would provide a travel time 

similar to the LOSSAN options, but it would not serve the downtown Santa Fe 

Depot and would terminate at the San Diego Airport. I-5 would be a very costly 

option, since the number and size of horizontal and vertical curves on I-5 require 

extensive aerial structures to maintain speeds. Third or fourth level aerial 

construction would be required along much of I-5 due to elevated freeway 

sections and freeway interchanges along this right-of-way. This freeway 

alignment would also require relocating and maintaining freeway access and 

capacity during construction. Available space along this freeway alignment is 

limited, since available right-of-way is generally planned for use for needed 

expansion projects such as additional lanes, HOV lanes, and additional 

interchange improvements. 

This option would avoid sensitive coastal areas. However, in many places, 

particularly at lagoon crossings, it would share many of the environmental issues 

and sensitivities of the coastal areas of the LOSSAN corridor. Due to the 

constrained right-of-way along the I-5 corridor, there would be potential property 

impacts on adjacent land uses, which are largely commercial and industrial but 

include significant residential areas. Due to the need for aerial construction, 

there would be significant potential for visual intrusion, including interference with 

ocean and lagoon views. 
2.0-23

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Suitable land for station sites on the I-5 alignment would be scarce, and the 

development of such new stations would be incompatible with the emerging 

Smart Growth principles of San Diego County, which stress the support and 

development of existing transportation hubs. Therefore, this alternative is not as 

compatible with the existing and planned development of the coastal cities as the 

LOSSAN corridor. 

The I-5 alignment investigation assumed that the infrastructure would be 

exclusively used by a proposed HST system. Therefore, with the existing rail 

impacts for freight and commuter rail in the LOSSAN corridor and a new 

proposed HST system, there would be two parallel rail lines. The cumulative 

impacts of the two corridors would be far greater than a single alternative along 

the LOSSAN corridor. Combining the existing rail services and a proposed HST 

system in a completely new corridor with new infrastructure, which would not be 

fully dedicated to high-speed service, would increase costs and diminish the 

performance of the proposed HST system and result in extensive costs for the 

relocation of all existing Amtrak, freight, and commuter rail stations into the I-5 

corridor. Moreover, a proposed HST system along the I-5 Freeway would cause 

significant disruption to abutting land uses (and increase environmental impacts), 

and would result in greatly increased costs of building the infrastructure because 

of additional commuter stations, additional track requirements, and restrictive 

freight gradients. 

This option would not meet basic program objectives and would not avoid or 

substantially reduce environmental impacts. It was considered impracticable due 

to high right-of-way constraints and high construction impacts and costs. 

Stations Locations Eliminated in LOSSAN Region

• Paramount (San Pedro Branch at I-105): This potential station site would only 

serve the PE Right-of-Way alternative that has been eliminated from further 

investigation. 

• Norwalk (I-5 at Imperial Highway): This potential station site would only serve the 

Interstate 5 Freeway alternative that has been eliminated from further 

investigation. 

• Garden Grove (PE right-of-way at SR-22): This potential station site would only 

serve the PE right-of-way alternative that has been eliminated from further 

investigation. 

• Irvine (I-5 at Jeffrey Road): This station would only serve the I-5 Freeway and I-5 

and Foothill Corridor alternatives that have been eliminated from further 

investigation. 

• Oceanside (I-5 at Oceanside Boulevard): This station would only serve the I-5 

Freeway, I-5 and Foothill, and SR-73 and I-5 alternatives that have been 

eliminated from further investigation. 

• Solana Beach (I-5 at Lomas Santa Fe Drive): This potential station would serve 

only the I-5 alignment that has been eliminated from further evaluation. 

• San Diego Airport: This LOSSAN station would serve San Diego and the San 

Diego Airport with an improved Amtrak service and could be expanded to serve 

new express intercity services. 
2.0-24

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

2.3.2 LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvements Considered and 

Eliminated 

The Department and FRA considered a number of conventional rail improvements for the 

LOSSAN corridor. Improvement options that were eliminated from evaluation in this Program 

EIR/EIS are summarized in Table 2.3.2-1 and described below. More detail on the screening of 

alternatives can be found in the LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. 

A. PRELIMINARY LOSSAN CONVENTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS ELIMINATED 

FROM FURTHER EVALUATION 

The community and environmental sensitivities and engineering challenges in the Cities 

of Del Mar, Encinitas, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano are distinctive and 

sometimes unique to one community. Nevertheless, the four share one common 

constraint: an environment of high pedestrian traffic, where the existing LOSSAN railway 

acts as an impediment to access between most of the community and a desirable 

community resource, and yet the railway is accessible enough that people are not 

channeled to designated crossing points featuring gates and warning devices. 

In these areas, simple at-grade double-tracking was considered early in the definition of 

alternatives. However, introducing extensive sections of double-track in such 

environments, without providing a significant expansion of the ability for pedestrians to 

safely cross over or under the tracks, would not improve safety for rail users or those 

wishing to cross the corridor. Without new grade-separated crossing opportunities the 

implication is also that increased speeds through the segment most likely create 

unacceptable safety risks, negating much of the benefit of double-tracking. 

While the concept of simple at-grade double-tracking was rejected in the four 

communities, it was used as a starting point in defining other alternatives along the 

existing alignment. The specific issues in each community that led to elimination of the 

option of simple at-grade double-tracking along the existing LOSSAN rail alignment are 

summarized below. Section 2.4 describes options that were carried forward for 

evaluation. 

San Juan Capistrano 

Up until the 1960s, downtown San Juan Capistrano featured a second passing track. 

This was removed by the Santa Fe Railroad, which saw it as an unnecessary 

maintenance burden in a time when intercity passenger travel was on the decline and 

commuter rail was decades away. While room is available to restore the second track 

at-grade, doing so would not provide any speed improvements in the high pedestrianuse area of Franciscan Plaza. Further, the presence of the Los Rios Historical District 

immediately to the west, with its sensitive adobe structures, eliminates the possibility of a 

grade-separation along the existing alignment, either by taking the rail below-grade, or 

by building a pedestrian underpass. 

Due to physical constraints, visual and environmental issues, and community concerns, 

elevated railway viaduct structures (except at water crossings) along the beachfront and 

in the San Juan Capistrano historical area were not investigated. 
2.0-25

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.3.2-1 

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Alternatives Eliminated 

Reason 

Alignment or Station 

Construction Environment Incompatibility Right of Way Connectivity/ Accessibilit

y

Revenue/ Ridership Train Performance 

Environmental Concerns 

San Juan Capistrano 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment P P P Historic resources 

Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel P P 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment P P 

Short Trench P P P S Beach aesthetics & access 

Long Trench P P P S Beach aesthetics & access 

Long Single Tunnel (no station in San 

Clemente) P S 

Inland Bypass P P S P P P Natural resources 

Encinitas 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment P P 

Long Trench P 

Del Mar 

At-grade double-tracking in existing rail 

alignment P P P 

Trench in Bluffs P P P S Beach aesthetics & access 

Camino del Mar Tunnel #2 P S P New crossing of lagoon 

Notes: 

Reason: Primary (P) and Secondary (S) reasons for elimination. 

Construction: Includes engineering and construction complexity, cost and sub-optimal systems operations influence (i.e., slow 

train speeds). 

Environment: Includes any factor that can be assigned to the environmental disciplines studied as part of this EIR/EIS. 

Incompatibility: Incompatibility with current or planned local land use. 

Right-of-Way: Includes lack of available rights-of-way, extensive right-of-way needs, and high cost. 

Connectivity/Accessibility: Includes limited connectivity with other existing or future transportation modes (highway and/or transit 

systems). 

Ridership/Revenue: The alignment or station would have a negative effect on the revenue or ridership for the system. 

Train Performance: Includes impacts to reliability, running time improvement, and ability to accommodate freight. 

Environmental Concerns: Notes of specific environmental areas of concern. 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

The track at San Clemente is on the beach. As a result, trespassing onto the rail rightof-way and crossing the rails away from designated crossing points is commonplace, 

with pronounced safety risks. To address these safety issues, train operating speeds 

are greatly reduced, leading to significant capacity and performance penalties in these 
2.0-26

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

areas. An at-grade second track in the existing rail corridor was therefore eliminated 

from further consideration, since it would compound existing barrier and safety issues. 

Encinitas 

In Encinitas, the existing rail corridor abuts residential, commercial and industrial land 

uses and forms a barrier to pedestrians and to vehicular traffic at the at-grade crossings 

of major intersections, as does a parallel arterial and Coast Highway 101 . In Leucadia, 

the rail separates a residential area to the east from a major local shopping district and 

the coast to the west. In Cardiff-by-the-Sea, the rail corridor separates the community 

from the ocean. At-grade double-tracking in the existing corridor was eliminated 

because it would compound these barriers and create additional safety issues with 

pedestrian and vehicle crossings. 

Del Mar 

An at-grade second track along the coastal bluffs in Del Mar would compound existing 

barrier and safety factors noted above for other locations. In addition, since the bluffs 

are continually eroding, it was apparent that any double-tracking alternative in this 

location would require significant excavation work to stabilize the bluff-top. Stabilization 

would also require structures that would create substantial visual impacts and likely 

require significant on-going maintenance efforts to address erosion and drainage 

concerns. Therefore, this option was eliminated due to high construction and 

operational impacts and costs. 

B. OPTIONS ELIMINATED IN STRATEGIC PLAN AND SCREENING EVALUATION 

(2003) 

Based on further technical evaluation and public and agency input during the LOSSAN 

Corridor Strategic Plan process, rail improvement options were further screened in four 

locations along the corridor: San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point/San Clemente, Encinitas, 

and Del Mar. In addition, the Department considered the potential for a South Orange 

County Bypass option that would bypass San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and San 

Clemente. The options eliminated from evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS are 

described and illustrated below. 

San Juan Capistrano

• Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel: This option would involve construction of 

a cut and cover tunnel through San Juan Capistrano’s downtown (see 

Figure 2.3.2-1). Near Junipero Serra Road, the alignment would enter a doubletracked open concrete trench. North of the existing San Juan Capistrano Depot, 

the trench would become a covered trench. The covered trench would pass 

beneath an existing downtown parking structure, and then would become an 

open trench again. Near San Juan Creek, the alignment would return to grade. 

This option would also include curve straightening the alignment just south of the 

San Juan Creek crossing. 

The Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel would have severe construction impacts 

and property impacts on downtown San Juan Capistrano and the historic district, 

and would have negative impacts on the community, and historical resources. 
2.0-27

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Figure 2.3.2-1 

Option Eliminated from Further Consideration in San Juan Capistrano 

This option would increase track capacity, reduce running times, improve safety, 

and increase reliability. However, it would have major constructability impacts, 

because of limited available right-of-way in the historic district, the close proximity 

of sensitive historic and cultural resources (including the historic downtown 

station), the need to maintain rail service during construction, and the need to 

demolish and replace the existing downtown parking structure and surface 

parking facilities (causing significant disruption to the downtown business 

community during construction). For these reasons, it was given a negative costeffectiveness rating. 

Historical resources could be directly impacted with this option, largely during 

construction. Property impacts would be very high in this option, as property for 

right-of-way would need to be acquired, and businesses would be impacted 

during construction, particularly as a result of the demolition of the parking 

structure (which would be rebuilt after the covered trench had been constructed). 

There would be noise and vibration impacts, both during construction and in 

areas of open trench after construction. 

The public acceptability of this option, as determined by comments and feedback 

from previous public meetings, is extremely negative. The City of San Juan 

Capistrano is on record as being opposed to this option, and asked that it be 

eliminated from further consideration. They believe the construction of this 

option would have long-term detrimental effects on the community. For reasons 

of cost, constructability, cost-effectiveness, potential impacts to historical 

resources and property, as well as public acceptability, this option was eliminated 

from further consideration. 

Dana Point and San Clemente

• Short Trench: This option provides for double-tracking while following the 

existing railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2.3.2-2). A short trench would be 

constructed through the San Clemente pier area to allow for safe pedestrian 

access across the tracks. Additional pedestrian under-crossings would also be 

constructed along the section of the corridor traveling at-grade on the beach. 
2.0-28

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Figure 2.3.2-2 

Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Dana Point/San Clemente 
2.0-29

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Short Trench option has severe construction impacts and high negative 

impacts to the environment and the community, yet offers only a marginal 

improvement to train service and performance. 

Although the Short Trench option would increase track capacity (due to double 

tracking), it would provide no change in running times, no net improvements to 

safety, and no change to reliability. The Short Trench option offers significant 

constructability challenges, most notably the construction of the trench in the Pier 

Bowl and construction around Mariposa Point, while simultaneously maintaining 

access to the San Clemente Pier and existing rail service. The construction of 

the Short Trench option would also impact San Clemente businesses, which 

depend upon visitors to the beach. It was assessed as having a low costeffectiveness rating (based upon the benefits it provides and the impacts it 

imposes, compared to its cost). 

The Short Trench option poses very significant constructability challenges, 

primarily because of the nature of the beach itself and the coastal bluffs 

(particularly at Mariposa Point – see Figure 2.3.2-3). Attempting to stabilize the 

beach and fragile coastal bluffs would require major construction efforts, 

including a seawall 10-20 feet (3-6 meters) high at the base of the bluffs, 

retaining walls within the trench itself, and tie-backs at the top of the bluffs, 

resulting in drastic changes to the existing environment. The use of heavy 

construction equipment in this sensitive beach and coastal bluff environment 

would also be problematic. Moreover, the constrained space available for 

construction of the trench and the need to maintain rail service during 

construction would create significant impacts. 

The Short Trench option would have the highest environmental impacts. The 

covered portion of the trench would improve coastal access and reduce the 

barrier effect of the rail corridor in the Pier Bowl area. Other areas, where the 

trench was open or in transition would have greatly reduced access 

opportunities. Coastal access during construction would be greatly constrained 

in the Pier Bowl area. The Short Trench option reduces the barrier effect of the 

existing rail corridor through the downtown area by providing a covered trench. 

However, this option would do little to reduce or remove the impact of the rail 

corridor on adjacent residential uses. Additionally, the barrier effect between 

residential and recreational uses would increase as a result of the trench. The 

Short Trench option would impact beach aesthetics by imposing new concrete 

structures (the trench and its transitions) on the beach. The Short Trench option 

would not remove the rail line from the beach, but rather would submerge it into 

the beach, creating new, different impacts (including the need for the stabilization 

methods noted above). The beach and bluff impacts of the Short Trench concept 

would result in the highest impacts on natural resources and have major 

geological and soils constraints. Construction on the beach and bluffs would 

have high impacts to erodible soils, unstable slopes, and aesthetics and visual 

quality. Property impacts with the Short Trench option would include the likely 

need to acquire property during the construction period in order to stage 

equipment and materials. There was strong public sentiment for removing this 

alternative from further consideration. 
2.0-30

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Figure 2.3.2-3 

Existing Rail Corridor at Mariposa Point 

• Long Trench: This option is similar to the Short Trench in that it would also 

remain largely within the existing railroad right-of-way, and would include curve 

straightening at Dana Point. The option would begin a bored tunnel through 

Mariposa Point, just south of the existing Metrolink station (at Avenida Pico and 

El Camino Real), then transition north of the pier into a cut-and-cover trench, 

which would continue until approximately 1,600 feet north of the San Diego 

County line (see Figure 2.3.2-2). 

Although the Long Trench option offers significant improvements to train service 

and performance, it has severe construction impacts and high negative impacts 

to the environment and the community, as well as high construction costs. 

Like the Short Trench option, the trench’s double track would provide increased 

train capacity. Unlike the Short Trench, the Long Trench option would improve 

running times, safety, and reliability, due to the extensive grade-separated 

segment from Mariposa Point to the southern city limits. The construction of the 

Long Trench option would also impact San Clemente businesses, which depend 

upon visitors to the beach. While more costly than the Short Trench option 

(estimated $150 million additional cost), the Long Trench is assessed to have a 

positive cost-effectiveness as a result of the benefits to train performance. 

The Long Trench option would reduce the “barrier effect”, due to the covered 

trench and tunnel section. However, there would be access issues during the 

construction phase, especially along the beach and in the Pier Bowl areas. 

Coastal impacts would result from the Long Trench option, as tunneling under 

the bluffs at Mariposa Point would be required. Property impacts would be 

significant, as acquisition of property would be required for the tunnel segment 

beneath the residential subdivision at Mariposa Point. Noise and vibration issues 

would be minimized as a result of the trench (and greatly reduced in the tunnel 

segment of the Long Trench). 
2.0-31

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Long Trench option poses significant constructability challenges, most 

notably because of the nature of the beach itself and the coastal bluffs 

(particularly at Mariposa Point – see Figure 2.3.2-3). The use of heavy 

construction equipment in this sensitive beach and coastal bluff environment 

would also be problematic. Moreover, the constrained space available for 

construction of the trench and the need to maintain rail service during 

construction would create significant impacts. 

The Long Trench option would have high environmental impacts. The covered 

portion of the trench would improve coastal access and reduce the barrier effect 

of the rail corridor in the Pier Bowl area. Other areas, where the trench was open 

or in transition, would have greatly reduced access opportunities. Coastal 

access during construction would be greatly constrained in the Pier Bowl area. 

The Long Trench alternative would impact beach aesthetics by imposing new 

concrete structures (the trench and its transitions) on the beach. The Long 

Trench option would not remove the rail line from the beach, but rather would 

submerge it into the beach, creating new, different impacts (including the need 

for the stabilization methods noted above). The beach impacts of the Long 

Trench concept would result in high impacts on natural resources and have 

major geological and soils constraints. Construction on the beach and bluffs 

would have high impacts to erodible soils, unstable slopes, and aesthetics and 

visual quality. Property impacts with the Long Trench option would include the 

likely need to acquire property through the residential community at Mariposa 

Point and during the construction period in order to stage equipment and 

materials. There was strong public sentiment for removing this alternative from 

further consideration. 

• Long Single Tunnel (No Station): This option is similar to the Interstate 5 Long 

Tunnel with station, except it would utilize a single (rather than split) tunnel, 

which does not allow for a station in San Clemente. Like the Long Tunnel with 

Station option, the new alignment bypasses both the sharp curve in Dana Point 

and the coastal environmental and pedestrian concerns in San Clemente. This 

option would leave the existing right-of-way in a trench approximately 500 feet 

south of Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano, entering into a tunnel just 

before coming under the right-of-way of Interstate 5. The option would continue 

beneath Interstate 5, leaving the right-of-way just north of Basilone Road, exiting 

the tunnel and returning to grade level at San Onofre Creek, then rejoining the 

existing railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2.3.2-2) 

The Long Single Tunnel option would have many of the benefits and impacts as 

the Long Split Tunnel option. However, there are significant additional 

construction challenges incumbent in this option. A single tunnel more than 6 

miles (9.6 km) in length is much more expensive and difficult to construct than 

the split tunnels proposed in the Long Tunnel (with station) option. The Long 

Single Tunnel option, that requires a single twin bore tunnel exceeding 11-miles 

(17.6 km), is expected to cost at least $400 million more than the I-5 Long Split 

Tunnel option. Furthermore, this extremely long tunnel would require several 

large ventilation shafts to the surface and may require cross-overs to be 

constructed between the two twin bore tunnels. 
2.0-32

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Public acceptability for alignment options that would avoid the sensitive coastal 

areas has been positive; however this option would offer no opportunity for rail 

service in San Clemente. Therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration 

in the Program EIR/EIS. 

South Orange County Inland Bypass Alternative 

During the scoping process held in Spring 2002, continuing concerns about 

improvement alternatives within the existing LOSSAN alignment in the South Orange 

County Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point and San Clemente led to requests by 

the public to study an alternative that would bypass the highly sensitive segments of 

these communities. In Summer 2002, the Orange County Transportation Authority and 

the South Orange County Rail Working Group asked the Department to study an Inland 

Bypass Alternative that would locate any future rail improvement projects along an 

inland route that would bypass the South Orange County cities of San Juan Capistrano, 

Dana Point, and San Clemente. 

Earlier in 2001, the California High-Speed Rail Authority had studied the possibility of 

locating a fully-grade separated, electrified high-speed rail line in the same vicinity, but 

due to significant community, environmental, cost and train performance issues, opted to 

eliminate this corridor from further consideration (refer to Section 2.2.1). 

The Authority shared the results of its findings with the Department, as a means of 

helping the Department to determine whether further study of an Inland Bypass 

Alternative was desirable to provide additional alignment alternatives for further 

consideration in this Program EIR/EIS. 

There are a number of issues related to an Inland Bypass Alternative. A summary of 

these issues, which led the Department to eliminate the Inland Bypass alternative from 

further evaluation, is provided below. More detail is provided in the LOSSAN Corridor 

Strategic Plan. Appendix B of the Strategic Plan provides additional documentation of 

the Authority’s previous evaluation of the Bypass alternative. 1 

Topography

Trains perform best where the grades (steepness) of the tracks over which they travel 

are not great. For passenger trains, a maximum grade of between 1 and 2 percent is 

standard (with a 1.2 percent grade the ideal maximum). While conventional dieselpowered trains can negotiate steeper grades of 2-3 percent over a short distance, they 

will slow significantly. Adding curves to the mix slows trains even further. The shareduse nature of the LOSSAN corridor requires that grades accommodate freight trains. 

Freight trains offer even more challenge and are unable to efficiently negotiate grades 

above 1.5 percent. Even if an alignment could avoid the steepest grades in the Bypass 

corridor (up to 4 percent), it is likely that several sustained grades of 2 percent or more 

would remain. 

Traveling inland from the coast in southern Orange County, the topography becomes 

very problematic from a rail design standpoint. The hills and canyons would require 

 

1 Appendix B of the Strategic Plan is a technical memo highlighting the Authority’s findings from its July, 2001 High-Speed Train 

Alignments/Stations Screening Evaluation report, which evaluated several alignment alternatives in south Orange County, among 

them two alternatives that would bypass sensitive beachside and historic areas in San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point and San 

Clemente. 
2.0-33

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

significant tunneling in order to maintain the necessary and desirable grades and to limit 

the number of tight curves in the new corridor as the train passes through the many 

canyons and over the water courses in the area. 

A preliminary estimate indicates the need for up to 20 miles (32 km) of tunnel along an 

Inland alignment, much of it continuous. Tunnels greater than 6 miles (9.6 km) in length 

offer significantly greater complexity including the need for extensive ventilation shafts 

and the difficulties of operating non-electric, diesel-powered equipment in such a long 

tunnel. Tunnels of over 10 miles (16 km) raise fundamental questions of constructability 

given California’s seismic and soil conditions. The study area for the Inland Bypass 

includes sections wherein the soil types are subject to liquefaction or earthquakeinduced slides, complicating design and construction. 

Environmental and Land Use Concerns

The Inland Bypass Alternative study area includes the last large remaining parcels of 

undeveloped land in Orange County outside the land preserved as part of the Cleveland 

National Forest, largely comprised of the 25,000-acre Rancho Mission Viejo. Several 

concerns have been raised about development of any kind in this area, including the 

completion of the SR-241 Foothill-South Toll Road. 

Environmental concerns include:

• Impacts to Wetland and Water Resources - Water and wetlands resources within 

the Inland Bypass Alternative study area are extensive, with 24 known wetland 

and riparian areas. Between Irvine and the San Diego county line, the Inland 

Bypass rail corridor would involve crossing three rivers and 12 creeks. 

• Floodplain Impacts - The study area includes numerous 100-year floodplain 

zones, and is associated with unnamed drainages, tributaries and small creeks. 

In South Orange County these floodplains vary in width from 100 to 5,000 feet 

(30 to 1500 m). 

• Possible impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species, their Habitat and 

Wildlife Refuges - Twenty-one threatened and endangered species are known to 

exist within the study area, ranging from “Species of Special Concern” to those 

federally listed as “Threatened”. 

• Farmland Impacts - From the current terminus of SR-241 at Oso Parkway south 

to SR-74 (Ortega Highway), there are scattered parcels of farmland identified by 

the California Department of Conservation as either “Prime and Unique” or 

“Farmland of Statewide Significance”. 

• Parks and Recreational Resources – In addition to the General Thomas F. Riley 

Wilderness Park and Rancho Mission Viejo Ecological Reserve, the study area 

includes O’Neill Regional Park and San Onofre State Beach. 

• Potential impacts to adjacent land uses could include (1) impacts to residential 

home values, or economic losses to the local business community, and new 

costs to cities along the rail corridor as a result of construction and rail 

operations, (2) introduction of new visual impacts, (3) property Impacts, including 

the need to acquire properties and businesses for right-of-way or to secure 

easements, (4) noise and vibration impacts to directly adjacent residences and 
2.0-34

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

businesses, and (5) introduction of new pedestrian access and traffic circulation 

barriers. 

Federal and state resource agencies, including the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California State Parks 

Service, have previously expressed concerns over the introduction of a new 

inland bypass rail corridor in South Orange County, citing reasons and factors 

such as those highlighted above. 

Transitions to/from the Existing LOSSAN Corridor

An important consideration in the creation of a new Inland Bypass Alternative alignment 

is how the new corridor would diverge from and return to the existing LOSSAN rail 

corridor. It is likely that such a transition would take place in the north near the Irvine 

Transportation Center (ITC). Three options for this transition exist (detailed in the 

LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan). Any of these options would require extensive 

disruption of existing and planned land uses, call for significant land and right-of-way 

acquisition, and generate significant controversy from residents and cities along the 

proposed alignment. 

In the south, the most likely transition would be near the border of Orange and San 

Diego counties, just north of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and near 

Basilone Road. The land east of the I-5 freeway is part of San Onofre State Beach. The 

transition would require either a “flyover” crossing of I-5, or a short tunnel beneath the 

freeway. Such a crossing would require coordination with and approval by the California 

State Parks Department and the establishment of a use easement to permit rail to 

operate within the park. 

Costs of the New Corridor

Costs for an Inland Bypass Alternative rail corridor cannot be accurately predicted 

without a specific alignment and profile. However, given the costs of land acquisition, 

construction (including tunneling) and costs of tracks, signaling and station construction, 

it is likely that the costs would be in the billions of dollars. 

In the Authority’s previous analysis of possible Inland Bypass Alternative routes, which 

would call for 62 miles (99 km) of new double track, much of it on structure, the Authority 

determined the costs associated with an Inland corridor would be approximately $1 

billion more than the most expensive conventional rail improvements being evaluated for 

the LOSSAN corridor in the same area. This conclusion was for an electrified, 

passenger-only system capable of negotiating sustained grades of up to 3.5 percent. 

The cost would increase significantly from that estimate with a profile limited to 1.5% 

grades to accommodate conventional passenger trains or freight along the same 

alignment. 

Train Service and Performance Benefits/Impacts

The creation of a new, double-track rail corridor on an Inland Bypass Alternative corridor 

would provide increased track capacity, and could provide access to a new rail market 

along its route. Safety and reliability of service along an Inland route would likely be 

higher than that in the existing LOSSAN corridor. However, it would be substantially 
2.0-35

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

longer, far more expensive to build, and the grades and curves along a potential 

alignment (with or without tunneling) would likely increase running times. 

There is also a significant question as to how Amtrak (provider of the Pacific Surfliner 

intercity rail service) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (operator of the 

Metrolink commuter rail service) would be affected. As stated in Chapter 1, the 

LOSSAN corridor is currently the second-busiest intercity rail corridor in the nation. It is 

unknown whether rail providers would seek to continue to serve the existing LOSSAN 

corridor, or opt instead to serve the Inland corridor only. Whether or not existing and 

future markets along both corridors would justify a high level of service to both is also 

unknown, but it is likely that ridership on both Amtrak and Metrolink services would suffer 

as a result of the relocation of the rail corridor. 

Additionally, it is unknown whether the combined rail owners and operators would be 

able (or willing) to assume maintenance of the two corridors. In early May 2003 the 

Department sent a request for information to Amtrak and Metrolink, seeking their input 

and best assessment as to what the creation of an Inland Bypass Alternative alignment 

would do to their service planning and operational considerations. Their responses (see 

Appendix 2.3-A) raised questions about organizational responsibility for acquisition, 

development and maintenance of the new right-of-way, as well as a concern about 

operational benefits in terms of scheduling and ridership as a result of a new inland 

route. If service moves exclusively to the new corridor, the lower population densities of 

the Inland communities and the decrease in ridership (as passengers who previously 

traveled by rail chose other modes) could result in reduced operating revenues despite 

the higher costs involved in the construction of an Inland Bypass Alternative corridor. 

Implications for the Existing LOSSAN Corridor

Given the grades found within the Inland Bypass Alternative study area, it is highly likely 

that freight service would need to remain on the existing LOSSAN corridor, and that the 

inland bypass corridor would be exclusively for the use of passenger (intercity and 

commuter) rail services. This would result in a situation where two rail corridors existed 

in South Orange County, with environmental and community issues along each, and no 

opportunity for removal of the existing rail corridor along the coastline in Dana Point and 

San Clemente. 

Elimination or relocation of stations as a result of the Inland corridor would reduce 

accessibility to rail service for residents of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna 

Woods, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and San 

Clemente. 

Summary of Reasons for Elimination of the Inland Bypass Alternative

An Inland Bypass would not be a practicable alternative, due to the following factors: 

• It represents a long and slow alternative 

• It would be the most expensive alternative studied, significantly more than any of 

the proposed improvements along the existing LOSSAN corridor 

• It raises considerable environmental issues 
2.0-36

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• It features grades steep enough to require extensive tunneling, all but eliminating 

the possibility of the new route’s use as a freight corridor. 

• Retention of the existing alignment to accommodate freight would result a 

situation in which environmental and community issues are present on two 

corridors, rather than the opportunity to improve conditions along the existing 

corridor, with no benefits either to South Orange County cities, the environment, 

or to rail operators. 

Much of the impetus behind the Inland Bypass Alternative was a continuing concern 

over the further study of LOSSAN improvements through downtown San Juan 

Capistrano and the coastal alignment through San Clemente. As discussed in the 

previous sections, those alternatives have now been eliminated. Based on the 

evaluation done during the LOSSAN Strategic Plan process, the Inland Bypass option 

was also eliminated from further study in this Program EIR/EIS. 

Encinitas

• Long Trench: This option would consist of a double-track open trench that would 

extend the length of the City of Encinitas (see Figure 2.3.2-4). The trench would 

be covered through the downtown area, and new pedestrian crossings would be 

provided at other locations. The Long Trench option would run through the 

extent of Encinitas (approximately 7 miles (11 km)), rather than just the 

downtown area. 

Figure 2.3.2-4 

Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Encinitas 

The Long Trench option would provide train performance and community 

benefits. This option would have high costs and construction impacts/issues 

associated with the construction of a 7-mile (11 km) trench. The Long Trench is 

expected to cost at least $250 million more than other options evaluated in 

Encinitas. Moreover, the existing at-grade crossings at Leucadia Blvd and 

Birmingham Drive would remain until the Long Trench was fully-funded and 

constructed. 
2.0-37

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Long Trench’s cost-effectiveness is rated negatively because of the 

significant construction issues and high cost associated with construction. 

Although there has been considerable public support for this concept in the past, 

its high cost and constructability issues makes this option impracticable. 

Del Mar

• Trench-in-Bluffs: The Trench-in-Bluffs (Trench) option would follow the existing 

rail alignment, but would provide two mainline tracks in a partially covered 

concrete trench along the Del Mar Bluffs (see Figure 2.3.2-5). In order to do so, 

significant bluff stabilization efforts would be required, including tie-backs at the 

top of the Bluffs, a seawall at the base of the bluffs, and retaining walls within the 

trench itself. 

The Trench option offers very significant constructability challenges, most notably 

because of the nature of bluffs themselves (see Figure 2.3.2-6). Attempting to 

stabilize the fragile coastal bluffs would require major construction efforts, 

including a seawall 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 meters) high at the base of the bluffs, 

retaining walls within the trench itself, and tie-backs at the top of the bluffs, 

resulting in drastic changes to the existing environment. The use of heavy 

construction equipment in this sensitive environment would also be problematic. 

Moreover, the constrained space available for construction of the trench and the 

need to maintain rail service during construction would create significant impacts. 

The Trench option would have the highest environmental impacts of the 

alternatives evaluated in Del Mar. In areas where the trench would be covered, 

community impacts and barrier issues would be reduced, however, in other areas 

where the trench was either open or the alignment was at-grade, these impacts 

would be exacerbated because of the double-track width of the trench. The 

Trench option would not remove the rail line from the bluffs, but rather would 

submerge it into the bluffs, creating new, different impacts (including the need for 

the stabilization methods noted above). The stabilization of the bluffs would 

result in the highest impacts on natural resources, and the bluffs have major 

geological and soils constraints. Construction on the bluffs would have high 

impacts to erodible soils, unstable slopes, and aesthetics and visual quality. 

Property impacts with the Trench option would include the likely need to acquire 

property during the construction period in order to stage equipment and 

materials. 

Public and agency input has been nearly unanimous in favor of removing the 

track from the fragile bluffs. The concept of major stabilization and trench-andcover construction along this highly environmentally sensitive area would be 

strongly opposed by both the community and the state and federal resource 

agencies. 
2.0-38

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Figure 2.3.2-5 

Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Del Mar 
2.0-39

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Figure 2.3.2-6 

Train Passing Along Del Mar Bluffs 

• Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2: The Camino Del Mar Tunnel would relocate the rail 

line on Del Mar’s sensitive bluffs into a tunnel which would run under Camino Del 

Mar. The Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2 Option includes curve straightening that 

would take the tunnel beneath a residential area at the southern end of Del Mar 

and the northern edge of San Diego. 

This design option would be more costly and create more community and 

potential environmental impacts than other alternatives while providing only 

minimal travel time benefits due to the curve straightening. 

As a result of the curve straightening at the south end of Del Mar, there would be 

some significant property impacts (acquisitions and easements) in the tunnel 

transition areas, and where the tunnel passed beneath residential property. In 

addition, the curve straightening would cross Penasquitos Lagoon at a new 

location, causing additional impacts and disruption to this environmentally 

sensitive area. 

Community acceptability for the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2 option is generally 

negative. It was eliminated due to its community and environmental impacts as 

well as its higher cost. 
2.0-40

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

2.4 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative addresses the geographic area that is served by the LOSSAN 

corridor intercity passenger rail service defined in Chapter 1 -- Los Angeles, Orange and San 

Diego Counties (LOSSAN region). Figure 2.4.-1 illustrates the existing intercity transportation 

infrastructure that currently serves these major travel markets. 

The No-Project Alternative is the baseline for comparison of the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

The No-Project Alternative represents the LOSSAN region’s transportation system (highway 

and conventional rail) as it would be after implementation of programs or projects that are 

currently programmed in Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and that are funded for 

implementation and expected to be in place by 2020. This financially constrained level of 

infrastructure improvement (which includes federal, state, regional, and local funding) is 

analyzed together with the significant growth in population and transportation demand that is 

projected to occur by 2020. Figure 2.4-2 provides a listing of all rail projects expected to be in 

place by 2020 under the No-Project Alternative defined for this study. 

Rail Operations Modeling conducted as part of the development of this document identified that 

under the No-Project Alternative, the rail network expected to be in place by 2020 will be 

insufficient to accommodate the forecast rail demand. 

Additional analysis determined the “Maximum Threshold” of rail service levels that would 

function at an acceptable level of performance under the No-Project Alternative. This Maximum 

Threshold would require a ten percent (10%) reduction in forecast No-Project train volumes for 

all services (intercity and commuter passenger rail, and freight rail). The Maximum Threshold 

analysis also identified three locations where relatively small additional work within the existing 

right-of-way is necessary to eliminate identified operation bottlenecks without which even the 

Maximum Threshold forecast train volumes could not operate at an acceptable level of 

performance. These needed projects include: 

• Near Laguna Niguel, provision of an additional short layover / turnaround track to 

accommodate Metrolink train turns without blocking the main track; 

• At Stuart Mesa, increasing the length of freight holding tracks so that anticipated train 

lengths will not block the main tracks; and 

• Either north or south of the Oceanside Transportation Center, provision of a short 

holding track like that needed at Laguna Niguel, to temporarily hold trains without 

blocking either of the two main tracks. 

Figure 2.4-3 shows the Maximum Threshold train volumes and their change over the forecast 

train volumes. The complete modeling report is provided as Appendix 2 (In Volume 2, 

Response to Comments and Appendices). 

The No-Project Alternative satisfies the statutory requirements under CEQA and NEPA for an 

alternative that does not include any new action or project beyond what is already committed. 

The No-Project Alternative defines the existing and future intercity transportation system in the 

LOSSAN region based on programmed and funded improvements through 2020, according to 

the following sources of information. 

• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 

• RTPs, financially constrained projects for all modes of travel 

• Intercity passenger rail plans 
2.0-41

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The future improvements that would be part of the No-Project Alternative are also included 

under the Rail Improvements Alternative (discussed in Section 2.5) as part of the future 2020 

baseline. The No-Project Alternative includes highway and conventional rail elements. 

2.4.1 Highway Element 

The No-Project highway system that currently serves the intercity travel market for the LOSSAN 

region consists primarily of Interstate 5 (refer to Figure 2.4-1). The No-Project Alternative 

includes this existing highway between Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as funded and 

programmed improvements to I-5 based on financially constrained RTPs developed by regional 

transportation planning agencies. I-5 improvements included as part of the No-Project 

Alternative include infrastructure projects as well as intelligent transportation system (ITS) and 

other potential system improvements programmed to be in operation by 2020. The highway 

improvements included as part of the No-Project Alternative are listed by county in 

Table 2.4.1-1.2 

A particularly relevant part of the No Project Alternative, the I-5 North Coast Corridor 

Improvement Project is currently the subject of a separate study and environmental process. 

The project is located on Interstate 5 and goes north from La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego to 

Vandegrift Boulevard in Oceanside, as well as on Interstate 805 from Mira Mesa Blvd to the 

Interstate 5/Interstate 805 merge. 

Caltrans proposes to add high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in each direction along the 

corridor. One general purpose lane in each direction may also be added from Del Mar Heights 

Road to State Route 78. The project would also include interchange improvements and 

auxiliary lanes where needed and approximately five direct access ramps (DARs) to allow 

transit vehicles and carpoolers a transition point into the designated HOV lanes. 

Five direct access ramps (DARs) are proposed in the project corridor to provide direct 

connections for HOV traffic and regional transit vehicles to and from the median. These DARs 

would enhance HOV/Transit freeway access and improve freeway operations on the generalpurpose lanes. DARs are proposed at critical locations in the corridor. 

Alternatives will be examined at the lagoon locations. At each lagoon, it is anticipated that an 

alternative to remove all or part of existing fill and the placement of a structure will be examined. 

It is anticipated that the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the I-5 North Coast Corridor 

Project will be out for public review in 2007. (See Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, for more 

information on the North Coast Corridor Project.) 

 

2 A number of highways exist in the general region between Los Angeles and San Diego; however, I-5 and I-8 are the primary 

intercity highways within the area previously defined in this document as the LOSSAN region. In the broader region, intercity 

highways in addition to I-5 and I-8 are evaluated in the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s statewide HST Program EIR/EIS 

(2003) as part of its No-Project, Modal, and HST Alternatives. 
2.0-42

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.4.1-1 

Programmed Intercity Highway Improvements Included in the No-Project Alternative 

County Type of Project Description 

Los Angeles HOV HOV Project on SR-14 (Ave P-8 to Ave-L) 

Los Angeles HOV HOV Project on I-710 (I-10 to I-210 

Los Angeles HOV HOV Project on I-5 (SR-19 to I-710) 

Los Angeles Highway Widening I-710 (I-10 to I-210) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Los Angeles Highway Widening I-5 (Rosecrans to Orange Co) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Los Angeles Highway Widening I-405 (US-101 to I-105) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Los Angeles Highway Widening SR-57 (SR-60 to Orange Co) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Orange HOV HOV Project on I-5 (SR-1 to Avenida Pico) 

Orange Highway Widening I-5 (SR-91 to Los Angeles Co) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Orange Highway Widening SR-91 (westbound auxiliary lane SR-57 to I-5) Additional Mixed Flow La

Orange Highway Widening SR-91 (auxiliary lanes SR-241 to SR-71) Additional Mixed Flow Lane 

Orange Highway Widening SR-57 (auxiliary lanes Los Angeles Co to SR-91) Additional Mixed Flow 

Lane 

San Diego Highway Interchange/ 

Widening 

I-5 at I-805 – New interchange with 10 freeway and 2 HOV lanes. 

San Diego Highway Widening I-5 from I-8 to just south of Balboa Avenue – Addition of a northbound 

auxiliary lane. 

San Diego Highway Widening I-5 at SR-78 Interchange: NB-EB Connector – Widen auxiliary lane and 

ramp. 

San Diego Highway Widening I-15 from SR-163 to SR 78 – Addition of auxiliary lanes and meters. 

Bridge widening. 

San Diego Highway Widening I-15 from SR-56 to Centre City Parkway – Addition of 4 HOV/Managed 

lanes 

San Diego Highway Widening/ HOV I-5 from Del Mar Heights Road to Birmingham Drive – Upgrade to 8-

lane freeway and 4 HOV lanes or to 10-lane freeway and 4 HOV lanes. 

San Diego Highway Interchange I-5/SR-56 Freeway Connectors. 

San Diego Highway Widening/ HOV I-5 from Del Mar Heights Road to Encinitas Boulevard – Upgrade to 8-

lane freeway and 4 HOV lanes or to 10-lane freeway and 4 HOV lanes. 

San Diego Highway I-5 from Encinitas Boulevard to La Costa Boulevard – Upgrade to 8-lane 

freeway and 4 HOV lanes or to 10-lane freeway and 4 HOV lanes. 

San Diego Highway I-15 from SR-163 to SR-56 – Addition of 4 HOV/Managed lanes. 

San Diego TSM ITS: Enhanced Incident/Emergency Response, Traveler/Commercial 

Vehicle Operations Information, and Management System Software. 

2.4.2 Conventional Passenger Rail Element 

The existing intercity passenger rail service provided on the LOSSAN corridor is known as the 

Pacific Surfliner. This passenger service shares track with freight and commuter services. All 

the intercity passenger rail system improvements identified in the STIP and the Department’s 

California Intercity Rail Capital Program for implementation in the LOSSAN corridor prior to 

2020 are included in the No-Project Alternative and are identified in Table 2.4.2-1. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 2.4-1

Existing Intercity Transportation Infrastructure

in LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-43
2.0-44

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
California

Legend

Los Angeles to San Diego Rail Corridor

Intercity Station

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

710

405

110

105

19

10

10

405

5

78

15

22

SANTA ANA

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO

SANTA FE DEPOT

FULLERTON

SAN CLEMENTE

COMMERCE TO FULLERTON

SANTA ANA

CAMP PENDLETON

CAMP PENDLETON

OCEANSIDE

ENCINITAS

DEL MAR

UNION STATION

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

DANA POINT

SAN ONOFRE

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

THREE TRACKS COMMERCE TO 

FULLERTON

DOUBLE-TRACKING ALONG 

LINCOLN AVENUE

EXTENSION OF DOUBLE TRACK

AT SAN ONOFRE

SANTA MARGARITA RIVER 

BRIDGE AND 

DOUBLE-TRACKING

EXTENSION OF DOUBLE TRACK

AT OCEANSIDE

LEUCADIA AVENUE GRADE 

SEPARATION 

ON-GOING BLUFF 

STABILIZATION

SORRENTO-MIRAMAR 

DOUBLE-TRACKING AND CURVE 

REALIGMENT

PROJECT

RUN-THROUGH TRACKS AT 

UNION STATION

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 2.4-2

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Projects

Included in the No-Project Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-45
2.0-46

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
LAGUNA NIGUEL

22

UNION STATION

NORWALK

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

DANA POINT

SAN ONOFRE

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

UNIVERSITY

TOWNE CENTRE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

SANTA ANA

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO

SANTA FE DEPOT

FULLERTON

INTERMODAL

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

SAN CLEMENTE

ALAMEDA CORRI R

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

405

110

105

19

10

5

78

15

TO INLAND EMPIRE

REDONDO JUNCTION

ORANGE

98 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

54 Coaster

98 BNSF

6 BNSF

6 BNSF

6 BNSF

6 BNSF

6 BNSF

50 Coaster

2020 FORECAST VOLUMES

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE*

2020 MAXIMUM THRESHOLD

MODELING RESULTS

* Daily train traffic is based on model results showing that, without the Rail Improvements Alternative, up to 10% of the 2020 Forecast

Volumes would need to be curtailed in order to maintain acceptable operational conditions on the corridor. Volumes represent the

total number of trains in both directions.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

FULLERTON

110

8 0 8 Miles

Legend

Amtrak

Metrolink

Coaster

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)

Intercity Station

Proposed Station for Further Study

California

Los Angeles – Fullerton

Fullerton – Orange

Orange – Irvine

Laguna Niguel – San Clemente

San Clemente – Oceanside

Oceanside – San Diego

FIGURE 2.4-3

Future Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor - Maximaum Threshold Modeling Results

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-47
2.0-48

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
2.0-49

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.4.2-1 

Programmed Conventional Rail Improvements Included In the No-Project Alternative 

County Type of Project Description 

Los Angeles Conventional Rail Run through tracks at L.A. Union Station. (This project is not yet fully 

funded. However, it was the subject of a project-specific Environmental 

Impact Report/Statement, and is assumed to be built by 2020.) 

Los Angeles Conventional Rail Continuous third main track from Union Station to Fullerton 

Orange Conventional Rail Double tracking along Lincoln Avenue in Santa Ana 

Orange Conventional Rail Turn-around track at Laguna Niguel Metrolink Station 

San Diego Conventional Rail Extension of Freight Holding Tracks at Stuart Mesa 

San Diego Conventional Rail Extension of Double-Track in Oceanside 

San Diego Conventional Rail Pocket track at Oceanside Transit Center 

San Diego Conventional Rail Sorrento-Miramar Double-Tracking and Curve Realignment 

San Diego Conventional Rail Santa Margarita River Bridge Replacement and Double-Tracking 

San Diego Conventional Rail Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization (Ongoing) 

2.5 RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

The Rail Improvements Alternative represents the proposed action and encompasses a number 

of alignment options for meeting the purpose and need for incremental improvements to the 

LOSSAN corridor, as outlined in Chapter 1. 

A number of conventional rail improvement alternatives were evaluated against the following 

Department objectives for the LOSSAN corridor: 

• Increase the cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity passenger rail systems by 

improving running times and reliability to attract additional ridership 

• Increase capacity on existing routes, through more-efficient, reliable operations 

• Reduce running times to attract additional riders and to provide a more attractive 

service, and 

• Improve the safety of State-supported intercity rail service through additional grade 

crossing improvements and grade separations. 

The rail improvements were also developed and refined to address existing environmental 

impacts and minimize new ones, as well as community impacts that exist along the present-day 

LOSSAN corridor. 

The conventional Rail Improvements Alternative evaluated by the Department and carried 

forward for evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS is summarized in Table 2.5-1, and shown in 

Figures 2.5-1, 2.5-2, 2.5-3, and 2.5-4. 
2.0-50

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.5-1 

Conventional Rail Improvements Alternative Evaluated for the LOSSAN Corridor 

Alignment Segments and Station Locations Evaluated 

Union Station To Fullerton Station 

AT-GRADE 4th Main Track

Fullerton Station To Irvine Station--Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE with grade separations at major intersections 

TRENCH 

Stations 

Fullerton 

Anaheim 

Santa Ana 

Irvine 

San Juan Capistrano Double Tracking 

TUNNEL along Interstate 5 

AT-GRADE and Cut/Cover TRENCH along Trabuco Creek 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve Realignment; San Clemente - SHORT TUNNEL

San Clemente - LONG TWO-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Stations 

San Clemente 

Camp Pendleton 

AT-GRADE double tracking 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; double tracking 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; double-tracking 

Stations 

Oceanside 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE double tracking with grade-separations at major intersections 

Encinitas - SHORT TRENCH; Double Tracking 

Encinitas - LONG TRENCH; Double Tracking 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE double tracking on existing alignment 

COVERED TRENCH on bluffs in Del Mar 

TUNNEL #1 under Camino Del Mar 

TUNNEL under I-5 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill Tunnel 

I-5 Tunnel 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe Depot 

Curve realignment and Double Tracking at-grade and short trench

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 
California

Legend

Alternative Routing

Intercity Station

Proposed Station for Further Study

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

710

405

110

105

19

10

10

405

5

78

15

22

SANTA ANA

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO

SANTA FE DEPOT

FULLERTON

SAN CLEMENTE

COMMERCE TO FULLERTON

FULLERTON TO IRVINE

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

DANA POINT TO SAN CLEMENTE

CAMP PENDLETON

OCEANSIDE TO CARLSBAD

ENCINITAS

DEL MAR

UNION STATION

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

DANA POINT

SAN ONOFRE

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

UNIVERSITY

TOWNE CENTRE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

SR-52 TO SAN DIEGO

FOUR TRACKS COMMERCE TO 

FULLERTON

CURVE STRAIGHTENING, 

INCLUDING PARTIAL OR FULL 

GRADE-SEPARATION

DOUBLE-TRACKING VIA

• tunnel along I-5, or

• tunnel along Trabuco Creek

DOUBLE-TRACKING VIA

• 5-mile tunnel along I-5

• 10-mile tunnel along I-5

• includes curve-straightening 

at Dana Point

DOUBLE TRACKING ALONG 

EXISTING ALIGNMENT

DOUBLE TRACKING ALONG 

EXISTING ALIGNMENT, 

INCLUDING PARTIAL OR FULL 

GRADE-SEPARATION

DOUBLE TRACKING ALONG 

EXISTING ALIGNMENT, 

INCLUDING PARTIAL OR FULL 

GRADE-SEPARATION

DOUBLE-TRACKING VIA

• tunnel along Camino Del Mar

• tunnel avoiding Penasquitos 

lagoon

DOUBLE-TRACKING AND CURVE 

STRAIGHTENING VIA

• tunnel under University City 

(including new station)

• tunnel under I-5

PROJECT

DOUBLE-TRACKING AND CURVE

STRAIGHTENING INCLUDES

PARTIAL OR FULL GRADE

SEPARATION

TRACK AND SIGNAL UPGRADES

Los Angeles to San Diego Rail Corridor

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 2.5-1

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Projects

Carried Forward

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2.0-51
2.0-52

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
!(

!(

!(

!(

Union Station - Fullerton Station

405

5

110

710

105

10

!(72

Norwalk

Fullerton

Union Station

Source : IBI Group FIGURE 2.5-2

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative SSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Segments

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

2.0-53
2.0-54

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

Dana Point/San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Irvine Station - San Juan Capistrano

Fullerton Station - Irvine Station

Camp Pendleton

5

405

15

!(74

!(72

Irvine

Anaheim

Santa Ana

Fullerton

San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Dana Point

San Onofre Power Plant

Source: IBI group FIGURE 2.5-3

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative SSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Segments

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

2.0-55
2.0-56

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
!(

!(

!(

!(

Camp Pendleton

Oceanside/Carlsbad

Encinitas/Solana Beach

Del Mar

I-5/I-805 Split - Highway 52

Highway 52 - Sante Fe Depot

5

805

15

8

!(52

UTC

Oceanside

Solana Beach

Santa Fe Depot

Del Mar

Carlsbad

San Diego

Encinitas

Source : IBI, 2003 FIGURE 2.5-4

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative SSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

Segments

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

2.0-57
2.0-58

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
2.0-59

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.5-2 (below) provides a listing of all existing LOSSAN corridor at-grade crossings, and 

how they would be treated (remain at-grade or be grade separated) as part of either the NoProject or Rail Improvements Alternatives. 

Table 2.5-2 

List of Existing Grade Crossings and Proposed Grade Separations 

Rail Improvements Alternative Location (City) – North to 

South Existing Condition No-Project 

Alternative Low-Build 

Scenario 

High-Build 

Scenario 

Los Angeles 

Serapis At-Grade New U/C 

Passons At-Grade New U/C 

Santa Fe Springs 

Pioneer Blvd. At-Grade New U/C 

Norwalk Blvd. At-Grade New U/C 

Los Nietos Road At-Grade New U/C 

Marquardt Avenue/Rosecrans 

Avenue 

At-Grade New U/C 

Valley View Avenue At-Grade New U/C 

San Pedro Branch Crossing At-Grade Hobart Flyover 

UPRR Crossing At-Grade Rail Flyover-Crossing 

Track 

Anaheim 

Orangethorpe At-Grade New U/C 

La Palma At-Grade New U/C 

Sycamore At-Grade New U/C 

Broadway At-Grade New U/C 

Santa Ana At-Grade New U/C 

South At-Grade New U/C 

Vermont At-Grade New U/C 

Ball At-Grade New U/C New U/C 

Cerritos At-Grade New U/C 

State College At-Grade New U/C New U/C 

Orange 

Eckhoff At-Grade Close crossing 

Main At-Grade Trench 

Batavia At-Grade Trench 

Walnut At-Grade Trench 

Palm At-Grade Trench 

Chapman At-Grade O/C-Trench 

Almond At-Grade O/C-Trench 

Palmyra At-Grade O/C-Trench 

La Vera At-Grade O/C-Trench 

Santa Ana

Fairhaven At-Grade O/C-Trench 

Santa Clara At-Grade O/C-Trench 

Seventeenth At-Grade New Bridge 

Santa Ana Blvd. At-Grade New Bridge 

Fourth At-Grade New Bridge 

Grand At-Grade New Bridge 
2.0-60

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.5-2 

List of Existing Grade Crossings and Proposed Grade Separations (continued) 

Rail Improvements Alternative Location (City) – North to 

South Existing Condition No-Project Alternative Low-Build 

Scenario 

High-Build 

Scenario 

Lyon At-Grade New U/C 

McFadden At-Grade New U/C 

Ritchey At-Grade New U/C 

Tustin 

Red Hill ∗ At-Grade New U/C 

Irvine 

Harvard At-Grade New U/C 

Jeffrey G/S by others 

Sand Canyon G/S by others 

San Juan Capistrano 

Rancho Capistrano (Private) At-Grade Widen New U/C 

Oso At-Grade Widen None (Bypass to I-5) 

La Zanja At-Grade None (Tunnel) None (Bypass to I-5) 

Verdugo At-Grade None (Tunnel) None (Bypass to I-5) 

Del Obispo At-Grade None (Tunnel) None (Bypass to I-5) 

Avenida Aeropuerto At-Grade New U/C 

Cassidy Brothers (private) At-Grade New U/C 

Dana Point 

Beach Road At-Grade New U/C None (Location 

bypassed 

San Clemente 

Senda De La Playa At-Grade None (Location 

bypassed) 

Califia – Pedestrian Crossing At-Grade None (Location 

bypassed) 

Camp Pendleton 

Coaster Way At-Grade New U/C 

Oceanside 

Surfrider Way At-Grade New U/C 

Mission At-Grade New U/C 

Wisconsin At-Grade New U/C 

Oceanside At-Grade Widen New U/C 

Cassidy At-Grade Widen New U/C 

Carlsbad 

Grand At-Grade Widen O/C – Trench 

Carlsbad Village At-Grade Widen O/C – Trench 

Tamarack At-Grade O/C – Trench 

Private Road At-Grade Widen Close crossing 

Cannon At-Grade O/C – Trench 

 

∗ City of Tustin is currently pursuing grade separation at Red Hill Avenue, and may complete this project prior to implementation of 

proposed rail improvements along the LOSSAN corridor. 
2.0-61

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 2.5-2 

List of Existing Grade Crossings and Proposed Grade Separations (continued) 

Rail Improvements Alternative Location (City) – North to 

South Existing Condition No-Project Alternative Low-Build 

Scenario 

High-Build 

Scenario 

Encinitas 

Leucadia Blvd. At-Grade New U/C 

Encinitas Blvd. At-Grade Widen O/C – Trench 

D Street At-Grade Widen O/C – Trench 

E Street At-Grade Widen O/C – Trench 

Chesterfield At-Grade New U/C O/C – Trench 

Del Mar 

Coast Blvd./Ocean Avenue At-Grade At-Grade/ 

Ocean – New 

O/C 

None (Tunnel) 

Roselle Street Not on Existing Corridor New U/C 

San Diego 

Edelweiss At-Grade 

La Jolla Colony Next to (but not crossing 

LOSSAN) 

New U/C 

Private Crossing At-Grade New U/C 

Rosecrans/Taylor At-Grade New U/C 

Noell At-Grade New U/C 

Washington At-Grade New U/C 

Vine At-Grade New U/C 

Sassafrass At-Grade New U/C 

Palm At-Grade New O/C (over 

Trench transition) 

Laurel At-Grade New O/C (Trench) 

Juniper At-Grade New O/C (Trench) 

Hawthorne At-Grade New O/C (Trench) 

Grape At-Grade New O/C (Trench) 

Cedar At-Grade New O/C (over 

Trench transition) 

Beech At-Grade New O/C (over 

Trench transition) 

Ash At-Grade At-Grade (entering 

Station area) 

Legend: 

O/C – Overcrossing 

U/C – Undercrossing 

G/S – Grade Separation 
2.0-62 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

2.5.1 LOSSAN Rail Improvements Alternative Carried Forward 

As a result of the screening process presented in the LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan, the 

conventional rail improvements described below are evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS as the 

Rail Improvements Alternative, which would result in a fully double-tracked (with four tracks 

between LA Union Station and Fullerton) rail corridor from Los Angeles, through Orange 

County, to San Diego. The Alternative’s individual improvements and its design options are 

described in three sections below: 

• LA Union Station to Irvine 

• Irvine to Oceanside 

• Oceanside to San Diego Santa Fe Depot 

A. LA UNION STATION TO IRVINE 

Commerce to Fullerton 

Proposed corridor improvements in this section include construction of a fourth main 

track in the existing rail corridor between Commerce and Fullerton (see Figure 2.4-2). At 

build-out, two tracks would be dedicated to passenger rail and two to freight. 

Improvements can probably be accommodated within existing LOSSAN right-of-way 

(ROW) except between Rio Hondo River and San Gabriel River. 

Fullerton to Irvine 

This section would be double-tracked between Walnut Avenue in Orange and East 17th 

Street in Santa Ana. An existing curve would be straightened between Batavia Street 

and Walnut Avenue. These improvements would be accommodated within the existing 

LOSSAN ROW except for a portion of the curve realignment. Two options are being 

evaluated: 

• At-grade Option – Double-track at-grade, including the curve realignment; the 

only grade separations would be at street intersections 

• Covered Trench Option – Double-track and fully grade-separate this section, 

including the curve realignment, by placing the rail corridor in a covered trench 

along its existing alignment. 

• Fullerton Station: Bypass tracks and additional parking would be added at this 

existing station, and the existing platform would be reconfigured. 

• Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine Stations: Improvements to these existing 

stations would include bypass tracks and additional parking. 

B. IRVINE TO OCEANSIDE 

San Juan Capistrano 

Double tracking is being evaluated through the City of San Juan Capistrano in one of 

two alternative alignments (see Figure 2.5.1-1): 

• Interstate 5 Tunnel - Relocate the rail corridor into a tunnel under I-5 that would 

run the length of the city, from Highway73 to Avenida Aeropuerto. The tunnel 

would run under Trabuco Creek and San Juan Creek, and would avoid the 
2.0-63 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

downtown area where the existing LOSSAN corridor is located. Transition areas 

at either end of the tunnel would require some property or easement acquisition. 

Although this option would not allow for a station in San Juan Capistrano, it was 

retained for further evaluation as the only practicable below-grade (tunnel) option 

to avoid the impacts to downtown. 

Figure 2.5.1-1 

Options to be Retained for Further Study in San Juan Capistrano 

• At-Grade and Open Trench along Trabuco Creek – This alignment option runs 

along the east side of Trabuco Creek. It would leave the existing LOSSAN 

corridor south of Del Obispo and continue at-grade along the creek, then 

transition into an open trench. The alignment would transition back to at-grade 

north of Ramos Street and rejoin the existing LOSSAN corridor at the Trabuco 

Creek crossing. The existing bridge structure over the creek would be rebuilt to 

accommodate the alignment. A new station would be constructed along this 

alignment. This option was proposed by the City of San Juan Capistrano as an 

alternative to the Interstate 5 tunnel option which would preclude a station in the 

city. 
2.0-64 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Two improvement options are being evaluated for the section of the LOSSAN corridor 

that passes through Dana Point and San Clemente (see Figure 2.5.1-2): 

• Curve Realignment and Short Tunnel along Interstate 5 – This option involves 

straightening the existing Dana Point curve at grade, and double-tracking through 

San Clemente in a short tunnel under I-5 between Palm Drive and San Onofre 

State Beach (north of the San Onofre Power Plant). The tunnel alignment leaves 

the I-5 corridor at Avenida Palizada, turns toward the coast, and runs underneath 

residential, industrial, and vacant areas. It reconnects with the existing LOSSAN 

rail corridor just south of Camino Capistrano. This option was carried forward as 

a superior option to either the short or long trench options (see Section 2.2) 

because the Short Tunnel option would avoid the high impacts to the beach and 

community in San Clemente. 

• Long, Two-Segment Tunnel along Interstate 5 – This option would preclude the 

need for straightening the Dana Point curve. It would involve double-tracking the 

rail corridor in a long tunnel under I-5 from San Onofre State Beach to Avenida 

Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano. This tunnel would be built in two segments 

in order to provide for a station in San Clemente. Near Avenida Pico, the tunnel 

would veer to the east edge of I-5 and daylight into an open trench for about 

1,000 feet where a new station would be located. The existing rail corridor along 

the coast between southern San Clemente city limits to approximately Avenida 

Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano would be removed from service (or at least 

not be further improved from its existing condition). This option was determined 

to be superior to the long, single-segment tunnel (Section 2.2) because it would 

be easier to construct and operate, and would allow for a station in San 

Clemente. 

Camp Pendleton 

Across the US Marine Corps Camp Pendleton property, a second main track would be 

constructed at-grade in the portions of this segment (about 6 miles [9.6 km]) that are not 

already double-tracked or that will be double-tracked under the rail improvements 

included in the No-Project/No Action Alternative. New double tracking would cross San 

Mateo, San Onofre, and Santa Margarita Creeks. 

Stations

• San Juan Capistrano: A new station would be constructed with the AtGrade/Open Trench option along Trabuco Creek. This station would be belowgrade in the trench south of Ramos Street. No station would be feasible in San 

Juan Capistrano for the I-5 tunnel option. 

• San Clemente: The tunnel options being evaluated would eliminate the train 

station in downtown San Clemente. A new below-grade station would be 

constructed along the long, two-segment tunnel alignment where the tunnel 

transitions to a trench just south of Avenida Pico on the east side of I-5. 

Similarly, for the short tunnel option, a new station would be located at Avenida 

Pico near Calle De Los Molinos. 
2.0-65 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 2.5.1-2 

Options to be Retained for Further Study in Dana Point/San Clemente 

C. OCEANSIDE TO SAN DIEGO SANTA FE DEPOT 

Carlsbad 

Two options are being evaluated for double-tracking through the City of Carlsbad 

• At-grade Option - Double-tracking through Carlsbad in the existing LOSSAN rail 

alignment at grade. 

• Trench Option – Double-tracking through Carlsbad in an open trench along the 

existing LOSSAN rail alignment. This option would have an impact on the 

existing Coaster station, and would necessitate improvements to the station such 

as new platforms, access elevators, etc., like those at the existing Solana Beach 

station, where the tracks are located within a trench. 
2.0-66 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Encinitas 

Two options are being evaluated for double-tracking through the City of Encinitas (see 

Figure 2.5.1-3): 

• At-grade (with Grade Separations) Option - Double-tracking through Encinitas 

primarily at-grade, with a short trench segment for the rail corridor on either side 

of Birmingham Drive. This option would include reconfiguring the street 

intersection at Birmingham Drive and San Elijo Avenue, and close Chesterfield 

Drive at San Elijo Avenue. Another grade separation would occur at Leucadia 

Boulevard where the tracks would be depressed. Pedestrian undercrossings 

would be placed along the route to reduce existing barrier effects on the 

community. 

• Short Trench Option - Double-tracking in the same alignment as the at-grade 

option above, but with an additional covered trench under Encinitas Boulevard 

and a transitional open trench about 1,500 feet either side of Encinitas 

Boulevard. This option was determined to be superior to the Long Trench option 

eliminated (Section 2.2) because it would provide the same benefits as the 

longer trench but would cost substantially less. With this option, there would 

need to be enhancements to the existing Coaster station, including new 

platforms and access facilities (like those at the Solana Beach station, where the 

tracks are also located in a trench). 

Del Mar 

Two tunnel options are being evaluated in the area of Del Mar, both deviating from the 

existing LOSSAN rail corridor alignment (see Figure 2.5.1-4): 

• Camino del Mar Tunnel # 1 - Double-tracking would be done via a tunnel 

underneath Camino Del Mar. The tunnel would begin at Jimmy Durante 

Boulevard, and daylight at Carmel Valley Road where tracks would then connect 

with the existing LOSSAN alignment across Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The 

existing rail track on the Del Mar bluffs would be removed from service. This 

tunnel option was determined to be superior to Camino del Mar Tunnel #2 (see 

Section 2.2.) which would include a curve straightening running under residential 

property and affecting sensitive lagoon areas. Tunnel #1 would avoid those 

impacts by eliminating the curve straightening, but would still provide nearly the 

same train performance benefits without the straightening, and would cost less. 

• Tunnel under Interstate 5 - Double-tracking with this option would be done via a 

tunnel that would run under I-5 and daylight, with double tracks, along the 

southern bluffs of the San Dieguito Lagoon. Tracks would reconnect with the 

existing LOSSAN rail corridor at-grade near the Del Mar race track. The existing 

rail track on the Del Mar bluffs would be removed from service. This option 

would be the most costly of the options considered but it would avoid the 

Peñasquitos Lagoon required in the Camino del Mar #1 option, and the existing 

lagoon crossing structure would be removed from service. This option was 

developed and carried forward for further evaluation at the request of resource 

management agencies in the LOSSAN region. The US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were 

members of the LOSSAN agency working group and requested that alternatives 
2.0-67 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

be evaluated that would bypass the existing rail crossing of Los Peñasquitos 

Lagoon. 

Should either of these tunnel options be selected, it could provide an opportunity to 

remove the tracks from the existing bluffs alignment. 

Figure 2.5.1-3 

Options to be Retained for Further Study in Encinitas 
2.0-68 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 2.5.1-4 

Options to be Retained for Further Study in Del Mar 

I-5/805 Split to Highway 52 

Two tunnel options are under consideration in this section: 

• Miramar Hill Tunnel – Double-tracking would be done via a tunnel that would cut 

through Miramar Hill. This tunnel option would include a new underground 

station at the University Towne Centre (UTC). 

• Interstate 5 Tunnel – Double-tracking would be done in this option via a tunnel 

underneath I-5. No station would be included in this section with the I-5 tunnel 

option. 

Highway 52 to Santa Fe Depot 

In this section of the rail corridor, the corridor would be double-tracked in its existing 

alignment for the full length of the section. An existing curve just south of Highway 52 
2.0-69 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

would be straightened, requiring two new bridges over wetlands in San Clemente 

Canyon. New bridges would also be constructed over Tecolote Creek and the San 

Diego River. Tracks would be placed in a trench between Sassafras Street and Cedar 

Street. This section ends at San Diego’s Santa Fe Depot. In addition to the existing rail 

services, this section could also potentially be the location for an extension of light-rail 

service, as well as for High-Speed Rail trains1. 

Stations

• Oceanside: Additional parking would be added at this existing LOSSAN station. 

• Carlsbad: Platform modifications would be required at this existing Coaster 

station, should the Trench option be selected. 

• Encinitas: Platform modifications would be required at this existing Coaster 

station, should the Short Trench option be selected. 

• Solana Beach: Platform modifications and additional parking would be required 

at this existing LOSSAN station. 

• University Towne Centre (UTC): This would be a new, underground station 

constructed with the Miramar Hill Tunnel option. 

• Santa Fe Depot (San Diego): Bypass tracks and expanded parking would be 

added to this existing LOSSAN station in downtown San Diego. 

2.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 

2.6.1 No-Project Alternative 

The No-Project Alternative is the baseline for comparing the potential environmental impacts 

and benefits of the Rail Improvements Alternative being analyzed in this EIR/EIS. It describes 

the highway and conventional rail facilities that existed in 1999-2000 as they will be after 

improvements that have been approved and funded in the fiscally constrained2 and conforming 

regional and State Transportation Improvement Programs (RTPs, STIP) are in place. When this 

financially constrained level of infrastructure improvement is analyzed with the significant growth 

in population and transportation demand that is projected to occur by 2020, the data shows that 

most highways serving the intercity travel market would be at capacity, and the level of 

congestion would severely affect the reliability of travel and the travel time between Los Angeles 

and San Diego. 

2.6.2 Rail Improvements Alternative 

Table 2.6-1 summarizes the rail improvement options being evaluated in this document for the 

LOSSAN conventional rail corridor. Together, these options constitute the “Build Alternative”, 

the Rail Improvements Alternative, and are compared to one another and to the No-Project 

Alternative in subsequent chapters of this document. 

 

1 While direct HSR service would not be provided on the LOSSAN Corridor, the Authority’s preferred HSR alignment would locate a 

HSR station at University City. South of University City, the HSR would run within the LOSSAN Corridor ROW on HSR-exclusive 

grade-separated tracks to its terminus in downtown San Diego. Additional details can be found at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. 

2 “Fiscally or Financially Constrained” plans are limited by the foreseen available funding for a project in a region. 
2.0-70 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

It is important to note that any option under consideration in each segment3 of the corridor 

between Los Angeles and San Diego could be implemented without limiting the options in 

adjacent segments. In other words, the selection of one of the final options carried forward in 

any given segment would allow any of the options in an adjacent segment (including the NoProject/No Action option) to be implemented. Conceptual designs were developed for all of the 

alignment options that include horizontal alignment, profile, and general infrastructure cross 

sections. The relation of each of the alignment options to other existing transportation facilities 

is also a key aspect of the conceptual designs. This information defines the general physical 

characteristics of the options for consideration in the environmental technical analyses 

presented in this Program EIR/EIS. 

2.6.3 Preferred Alternative 

Based upon an analysis of the information provided in this document, the Department and FRA 

have identified the Rail Improvements Alternative (Build alternative) as the preferred alternative 

for the future development of the Los Angeles to San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor. 

The lead agencies have determined that all the projects and alignment options listed in 

Table 2.6-1 should be carried forward for project-level analysis prior to making alignment option 

decisions. 

Table 2.6-1 

Summary of Final Rail Improvements Alternative 

Alignment Segments and 

Station Locations Description of Rail Alignments and Improvements

Union Station To Fullerton Station

4th Main Track

Construction of fourth main track at-grade in existing rail corridor between 

Commerce and Fullerton. 

Fullerton Station To Irvine Station 

Double Tracking 

Double track (with two alternatives, shown below) 

A. AT-GRADE Double Tracking Grade separations at street intersections between Walnut Ave. in Orange 

and E. 17th Street in Santa Ana. At-grade curve straightening between 

Batavia Street and Walnut Ave. Improvements would be in existing rail 

corridor ROW, except for the curve realignment. 

B. Double tracking in TRENCH Fully grade-separate existing rail corridor in a covered trench (same 

alignment as above), including curve straightening. 

Stations 

Fullerton 

Existing station. Proposed improvements include bypass tracks, platform 

reconfiguration, and additional parking. 

Anaheim Existing station. Proposed improvements include bypass tracks and 

additional parking. 

Santa Ana Existing station. Proposed improvements include bypass tracks and 

additional parking. 

Irvine Existing station. Proposed improvements include bypass tracks and 

additional parking. 

San Juan Capistrano Double Tracking

A. TUNNEL along I-5 between Hwy 

73 and Avenida Aeropuerto 

Double-tracking in a tunnel running the length of the City of San Juan 

Capistrano under Interstate 5; tunnel runs under Trabuco Creek and San 

Juan Creek. 

B. AT-GRADE and Open/Cut and 

Cover TRENCH along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

Double-tracking at grade and in an open/cut and cover trench along the 

east side of Trabuco Creek, west of the existing rail alignment. 

 

3 “Segment” here refers to the endpoints shown in Table 2.5-1 (for example, “Union Station to Fullerton Station” or “San Juan 

Capistrano”). 
2.0-71 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2.6-1 

Summary of Final Rail Improvements Alternative (continued) 

Alignment Segments and 

Station Locations Description of Rail Alignments and Improvements

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

New station would be constructed with the At-Grade/Open Trench option 

along Trabuco Creek. New station would be below-grade in open trench. 

No station would be included in San Juan Capistrano for the I-5 tunnel 

option. 

Dana Point/San Clemente Double Tracking

A. Dana Point Curve Realignment; 

San Clemente - SHORT TUNNEL

Double-tracking and straightening existing curve at Dana Point in existing 

rail corridor; double-tracking via a short tunnel that follows Interstate 5 

between Palm Drive and San Onofre State Beach, north of the power plant. 

The short tunnel alignment leaves the Interstate 5 corridor at Avenida 

Palizada, turns toward the coast and runs underneath residential, industrial 

and vacant areas, connecting with the existing rail corridor just south of 

Camino Capistrano. 

B. San Clemente - LONG TWOSEGMENT TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking (crosses San Mateo and 

San Onofre Creeks) 

Double-tracking via a long, two- segment tunnel following Interstate 5 from 

San Onofre State Beach to Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano. 

This option precludes the need for curve realignment at Dana Point. This 

tunnel would have the same alignment as the one-segment long tunnel 

above except in a one-mile stretch near Avenida Pico, it would veer to the 

east edge of I-5 and daylight into an open trench for about 1,000 feet. The 

existing rail corridor along the coast between southern San Clemente city 

limits to approximately Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano would be 

removed from service (or at least not be further improved from its existing 

condition). 

Stations 

San Clemente 

The tunnel options would eliminate the need for a train station downtown; a 

new below-grade station would be constructed along the tunnel alignment 

where the tunnel transitions to a trench. 

Camp Pendleton 

Double Tracking 

Construction of an at-grade second main track, in portions of this segment 

(about six miles) that are not already double-tracked or will be under the rail 

improvements included in the No Build Alternative. New double tracking 

would cross San Mateo, San Onofre, and Santa Margarita Creeks. 

Oceanside/Carlsbad Double Tracking

A. Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; double 

tracking 

Double-tracking through Carlsbad in existing rail alignment at grade. 

Alignment crosses San Luis Rey, Buena Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and 

Batiquitos Lagoons 

B. Carlsbad -TRENCH; doubletracking 

Double-tracking through Carlsbad in existing rail alignment in trench. 

Alignment crosses San Luis Rey, Buena Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and 

Batiquitos Lagoons 

Stations 

Oceanside 

Existing station. Proposed improvements include parking expansion. 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

A. Encinitas - AT-GRADE; Double 

Tracking 

Double-tracking primarily at-grade, with a short trench segment for the rail 

corridor on either side of Birmingham Drive. This option would include 

reconfiguring the street intersection at Birmingham Drive and San Elijo 

Avenue, and close Chesterfield Drive at San Elijo Avenue. Another grade 

separation would occur at Leucadia Boulevard where the tracks would be 

depressed. Pedestrian undercrossings would be placed along the route. 

Alignment crosses San Elijo Lagoon. 

B. Encinitas - SHORT TRENCH; 

Double Tracking 

Double-tracking in same alignment as at-grade option above, but with an 

additional covered trench under Encinitas Boulevard and a transitional open 

trench about 1,500 feet either side of Encinitas Boulevard. Alignment 

crosses San Elijo Lagoon. 
2.0-72 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2.6-1 

Summary of Final Rail Improvements Alternative (continued) 

Alignment Segments and 

Station Locations Description of Rail Alignments and Improvements

Stations 

Solana Beach 

Existing station. Proposed improvements include platform modifications and 

parking expansion. 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

A. TUNNEL under Camino Del 

Mar; crosses San Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos Lagoons 

Double-tracking via a tunnel underneath Camino Del Mar. Tunnel would 

begin at Jimmy Durante Boulevard, and daylight at Carmel Valley Road 

where tracks would then connect with the existing alignment across Los 

Penasquitos Lagoon. The existing rail track on the bluffs would be removed 

from service. 

B. TUNNEL along Interstate 5 Double-tracking via a tunnel that would run under Interstate 5 and daylight 

along the southern boundary of San Dieguito Lagoon. Tracks would 

reconnect with the existing rail at-grade near the Del Mar race track. The 

existing rail track on the bluffs would be removed from service. 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 Double Tracking

A. Miramar Hill TUNNEL Double-tracking via a tunnel through Miramar Hill. 

B. Interstate 5 TUNNEL Double-tracking via a tunnel under Interstate 5. 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to Miramar Hill 

Tunnel) 

New station, proposed only with the Miramar Hill tunnel option. Station 

would be constructed underground. 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe Depot 

Curve realignment and Double 

Tracking 

A. Double-tracking in existing rail corridor for full length of segment. An 

existing curve just south of Highway 52 would be straightened, requiring two 

new bridges over wetlands in San Clemente Canyon. New bridges would 

also be constructed over Tecolote Creek and San Diego River. 

B. As an additional option, tracks would be placed in a trench between 

Sassafras Street and Cedar Street. 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

Existing station. Proposed improvements include bypass tracks and parking 

expansion. 

2.7 Construction and Maintenance Activities Associated with the 

Rail Improvements Alternative 

This section describes the various types of potential construction activities associated with the 

Rail Improvements Alternative, and generally defines potential impacts that can be expected 

from these activities. General locations along the corridor where these activities may create 

impacts or conflicts are addressed in each resource section in Chapter 3.0. This section also 

briefly describes typical maintenance activities associated with an active rail corridor, and the 

potential impacts that could result from those activities. 

These discussions focus on the corridor as a whole, with the understanding that more specific 

impacts would be evaluated at the project level. 

2.7.1 Construction Activities 

Construction activities for the proposed LOSSAN corridor rail improvements would vary 

depending on the particular project; however, proposed improvements may include at-grade 

construction, elevated structures, trenching, and tunneling activities. This section provides an 

overview of the types of environmental impacts that could occur from these broad categories of 

construction activities. 
2.0-73 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

Potential construction impacts to various resources are assessed in Chapter 3 at the Program 

level (i.e., without site-specific field investigation and based on very conceptual design). 

Detailed evaluations of the construction activities involved in a particular project and the 

associated environmental impacts would occur during the project-level analyses. The types of 

construction that may be required for various elements of the Rail Improvements Alternative are 

described below. Typical construction impacts that would likely occur include the following: 

• Short-term impacts to air quality, such as an increase in dust (PM10) and localized 

construction equipment emissions would occur in and around worksites. 

• Some heavy civil construction activities, notably pile driving and rock excavation, would 

be inherently noisy. Most construction activities would use large pieces of equipment 

which would generate noise. 

• Worksites would generate traffic on public roads leading to the site and on private haul 

routes running along the alignment or from the alignment to construction and staging 

yards. Traffic would include construction worker commute traffic, delivery of construction 

supplies (bulk cement, asphalt, steel, fuel, manufactured products, etc.), and movement 

of construction materials such as dirt from excavations and aggregate. In sensitive 

areas, these operations can be accomplished within the established LOSSAN right-ofway corridors, with delivery of materials via the rail line. 

• Worksites would be cleared of ground cover for construction. This would increase the 

potential for storm-related runoff and erosion. 

• Projects have the potential to generate large quantities of material from clearing and 

grubbing, soil and rock excavations, and structural debris in cases where existing rail 

structures may be removed and replaced. Projects would also generate a smaller 

amount of waste such as product packaging, broken equipment, and site litter. During 

construction, there is a potential for minor hydraulic fluid, motor oil and fuel spills that 

would require disposal of contaminated soil. 

• Some heavy civil construction activities, notably pile driving and rock excavation, would 

be inherently noisy. Most construction activities would use large pieces of equipment 

which would generate noise. 

• Construction may require night work and illumination of worksites which may have an 

impact on adjacent sites. Tunnel excavation would likely take place 24 hours per day, 

so tunnel heading access sites would be constantly occupied and illuminated at night. 

Roadway grade separations would connect to active roadways at both ends of the 

separation worksite. Especially in urban area, roadway traffic may be such that the 

connection work can only be performed overnight when traffic volumes are lower. If 

required, this overnight work would also be illuminated. 

Mitigation measures for potential construction impacts are discussed generally in 

Section 2.7.1.F and in more detail in the appropriate resource sections in Chapter 3. 

A. AT-GRADE CONSTRUCTION 

At-grade project sections would be built at the ground surface. Representative at-grade 

projects would include the construction of a second main track along existing singletracked, at-grade sections of the LOSSAN rail corridor, or re-aligning an existing curve 

and constructing two tracks within the new alignment. In the case of adding a second, 
2.0-74 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

at-grade track to the existing alignment, the existing right-of-way is sufficient to 

accommodate the work areas needed for these projects in most areas. In areas where 

the right-of-way is limited or constrained, temporary construction easements would be 

needed to provide a work zone for the contractor during construction. In addition, 

temporary access to the work site, either by road or through adjacent property, would be 

required for at-grade projects. 

Construction staging areas would be required for the parking of worker vehicles and 

construction equipment, delivering and temporarily storing construction materials, and 

assembling project components. Materials and equipment may include track and ties, 

crushed rock used as ballast, switches (“turnouts”) and signaling equipment. 

Construction materials would be delivered to the project area either via flatbed truck or 

rail. Materials would be unloaded by wheeled equipment, such as small cranes or frontend loaders. Turnouts would be assembled in the project area, and installed by use of 

backhoe, crane or boom truck. The size of the construction staging and work areas 

would depend upon the size of the project and would be determined as part of the 

project-level evaluations. 

At-grade construction typically requires clearing, grubbing, removing debris, and grading. 

While specific impacts would depend upon the type of resources within a particular 

project area, potential construction impacts may include reduction of vegetation and 

associated habitat, temporary fill in waters of the U.S., and degradation of water quality. 

B. ELEVATED STRUCTURES 

Elevated structures would have a smaller permanent footprint than at-grade structures 

and would result in a reduction of environmental impacts compared to an at-grade 

structure in the same location. However, the construction of elevated structures, 

particularly rail bridges over rivers and lagoons, would require larger staging areas than 

the at-grade projects. The total amount of space required for equipment, such as 

cranes, pile drivers, bridge girders piling, concrete trucks, concrete pumping trucks, 

dewatering equipment, and other ancillary equipment and materials would vary by 

structure type and length. Construction staging areas for elevated structures typically 

include all four quadrants where the new or replacement bridge would be built. 

Types of activities associated with elevated structures may include those anticipated for 

at-grade construction as needed for the project footprint, along with placement of 

foundations under piers and bridge abutments, construction of piers and abutments, 

construction of bridge superstructure, and installation of finish elements, such as 

approach slabs and metal railings. 

Sensitive habitats associated with lagoons will require special consideration and 

constrained construction access. To reduce potential impacts to these sensitive 

habitats, approaches to the existing lagoon structures could function as the staging 

areas rather than the four quadrants surrounding the existing structure. In addition, 

separate staging areas, located outside the constrained areas immediately adjacent to 

the sensitive habitats, may also be employed to avoid and minimize potential impacts to 

these sensitive areas. 

As described in Chapter 3 (see particularly Sections 3..12 and 3.13), one of the 

objectives for any improvements that cross lagoons is to reduce the amount of existing 

earthen fill from existing rail and roadway crossings. Reduction of fill would increase 
2.0-75 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

tidal flow in the lagoons. For rail improvement options that involve crossing lagoons on 

elevated structures, this could be accomplished by use of dual elevated structures 

constructed through the lagoons to accommodate the double-tracked rail line. To 

minimize construction impacts, the first structure would be constructed on an off-set 

alignment from the existing rail line. Following completion of the first structure, rail traffic 

would be rerouted onto it, and the second elevated structure would be constructed in 

place of the existing rail line. As the second elevated structure is constructed, the 

existing embankment fill would be removed. Because earthen fill would be replaced with 

elevated structures, the tidal flow within the lagoons would be less restricted, which 

could result in improved water quality. 

Currently, the single-tracked rail lines through lagoons experience heavy daily traffic 

volumes with the highest concentration of rail traffic occurring during the day. To 

construct elevated structures through the lagoons, it is possible that construction would 

occur during the evening. During project-level analyses, construction times, potential 

noise impacts associated with pile driving, and local noise ordinances would be 

considered. 

Specific impacts associated with the construction of elevated structures would depend 

upon the type of resources within a particular project area. Potential impacts associated 

with in-water work include a temporary increase in turbidity and temporary, localized 

noise and vibration disturbance to aquatic species. 

C. TRENCHING 

The construction of trenches would require larger construction work areas than the atgrade projects. This is primarily due to the work space required for the collection of the 

excavated soil materials, dump trucks, and the loaders to haul away the excavated soil 

from the project site, as well as concrete trucks used in construction of the trench’s 

retaining walls. The total area required for construction and staging areas would depend 

on the size and length of the trench to be constructed and would likely include areas 

outside of the existing right-of-way. Determination of the areas required for a particular 

trenching project would be made as part of the project-level evaluations. 

Types of activities associated with trenches include grading, excavation, and backfill and 

installation of retaining walls. For open trenches, the open cut areas would remain open 

when finished, and for closed trenches, the trenches would be covered to re-establish 

the original ground surface. Typically, where backfill material is needed, excavated 

material would be used. The retaining walls would be tailored to the specific site and 

project requirements and may include one or more of the following common construction 

methods: shotcrete, driven steel sheetpile walls, soldier pile and lagging walls, secant or 

tangent pile walls, soil mix walls, slurry placed concrete diaphragm walls, or other 

techniques. The support of these walls is typically accomplished by the use of internal 

bracing, internal earth berms, tied-back anchors, soil nails, cantilevering, other methods, 

or a combination of methods. For permanent walls that remain visible, wall finishing may 

consist of cast-in-place concrete, mechanically stabilized earth, segmental walls, 

concrete sculpted and colored to appear as natural rock, or other finishes. 

D. GRADE SEPARATIONS 

In some areas, grade separations would be used to reduce conflicts between rail and 

highway traffic, thereby improving efficiency and safety conditions for both modes. 
2.0-76 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

(Refer to Table 2.5-2 for grade separations proposed as part of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative.) Generally, the permanent footprint for grade-separated crossings would be 

smaller than that of an at-grade crossing in the same location but would vary depending 

on the size and type of roadways to be grade separated. The total area required for 

construction and staging areas would depend on the specific grade separation to be 

constructed and would likely include areas outside of the existing right-of-way. 

Construction staging areas would be larger than those for at-grade activities. 

Determination of the areas required for a particular grade separation project would be 

made as part of the project-level evaluations and preliminary design. 

Types of activities associated with the construction of grade separations would depend 

on which mode of transportation would be placed above or below existing grade 

(e.g., rail over road or road over rail) and would involve a combination of the activities 

typically used for elevated structure and trenching construction. 

E. TUNNELING 

Tunneling is the most complicated construction method envisioned for the LOSSAN 

corridor. The complexity of tunnel construction is sensitive to field conditions, such as 

unanticipated geologic conditions, depth of cover, and groundwater table. Tunnels are 

constructed using tunnel boring machines (TBM), cut-and-cover techniques (covered 

trench), or both. Tunnel muck (i.e., spoils; excavated debris) is typically brought out of 

the tunnel via conveyor belts and loaded into muck rail cars or haul trucks for removal 

from the site. It is expected that rail can be used for at least some of the muck removal 

along the LOSSAN corridor. 

Other heavy equipment used at the site of tunneling may include cement mixers, slurry 

pipelines (for muck removal and conveyance), and possibly pumping equipment for dewatering in areas of shallow groundwater. 

Staging areas would be required during tunnel construction to service the tunneling 

operation, stage contractor equipment, store pre-cast concrete tunnel segments, and 

temporarily stockpile the tunnel spoils. The TBM launching area, which is where the 

tunnel would begin and be serviced, would accommodate all of these activities and is 

anticipated to require an area of approximately four acres during construction. 

Approximately two acres at tunnel portals would be needed permanently for tunnel 

portals and access. The TBM receiving area, where the tunnel would terminate, would 

need to accommodate the retrieval of the TBM and would require approximately one 

acre. 

The potential environmental impacts associated with tunneling may result from 

construction at shafts, portals and staging areas, and these impacts include tunnel 

spoils, construction phase vibration and noise, and potential ground surface settlement 

from tunneling and excavation. After excavation, many of the tunnel construction access 

sites would become permanent tunnel support sites, such as emergency access points, 

pump stations, ventilation plants, etc. The use of surface access roads may be limited 

or even avoided in some areas by using in-line construction (that is, using the new rail 

infrastructure as it is built to transport equipment to and from the construction site and to 

haul excavated materials away from the site). 
2.0-77 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

F. MITIGATION 

Potential mitigation measures for construction impacts associated with the 

aforementioned methods include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented in accordance with 

Section 401 water quality certification and in accordance with the NPDES 

program pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which requires 

preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all 

construction disturbing one acre or more, and coverage under a general 

construction storm water permit. 

• The construction staging areas would be located outside of environmentally 

sensitive areas. 

• Construction vehicles would be prohibited from driving in or crossing sensitive 

areas anywhere other than established temporary and permanent crossings 

points. 

• Temporary work areas (e.g., crane pads) would be designed to pass normal 

flows. Any fill materials would be removed upon completion of construction 

activities. 

• Disturbed areas in or adjacent to streams would be returned to pre-construction 

contours as soon as practicable and permanently stabilized (e.g., mulching, 

reseeding). 

• Efforts would be made to mitigate for temporary air quality impacts during 

construction, including minimizing or eliminating unnecessary idling of 

construction vehicles and employing methods to minimize fugitive dust. 

• Short-term construction noise would be minimized through abatement measures, 

such as work-hour controls and proper maintenance of muffler systems. 

• Project-specific waste-reduction/recycling plans for demolition waste would be 

developed and would emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, where 

practicable. The contractor would collect and dispose of all waste material 

appropriately. 

Potential mitigation measures associated specifically with tunneling include the following: 

• Limit construction disturbance to well defined boundaries for shafts, portals and 

staging areas and locate these in appropriate areas. 

• Find commercial uses for the materials mined from the tunnels, portals and 

shafts. 

• Utilize noise and vibration dampening equipment. 

• Potential ground surface settlement from tunneling and excavation can be 

mitigated by utilizing rigorous tunnel face stabilization techniques, backfill 

grouting immediately behind the tunnel shield, and using appropriate lateral 

support methods for shaft and portal excavations. 

Additional impact and mitigation measures specific to each environmental resource topic are 

described in Chapter 3. 
2.0-78 U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVES 

2.7.2 Maintenance Activities 

Federal and State regulations set forth and define required railroad safety standards, which 

dictate maintenance-of-way activities that are to occur on such railroad infrastructure. The 

contiguous linear track area, signal equipment areas, access roads and parking areas are 

typically maintained to be free and clear of vegetation. Other maintenance activities may 

include inspections, replacement of ballast, ties, or rails, turn-out or crossing repair, and 

structures and signal work. As such, infrastructure maintenance activities and inspections 

occurring within the railroad right-of-way almost exclusively occur within non-vegetated and 

disturbed areas. 

Sensitive areas between the road and the track are avoided when practicable. The majority of 

activities are performed directly on the track, some of which implement the utilization of 

machines that also operate solely and exclusively on the track as well. Access from the road to 

the track typically is done in a non-sensitive location and material and equipment is then moved 

along the track to the work location. If work is performed at night, lighting is of relatively lowpower and is located in close proximity to the work area, focusing directly onto the track. 

Potential impacts of maintenance activities may include ground disturbance and removal of 

emergent vegetation as needed to maintain visibility along the track. As previously stated, 

maintenance activities would typically occur in previously disturbed and non-vegetated areas. 

To maintain visibility and safety conditions along the track, emergent vegetation would be 

controlled as necessary. The use of pesticides is typically employed to maintain rights-of-way. 

(“Pesticide” is a general term for insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides.) According to 

District 11 of the Department, current practice for rail and roadway maintenance is to primarily 

use herbicides. These are used on an “as needed” basis, with applications occurring in spring 

and summer. No applications occur in waterways. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

INTRODUCTION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 

AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

3.0 INTRODUCTION 

3.0.1 Purpose and Content of this Chapter 

This purpose of this chapter is to describe existing environmental conditions in the areas that 

would be affected by the No-Project Alternative and the Rail Improvements Alternative; evaluate 

potential environmental impacts associated with the No-Project Alternative and with constructing 

and operating the Rail Improvements Alternative; and present potential program-level mitigation 

strategies to avoid or reduce those impacts. The analysis presented in this chapter addresses 

the general effects of a program of actions that would make up the proposed LOSSAN Rail 

Corridor Improvements project. This chapter describes the general differences in potential 

environmental consequences between the No-Project Alternative and the Rail Improvements 

Alternative. The analysis also identifies key differences between the potential impacts 

associated with the various rail alignment options and station improvements. Although none of 

the final rail improvement options evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS are eliminated at this time, 

the description of key differences among options will help to guide project-level studies and 

design refinements. 

3.0.2 How this Chapter is Organized 

This chapter is organized into sections by resource topic. The resource topics are grouped as 

follows. 

• Transportation and related topics (air quality; noise and vibration; and energy). 

• Human environment (land use and community impacts; parklands; aesthetics and visual 

resources; socioeconomics; utilities and public services; and hazardous materials/ 

wastes). 

• Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historic properties) and paleontological 

resources. 

• Natural environment (geology and seismic hazards; hydrology and water resources; and 

biological resources, including wetlands). 

• Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, recreation 

areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic sites). 

Each resource topic section contains the following information. 

• Methods of Evaluation 

• Regulatory Requirements. 

• Affected Environment 

• Environmental Consequences 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

INTRODUCTION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Design Practices 

• Mitigation Strategies 

• Subsequent Analysis 

The Methods of Evaluation and Regulatory Requirements discussions for each resource topic 

describe the assumptions, approach for evaluation, and rating scheme used to identify potential 

impacts as significant (potentially requiring mitigation), and identify the relevant statutes and 

CEQA, NEPA, or regulatory agency guidelines relevant to future project approvals or decisions 

for that resource topic. The methods of impact evaluation were developed with input from state 

and federal resource agencies. 

The Affected Environment summarizes the information that provides the basis for analysis of 

potential environmental impacts on each environmental resource. Existing conditions are 

summarized based on the program-level, GIS data obtained for the analysis. The technical 

studies prepared for each resource area provided key information for the preparation of the 

Affected Environment discussions. 

The Environmental Consequences discussions describe the potential environmental impacts 

(both adverse and beneficial) of the Rail Improvements Alternative in comparison to the NoProject Alternative. Each discussion begins by comparing existing conditions with 2020 NoProject conditions to describe the consequences of No-Project and how environmental 

conditions are expected to change during the timeframe required to fully construct the proposed 

Rail Improvements. Existing conditions were used as a proxy for 2020 No-Project conditions 

where 2020 baseline information was unavailable, could not be projected, or would be overly 

speculative. Using 2020 No-Project conditions as a basis for comparison, the analysis then 

addresses direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Rail Improvements, as well as potential 

cumulative impacts. Measures that already have been included as part of the proposed Rail 

Improvements to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts were incorporated into this 

analysis; examples include: locating the alignment options within existing transportation 

corridors, tunneling to avoid surface disruption in sensitive areas such as coastal beaches, and 

designing new rail bridges so that there would be no net increase in the footprint of rail 

infrastructure within coastal lagoons. The impact analysis summarizes specific resource data for 

each alignment option, and then compares options with one another within each rail segment, 

with a focus on any substantive differences between options. 

Typical construction impacts were described in Section 2.7 and are addressed in this chapter. 

However, a full assessment of construction impacts cannot be made until project-level reviews 

when construction and sequencing details are known. 

Design Practices describe design and construction practices that have been identified to avoid 

or minimize impacts and would be employed as rail improvement projects are developed further 

in the project level of environmental clearance, final design and construction stages. Mitigation 

Strategies discussions first state whether, at this program level of analysis, the lead agencies 

believe that potentially significant impacts could occur; then potential mitigation approaches are 

described that can be identified at a program level for use to avoid, minimize, or reduce any 

potentially significant environmental impacts. 

Finally, each resource topic section includes a Subsequent Analysis discussion summarizing 

directions for more detailed study during project-level environmental review and documentation. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.0-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

INTRODUCTION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Many sources were used in the preparation of this document. References to these sources are 

provided in Chapter 11. In some cases to clarify a particular source, specific references are 

called out in the text. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.0-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

INTRODUCTION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
3.1-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

This section describes the existing traffic and circulation conditions in the transportation study 

area and identifies the potential traffic, transit, circulation, and parking impacts of each 

alignment option and station option. 

3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

NEPA and CEQA both require that potential impacts of a proposed project on the traffic, 

transit, and circulation of the affected area must be examined as part of the EIR/EIS 

process. Under CEQA, a proposed project should be analyzed for the potential effects 

listed below (California Department of Transportation 2003). 

• An increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and 

capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number 

of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity [V/C]1 ratio on roads, or congestion at 

intersections). 

• Either individually or cumulatively exceeding a level of service (LOS)2 standard 

established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads 

or highways. 

• A substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). 

• Inadequate parking capacity. 

• Inadequate emergency access. 

• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 

transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). 

• Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. 

Volume-to-capacity ratios and level of service are defined quantitatively in Table 3.1-1. 

Given the scale of the proposed rail corridor improvements, virtually all of the criteria 

mentioned above would be potentially affected by the No-Project and Rail Improvement 

Alternatives. For this analysis this program-level document focused on the criteria 

below. 

• Traffic and level of service analysis of the following elements. 

− Intercity highway segments. 

− Primary highways/roadways accessing stations. 

• Potential impacts on transit, goods movement, and parking for each of the 

regional corridors and proposed stations and airports. 

 

1 The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is the number of vehicles that travel on a transportation facility divided by the full vehicular 

capacity of that facility (the number of vehicles the facility was designed to convey). 

2 Level of service is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at level of 

service (LOS) A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as an acceptable service level in urban areas. 

The definition for each level of service for signalized intersections is based on the V/C ratio.
3.1-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.1-1 

Level of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Definition 

Level of Service Volume-toCapacity Ratio Definition 

A 0.000−0.600 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light 

and no approach phase is fully used. 

B 0.601−0.700 

VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully 

utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted 

within groups of vehicles. 

C 0.701−0.800 

GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through 

more than one red light; backups may develop behind 

turning vehicles. 

D 0.801−0.900 

FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the 

rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to 

permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive 

backups. 

E 0.901−1.000 

POOR. Represents the maximum vehicles that 

intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long 

lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. 

F >1.000 

FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross 

streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out 

of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with 

continuously increasing queue lengths. 

Source: Transportation Research Board 1980

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The traffic, transit, circulation, and parking analyses for this Program EIR/EIS focused on 

a broad comparison of potential impacts on traffic, transit, circulation, and parking 

around stations for the Rail Improvements Alternative. The potential impacts for this 

alternative were compared to the No-Project Alternative. 

Highway, roadways, passenger transportation services (e.g. bus, rail, intermodal, and 

transit facilities), goods movements, and parking issues were evaluated in this analysis. 

Transportation facilities, highways, and roadways included in the analysis serve as the 

primary means of existing (or planned future) access to existing and proposed rail 

stations. In addition, these facilities are within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the proposed suburban 

rail stations, 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of downtown stations, or are key capacity-constraint 

points on major routes along intercity corridors. 

Although this level of analysis is appropriate for a program-level environmental 

document, variations in traffic conditions on smaller transportation facilities such as 

arterials and roadways are not included in the study area. Many of these smaller 

facilities are currently congested, and their operation is projected to worsen under the 

No-Project Alternative. Operation of these facilities could indirectly benefit from 

implementation of the Rail Improvements Alternative. The capacity improvements of the 

Rail Improvements Alternative could reduce demand such that long-distance trips would 

not be forced onto local streets. The potential impact of an improved rail system on 

these smaller facilities would be examined as part of any subsequent and more detailed 

project-level environmental analyses. 
3.1-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

For this program level document, initial analysis included identifying primary routes to be 

considered, with highways designated in the No-Project Alternative and all modes of 

access to the station areas in the Rail Improvement Alternative, respectively. The 

primary routes and modes of access for the stations considered assumptions for 

distribution of trips by direction. 

Once primary routes were identified, screenlines or cordons combining segments of the 

primary routes that reasonably represent locations for evaluating the aggregate baseline 

traffic and public passenger transportation conditions (using data for 2002, 2020, or 

other similar years as available) in the a.m. peak hour were selected. Only a.m. peak 

hours were selected because they were seen as sufficient for a program level analysis. 

Both a.m. and p.m. will be analyzed during project specific evaluations. The use of 

screenlines or cordons is necessitated by the scale of this analysis with its requirement 

to evaluate roadway conditions throughout the region. A more detailed analytical 

framework must necessarily be reserved for future analyses of individual projects. 

Screenlines, especially on intercity highway links, have been selected to represent 

typical a.m. peak-hour conditions. The data used in the evaluation of traffic volumes and 

capacities at the screenlines therefore are typical values based on averages over time 

and represented in traffic forecasting tools used by the regional transportation planning 

agencies. As such, the conditions indicated in the evaluation may not always reflect the 

experiences of travelers at any particular place at any specific time. For example, 

localized capacity restrictions (e.g. bottlenecks at a given interchange) are not well 

represented in those regional traffic models. In addition, incidents on the road such as 

accidents and vehicle breakdowns (non-recurring congestion) are not represented in 

regional traffic models. This unpredictable type of incident is responsible for the majority 

of congestion in urban highway networks. The result of these limitations of the 

methodology and data used in this analysis is that many times the level of service or 

average speed shown in the evaluation may be more optimistic than what would actually 

be experienced on the roadway under the forecasted conditions. Thus, it is important to 

consider the differences between the alternatives compared rather than focus on the 

absolute value of the indicators (i.e., volume to capacity or level of service). 

Baseline conditions were defined using the methodology below. 

Intercity Screenlines: Baseline conditions (2002, 2020) were established for intercity 

highway segments based on available counts of existing weekday a.m. peak hour 

traffic volumes and projected annual growth rates. This process involved a 

comparison of existing V/C to determine level of service at link level. 

Station Cordons: Baseline (2002 and 2020 data, as available) ratios of demand to 

capacity across each cordon for roadways (not intersections) were established for 

the weekday a.m. peak hour using 2000 HCM standards for capacity. 

(Transportation Research Board 2000) 

Transit Access: Baseline conditions were established through an inventory of 

available public transportation services at and adjacent to the stations. 

Goods Movement: Baseline conditions (2002, 2020) for goods movement (truck 

freight) weekday a.m. peak hour for locations in the area were identified as critical by 

regional goods movement studies. 
3.1-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Parking at or near Stations: Descriptions of parking conditions are based on 2002 

parking reserves, local plans for major parking expansion, and adequacy of local 

parking codes for meeting No-Project growth in demand. 

In this traffic study, only the High-Build scenario of the Rail Improvements Alternative 

was analyzed. The options presented in this scenario demonstrated the most 

conservative numbers, which represented the highest benefits and impacts to the 

transportation system. Additionally, the station area impacts were determined to be 

similar to those in the Low-Build scenario. A discussion outlining the qualitative 

differences between these two scenarios is provided in section 3.1.4. 

Trips associated with the Rail Improvements Alternative were determined (“generated”) 

and distributed onto the network. To be conservative in this analysis, the high-end trip 

generation was used based on calculations performed for the LOSSAN corridor by the 

California High Speed Rail Authority, which assumed that intercity (Amtrak) trains would 

act as a feeder service to the statewide high-speed train system between Los Angeles, 

Sacramento and the Bay Area. This method calculated the trip generation by adding to 

baseline volumes the forecasted 2020 demand for a system that served intercity trips 

and feeds a high-speed train system, plus local trips in 2020 generated by projectrelated development (as data is available) and trips due to induced growth. These 

additional trips were distributed to the identified screenlines or cordons (roadway and 

public transportation) and those trips were added to the appropriate baseline volumes for 

each screenline or cordon. Next, the additional trips were distributed for selected 

segments/links on primary regional routes and modes of access to stations and similar 

facilities by adding No-Project volumes obtained from 2020 forecasts (from regional and 

local agencies), and 2020 travel demand generated by alternatives, to the key accessing 

facilities (roadways, transit links). This distribution was done at a screenline level to 

reduce the subjectivity of assigning trips to specific facilities. Methodology for this 

process is detailed below. 

• For each screenline or cordon, new ratios of demand-to-capacity were 

calculated. Demand is the baseline volumes plus additional trip generation by 

the Rail Improvement Alternative. 

• Future No-Project link capacity conditions were established through available 

plans from local and regional agencies, and based on the fiscally constrained 

element of the relevant regional transportation plan (RTP). 

• Link-level analysis of impacts was performed to roadways for weekday a.m. 

peak-hour conditions. Capacity levels were based on the 2000 HCM 

methodologies. 

• Future roadway V/C on selected segments compared future volumes with/without 

alternatives with future capacity determined. Future V/C with/without the 

alternatives was analyzed. This assessment was performed at a cordon level, 

aggregating the V/C on all major facilities accessing the stations. 

• Cordon-level analysis was also performed for public transportation services 

serving the stations or airports, based on weekday a.m. peak-hour service 

headway and capacity conditions. 
3.1-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Impacts were determined by comparing future load factors or service headway 

requirements with existing levels, No-Project levels (as specified in relevant 

RTPs), and levels demanded by the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

• Goods movement impacts were determined through an assessment of the net 

impact of project alternatives on the corridor. 

Summary tables were then completed that identified impacts on highways/roadways (at 

screenline), public transportation services, goods movement, and parking facilities. The 

impacts are described and ranked as high, medium, or low in the summary tables in the 

appendix of this section, according to the potential extent of change to traffic, transit, 

circulation, and parking and described in terms of LOS A to LOS F for traffic impacts. 

The final step included the identification of mitigation strategies for avoidance of potential 

impacts related to traffic, circulation, and parking. Most mitigation measures involve 

subsequent analysis of traffic, circulation, or parking in the next phase of work. 

3.1.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The transportation study area is defined as the primary highways and roadways that: 

1) serve as the primary means of access to existing and proposed rail stations; and 

2) are within 1.0 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers [km]) of existing or proposed rail stations and 

includes the coastal areas of southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego, 

following the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. 

Only three intercity highways in the region connect the metropolitan areas of Los 

Angeles and San Diego County, these include Interstate 15, Interstate 5, and State 

Route 1. Of these three routes, only Interstate 5 provides a continuous and direct 

connection between Los Angeles and San Diego through Orange County. Because of 

this, Interstate 5 has been identified as the primary route between Los Angeles Union 

Station (LAUS) and San Diego. 

There is a proposal to extend California State Route 241 (currently a toll facility operated 

by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) from its current terminus at State Route 

73 south to connect with Interstate 5. If completed, this route would provide an 

alternative north-south route essentially parallel to Interstate 5. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RESOURCES 

In general, traffic conditions throughout the study area are poor in terms of congestion 

levels (e.g. travel delays), particularly during the peak periods. According to nationwide 

studies conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, the Los Angeles urban area 

experiences the highest congestion levels in the country. Highways are heavily 

congested during both the morning and evening peak hours in and around the urban 

centers of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. This congestion is caused 

mostly by regional and urban commute traffic. Commute trips (to and from work) make 

up the majority of highway trips during the peak periods; the intercity trips considered in 

this analysis represent only a small proportion of highway traffic. The Southern 

California Association of Governments (SCAG) has estimated that, during morning peakhour traffic in some of the most congested corridors in southern California, the average 
3.1-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

speed is less than 20 miles per hour (mph) in the congested direction. In 2002, traffic 

congestion costs motorists in California $20.4 billion annually in lost time and fuel. 

Traffic conditions throughout Southern California are expected to worsen, and only 

limited improvements to transportation facilities are funded and programmed for 

implementation by 2020. Steadily increasing regional and urban traffic affects intercity 

commutes by delaying travelers where capacity is constrained. Intercity travel that 

competes with regional and intraregional travel for use of the same facilities is directly 

affected by these conditions. 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing condition is the transportation infrastructure that exists in 2003 and its 

associated levels of service. The No-Project Alternative includes the existing 

infrastructure, plus the implementation of funded and programmed transportation 

improvements that will be operational by 2020 and the projected level or service of that 

infrastructure in 2020. Impacts on intercity highways are analyzed in terms of V/C ratio 

and corresponding level of service. Impacts on transit, goods movement, and parking 

are harder to quantify but include potential impacts such as full parking lots at stations, 

and are assigned a low, medium, or high rating corresponding to the estimated level of 

potential impact. 

Under the No-Project Alternative, existing traffic conditions are projected to deteriorate 

along most highway segments and near the stations in the study area. As shown in 

Figure 3.1-1, all of the 8 intercity highway segments analyzed would have a high V/C 

ratio under the No-Project Alternative. In general, traffic congestion is projected to 

increase because travel is expected to increase by 2 to 3% per year along some 

segments. The No-Project Alternative does not provide infrastructure improvements 

sufficient to address the projected growth in highway travel and the exponential increase 

of commute trips within the urban areas. In most cases, the potential impact would 

manifest itself as deteriorating levels of service on highway segments and local streets 

or extended peak-period congestion on highways that already operate at LOS F (i.e., the 

a.m. peak period would extend from 2 hours to 4 hours). 

Exceptions to these projected worsening conditions are expected to occur in certain 

locations along the corridor, where not only does the V/C ratio not increase from the 

existing condition, but in fact becomes lower, providing a somewhat higher level of 

service. The reason for this, specifically around station areas, differs depending on the 

county. San Diego County’s Regional Transportation Plan assumes a strong public 

transportation base over the next 20 to 30 years; this assumption is reflected heavily in 

their forecasted traffic models. In addition to this, the forecasted models assume a much 

higher capacity for Interstate 5 due to programmed improvements, allowing for a higher 

LOS, even though the volume of vehicles traveling over the highway is increasing. 

Table 3.1-2 summarizes the differences in V/C ratios and LOS along Interstate 5 

between the existing and No-Project conditions. 
3.1-7

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.1-1

Year 2020 No-Project Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

Source : June, 2004 - California Department of Transportation
3.1-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
3.1-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.1-2 

Change in Traffic Congestion or Intercity Highway Segments 

Existing Conditions Compared to the No-Project Alternative 

Selected Screenlines 

Along Interstate 5 Existing V/C, LOS No-Project V/C, LOS 

% Change from 

Existing 

Los Angeles County 

Lakewood Blvd 

(City of Downey) 

1.05 

F 

1.33 

F +21.1% 

Artesia Blvd 

(City of La Mirada) 

1.04 

F 

1.20 

F +15.8% 

Orange County 

State Route 55 

(City of Tustin) 

0.96 

E 

1.51 

F +36.4% 

Alicia Pkwy 

(City of Mission Viejo) 

1.19 

F 

1.44 

F +17.3% 

Camino Estrella 

(City of San Clemente) 

1.35 

F 

1.19 

F - 11.9% 

San Diego County 

Tamarack Ave 

(City of Carlsbad) 

1.07 

F 

0.91 

E - 15.0% 

Via De La Valle 

(City of San Diego) 

1.08 

F 

0.86 

D - 21.0% 

Balboa Ave 

(City of San Diego) 

1.05 

F 

0.71 

C - 33.0% 

Summary descriptions of the existing and No-Project traffic, transit, circulation, and 

parking conditions are provided below. Traffic and circulation in station areas are 

analyzed for both the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternative. For a more 

detailed discussion of traffic data in the region under existing, No-Project, and Rail 

Improvements Alternative, see the LOSSAN Region technical report3. 

Intercity Highway Segments

Under existing conditions, during a.m. peak periods, seven of the eight locations 

analyzed are operating at LOS F, and the remaining location (I-5 at SR-55) is operating 

at LOS E with a V/C ratio of 0.96, approaching LOS F (V/C of 1.0 or more), as shown in 

Table 3.1-2. These conditions are not expected to improve under the No-Project 

Alternative; on average, V/C ratios are projected to increase by 12% at these locations, 

reflecting more severe congestion and longer congested peak periods. There are three 

exceptions to this projected condition under the No-Project Alternative: significant 

freeway and transit system expansions are underway along I-5 in San Diego County, 

resulting in a lower LOS at the screenlines of Tamarack Avenue and Via de la Valle, and 

should the SR-241 Toll Road in Orange County be connected to the I-5, it may assist in 

improving the LOS along I-5 through San Clemente, as shown by the screenline at 

 

3 California High Speed Rail Authority, Traffic, Transit, Circulation & Parking Technical Evaluation, 2004 
3.1-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Camino Estrella. These improvements could improve the existing LOS F condition to 

LOS D and E, respectively. 

Intercity Rail Stations

Traffic conditions are expected to worsen at the station sites, with the exception of four 

stations, where funded roadway improvements will result in improved conditions under 

the No-Project Alternative. The station sites where improvements are expected are 

Norwalk Station (V/C ratio would improve from 0.71 to 0.70, LOS C under both 

conditions), the Fullerton Transportation Center (0.84 to 0.77, LOS D to LOS C), the 

Anaheim Transportation Center (0.55 to 0.50, LOS A under both conditions), and the 

proposed University Towne Centre Station (0.68 to 0.65, LOS B under both conditions). 

Transit, Goods Movement, and Parking

Based on the existing number of transit routes, frequencies, and span of service, no 

significant impact on public transit services is projected if no significant improvements to 

existing public transit service were provided under No-Project. 

Most delay impacts on goods movement would occur in Los Angeles County and north 

Orange County, where heavy freight received at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach exits the region en route to destinations throughout the nation. Potential negative 

impacts on goods movement in south Orange County are projected to occur because 

the higher vehicular traffic on I 5, which is forecast under the No-Project Alternative, 

would not be met by a corresponding increase in the capacity of transportation facilities. 

With the exception of the Norwalk and San Juan Capistrano Stations, no parking 

impacts are projected under the No-Project Alternative. The Norwalk Station is 

projected to have medium parking impacts due to land constraints potentially inhibiting 

the construction of additional parking spaces, and the San Juan Capistrano Station is 

projected to have high parking impacts, because there is little land around the existing 

station area that can be developed to meet the projected parking demand due to the 

proximity of historical resources. 4 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO THE RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative represents the future baseline condition. It is assumed that 

any improvements associated with the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would 

be in addition to the No-Project condition. As shown in Figure 3.1-2, on the following 

page, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would improve traffic at the intercity 

screenlines compared to the No-Project Alternative. Long-term potential impacts related 

to the No-Project Alternative could potentially be alleviated by the Rail Improvements 

Alternative through the diversion of some automobile trips to the intercity rail system. 

 

4 California High Speed Rail Authority, Traffic, Transit, Circulation and Parking Technical Evaluation, May 2003 
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57

91

142

90

60

605

91

710

405

110

105

19

10

10

405

5

78

15

22

LAX

UNION STATION

JWA

LONG BEACH

AIRPORT

NORWALK

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

SAN CLEMENTE

PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

SAN DIEGO AIRPORT

UNIVERSITY

TOWNE CENTRE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

OCEANSIDE

SAN JUAN 

CAPISTRANO

FULLERTON

SANTA FE DEPOT

SANTA ANA

ESCONDIDO

Baseline data provided by the Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization

Study

Area

HIGHWAY CORRIDORS

Pacific Ocean

California

Legend

LOSSAN CORRIDOR

EXISTING STATION

PROPOSED STATION

 Build

1. 13,196

2. 7,745

3. 0.97

4. E

Balboa Ave

No-Project

1. 13,736

2. 8,030

3. 1.00

4. F

 Build

1. 19,075

2. 11,384

3. 0.98

4. E

Via de la Valle

No-Project

1. 19,396

2. 11,506

3. 0.99

4. E

 Build

1. 15,037

2. 8,897

3. 0.79

4. C

Tamarack Ave

No-Project

1. 15,388

2. 9,020

3. 0.81

4. D

 Build

1. 20,152

2. 11,028

3. 1.15

4. F

Camino Estrella

No-Project

1. 21,033

2. 11,403

3. 1.19

4. F

 Build

1. 25,220

2. 14,375

3. 1.24

4. F

Alicia Pkwy

No-Project

1. 25,910

2. 14,749

3. 1.27

4. F

 Build

1. 27,716

2. 17,216

3. 1.48

4. F

State Route 55

1. 28,146

2. 17,545

3. 1.51

4. F

 Build

1. 20,802

2. 11,425

3. 1.19

4. F

Artesia Blvd

No-Project

1. 21,153

2. 11,473

3. 1.20

4. F

 Build

1. 23,334

2. 12,276

3. 1.28

4. F

Lakewood Blvd

No-Project

1. 23,685

2. 12,763

3. 1.33

4. F

1. TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME

VOLUME BY AM PEAK HOUR DIRECTION

VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO BY AM PEAK HOUR DIRECTION

2.

3.

4. LEVEL OF SERVICE BY AM PEAK HOUR DIRECTION

No-Project

8 0 8 Miles

8 0 8 Kilometers

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.1-2

Year 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

Source : June, 2004 - California Department of Transportation

3.1-11
3.1-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
3.1-13

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

As summarized in Table 3.1-3, the average V/C ratio improvement is anticipated to be 

between 1% and 4% under the Rail Improvements Alternative. The differences within the 

region are directly related to the volume of demand. Segments with less demand will 

experience greater changes in levels of service with the proposed improvements 

compared to segments with higher demand. 

Table 3.1-3 

Change in Traffic Congestion or Intercity Highway Segments 

No-Project Conditions Compared to the Rail Improvements Alternative 

Selected Screenlines 

Along Interstate 5 

No-Project V/C, 

LOS 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative 

V/C, LOS 

% Change from 

No-Project 

Los Angeles County 

Lakewood Blvd 

(City of Downey) 

1.33 

F 

1.28 

F - 3.8% 

Artesia Blvd 

(City of La Mirada) 

1.20 

F 

1.19 

F - 0.8% 

Orange County 

State Route 55 

(City of Tustin) 

1.51 

E 

1.48 

F - 2.0% 

Alicia Pkwy 

(City of Mission Viejo) 

1.44 

F 

1.41 

F - 2.1% 

Camino Estrella 

(City of San Clemente) 

1.19 

F 

1.15 

F - 3.4% 

San Diego County 

Tamarack Ave 

(City of Carlsbad) 

0.81 

D C - 2.5% 

Via De La Valle 

(City of San Diego) 

0.99 

E 

0.98 

E - 1.0% 

Balboa Ave 

(City of San Diego) 

1.00 

F 

0.97 

E - 3.0% 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would help to reduce the long-term impacts on 

freeways by providing a viable alternative to the automobile, which could in turn divert 

some intercity automobile trips to the rail system. It is possible that the improved rail 

system could attract additional trips which could cause some increased station area 

traffic and some additional diversion from Interstate 5. It is also possible that increased 

transportation system capacity with the Rail Improvements Alternative could induce 

additional trips not accounted for in the Regional Model highway demand. 

In addition to helping to improve highway capacity by potentially reducing traffic, the Rail 

Improvement Alternatives would eliminate traffic delays at existing at-grade crossings 

along the LOSSAN corridor by grade-separating the crossings. The grade separations 

would also improve the reliability of both the vehicle trips crossing the rail corridor and 

the intercity, commuter and freight trips within the corridor. 
3.1-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Overall, as summarized in Table 3.1-3, although highway conditions would improve 

under the Rail Improvements Alternative, the general conditions would remain at poor 

levels of service with V/C ratios of more than 1.0, on average, for the region. As 

discussed above, the conditions shown in the evaluation may not always reflect the 

experiences of travelers at any particular place at any specific time. For example, 

localized capacity restrictions (e.g., bottlenecks at a given interchange) are not well 

represented in regional traffic models. In addition, incidents on the road, such as 

accidents and vehicle breakdowns, are not represented in the regional traffic models. 

These non-recurring incidents are unpredictable and are responsible for the majority of 

congestion on urban highway networks. 

Goods movement and transit have some minor regional or local impacts; however on 

average, the potential effects of the Rail Improvements Alternative would be negligible. 

Planning provisions were made for parking at station areas under the Rail Improvements 

Alternative respectively; consequently there should be little effect on the existing parking 

supplies. 

3.1.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

This section summarizes key findings comparing the Rail Improvements Alternative to the NoProject Alternative, based on traffic, circulation, and parking. For detailed summary tables 

associated with this analysis, see Appendix 3.1-A. 

Intercity Highway Segments

Under the Rail Improvements Alternative, traffic congestion is projected to improve slightly on 

the intercity highway segments compared to the No-Project Alternative. The most significant 

changes would occur on I-5 at Balboa Avenue (in the City of San Diego) and on I-5 at Tamarack 

Avenue (in the City of Carlsbad), where the level of service would improve from LOS F to LOS E 

and from LOS D to LOS C, respectively. 

Intercity Rail Stations

The Rail Improvements Alternative would cause no significant changes in levels of service or 

V/C ratios within the station areas compared to No-Project, except at the proposed San Juan 

Capistrano station, where the level of service would degrade from LOS E to LOS F without 

further improvement to local roads. 

Transit, Goods Movement, and Parking

The Rail Improvements Alternative would cause no significant impacts on public transportation 

or goods movement compared to the No-Project Alternative. 

Except at the San Juan Capistrano station, parking capacity at each station is projected to meet 

the demand of travelers under the Rail Improvements Alternative; there would be no significant 

change compared to No-Project. Under the Rail Improvements Alternative, potential parking 

impacts could occur at the new Trabuco Creek station in San Juan Capistrano. Impacts at these 

stations are due to the lack of available land around the station areas to provide sufficient 

parking capacity. However, the Trabuco Creek station in San Juan Capistrano would be located 

in close proximity to the downtown parking structure and surface lots and may still be able to 

utilize these locations to provide for additional parking. Additional parking was added at the 

Norwalk Station in 2005. 
3.1-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

A. ALIGNMENT OPTION COMPARISON 

For the purposes of this analysis, one “build” alternative was assumed, as in most cases 

the differences between the low- and high-build alternatives are minor. However, of the 

improvements identified for the LOSSAN corridor, three locations present significant 

differences in alignment options and transportation impacts. 

San Juan Capistrano

Two design options exist in the city of San Juan Capistrano, in addition to the “NoProject” (maintaining the existing conditions) option: 

I-5 Tunnel

This option would bypass the downtown area of the City of San Juan Capistrano 

completely by realigning the railroad right-of-way in a bored-tunnel beneath Interstate 5. 

This option accommodates the possibility of retaining the existing single-track line and 

service through downtown San Juan Capistrano. However, there would not be an 

intercity station provided along the I-5 tunnel bypass of San Juan Capistrano. 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• Reduced intercity passenger service to San Juan Capistrano; 

• Reduced local traffic related to station parking; 

• Increased congestion on Interstate 5 as result of the use of the freeway to access 

the next nearest station; and 

• Increased parking and traffic congestion in Irvine. 

Trabuco Creek Cut and Cover Tunnel 

This option would realign the existing alignment through San Juan Capistrano’s 

downtown to the west, loosely following the east bank of Trabuco Creek. It would 

provide a replacement station due west of the existing station. 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• Only access to new station would be from Del Obispo; and 

• Limited land for parking, however the existing parking structure and surface lots 

in downtown could be retained as the distance is between 1,500 and 2,000 feet 

away from the station along Trabuco Creek. 

San Clemente / Dana Point

Two design options exist in the San Clemente/Dana Point area, in addition to the “NoProject” (maintaining the existing conditions) option. 

Short Tunnel – I-5

This option would straighten the Dana Point curve, and double-track the corridor along 

the existing right-of-way until just north of the San Clemente Metrolink station, where the 

alignment would begin to enter into a trench and then turn inland, tunneling just north of 
3.1-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Avenida Pico, where a new station would be provided in an open trench. The alignment 

would remain in a twin-bored tunnel beneath the Interstate 5 right-of-way, until rejoining 

the existing LOSSAN corridor near San Onofre Creek. 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• The relocation and consolidation of the two existing San Clemente rail stations 

into one; and 

• Beach access would become more difficult from the stations, however easier 

access to the freeway would be provided. 

Long Split Tunnel - with Station

This option is comprised of two tunnels located beneath the right-of-way of Interstate 5 

between Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano and San Onofre Creek. The split in 

the tunnels would occur at Avenida Pico, allowing for a new station in San Clemente. 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• The relocation and consolidation of the two existing San Clemente rail stations 

into one; 

• Beach access would become more difficult from the stations, however easier 

access to the freeway would be provided; and 

• Pier Bowl area of San Clemente would be relieved of station traffic impacts. 

University Towne Centre

Two design options exist in the University Towne Centre (UTC) area, in addition to the 

No-Project Alternative. 

University Towne Centre Tunnel

This option would bypass the existing curves through Sorrento Valley and Miramar by 

tunneling under the University Towne Centre business and shopping complex, roughly 

following beneath the right-of-way of Genesee Avenue. As part of this option, an 

underground multi-modal facility is planned that would offer a new intercity passenger 

rail stop, as well as provide for new Coaster commuter rail station and provide increased 

multi-modal connectivity with transit and Bus Rapid Transit/Light Rail services planned 

for the University City area, which is a major employment center and consists of dense 

residential neighborhoods located near the campus of the University of California, San 

Diego (UCSD). 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• A new station that would serve the businesses in and around Sorrento Valley and 

the University; 

• Increase in traffic impacts due to the new station; and 

• Relieve traffic congestion at the Solana Beach and downtown San Diego 

stations. 
3.1-17

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Interstate 5 Tunnel

This option would bypass the existing curves through Sorrento Valley and Miramar by 

tunneling beneath the right-of-way of Interstate 5. This option would deviate from the 

existing right-of-way near the Sorrento Valley Coaster station and exit into a covered 

trench at the western edge of Rose Canyon. 

The benefits and impacts associated with this option include: 

• No additional station would be added, potentially increasing the traffic impacts at 

both the Solana Beach and downtown San Diego stations. 

3.1.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Currently, regional planning agencies and the counties and cities in the region have 

considerable flexibility to deal with identified traffic, transit, and parking impacts. The 

Department could participate in developing potential construction and operational mitigation 

measures in consultation with state, federal, regional and local governments and affected transit 

agencies during project level reviews 

Potential mitigation measures could be developed to improve the flow of intercity travel on the 

primary routes and access to the stations. These improvements would be based on the 

forecast capacity deficiencies identified for the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternative 

and could possibly employ some of the following approaches. 

• Transportation System Management (TSM)/Signal Optimization (including retiming, 

rephrasing, and signal optimization); other measures may include turn prohibitions, use 

of one-way streets, and traffic diversion to alternate routes. 

• Local spot widening of curves that allows for geometric improvements without significant 

right-of-way acquisition. 

• Major intersection improvements (full lane widening), which require significant right-ofway acquisition to accommodate additional left-turn and/or through lanes. 

V/C ratios on the major intercity routes identified in the system screenline analysis show the 

desirability of more capacity on several freeway segments under all alternatives. When 

considering measures for traffic mitigation, the increase in automobile congestion and lowered 

vehicle flows that would be caused by the Rail Improvements Alternative would be studied at 

the project level analysis in the context of providing an improved transportation system and 

would consider total passenger flow versus vehicle flow in the study area if the Rail 

Improvements Alternative is selected. 

Project level environmental review would include consultation and coordination with public 

transit services in order to encourage the provision of adequate bus feeder routes to serve 

proposed station areas which could mitigate potential transit impacts. 

3.1.6 Subsequent Analysis 

If the Rail Improvements Alternative is selected, subsequent multimodal access and circulation 

studies could be appropriate at all station areas as plans for alignments, stations, and 

operations are refined. Additional environmental analysis would be required in conjunction with 

these studies to ascertain the exact locations of potential project-generated traffic impacts and 

potential parking demand impacts. Station area circulation studies would be expected as part of 

project-level environmental documentation. 
3.1-18

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, 

traditional cultural properties, and historic structures. Paleontological resources refer to 

resources in the fossil record, such as prehistoric remains and other evidence of past life. This 

section discusses the applicable federal and state laws and regulations that protect cultural and 

paleontological resources, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

California Public Resources Code Sections 5024.1 and 21084.1, and assesses the potential for 

the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative to have impacts on these resources. 

3.10.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE REGARDING SIGNIFICANCE OF 

IMPACTS 

Cultural Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) established a 

national program to preserve the country’s historical and cultural resources. Section 106 

of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic 

properties and provide the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment on a proposed action before it is implemented. Guidelines for 

implementing the Section 106 process are provided in 36 C.F.R. Part 800. Under both 

state and federal guidelines for cultural resources, impacts are considered potentially 

significant if the resource being impacted has been determined historically significant or 

potentially significant. Under state law, projects that would cause a substantial adverse 

change in the historical significance of a historical resource are considered projects that 

may have a significant effect on the environment for CEQA purposes. 

Under federal regulations implementing NHPA Section 106 (36 C.F.R. § 800.4), 

significant cultural resources are those that are eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP eligibility criteria (36 C.F.R. § 60.4) state that the 

quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance 

that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

association, and that meet the following criteria. 

• The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution 

to the broad patterns of our history. 

• The resource is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. 

• The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic 

values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction. 

• The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to 

prehistory or history. 

• The resource is over 50 years old, unless it is exceptionally important. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Under CEQA, significant cultural resources are called historical resources whether they 

are of historic or prehistoric age. Historical resources are resources that are listed or 

eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or that are 

listed in the historical register of a local jurisdiction (county or city). Sites in California 

that are listed in the NRHP are also listed in the CRHR (P.R.C. § 5024.1). Generally, a 

resource should be considered by a lead agency to be historically significant if the 

resource has integrity and meets one of the following criteria for CRHR listing (CEQA 

Guidelines § 15064.5[a][3]). 

• The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution 

to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage and/or with the 

lives of persons important in California’s past. 

• The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or 

method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; 

or possesses high artistic values. 

• The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in 

prehistory or history. 

The NRHP and CRHR criteria are almost identical. Any resource determined eligible for 

the NRHP is also automatically eligible for the CRHR. However, the treatment of 

historical resources under CEQA and in the CRHR is more inclusive in that resources 

listed in local historical registers may be included. 

Impacts on NRHP-eligible resources are adverse when “an undertaking may alter, 

directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association” 

(36 C.F.R. § 800.5[1]). Examples of adverse effects include physical destruction or 

damage to all or part of the property; alteration that is not consistent with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties; removal of the property 

from its historic location; change in the type of use or of the physical characteristics of 

the setting; introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the 

integrity of the property’s significant historic features; and neglect resulting in 

deterioration (36 C.F.R. § 800.5[2]). Historic properties include prehistoric archaeological 

sites. Archaeological sites are usually adversely affected only by physical destruction or 

damage, whereas all of the examples above can apply to historic buildings and 

structures. 

Impacts on CRHR-listed and -eligible resources and resources listed in local historical 

registers constitute a significant effect on the environment (significant impacts that must 

be disclosed in a CEQA environmental document) if the project may cause a substantial 

adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (P.R.C. § 21084.1). 

Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource refers to “physical 

demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate 

surroundings such that [its] significance ... would be materially impaired” (CEQA 

Guidelines § 15064.5[b][1]). Material impairment means demolition of the resource, or 

alteration of the physical characteristics that make the resource eligible for listing such 

that it would no longer be eligible for the CRHR or a local historical register (CEQA 

Guidelines § 15064.5[b][2]). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Paleontological Resources

The following United States statutes incorporate provisions for the protection of 

paleontological resources. 

• Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.): Establishes national 

monuments and reservation of lands that have historic landmarks, historic and 

prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on federal 

lands. Section 433 prohibits appropriation, excavation, injury, or destruction of 

any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on federal 

land. 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 4321–4327): Mandates policies to “preserve important historic, cultural and 

natural aspects of our national heritage” (§ 101.b4). 

In California, fossil resources are considered a limited, nonrenewable, highly sensitive 

scientific resource. The following state statutes incorporate provisions for the protection 

of paleontological resources. 

• California Environmental Quality Act (P.R.C. § 21000 et seq.): Requires public 

agencies and private interests to identify the potential adverse impacts and/or 

environmental consequences of their proposed project(s) to any object or site 

that is historically or archaeologically significant or significant in the cultural or 

scientific annals of California (P.R.C. § 5020.1). Under CEQA, archaeological 

resources are presumed nonunique unless they meet the definition of “unique 

archaeological resources” (P.R.C. § 21083.2[g]). Under CEQA, an impact on a 

nonunique archaeological resource is not considered a significant environmental 

impact. An EIR need not discuss nonunique archaeological resources. 

• CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 15064.5 [a][3]): Provides that a lead agency may 

find that “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” 

is historically significant or significant in the “cultural annals of California.” The 

section also provides that, generally, a resource may be considered historically 

significant if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in 

prehistory. Paleontological resources fall within this broad category and are 

included in the CEQA checklist under Cultural Resources. 

• Public Resources Code Section 5097.5: Prohibits excavation or removal of any 

“vertebrate paleontological site ... or any other archaeological, paleontological or 

historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of 

the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands include lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of the State of California or any city, county, 

district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. This section 

provides that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of paleontologic, 

archaeologic, and/or historic materials or sites located on public lands, which 

violates the section, is a misdemeanor. 

• Public Resources Code Section 30244: Requires reasonable mitigation of 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources resulting from development on 

public land in the Coastal Zone, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 

30103. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Archaeological Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties

In connection with the statewide High-Speed Rail Program EIR/EIS (as described in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives), the FRA and the California High-Speed Rail Authority initiated 

consultation1 with the Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) under Section 106 of the 

NHPA in November 2002 with a letter (Appendix 3.10-A) that proposed a phased 

identification effort for historic properties, as provided for in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.4 

(b)(2), and requested the SHPO to designate an appropriate area of potential effect 

(APE) for the records search and analysis for this Program EIR/EIS. The SHPO was 

also consulted about the method of evaluation for this Program EIR/EIS. The FRA and 

the Authority also initiated consultation2 with the Native American Heritage Commission 

for a search of their Sacred Lands file and lists of Native American contacts, as required 

by 36 C.F.R. Section 800.4(a)(4). The contacts were sent letters providing information 

about the proposed project alternatives and requesting information about any traditional 

cultural properties that could be affected by the project (36 C.F.R. § 800.4[a][4]). 

In addition, information from records searches was obtained from the appropriate 

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Centers. The 

records searches identified the general locations of archaeological sites in the APE. The 

number of archaeological sites within the APE for each alignment option was tabulated 

and used as an indicator of potential sensitivity for the comparison of the relative degree 

of potential impacts or effects for each alignment. For this program-level analysis, 

individual archaeological sites were not evaluated for eligibility. Instead, the 

archaeological sites identified as a result of the records searches were considered 

potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP, and the number of 

archaeological sites per linear mile identified in the APE was used as one indicator of the 

relative degree of potential impacts on cultural resources from construction or operation 

of the Rail Improvements Alternative. Impacts to NRHP-eligible archaeological resources 

include physical destruction or damage. The total number of archaeological sites in the 

APE for the corridor was divided by the total length of the corridor being evaluated to 

arrive at an average number of sites (or proportion of sites) per mile. 

The cultural resource specialist’s knowledge and background of regional prehistory 

supplemented the records search results. For example, if the cultural resource specialist 

has previous experience that numerous sites have been identified along a particular river 

drainage in the region, but the records search did not yield formally recorded sites in 

CHRIS within the APE for a particular alignment option, the cultural resource specialist 

documented the additional information and, based on it, increased the rating for that 

corridor. The proposed type of construction was also taken into account, based on 

relative differences in surface or near-surface disturbance. For alignment options that 

include tunneling, it is likely that the tunneled portions would avoid most impacts to 

cultural resources due to the depth of the tunneling. At-grade options would disturb the 

 

1 The initiation of consultation with the SHPO was done in the context of the statewide high-speed rail program described in 

Chapter 2. The designation of an APE for the project applied to the LOSSAN region as well as the other regions involved in the

statewide study. A separate consultation process would be completed by the Department for the project-level assessment stage. 

2 The consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission was also undertaken in the context of the statewide high-speed 

rail program, and was utilized in development of this LOSSAN Rail Improvements Program EIR/EIS. Continued consultation would 

be undertaken by the Department during the project-level assessment stage. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

ground surface, and trenching would be more likely than at-grade work to disturb subsurface cultural resources. 

Traditional cultural properties were assessed on a presence/absence basis using record 

searches of CHRIS repositories for each alignment option. Because no traditional 

cultural properties were identified in the APE of any of the alignment options, these 

resources did not affect rankings of alignments in this program-level assessment. 

Historic Structures

Structures from the historic period consist of houses, outbuildings, stores, offices, 

factories, barns, corrals, mines, dams, bridges, roads, and other facilities that served 

residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, transportation, and other functions during 

the historic period (more than 50 years ago). Specific structures from the historic period 

were not identified for this program-level analysis. Instead, the percentage, based on 

linear miles, of each alignment option that passed through areas that originally 

developed in specific, predefined historical time periods (before 1900, 1900 to 1929, and 

1930 to 1958) was determined from historical maps, aerial photographs, and local 

planning documents of the history of the region. The percentages were used as 

indicators, along with known National Register Historic Districts and listed eligible 

properties, of the potential for a alignment to impact potentially eligible structures from 

the historical time periods 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources determined to be significant are fossils or assemblages of 

fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, and diagnostically or stratigraphically 

(layers of the earths surface) important, and/or those that add to an existing body of 

knowledge in specific areas—stratigraphically, taxonomically, and/or regionally. 

Literature research and institutional records searches or geologic maps and geographic 

data from the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley have resulted 

in the designation of areas within the APE as having high, low, or undetermined

paleontologic sensitivity, as follows. 

• High: Sedimentary units with a high potential for containing significant 

nonrenewable paleontological resources. In these cases the sedimentary rock 

unit contains a high density of recorded vertebrate fossil sites, has produced 

vertebrate fossil remains within the study area and/or vicinity, and is very likely to 

yield additional remains within the study area. 

• Low: The rock unit contains no or very low density of recorded resource 

localities, has produced little or no fossil remains within the study area and/or 

vicinity, and is not likely to yield any remains within the study area. 

• Undetermined: The rock unit has had limited exposure(s) in the study area and 

has been little studied, and there are no known recorded paleontological 

resource localities. However, in other areas, the same or a similar rock unit 

contains sufficient paleontological resource localities to suggest that exposures 

to disturbance of the unit within the right-of-way have potential to yield fossil 

remains. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The number of rock units (formations) having high paleontologic sensitivity and the 

number of paleontological resource localities recorded within the study area were 

assessed to provide an accurate interpretation of the overall ranking of high, low, or 

undetermined potential to impact significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. 

This evaluation was reached using both the numbers of formations and localities and 

incorporating professional assessments regarding the significance of recovered 

resources from exposed rock units and the likelihood of these rock units to contain 

additional paleontological resources. 

3.10.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 

The study area for cultural resources is the APE that was defined in consultation with the 

SHPO. At this program level of analysis, information for the APE about the locations of 

archaeological sites was obtained from the Information Centers of the CHRIS, 

administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The CHRIS 

database includes all resources listed in the CRHR; all resources in California listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP; and traditional cultural properties, including some Native 

American traditional cultural sites, identified through consultation with the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation (Section 106 of NHPA), the SHPO (P.R.C. § 5042 

et seq.) or the Native American Heritage Commission. 

Based on consultation with the SHPO, the APE for cultural resources for the proposed 

Rail Improvements Alternative is as follows. 

• 500 ft (152 m) on each side of the centerline of proposed new rail routes where 

additional right-of-way could be needed. 

• 100 ft (30 m) on each side of the centerline for routes along existing highways 

and railroads where very little additional right-of-way would be needed. 

• 100 ft (30 m) feet around station locations. 

The study area for paleontological resources under the Rail Improvements Alternative is 

100 ft (30 m) on each side of the centerline of proposed alignment options (including 

station locations), in both non-urban and urban areas. The study area for paleontological 

resources is limited to the area that would potentially be disturbed by earthwork 

construction activities. 

B. CULTURAL RESOURCE CATEGORIES 

The following topics are covered in this section 

• Prehistoric archaeological sites 

• Historic archaeological sites 

• Traditional cultural properties 

• Historic structures 

• Paleontological resources 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The following paragraphs briefly describe each type of resource. 

Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Prehistoric archaeological sites in California are places where Native Americans lived or 

carried out activities during the prehistoric period before 1769 AD. Prehistoric sites 

contain artifacts and subsistence remains, and they may contain human burials. 

Artifacts are objects made by people and include tools (projectile points, scrapers, and 

grinding implements, for example), waste products from making flaked stone tools 

(debitage), and nonutilitarian artifacts (beads, ornaments, ceremonial items, and rock 

art). Subsistence remains include the inedible portions of foods, such as animal bone 

and shell, and edible parts that were lost and not consumed, such as charred seeds. 

Historic Archaeological Sites

Historic archaeological sites in California are places where human activities were carried 

out during the historic period between 1769 AD and 50 years ago. Some of these sites 

may be the result of Native American activities during the historic period, but most are 

the result of Spanish, Mexican, or Anglo-American activities. Other sites may be the 

result of Asian and African American groups. Most historic archaeological sites are 

places where houses formerly existed and contain ceramic, metal, and glass refuse 

resulting from the transport, preparation, and consumption of food. Such sites can also 

contain house foundations and structural remnants, such as windowpane glass, lumber, 

and nails. Historical archaeological sites can also be nonresidential, resulting from 

ranching, farming, industrial, and other activities. 

Traditional Cultural Properties

Traditional cultural properties are places associated with the cultural practices or beliefs 

of a living community that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Examples include 

locations “associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its 

origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world” and locations “where Native 

American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go 

today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of 

practice” (Parker and King 1990). Traditional cultural properties are identified by 

consulting with Native American groups that have a history of using an area, as well as 

the Native American Heritage Commission, the Sacred Lands File, and tribal 

representatives. 

Historic Structures

Historic structures consist of houses, outbuildings, stores, offices, factories, barns, 

corrals, mines, dams, bridges, roads, and other facilities that served residential, 

commercial, industrial, agricultural, transportation, and other functions during historic 

periods (more than 50 years ago). The historic periods correspond to the principal 

architectural styles seen in California: before 1900 (pre-Victorian and Victorian), 1900 to 

1929 (Craftsman/bungalow), and 1930 to 1958 (commercial modern and residential 

ranch style). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of animals and plants. They are 

typically found in sedimentary rock units, and they provide information about the 

evolution of life on earth over the past 500 million years or more. 

Cultural Landscapes

Cultural Landscapes include (and are not mutually exclusive of) historic sites, historic 

designated landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. 

Cultural Landscapes are not specifically evaluated in this Program-level document, but 

are considered a resource that could be potentially affected by the proposed Rail 

Improvements, and would be considered in the site-specific evaluations at the project 

level. 

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 

The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) information centers 

were a primary source of data for the identification of historic properties and 

archaeological resources in the cultural resources study area. 

Archaeological Resources

As described above, information on the numbers, kinds, and locations of archaeological 

sites for this Program EIR/EIS was obtained from CHRIS. For the most part, the data 

from the CHRIS provide archaeological site information only for areas that have been 

previously surveyed by archaeologists. No archaeological field surveys were conducted 

for this Program EIR/EIS. However, surveys would be a part of the next stage of 

environmental review in the project-level evaluation (see Section 3.10.5). 

The LOSSAN region includes the a portion of the Los Angeles basin and the coastal 

areas of southern California between Orange County and San Diego, generally following 

the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. The Milling Stone Period along the southern California 

coast (about 5000 BC to 1000 BC or from 7,000 to 3,000 years ago) was characterized 

by smaller, more mobile groups compared to later periods. The period from 1000 BC to 

AD 750 (3,000 years ago to 1,350 years ago) is known archaeologically as the 

Intermediate Period. More specifically, in the Los Angeles Basin, perhaps the earliest 

evidence of human occupation was recovered from the tar pits of Rancho La Brea. In 

1914, the partial skeleton of a young woman was discovered in association with a mano. 

In the 1970s, a collagen sample from the skeleton was dated at circa 9,000 years old. In 

addition, projectile points similar to those found in the desert dating from 10,000 to 7,000 

years ago, as well as crescent-shaped flaked tools, called crescentics, have been 

recovered from bluffs near Ballona Lagoon. The presence of these point types along the 

coast suggests connections between what is now the Los Angeles area and the cultures 

of the southeastern California desert regions during this early period. 

The cultural elements of Orange County reflect both unique cultural traits and a mixture 

of regional influences. The Paleo-Coastal Period is best seen in Orange County at a site 

located on the Pacific Coast where dates show evidence of habitation by 8,000 years 

ago. During the Milling Stone Period, coastal lagoons supported large populations; local 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

variations have been grouped as the La Jolla Complex3 and the Encinitas Tradition. The 

Encinitas Tradition reflects coastal adaptations and is seen from San Diego to Santa 

Barbara. Environmental conditions between 2000 and 1000 BC (the Intermediate 

Period) forced a shift of habitation locations away from the coast with more emphasis on 

bays and inland areas, as is also evidenced in San Diego County. Late Period sites, 

from 1,350 years ago, reflect an increase in population density and a shift to more 

sedentary habitation. In coastal Orange County, the Irvine Complex reflects a coastally 

oriented adaptation; the San Luis Rey Complex reflects an inland-oriented lifeway. 

The prehistory of coastal San Diego County begins with the San Dieguito Complex. The 

San Dieguito Complex was originally thought to represent big game hunters who moved 

to the San Diego County coastal area from the Great Basin during Early Holocene time 

(8,000 to 10,000 years before present (BP) or 10,000–5,000 BC). This movement 

occurred when warmer, drier conditions resulted in desiccation of the pluvial lakes in the 

Great Basin. Although it was thought that big game hunting continued after these people 

arrived on the coast during Early Holocene time, more recent investigations at Early 

Holocene sites closer to the coast has shown that a wide range of plant foods, along 

with small and medium-sized terrestrial mammals, fish, and shellfish, were being 

exploited in these sites. Population size was likely low, with relatively little competition 

for resources. Therefore, small groups probably moved throughout the coastal area and 

the area inland of the coastal hills and mountains to wherever the best resources were 

available at the time. 

Archaeological sites occupied between 3,000 and 8,000 years ago on the San Diego 

County coast belong to the La Jolla Complex. Most La Jolla Complex sites are located 

around the coastal lagoons, which began filling with seawater at the beginning of this 

period because of a rise in the sea level, as the ice caps melted at the end of the last ice 

age. Most sites around lagoons on the San Diego County coast were abandoned about 

3,000 years ago. However, sites around Peñasquitos Lagoon and San Diego Bay 

continued to be occupied because these two southern bay/estuary systems did not fill 

with sediment. Still, in general, there are few sites in the coastal region that date to the 

period between 1,300 and 3,000 BP. Little is known about settlement and subsistence 

during this period of San Diego County prehistory. 

Prehistoric archaeological sites types commonly found along the rail improvement 

alignment options in the LOSSAN region include lithic scatters4, milling stations5, shell 

middens6 and quarries7. Less common are habitation or village sites, which can include 

midden, rock features and in some cases human burials. 

The Late Period (200 to 1,300 BP in this area) is characterized by a more sedentary 

settlement system and a more intensive use of available resources. The large villages, 

 

3 Complex refers to a group or association of artifacts and subsistence remains that are characteristic of a specific period of time 

and geographic area. 

4 Lithic scatter refers to a site containing general utility implements such as projectile points, bifaces, expedient flake tools, and 

debitage. 

5 Milling station is a location with bedrock mortars or milling slicks, used to process floral, and perhaps faunal, resources. 

6 Midden refers to a mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of a human 

settlement. 

7 A quarry is a source of geologic material, such as obsidian, quartzite, chert, or basalt, used by Native Americans for manufacture, 

as well as debitage or other debris from this manufacture. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

occupied almost year-round, that were observed by the Spanish in 1769 AD developed 

during this period. 

The LOSSAN region traverses the territories of several Native American tribes. The Los 

Angeles Basin was part of territory occupied by the Tongva Native American groups 

(renamed Gabrielinos by early explorers, missionaries, and settlers) when the Spanish 

arrived in AD 1769. Tongva settlement and subsistence systems may extend back in 

time to the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period about AD 750. The Juaneño, usually 

considered a sub-tribe of the Gabrielino, occupied a territory immediately to the south of 

the Gabrielino proper, and shared many of the same social and religious structures. The 

Luiseño, like the Gabrielino, were a Shoshonean people. Luiseño tribal territory is 

located to the south of the Gabrielino, extending from the ocean, skirting around the 

Juaneño territory, north to Santiago Peak and south to Palomar Mountain. San Diego 

County is the traditional territory occupied by the Kumeyaay or Diegueño people. This 

Native American tribe is a Yuman-speaking group of the Hokan stock. 

Historic Structures 

Originally California was a Spanish colony. Spanish settlement began in 1769 with the 

Portola Expedition. As a result of this expedition, 21 missions and several presidios 

(forts) and towns were established near the coast between San Diego and Sonoma. 

One of the missions, San Juan Capistrano, is located near the rail improvement 

alignment options through San Juan Capistrano. (See Chapter 2, Alternatives, for maps 

of the alignment options.) 

During their occupation of the area, the Spanish made a few land grants to retired 

soldiers. In addition, after Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, the Mexican 

government dissolved the mission system in 1834 and began granting the former 

mission lands to Mexican citizens and others for use as cattle ranches. Many of the 

grantees built adobe houses on their land grants, some of which survive today. The few 

towns and presidios founded by the Spanish, including Los Angeles (town) and San 

Diego (presidio), continued to grow slowly. As a result of the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, California became part of the United States in 1848. 

Southern California remained largely a cattle ranching area until the arrival of the 

Southern Pacific Railroad from San Francisco via the San Joaquin Valley in 1876, and 

from Yuma, Arizona, and points east in 1878. The number of immigrants to southern 

California dramatically increased in the late 1880s because of cheap railroad fares that 

resulted from a rate war between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Atchison, 

Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad. The AT&SF Railroad arrived in southern 

California in 1886 and extended to Richmond in the Bay Area in 1900. One result of the 

immigration of large numbers of people to California in the 1880s was the development 

of new towns along the railroad routes and the construction of houses in the Victorian 

style in these towns and in the previously established urban centers, including Los 

Angeles. 

Continued urban expansion in conjunction with the first widespread use of automobiles 

resulted in construction of numerous houses in the Craftsman bungalow style farther 

from the original urban cores during the 1910s and 1920s. The Spanish Colonial 

Revival style also became popular in the 1920s and continued into the 1930s. Use of 

automobiles led to linear commercial strips along arterials and shopping centers at major 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

intersections. These buildings, as well as office buildings, were often built in zigzag 

moderne (art deco) and streamline moderne styles in the 1930s and 1940s. Residences 

were built in ranch style with an open plan (combined living and dining rooms) beginning 

in the 1940s. In the 1950s, suburbs expanded with the advent of builders’ tract homes, 

mostly in ranch style, where a limited number of plans were standardized and repeated 

throughout the tract. 

Historic structures in the LOSSAN region are primarily 20th-century (1900 to 1929 and 

1930 to 1958) residential, commercial, and industrial structures located within cities. 

Large tracts of residential houses are most common, with industrial and commercial 

structures largely confined to existing railroad rights-of-way in the Los Angeles and 

San Diego areas. However, many of the medium-sized cities of the region, such as 

Anaheim, Fullerton, and San Clemente, began as small towns in the late 19th or early 

20th century. The historic core areas of cities in this region commonly preserve some 

buildings from this time period. 

Structures dating to the period before 1900 are rare. As in other parts of southern 

California, structures from this time period were sparse in much of this region and were 

built in perishable vernacular (wood frame) styles. However, there are notable 

exceptions, especially the Spanish and Mexican Period development in downtown San 

Juan Capistrano (1769 to 1848) around Mission San Juan Capistrano (founded in 1776) 

and the Hispanic to American Transition Period (1848 to 1870) development along the 

waterfront of San Diego, and Old Town San Diego. In the largest cities of the region, 

Los Angeles and San Diego, large sections of houses and commercial structures built 

before 1900 have been replaced by subsequent development. 

Paleontological Resources 

California’s rich geologic record and complex geologic history has resulted in exposure 

of many rock units with high paleontologic sensitivity at the surface. The fossil record in 

California is exceptionally prolific; abundant fossils representing a diverse range of 

organisms have been recovered from rocks as old as 1 billion years to as recent as 

11,000 years. These fossils have provided key data for charting the course of the 

evolution and extinction of various types of life on the planet, both locally and globally, as 

well as for determining paleoenvironmental conditions, sequences and timing of 

sedimentary deposition, and other details of geologic history. 

Formations in the LOSSAN region with the potential to yield fossils are summarized 

below. More detailed information is provided in the LOSSAN technical report for 

paleontological resources. 

• The Ardath Shale and Scripps Formation along the rail segments from Highway 

52 to San Diego, with shark, ray, bony fish, marine microorganism and 

macroinvertebrate, rhinoceros, artiodactyl, brontothere, uintathere, crocodile, 

turtle, as well as wood fossils. 

• The Delmar Formation in Del Mar and between the I-5/805 Spilt and Highway 52, 

with estuarine vertebrate and invertebrate, aquatic reptile, and rhinoceros fossils. 

• The Torrey Sandstone from Encinitas to Solana Beach and Del Mar, with plant 

and marine invertebrate fossils. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• The San Mateo Formation at Camp Pendleton, with horse, camel, peccary, 

llama, sea cow, fur seal, walrus, sea otter, sea bird, whale, dolphin, shark, ray, 

bony fish, and marine invertebrate fossils. 

• The Capistrano Formation from Irvine to San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, San 

Clemente, Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, and Carlsbad, with whale, walrus, sea 

cow, fur seal, sea bird, shark, ray, bony fish, and kelp fossils. 

• The Niguel Formation from Irvine to San Juan Capistrano, with marine mollusk 

and marine vertebrate fossils. 

• The San Diego Formation along Highway 52 to San Diego, with shark, ray, bony 

fish, marine invertebrate, sea bird, walrus, fur seal, cow, whale, dolphin, 

terrestrial mammal, wood, and leaf fossils. 

• The Lindavista Formation along I-5/I-805, with marine invertebrate, shark, and 

whale fossils. 

• The Bay Point Formation along Highway 52 to San Diego, with shark, ray, bony 

fish, and mollusk fossils. 

• Unnamed marine terrace deposits from Camp Pendleton through Encinitas and 

Solana Beach to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego, with marine invertebrate, 

shark, ray, bony fish, and terrestrial mammal fossils. 

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative is composed of transportation projects other than the 

proposed Rail Improvements that are projected to be completed between the time of this 

EIR/EIS and 2020, including local, state, and interstate transportation system 

improvements designated in existing plans and programs. No additional impacts on 

cultural resources would occur under No-Project beyond those addressed in 

environmental documents for those projects. 

Because it was not realistically feasible for this Program EIR/EIS to identify or quantify 

all the impacts on or mitigation activities for cultural resources associated with all of the 

projects considered as part of the No-Project Alternative, the existing condition was used 

to represent the No-Project conditions. It is possible that other transportation projects 

(not including the Rail Improvements Alternative) may impact some existing cultural 

resources by 2020, and that these changes to the baseline would be described and 

quantified in subsequent environmental analysis and reflected in future database 

information. This Program EIR/EIS addresses the potential effect on cultural resources 

as they exist at present and uses this information to compare the potential for impacts 

from the alignment options of the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would potentially impact archaeological resources 

and historic structures as a result of construction including grading, cutting, tunneling, 

and erecting pylons for elevated track, as well as station construction or expansion. 

Overall, the Rail Improvements Alternative is ranked as high in terms of the presence of 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

archaeological resources, historic structures, and paleontological resources that could 

potentially be impacted. This Alternative’s potential impact on historic structures is 

evaluated as higher than the No-Project Alternative because the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would use or be adjacent to the existing LOSSAN rail corridor which was 

developed during historic periods and tends to be surrounded by historic structures. 

Cumulative impacts are possible because the combined impacts from the Rail 

Improvements Alternative, projects anticipated or planned for under No-Project, and 

other residential and commercial development projects in the study area can be 

expected to be greater than from the Rail Improvements Alternative alone. 

Potential impacts to historic properties during operation of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would be related to noise or visual impacts, discussed in Sections 3.4 and 

3.7, respectively, of this EIR/EIS, although increases in these types of impacts over 

existing levels are limited by the long history of rail noise and visual presence in the 

LOSSAN corridor. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would have greater potential impacts on cultural 

resources than the No-Project Alternative. Although many of the potential impacts could 

be avoided or minimized through design refinements or alignment, it is not always 

feasible to avoid impacts to cultural resources, and mitigation measures need to be 

identified and evaluated to address these situations for specific projects. 

Table 3.10-1 summarizes the comparison of potential impacts on cultural and 

paleontological resources for each of the alignment options. Archaeological sites are 

depicted on Table 3.10-1 as an average number of sites per mile, derived by dividing the 

number of known sites within each alignment option in a rail segment by the linear miles 

in that segment. This was done in order to provide a common basis of comparison 

among alignment options regardless of the differences in alignment or rail segment 

lengths. 

The table depicts average numbers of archaeological sites and relative ratings for 

potential impacts on historic and paleontological resources from each alignment option 

without evaluating the potential significance of adverse effects at this programmatic level 

of review. This information is based on available data and CHRIS records information, 

not on field studies. The table does not show any traditional cultural properties because 

none have been identified to date within the APE by the Native American Heritage 

Commission or any Native American tribe. 

Depending on the alignment option, the number of known archaeological sites that could 

be affected by the Rail Improvements Alternative ranges from 100 to 118 sites. The 

average number of known archaeological sites per alignment mile varies from a low of 

0.22 sites per mile, along the Camino del Mar tunnel option in Del Mar, to a high of 2.62 

sites per mile in the Camp Pendleton rail segment. The average number of sites per 

mile does not provide clear differentiation between alignment options except in the San 

Juan Capistrano and Del Mar rail segments. However, in both of these segments, the 

option with the higher number of known sites per mile is a tunnel option, so most 

archaeological resources would be avoided due to the depth of the tunnel. Trenching 

would have the highest potential for impact to subsurface sites compared to either atgrade or deep-tunnel construction. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.10-1 

Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Rail Improvement 

Alignment Option 

Known 

Archaeological 

Sites 

Per Mile 

Potential 

for 

Historic 

Structures

(H, M, L) 

Percent of 

Alignment 

Developed 

during 

Historic 

Periods (prior 

to 1958) 

Paleontological 

Sensitivity 

Rating 

(H, M, L) 

Union Station To Fullerton 

Station – 4th Main Track 0.29 High 79% Low 

Fullerton Station To Irvine 

Station--Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between Orange 

and Santa Ana 0.75 High 96% High 

TRENCH between Orange and 

Santa Ana 0.75 High 96% High 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 Low High 

Anaheim 0 Low High 

Santa Ana 0 Medium High 

Irvine 0 Low High 

San Juan Capistrano Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 between 

Hwy 73 and Avenida 

Aeropuerto 

1.6 Low 37% High 

AT-GRADE and Cut/Cover 

TRENCH along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

0.28 High 37% High 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 0 High High 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve Realignment; 

San Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL 

0.40 Low 38% High 

San Clemente - LONG TWOSEGMENT TUNNEL 0.49 Low 38% High 

Stations 

San Clemente 0 Medium High 

CAMP PENDLETON 

At-grade Double Tracking 2.62 High 6% High 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.10-1 

Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

(continued) 

Rail Improvement 

Alignment Option 

Known 

Archaeological 

Sites 

Per Mile 

Potential 

for 

Historic 

Structures

(H, M, L) 

Percent of 

Alignment 

Developed 

during 

Historic 

Periods (prior 

to 1958) 

Paleontological 

Sensitivity 

Rating 

(H, M, L) 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; double 

tracking 0.61 Medium 71% High 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; doubletracking 0.61 Medium 71% High 

Stations 

Oceanside 0 Medium High 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE 0.57 High 65% High 

Encinitas - SHORT TRENCH 0.57 High 65% High 

Stations 

Solana Beach 0 Medium High 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar 0.22 Medium 31% High 

TUNNEL along I-5 0.86 Low 31% High 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL 0.75 Low 27% High 

I-5 TUNNEL 0.75 Low 27% High 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to Miramar 

Hill Tunnel) 

0 Low High 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe Depot 

Curve realignment and 

Double Tracking

1.17 High 38% High 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 0 High High 

The percentage of the study area that developed during historic periods is one indication 

of the potential for historic structures along each of the alignment options. Historic 

development along the alignment options varies from a high of 96 percent in the 

Fullerton to Irvine segment, to a low of about 6 percent in the Camp Pendleton segment 

where there is very little development along the rail corridor. However, nearly all at-
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

grade or trench alignment options have a medium to high potential for historic structures. 

This is due largely to the urbanized nature of the study area, and the historical 

development of new towns around the railroad. Tunnel segments of the proposed 

improvements would avoid most potential impacts to historic structures. 

Paleontological sensitivity is rated as high for all rail segments south of Fullerton, and for 

all existing and proposed station sites south of Irvine Station. The potential for impacts 

to paleontological resources is approximately the same for all alignment options, 

although the below-grade (trench or tunnel) options have a greater potential for impacts 

than at-grade options. Therefore, paleontological resources do not provide a basis for 

differentiating between alignment options. 

The following sections briefly describe potential cultural resource impacts along the 

alignment options, based on available information (not on field studies). At this level of 

analysis, the extent and types of potential impacts to actual structures and sites are not 

known, nor is it known whether any such impacts would meet criteria for significance 

under NEPA/NHPA and CEQA. 

Union Station to Fullerton Station 

Six archaeological sites are recorded within the APE for this segment. In this urban 

environment, and considering the proximity of the segment to the Rio Hondo and Los 

Angeles River and the possibility of buried sites, there is an unknown, but possibly high, 

potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. 

This segment passes largely through a built environment, with structures primarily dating 

from the 1930 to 1958 period, but a significant number of structures dating to 1900-1929 

or earlier are also present. This indicates there is a high potential to encounter 

previously unrecorded historic-era structures along this alignment. Proposed 

improvements would be built within the existing rail corridor, reducing potential for 

impacts to structures. 

Fullerton Station to Irvine Station

Both the at-grade and trench alignment options would be within the LOSSAN rail corridor 

in this segment. Fifteen archaeological sites are recorded for this APE, all but one of 

which are at historic-era houses. The one prehistoric site is noted as being “buried.” 

This segment passes through a largely built environment, with structures primarily dating 

from the 1930 to 1958 period, but with a significant number of structures dating to 1900–

1930 also present. This indicates there is a high potential to encounter previously 

unrecorded historic-era structures along this alignment. Within this built environment, 

considering the limitations of surface survey due to urban development and the proximity 

of the San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers, as well as the record of one “buried site,” the 

potential for unknown prehistoric and historic archaeological sites along this section is 

high for both the at-grade and trench option. 

The trench option has a slightly higher potential than the at-grade option to encounter 

previously unknown prehistoric and historical archaeological sites. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

San Juan Capistrano

The APE for the I-5 tunnel option encompasses eight archaeological sites. This tunnel 

option would be deeply underground for most of its length, and would cross relatively 

new neighborhoods in San Juan Capistrano and avoid the older portions of the city 

where it would be at-grade or transitioning to/from the tunnel. Therefore, it has a low 

potential to encounter previously unrecorded historical structures. However, the entire 

APE is highly sensitive for prehistoric, proto-historic (European contact period), and 

historical sites, so non-tunnel sections and construction at portal areas would have a 

moderate to high potential to expose previously unknown archaeological sites. Tunneling 

would avoid most or all potential impacts to these resources. 

The APE for the at-grade/trench option along the east side of Trabuco Creek 

encompasses two archaeological sites, both of which are prehistoric habitation locations, 

and one of which may have already been destroyed. This segment runs south along 

creek terraces on the edges of Trabuco Creek, and crosses San Juan Creek before 

rejoining the existing LOSSAN right-of-way. These streamside locations are sensitive 

for buried cultural deposits, and the potential for prehistoric sites along this segment is 

high. Since this alignment passes through relatively old neighborhoods in San Juan 

Capistrano, this option has a medium to high potential to encounter previously 

unrecorded historical structures. This entire area is highly sensitive for prehistoric, protohistoric (European contact period), and historical sites, so at-grade and trenched 

construction would have a high potential to expose previously unknown archaeological 

sites. 

Dana Point/San Clemente

The APE for the short tunnel option from Dana Point through San Clemente 

encompasses nine archaeological sites. Two of the sites within the APE are prehistoric 

village sites known to have burials. Because these sites are already known within the 

APE, and due to the proximity of the alignment to the Pacific Ocean and the mouths of 

San Onofre and San Mateo canyons, the non-tunnel sections of this alignment (including 

the at-grade Dana Point curve realignment) have a high potential to encompass 

previously unknown prehistoric sites. 

Because the non-tunnel sections of this option pass across relatively new 

neighborhoods in Dana Point and San Clemente and avoids the older portions of San 

Clemente, this option has a low potential to encounter previously unrecorded historical 

structures. 

The long two-segment tunnel option from Dana Point through San Clemente runs inland 

and proceeds along the I-5 corridor, surfacing at San Onofre State Beach. This option 

would not require the at-grade Dana Point Curve realignment. There are 11 known 

archaeological sites in this APE, two of which are prehistoric village sites known to have 

burials (the same two sites as noted for the short tunnel option above). There is a high 

potential to encompass previously unknown prehistoric sites within the APE but the 

majority of the segment would be in deep tunnels and would avoid most potential 

impacts. 

Non-tunnel portions of this option would cross relatively new neighborhoods in Dana 

Point and San Clemente and, therefore, has a low potential to encounter previously 

unrecorded historical structures. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Camp Pendleton

In the Camp Pendleton rail segment, 41 archaeological sites are recorded within the 

APE, for an average of 2.62 sites per mile. Of these, 17 are historical, and 24 are 

prehistoric. The abundance of prehistoric sites within the APE is due to its proximity to 

the Pacific coast, various side canyons and lagoons, and the Santa Margarita and San 

Luis Rey rivers. In addition, Native American burials are known to have been recovered 

in the area. Due to the high number of sites already recorded and the proximity of the 

corridor to this rich coastal zone, the potential for unknown prehistoric sites is high in the 

APE. 

Historic-era structures are few in this segment, but there are potentially historic 

structures in proximity to and associated with Old Highway 101, Camp Pendleton Marine 

Corps Base, and the ATSF (LOSSAN) railroad. One known historic site within the APE 

is Las Flores Estancia, listed on the California Inventory of Historic Resources. The 

potential for historical structures and historical sites is high in this section of the APE. 

In this rail segment, the proposed double tracking would be at-grade within the LOSSAN 

rail right-of-way. Confining construction to the right-of-way would reduce the potential for 

high impacts to cultural resources in this segment. 

Oceanside To Carlsbad

The at-grade and the trench options in this segment would have the same alignment 

within the existing LOSSAN corridor. Six prehistoric archaeological sites are recorded 

within the APE. The proximity of this rail segment to the coastal environment, the 

limitations of surface survey due to development, and the presence of known prehistoric 

sites all indicate that there is a high potential for unknown prehistoric sites in this APE. 

Historic development began in these coastal towns before 1900, but occurred primarily 

in the years between 1930 and 1958. Several buildings in Oceanside are listed as 

historic, and the Carlsbad Santa Fe terminal is listed on the California Inventory of 

Historic Resources. These facts suggest that there is a moderate to high potential for 

previously unrecorded historical structures in the APE for this rail segment. 

The trench option includes approximately one mi (1.6 km) of trenching through 

downtown Carlsbad. Since sub-grade trenching increases the potential to encounter 

unknown archaeological sites, this option would have a somewhat higher potential for 

impacts to prehistoric sites than the at-grade option. 

Encinitas To Solana Beach

The at-grade and short-trench options in this segment would be within the LOSSAN rail 

corridor along the Pacific coast. Four archaeological sites are recorded in the APE. 

Within this built environment, considering the limitations of surface survey due to urban 

development and the proximity of the corridor to the coast, and to coastal rivers and 

lagoons, the potential for unknown archaeological sites along this section is moderate to 

high. 

In general, historic-era structures from 1900 to 1958 are common in this segment. The 

Encinitas Historic District extends across part of the APE in the center of town. These 

factors suggest a moderate to high potential for unrecorded historical structures. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The trench option includes approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of trenching through downtown 

Encinitas. Sub-grade trenching would increase the potential to encounter unknown 

archaeological sites, compared with at-grade construction. 

Del Mar

Two archaeological sites are recorded within the APE for the tunnel option under 

Camino Del Mar. Within this built environment, considering the proximity of the segment 

to the coast and San Dieguito River and Lagoon, and to known sites in the area, there is 

an unknown, but possibly high, potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. 

The presence of many historic-era structures from the years 1900–1929 and 1930– 

1958 suggests that there is a moderate to high potential for previously unrecorded 

historical structures along this alignment. 

The I-5 tunnel option would leave the LOSSAN corridor just north of Del Mar racetrack 

and turn inland, passing along the southern shore of San Dieguito Lagoon. It would then 

proceed in a tunnel under I-5. Eight archaeological sites are recorded within APE for 

this option. Numerous prehistoric sites are known to exist along the shores and bluffs of 

San Dieguito Lagoon. Due to the proximity of this option to the lagoon and coast, there 

is an unknown, but possibly high, potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. 

This segment of the APE was mostly developed during the years 1930 to 1958; 

however, there are few standing structures within the APE. Therefore, this segment has 

a low potential for previously unrecorded historical structures. 

Both options in the Del Mar area would involve deep tunnels which would avoid most 

potential impacts to cultural resources. However, the I-5 tunnel option would require 

new at-grade and aerial rail infrastructure at the south end of the San Dieguito Lagoon, 

so this option would have a higher potential for impacts to unknown archaeological sites 

than the Camino del Mar tunnel option. 

I-5/805 Split To Highway 52

The APE for the Miramar Hill tunnel alignment encompasses seven recorded 

archaeological sites. Given the segment’s proximity to Rose Canyon and the village site 

of Ystaagua, and because of the limitations of surface survey due to urban development 

in this area, the potential for unknown prehistoric sites is moderate to high. 

Historic-era development in this APE is primarily recent, from the 1960s and 1970s. 

Therefore this option has a low potential to encompass unrecorded historical structures. 

The APE for the I-5 tunnel option encompasses three archaeological sites. Due to the 

proximity of the segment to both Rose and Soledad canyons, and access to the coast, 

there is an unknown but possibly high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. This 

alignment option passes through a relatively steep sided canyon with commercial, 

medical and educational facilities on the mesa tops, all built post-1960. This indicates 

that there is a low possibility to find previously unrecorded historical structures. 

Both alignment options in this segment would involve deep tunneling, so most potential 

impacts would be avoided, and there is no discernible difference between the options 

relative to cultural resources. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Highway 52 To Santa Fe Depot

Ten prehistoric and two historic archaeological sites are recorded in the APE for this rail 

segment, where proposed improvements would include at-grade double tracking and 

curve realignment, trenching, and a new bridge structure. At the northern end of this 

segment, the village site of La Rinconda de Jamo, is adjacent to the APE, but is not 

recorded as extending into the APE. However, this prehistoric village could have buried 

components situated within the APE. Nine other prehistoric sites are recorded within 

this segment, indicating that there is a high potential for unknown prehistoric 

archaeological sites in the APE. 

The south end of the rail segment passes near two historic districts, the General 

Dynamics buildings and the U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Depot near Lindbergh Field, 

before terminating at the Santa Fe Depot on the waterfront in downtown San Diego. 

This portion of the APE is located within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) of the historic Gaslamp 

Quarter, Old Town San Diego Historic District, and the Presidio, and is a prime location 

for early historic maritime, transportation, and trade activities, as well as for prehistoric 

habitation. The terminal at Santa Fe depot and the Mission Brewery are listed on the 

California Inventory of Historic Resources. Given that a large amount of historic-era 

development occurred in this area in the period 1769 to 1958, the potential for historic 

structures or structural remains in the proximity to downtown San Diego is high. 

The majority of proposed improvements in this segment would remain in the existing 

LOSSAN rail corridor, so the potential for impacts would be reduced. Improvements at 

the Santa Fe Depot would be minimal and would not substantially alter the existing 

conditions in or around the historic rail station. 

3.10.4 Design Practices 

The lead agencies are committed to avoiding potential impacts to cultural resources through 

careful alignment design and selection. They are also committed to avoiding impacts to Native 

American resources to the extent feasible and practical. 

During project-level evaluations, procedures will be developed for fieldwork, identification, 

evaluation, and determination of potential effects to cultural resources in consultation with 

SHPO and Native American Tribes. On-site monitoring is often incorporated in the fieldwork 

plan when sites are known or suspected of containing Native American human remains. The 

procedures will comply with federal and state statutes concerning burials. 

3.10.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for cultural and historic resources, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would have a 

potentially significant effect on cultural and historic resources. Although the vast majority of 

conceptual alignment options for rail improvements are within or along existing transportation 

corridors or in deep tunnels, which reduces the potential for adverse effects to many resources, 

there is still the potential for adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources. Additional 

avoidance and mitigation strategies will be applied in the project-level analyses; nonetheless, 

some cultural and historic resources will be adversely affected by construction of some or all of 

the proposed rail improvements. At the program level of analysis, it is not possible to know 

precisely the location, extent and particular characteristics of impacts to these resources. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Because of this uncertainty, at this level of analysis the impact is considered significant. 

Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, will be applied to reduce 

these impacts. 

General mitigation strategies are discussed as part of this programmatic evaluation. The 

Department would consult with SHPO to define and describe general procedures to be applied 

in the future for fieldwork, methods of analysis, and potential specific mitigation measures for 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resources in the proposed Rail Improvements corridors. 

Mitigation measures would be required for significant impacts on cultural resources that are 

listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. The mitigation measures 

ultimately selected for this undertaking will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-44740), as well as 

standards and guidelines for historic preservation activities established by the California SHPO. 

At the conclusion of the program level environmental review process, and when potential 

funding sources and timing for further studies can be identified8, the Department and FRA (or 

other lead agencies, if applicable), in consultation with the SHPO, could develop a 

programmatic memorandum of agreement (PMOA) to describe expectations for the next phase 

of fieldwork, eligibility determination, and documentation under Section 106 of NHPA and 

pursuant to CEQA. The PMOA may specify procedures for the identification and evaluation of 

impacts for future projects and the site-specific work that would be required during project-level 

environmental review. 

The potential measures described in this section provide two levels of mitigation and are 

organized by resource type. One level of mitigation are those that, when implemented as 

conditions of project approval, would enable the project to avoid an adverse effect or impact. 

The other level of mitigation includes measures that would lessen the degree of adverse 

effect/impact. No one measure presented in this section would mitigate all adverse effects or 

impacts, however, some combination of these measures and others negotiated during the 

project phases of the program will emerge as the agreed upon mitigation for this project. 

In general, there is a wide range of actions that can qualify as mitigation, depending on the type 

of project, the type of property, and impacts the project may have on cultural resources. The 

following list presents some of the principles that generally guide mitigation development in 

historic preservation practice. 

• Mitigation measures should correspond or be related directly with the resource being 

affected, rather than in a compensatory fashion that does not relate to the affected 

resource; 

• Mitigation should be consistent with the significance of the historic property and 

correspond to the severity of project effects on the historic property; 

• Mitigation must be relevant to the goals of historic preservation, rather than as an 

enhancement of the project to which it is related or as enhancement to amenities 

unrelated to the affected properties; 

• Mitigation measures that are chosen should be a worthwhile use of public funds and 

provide a high degree of public benefit relative to the cost; 

 

8 See Section 3.17 for additional information on Next Steps in the project development process. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Mitigation measures should benefit the greatest number of people, particularly those 

members of the interested public rather than only those of a specialized audience or 

particular group; 

• Historic properties that will be demolished or greatly altered should be documented in 

permanent forms. 

A. ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 

The following are potential mitigation measures for eligible or listed archaeological sites. 

• Avoid impact where feasible. Where avoidance is not feasible, minimize scale of 

impact to the extent practical. 

• Incorporate the site into parks or open space (P.R.C. § 21083.2). 

• Cap or cover the site before construction. 

• Provide data recovery. 

• Develop procedures for fieldwork, identification, evaluation and determination of 

potential effects to cultural resources in consultation with SHPO and Native 

American tribes. On-site monitoring is often incorporated in the fieldwork when 

sites are known or suspected of containing Native American human remains. All 

procedures need to comply with federal and state statutes concerning burials. 

Avoidance is preferred, but if adjustments to the alignment plan or profile are not 

feasible, data recovery may be provided. When impacts will destroy or affect the data 

potential of a property (NRHP Criterion D, CRHR Criterion 4), data recovery may consist 

of archaeological excavation of an adequate sample of site contents so that the research 

questions applicable to the site can be addressed. Recovery of important information 

from the site mitigates the information loss that would result from site destruction. If only 

part of a site were impacted by the project, data recovery would only be necessary for 

that portion of the site. Data recovery would not be required if the agency determines 

prior testing and studies had adequately recovered the scientifically consequential 

information from the resources (CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15126.4[b]). When other 

NRHP or CRHR criteria are relevant (e.g., Criterion A/1; Criterion B2; Criterion C/3) or 

when a Traditional Cultural Property is involved, it is often necessary to consider more 

diverse mitigation measures. 

B. LISTED OR ELIGIBLE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS 

Measures to avoid adverse effects would include steps taken in both the design and 

construction phase of the project. Avoidance would be achieved during the design phase 

by not including components that could possibly affect or impact historic 

properties/resources. Avoidance would also be achieved by conducting construction 

activities in a manner that actively protects and keeps clear of historic properties. 

The following are potential mitigation measures for historic properties and resources. 

Measures to Avoid Adverse Effects

• Stabilization and Monitoring during Construction: The lead agency(s) would 

prepare a treatment plan with a detailed methodology for the protection of historic 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-23 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

properties/resources, such as buildings, structures, objects, and sites, and 

cultural landscape elements that are in close proximity to construction activities. 

This treatment plan would describe methods for the preservation, stabilization, 

shoring / underpinning, and monitoring of buildings, structures, and objects. The 

treatment plan would also include provisions that high vibration construction 

techniques would be avoided in sensitive areas. Underpinning and/or other 

stabilization methods could be used at buildings located near project construction 

areas and that may be susceptible to damage or inadvertent destruction. 

Measures to Lessen Adverse Effects

Measures to minimize project impacts to historic properties/resources would occur in 

pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. Many of these mitigation 

measures would require careful agency review and may require stipulations in the 

construction contracts to ensure appropriate preservation of cultural resources. 

• Recordation: The lead agency(s) would ensure that cultural resources adversely 

affected by the project are recorded and documented to the standards of the 

Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER). This would require coordination with the NPS HABS / HAER 

program to determine the appropriate level of recordation. This coordination 

would also address the adequacy of recordation previously conducted for historic 

properties/resources that may be adversely affected. 

• Design Guidelines: The lead agency(s) would ensure that design guidelines are 

developed to ensure sympathetic, compatible, and appropriate designs for new 

construction. Aesthetic details can be considered mitigation, but there may be a 

limit to the amount of change possible in the design once important engineering 

and environmental considerations have been taken into account. It is most likely 

that the design guidelines mitigation would apply to the visual appearance of the 

project, rather than specifics of alignment, overall depth/width, or placement of 

supports. Design guidelines could be informed by the documentation prepared 

under HABS/HAER standards. It would be necessary for an architectural 

historian or an historical architect to advise the structural designers on 

appropriate architectural treatments that could serve as mitigation. SHPO and 

other agencies would review draft design guidelines and provide comment on the 

guidelines as well as on proposed design changes. 

• Interpretive/Educational Materials: The lead agency(s) could prepare interpretive 

and/or educational materials and programs regarding the affected historic 

properties/resources. The focus of this mitigation would be the historic themes 

related to these resources. Such materials and/or programs could include: a 

popular report; documentary videos, booklets, interpretive signage, and/or 

additional interpretive information made available to state and local agencies. 

These materials could also include salvage items, historic drawings, interpretive 

drawings, current and historic photographs, models, and oral histories. 

Assistance could also be provided for archiving or digitizing the documentation of 

cultural resources affected, as well as for the dissemination of the material to 

appropriate repositories. 

• Relocation: Historic properties/resources that would be otherwise demolished 

because of the project could be relocated and rehabilitated. The lead agency(s) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

would ensure that these buildings or structures were recorded to HABS 

standards prior to their removal and in consultation with SHPO. The lead 

agency/project proponent would prepare a removal plan, including site plans for 

the new locations and placing them on new foundations and to conditions 

consistent with those that existed prior to the move. 

• Monitoring (Architectural/Cultural Landscape): Project construction documents 

and new construction would be monitored to ensure they conform to the design 

guidelines and any other treatment procedures agreed to by the consulting 

parties. A professional architectural historian and a professional historical 

landscape architect, who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-9), would monitor construction to identify 

conditions that could conflict with the mitigation measures. The lead agency(s) 

would take steps to correct any such conflicts. 

• Minor Repairs and Reconstruction: The lead agency(s) would ensure that 

inadvertent damage to historic properties/resources be repaired in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. 

• Salvage: The lead agency(s) would ensure that selected decorative or 

architectural elements of any adversely affected historic properties/resources 

would be reviewed for feasibility of salvage in order to mitigate their loss or 

destruction. Where possible, these elements would be retained and incorporated 

into new construction. Where re-use is not possible, selected salvaged elements 

could be made available for use in interpretive displays either near the affected 

resources or at an appropriate museum, for example. 

C. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Mitigation measures for paleontological resources would be developed and implemented 

at the project level. The following measures may be included: 

• Educate workers. 

• Recover fossils identified during the field reconnaissance. 

• Monitor construction. 

• Develop protocols for handling fossils discovered during construction, likely 

including temporary diversion of construction equipment so that the fossils could 

be recovered; identified; and prepared for dating, interpreting, and preserving at 

an established, permanent, accredited research facility. 

The above mitigation strategies, including implementation of a programmatic agreement 

addressing historic resources and continued consultation and coordination with tribal 

representatives, are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to cultural and 

historic resources in most circumstances. During project-level reviews it is expected that, 

for proposed Rail Improvement alignments that would result in impacts to cultural and 

historic resources, most of the impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, 

but it is possible that for some impacts will be significant. Sufficient information is not 

available at the program level to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation 

strategies will reduce impacts to affected resources to a less than significant effect in all 

circumstances. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural and historic resources are 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

considered significant at the program level even with the application of mitigation 

strategies. Additional environmental assessment will allow more precise evaluation in 

project-level environmental analyses. 

3.10.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the procedures that would be necessary at the next stage of 

environmental review to determine appropriate and feasible mitigation measures in consultation 

with the SHPO. These procedures would satisfy the NHPA as well as CEQA requirements. 

As allowed under 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach to identification of historic 

properties can be used when the proposed undertaking involves corridors. As indicated by the 

results of this study, FRA and the Department have determined through background research, 

consultation, and abbreviated field reconnaissance that historic properties likely exist in various 

corridor segments. Once alignment options have been refined, full identification efforts may 

proceed. Under NHPA Section 106 and implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. § 800), the 

procedures would include identifying resources with the potential to be affected; evaluating their 

significance under NRHP and CEQA; and identifying any substantial adverse effects, and then 

evaluating potential mitigation. 

In the interest of identifying archaeological sites within the APE, a field survey of the APE will be 

completed which will identify those sites evident on the surface. Geomorphological maps and 

studies will be reviewed to assess the potential for corridor segments to contain significant 

buried sites, and historic maps and an historic overview or context will be developed in the 

interest of identifying potential historical archaeology sites within the APE. 

Additional efforts must also be made to consult with appropriate Tribes and individuals 

knowledgeable about the nature and locations of potential traditional cultural properties. 

Identifying potentially affected archaeological and historical properties/resources will require 

identification and evaluation within a more specifically defined APE that would include the area 

where direct and indirect impacts from construction could occur (including locations of any 

construction easements and construction-related facilities, such as equipment staging areas, 

borrow and disposal areas, and access roads) and the area(s) where the settings of any eligible 

historic buildings and structures, or the buildings and structures themselves, could be materially 

or significantly altered. 

All identified resources would then be evaluated using NRHP and CRHR eligibility criteria. 

Evaluating archaeological sites may require preparing test plans for archaeological resources 

that contain regionally relevant research questions. The lead agencies would consult with the 

SHPO on any test plans and determinations of eligibility for evaluated resources. The impacts of 

a proposed specific project on resources determined eligible would be analyzed. An impact 

analysis report may then be reviewed with the SHPO. Mitigation measures needed to address 

impacts on specific resources could then be developed and incorporated in the PMOA between 

the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the lead agencies during the 

preparation of project-specific environmental evaluations. The mitigation measures in the PMOA 

would then be incorporated into project-specific environmental documentation and project 

approvals. 

A paleontological resource assessment program would also be completed as part of the 

subsequent analysis for project-level environmental analyses. The assessment program would 

include field reconnaissance to identify exposed paleontological resources and more precisely 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.10-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

determine potential paleontological sensitivity for the project. A paleontological resources 

treatment plan would be prepared by a qualified paleontologist. The plan would be included in 

project approval documents and would address the treatment of paleontological resources 

discovered prior to and during construction. 

Further consultation would also occur at the project level with the Native American Heritage 

Commission as necessary, and with Native American groups when traditional territories may be 

close to project APEs. More specific information related to traditional cultural sites of concern 

also would be obtained as necessary. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.11 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

This chapter describes existing geologic conditions in the LOSSAN region and analyzes the 

potential geological impacts of each alternative and proposed rail alignment option. This 

analysis focused on potential impacts related to seismic hazards, landslide hazards, locations of 

oil and gas fields and mineral resource sites; and on bedrock and other conditions that could 

affect excavation. 

3.11.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

A number of state and local regulations apply to geologic hazards and engineering 

geologic practice. The following paragraphs summarize key regulatory provisions; more 

detailed discussion is deferred to project-level environmental documentation because 

these regulations, if applicable, relate to site-specific conditions and thus would be 

applied as appropriate at the project level rather than the program level. 

Principal state guidance relating to geologic hazards is contained in the Alquist-Priolo 

Act (Public Resources Code § 2621 et seq.), and in the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 

1990 (Public Resources Code §§ 2690–2699.6). The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the 

location of most types of structures for human occupancy across the active traces of 

faults in earthquake fault zones shown on maps prepared by the State Geologist, and 

regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). The 

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 focuses on hazards related to strong ground 

shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Under its provisions, the state 

is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, 

liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and the maps are to be used by 

cities and counties in preparing their General Plans and adopting land use policies to 

reduce and mitigate potential hazards to public health and safety. 

Site-specific geotechnical investigations may be prepared to provide a geologic basis for 

the development of appropriate construction design for proposed projects, including 

mitigation/remediation of geologic hazards where this is possible. Geotechnical 

investigations typically assess the bedrock and Quaternary geology, the geologic 

structure, the soils, and the previous history of excavation and fill placement on and in 

the vicinity of the site for a proposed project. They may also address the requirements 

of the Alquist-Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. 

Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Public Resources Code § 2710 et 

seq.), the State Mining and Geology Board identifies in adopted regulations areas of 

regional significance that are known to contain mineral deposits judged to be important 

in meeting the future needs of the area. (See Public Resources Code §§ 2726 and 

2790; Title 14 C.C.R. 3550, et seq.) The State Mining and Geology Board also adopts 

state policy for the reclamation of mined lands and certifies local ordinances for the 

approval of reclamation plans as being consistent with state policies (Public Resources 

Code §§ 2755–2764, 2774 et seq.). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

To evaluate potential impacts related to geology and soils, each alternative and 

alignment option was ranked for potential seismic hazards (ground shaking and ground 

failure potential), surface rupture hazard (number of active fault crossings), slope 

instability, areas of difficult excavation, presence of oil and gas fields (presence of the 

resource and/or production facilities), and presence of economic mineral resources. The 

analysis was performed generally on the basis of existing data available in GIS format as 

opposed to detailed site investigations. The geologic data provided in this section are 

intended for planning purposes and are not intended to be definitive for specific sites. 

Alignments were evaluated as having high, medium, or low potential for geologic 

impacts based on the number of geologic constraints identified. Stations were evaluated 

as having either high or low potential for geologic impacts, based on the number of 

geologic constraints identified. These rankings made it possible to provide a rough 

comparison of the potential geologic constraints affecting each alignment option. 

Table 3.11-1 summarizes the ranking criteria for potential geologic and soils impacts. 

The following paragraphs describe the ranking process. 

Table 3.11-1 

Ranking System for Comparing Impacts Related to Geology/Soils/Seismicity 

Impact 

Ranking 

Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of 

length) 

Active Fault 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings) 

Slope 

Instability 

(% of 

length) 

Difficult 

Excavation 

(% of 

length) 

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of 

length) 

Mineral 

Resources 

(present or 

not present) 

Alignments 

High >50 2+ >10 >25 >20 >20 

Medium 10–50 1 5–10 10–25 10–20 10–20 

Low <10 0 <5 <10 <10 <10 

Stations 

High Present Present Present Present Present Present 

Low Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present 

Seismic Hazards

Seismic hazards that could potentially constrain the design of proposed facilities were 

evaluated on the basis of potential for strong ground motion and potential for 

liquefaction. Areas potentially subject to strong ground motion were defined for this 

program-level study as areas where peak horizontal ground accelerations in an 

earthquake may exceed 0.50g (i.e., areas where peak horizontal ground acceleration 

may exceed 50% of the acceleration due to gravity) as mapped by the California 

Geological Survey (CGS 2002). This acceleration is used to calculate the horizontal 

force a structure may be subjected to during an earthquake. For this analysis, 

liquefaction was conservatively assumed to be possible in all areas where peak ground 

accelerations could exceed 0.30g, except for areas mapped as underlain by bedrock. 

Where groundwater levels were not known from existing literature, they were 

conservatively assumed to be high, contributing to increased potential for liquefaction. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The ranking system for impacts related to seismic hazards used the percentage of each 

potential alignment within strong ground motion zones and/or potentially liquefiable 

zones. Station sites were evaluated by determining whether any portion of a proposed 

station site or an existing station where improvements are proposed would be within a 

strong ground motion zone or potentially liquefiable zone. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length in 

strong ground motion zones plus the percentage of length in potentially 

liquefiable zones. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within a strong ground motion zone or 

potentially liquefiable zone; otherwise, low. 

Potential for Surface Rupture (Active Fault Crossings)

Surface rupture hazard was evaluated based on whether any portion of an alignment 

option or station would be located within 200 ft (62 m) of the mapped trace of any fault 

with known or inferred movement during Quaternary time (the past 1.6 million years). If 

any portion of a proposed alignment or potential station site was within 200 ft (60 m) of a 

Quaternary fault, it was identified as crossing an active fault trace. As described below, 

the State of California defines active faults as those that show evidence of movement in 

the last 11,000 years. Because of the extreme disruption of transit facilities that can 

result from surface fault rupture, this analysis deliberately adopted a conservative 

criterion for the assessment of surface rupture hazard and included potentially active 

faults, those with known or inferred movement over Quaternary time. 

The ranking system for impacts related to surface rupture hazard was based on the 

number of active fault crossings identified. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on number of active (recent or 

Quaternary) fault crossings. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within 200 ft (60 m) of an active (recent or 

Quaternary) fault; otherwise, low. 

Slope Instability

Slope stability was evaluated based on the geologic formations or units present along 

each alignment and at each station site, as shown in statewide mapping compiled by 

Jennings (1977, 1991). Each of the mapped geologic units was assigned a rating for 

inferred slope stability, based primarily on lithology (physical characteristics of the rock 

formation) and age. This approach allowed the identification of areas at risk for slope 

instability. A conservative 200 ft (60 m) buffer was included around each identified area 

of instability. 

The ranking system for impacts related to slope instability was based on the percentage 

of each alignment within potentially unstable zones. Station sites were evaluated by 

determining whether any portion of the site is within an area of potential slope instability. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length in 

potentially unstable zone. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within a potentially unstable zone; 

otherwise, low. 

Difficult Excavation

Areas of potentially difficult excavation were identified based on bedrock geologic 

characteristics in combination with the presence of faults of any age, based on statewide 

mapping compiled by Jennings (1977, 1991) and information from selected 1:250,000-

scale geologic map sheets for the study region published by the California Geological 

Survey. Each fault crossing was conservatively assumed to be approximately 600 ft 

(183 m) wide. Geologic cross sections were prepared to assess subsurface tunneling 

conditions along proposed rail tunnel segments. 

The ranking system for impacts related to difficulty of excavation was based on the 

percentage of each alignment where excavation would be required within identified 

areas of difficult excavation. Stations were evaluated by determining whether any 

portion of the site is within an identified area of difficult excavation. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of surface segments in 

hard rock plus percentage of tunnel segments within fault zones. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within a hard rock zone or fault zone; 

otherwise, low. 

Oil and Gas Fields

Areas where the presence of oil and gas could constrain project construction or 

operation were identified on the basis of published resource maps produced by the 

California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

Resources (California Department of Conservation 2001a, 2001b). 

The ranking system for impacts related to oil and gas fields was based on the 

percentage of each proposed alignment within identified oil and gas field areas. Station 

sites were evaluated by determining whether any portion of the site is within a mapped 

oil and gas field area. 

• Alignment: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length 

within mapped oil and gas fields. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within a mapped oil and gas field; 

otherwise, low. 

Mineral Resources

Areas where the project could affect mineral resource extraction (primarily sand and 

gravel deposits) were identified on the basis of reports and published maps by the 

United States Geologic Survey (USGS), and California Geologic Survey (CGS).1 

 

1 Frank, David G. 1999. An Arc/Info Point Coverage of Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) Location in Eleven Western 

States. United States Geologic Survey, Open File Report 99-169. 

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS). No Date. Map of California, Principal MineralProducing Localities--1990. 2000. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The ranking system for mineral resources impacts was based on the number of mineral 

resources sites intersected by each alignment option. Station sites were evaluated by 

determining whether any portion of the site is within a mineral resource area. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on number of mapped resources 

within 200 ft (60 m) of a mineral resource area. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within 200 ft (60 m) of a mineral resource 

area; otherwise, low. 

3.11.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for geology and soils is defined as the corridor extending 200 ft (60 m) 

on each side of the alignment centerlines, and a 200-ft (60-m) radius around each 

station site. This distance incorporates all cross-sections with the exception of deep cuts 

and fills. As described in Method of Evaluation of Impacts above, alternatives were 

compared based on the number of sites with potential geologic or soils constraints per 

alignment, which depends on the length and location of the alignment; broadening the 

study area to include the entire width of deep cut-and-fill sections would not change the 

results of the comparison. 

B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IN THE STUDY AREA 

The following sections describe the general setting and key project constraints related to 

geology and soils. 

Geologic Setting and Topography

The northern, inland portion of the study area is located primarily within the Los Angeles 

Basin. The basin comprises a wide lowland coastal plain, which slopes gradually 

southward and westward toward the Pacific Ocean. The coastal plain overlies a 

structural trough that was filled with a thick sequence marine and non-marine sediments 

as the basin subsided. 

The Los Angeles Basin occurs at the intersection of the north-northwest trending 

Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province and the east-west trending Transverse 

Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by a series of 

mountain ranges and intervening valleys that extend from Orange County to Baja 

California. The Transverse Ranges extend eastward where they merge with the Mojave 

and Colorado Deserts. 

The southern end of the Los Angeles to Orange County study area crosses from the Los 

Angeles Basin into the western foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains (part of the 

Peninsular Ranges) near Irvine and continues southwestward to Pacific coast near Dana 

Point. The southern reaches of the rail alignment options are situated in the coastal 

section of the Peninsular Range province, a California Geomorphic province with a long 

and active geologic history. This portion of the alignments traverse an elevated coastal 

 Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V. 1981. Geologic Map of Orange County Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, California Division of

Mines and Geology: Bulletin 204, Plate 1. 

Weber, F.H., Jr. 1963. Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, 

County Report 3. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

plain capped by Quaternary terrace deposits and recent alluvial, slopewash and 

landslide materials deposited by erosional processes (Jennings 1977, 1991). 

The inland alignments extending south from Union Station to Irvine are predominantly 

underlain by a thick sequence of unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium. Two short 

segments along the LOSSAN alignment pass over Pleistocene nonmarine terrace 

deposits from East Los Angeles to Norwalk. From Irvine to El Toro the rail route is 

underlain by alluvium and terrace deposits. South of El Toro extending to Capistrano 

Beach, the alignments traverse poorly consolidated stream terrace deposits and the 

moderately consolidated Pliocene marine Capistrano Formation. The Capistrano 

Formation is prone to landsliding, including a large slide under I-5 at Capistrano Beach. 

Surficial geologic units within the coastal LOSSAN study area, from San Juan 

Capistrano to San Diego, consist of artificial fill and Quaternary alluvial, beach, marine 

terrace, and slopewash deposits overlying Tertiary sedimentary bedrock units (Leighton 

& Associates 2003). Surficial materials tend to be poorly consolidated and have a broad 

range in thickness. Tertiary bedrock units consist of sandstones and sandstone with 

interbedded cobble conglomerate, siltstones, and shales. 

Both from a scenic and engineering perspective, two sensitive areas in the LOSSAN 

corridor are the San Clemente and Del Mar coastal bluffs. Capistrano Formation 

siltstone and overlying marine terrace deposits, alluvium, and colluvium occur in the 

Dana Point/San Clemente area. The Del Mar bluffs area is underlain by the Torrey 

Sandstone Formation as well as the claystone of the Del Mar Formation. 

Elevations along the LOSSAN corridor from Union Station to the San Juan Capistrano 

city limits range from approximately 58 to 476 ft (18 to 145 m) above mean sea level. 

The coastal portion of the corridor consists of a generally southeast to northwest 

trending topographic alignment extending from San Juan Capistrano to downtown San 

Diego. Topographic elevations along the existing railway range from approximately 10 to 

120 ft (3 to 37 m) above mean sea level. Surrounding topography generally consists of 

gently westward to southwestward sloping landforms, including terraces and hillsides 

subdued by erosional processes and human development. 

Locally, steep topography is commonly the result of incision by the generally westward 

flowing drainages, resulting in oversteepened slopes in some areas outlying the rail 

corridor. Steep slopes and bluffs resulting from beach side erosion and wave action are 

adjacent to the rail corridor in the cities of Del Mar and San Clemente. 

Seismic Hazards

Description of Seismic Hazards: Seismic hazards can be categorized as either primary 

or secondary. Primary seismic hazards include surface fault rupture and ground 

shaking. Secondary seismic hazards include liquefaction and other types of seismically 

induced ground failure, along with seismically induced landslides. 

Surface fault rupture, or ground rupture, occurs when an active fault ruptures at depth to 

produce an earthquake, and the rupture propagates to the ground surface. Surface 

rupture can also occur as a result of slow, gradual motion referred to as fault creep. An 

area’s potential for ground rupture is assessed based on the displacement history of the 

area’s faults. Two categories of faults have been defined by the State of California in 

Special Publication 42 (Hart and Bryant 1997). Active faults are those that are known or 

inferred to have experienced movement in the past 11,000 years and are considered to 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

have a high potential for future ground rupture. Potentially active2 faults are those that 

are not known to have experienced movement in the past 11,000 years but have moved 

during Quaternary time (the past 1.6 million years). These faults may also pose a 

surface rupture hazard, but the hazard is more difficult to evaluate. For the purpose of 

this study, both active and potentially active faults were evaluated, and considered active 

faults in subsequent sections. 

Ground shaking occurs in response to the release of energy during an earthquake. The 

energy released travels through subsurface rock, sediment, and soil materials as 

seismic waves, which result in motion experienced at the ground surface. 

Liquefaction and other types of seismically induced ground failure reflect loss of strength 

and/or cohesion when earth materials are subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. 

Earthquakes can also trigger landslides where slopes are prone to failure because of 

geologic conditions or because of modifications during construction. 

Surface fault rupture, ground shaking, and seismically induced ground failure all can 

result in substantial damage to structures. Thorough assessment of the existing hazard 

combined with appropriate design and construction can substantially reduce the 

potential for damage. 

Major Active Faults in the Study Area: Three sources were used to evaluate faulting in 

the study area, including the Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, 1994), AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California (CGS, 2002), and fault source information 

used by the California Department of Transportation (Mualchin, 1996). These sources 

were used to compile Figure 3.11-1, Faults, and Figure 3.11-2, Quaternary and AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Alquist-Priolo mapping represents those zones where 

the CGS considers faults to be present requiring further site-specific fault studies and 

recommendations for development. These zones generally include faults with known 

movement within the past 10,000 years (i.e., Holocene). 

The seismicity of southern California is dominated by the intersection of the northnorthwest trending San Andreas fault system and the east-west trending Transverse 

Ranges fault system. The study area is subject to ground shaking associated with 

earthquakes on faults of both these systems. Active faults of the San Andreas system 

are predominantly strike-slip faults accommodating translational movement. Active 

reverse or thrust faults in the Transverse Ranges include blind thrust faults responsible 

for the 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake, the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, and the 

range-front faults responsible for uplift of the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains. 

The major active faults in the LOSSAN region include the Newport-Inglewood, Rose 

Canyon, Raymond, Whittier, and Elysian Park faults. All of these faults are capable of 

generating significant groundshaking in areas along the existing LOSSAN corridor and 

proposed alignment options. 

The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is a broad zone of discontinuous faults and folds 

striking southeastward from near Santa Monica across the Los Angeles basin to 

Newport Beach, where it trends offshore and merges with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone 

offshore of Oceanside (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985, Jennings, 1994). None of the proposed 

rail improvement alignment options north of Highway 52 cross this or any other active 

 

2 The term “potentially active” is under review for alternative nomenclature by California Geologic Survey. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

fault, and none of these alignments are located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1997). Ground rupture due to faulting is not considered a 

significant hazard in the area north of Highway 52 (although it is a possibility at any site 

along the rail corridor). However, the proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault to the 

proposed northern coastal alignments such as those in San Juan Capistrano, Dana 

Point, San Clemente, and Camp Pendleton, and its potential for generating large 

earthquakes, does make the Newport-Inglewood Fault a potential seismic hazard to the 

existing rail corridor and proposed improvements. 

The Rose Canyon fault is a southern continuation of the Newport-Inglewood. This fault 

runs generally north-south through the San Diego area from approximately La Jolla 

through the downtown San Diego area and into San Diego Bay. The Rose Canyon fault 

is Alquist-Priolo zoned from where it comes onshore in La Jolla to approximately Mission 

Bay. The proposed rail alignment between Highway 52 and the Santa Fe Depot crosses 

the Rose Canyon fault in two locations (at the San Diego River bridge and within the 

trench alignment), and are within mapped Alquist-Priolo or City of San Diego Special 

Studies zones (CDMG, 1991 and 2002). Therefore, shallow ground rupture would be a 

consideration in project-level investigations, and during preliminary design and planning 

for proposed improvements in these areas. 

The Raymond, Whittier, and Elysian Park active fault zones are in the northern part of 

the LOSSAN region. Of these, the one of most concern in the downtown Los Angeles 

area is the Elysian Park fault. This is a northward dipping, blind thrust fault and has no 

mappable surface expression. Faults of this type are classified as Special Seismic 

Sources by the California Department of Transportation (Mualchin, 1996). This fault is 

capable of producing earthquakes resulting in levels of damage equal to or greater than 

the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, and the 

1994 Northridge earthquake -- all earthquakes produced by blind thrust faults previously 

thought to be inactive. 

Liquefaction: Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: (1) shallow 

groundwater, (2) low-density sandy soils, and (3) high-intensity ground motion. Effects of 

liquefaction on level ground include sand boils, settlement, and bearing capacity failures 

below structural foundations. Groundwater contours for the entire project study area 

were not available with reasonable accuracy that would be beneficial to this preliminary 

evaluation. Therefore, for this program-level evaluation, all areas were assumed to be 

potentially underlain by shallow groundwater. This allowed identification of potentially 

liquefiable zones by including areas where ground motions exceed 30 percent (i.e., 0.30g) 

but excluding areas mapped as underlain by rock. Areas of the project region meeting 

these criteria have been mapped on Figure 3.11-3, Potential Liquefaction Zones. 

Based on preliminary evaluation, it is anticipated that saturated older and younger 

alluvium will underlie the proposed improvements within the significant drainages that 

cross the rail corridor. Based on qualitative analysis, these deposits are considered 

liquefiable from the surface to depths on the order of 50 to 60 ft (15 to 18 m). This 

includes alluvial deposits underlying the existing bridge structures and the embankment 

fills. Areas underlain by Quaternary terrace material as well as all bedrock units are not 

considered liquefiable due to their high density, clay content, age, and/or unsaturated 

conditions. As shown on Figure 3.11-3, areas believed to be potentially susceptible to 

liquefaction are present throughout the study area. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : Jennings, 1977 FIGURE 3.11-1

Faults

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Faults

Age

Historic

Holocene

Late Quaternary

Quaternary

Pre-Quaternary

Type

Known, w/ Surface Expression

Known, w/o Surface Expression

Assumed

1:500,000

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

$

3.11-9
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
Elsinore Fault Zone

Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone

Whittier Fault

Zone

Raymond Hills Fault Zone

Elysian Park Fault Zone

Rose Canyon Fault Zone

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : Jennings, 1985, USGS, 1998 FIGURE 3.11-2

Quarternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones arternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Quarternary Faults

Type

Known, w/Surface Expression

Known, w/o Surface Expression

Assumed

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

3.11-11
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : Jennings, 1977 FIGURE 3.11-3

Potential Liquefaction Zones tential Liquefaction Zones

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Liquefaction Potential

High

Medium

Low

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

3.11-13
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Unstable Slopes

Slopes are considered unstable (prone to failure or landslides) when soil or rock strength 

is insufficient to resist gravitational forces or other loads. Slope instability can occur 

naturally due to factors such as fracture patterns, soil saturation, or steep slopes. Slope 

failure can also be triggered by seismic activity or by improperly designed construction. 

If slope instability is not adequately characterized and mitigated during design and 

construction, it can cause severe damage to surface and near-surface improvements as 

well as risks to public safety. However, slope instability can generally be addressed with 

planning and design. 

For purposes of this analysis, the criteria for mapping potentially unstable slopes was all 

areas in which slope gradients exceed 33% and are not underlain by rock units having 

high strength characteristics. Figure 3.11-4 shows areas identified as unstable based on 

these criteria. 

The extent of potentially unstable slopes meeting these criteria within the inland project 

areas is almost zero. The Los Angeles to Orange County alignments are all within 

established transportation corridors in areas of low relief. No substantive areas of 

unstable slopes were identified in this inland part of the study area. 

Through the cities of Del Mar and San Clemente, as well as a limited portion of 

Encinitas, rail corridor improvements are proposed within the area under the influence of 

the coastal sea bluff. In general, coastal bluff retreat is controlled by a combination of 

marine erosion and subaerial erosion. Marine erosion results from the effects of the 

ocean and wave action along the base of the bluffs. Subaerial erosion results from those 

erosional influences that exist above the high-water line (or wave run-up line) and 

includes such items as erosion due to surface runoff, ground water seepage, wind, 

pedestrian traffic, rodent activity, and slope instability. As a result, the bluffs are 

consistently impacted by marine and subaerial erosional processes. (See also Section 

3.12, Hydrology and Water Resources.) In Encinitas, the rail improvement options are 

set back east of Pacific Coast Highway, which provides a buffer zone between the 

alignment options and the coastal bluffs. 

In Del Mar, the existing LOSSAN rail alignment is constructed across the top of the 

relatively flat mesa top, generally at or near the elevation of the bluff top, 40 to 65 ft 

(12 to 20 m) above sea level. In San Clemente, the existing rail alignment is generally on 

a shallow topographical bench between the base of the coastal bluffs and the beach. 

This rail alignment and its associated rip-rap protection provide a buffer from wave 

action, so the cliffs are dominantly subject to subaerial erosional processes. 

A number of remedial or stabilization measures exist along the existing railway in the Del 

Mar and San Clemente areas. These include older improvements along the coastal bluff 

face through both cities that are in need of ongoing repair and maintenance. For 

example, in Del Mar, wooden and concrete seawalls along portions of the bluff are 

currently protecting portions of the base of the bluff against erosion due to typical wave 

impact. However, these walls are occasionally of insufficient height to block heavy storm 

surf or at least they require periodic maintenance to remain effective. In San Clemente, 

the existing rip-rap berms also require maintenance. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Areas of Difficult Excavation

Subsurface geologic conditions will largely determine the ease or difficulty of excavation, 

which will in turn indicate the appropriate excavation technique for use in various areas. 

For instance, hard unfractured bedrock may be difficult to excavate using bulldozers and 

other earthmoving equipment, or too resistant to tunneling using a tunnel boring machine 

(TBM); in these areas, blasting may be required. On the other hand, fractured rock that 

contains groundwater can also be difficult to excavate using tunneling methods. Faulted 

material can pose an additional challenge by contributing to instability at the tunnel face. 

The proposed inland alignments (north of San Juan Capistrano) are entirely located 

within unconsolidated sediments and poorly consolidated sedimentary rock, and are not 

expected to encompass any areas of difficult excavation. 

Within the coastal route of the LOSSAN corridor, surficial materials are generally loose 

and poorly consolidated and should be rippable with conventional earthwork equipment. 

If deeper excavations were made in these areas (i.e., trenches and tunnels), they would 

occur within sedimentary rock units which are generally penetrable with conventional 

excavation and tunnel-boring equipment. However, due to the presence of fault zones 

and some hardened rock units, potentially difficult excavation areas occur between San 

Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, and between the I-5/805 Split and the Santa Fe 

Depot in San Diego. 

Geological Resources

Geological resources in California include oil and gas fields, geothermal fields, and a 

wide range of mineral resources. The principal constraint associated with oil, gas, 

geothermal, and mineral resources is the need for planning to ensure that construction 

of new facilities would not conflict with the removal of economically important resources 

and would avoid known problem areas to the extent feasible. In addition, the presence of 

even small (noneconomic) quantities of oil or gas in the subsurface can pose toxic or 

explosive hazards during construction, requiring specific precautions, and may also 

necessitate special designs and monitoring during the operation of subsurface structures 

such as subway tunnels. Similarly, certain mineral resources, such as serpentine (the 

source of natural asbestos) can result in hazardous working conditions if not properly 

managed. 

The Union Station to Irvine segment crosses one large oil field, the Santa Fe Springs 

field north of the existing Norwalk Station. The abandoned La Mirada field lies just south 

of the proposed rail alignment southeast of Santa Fe Springs. South of Irvine, there are 

no oil or gas fields that coincide with any of the rail alignment options. 

All of the alignment options are within previously developed transportation corridors and 

no existing mines or mineral resource sources are located within the 200-ft (60-m) study 

area of the alignments and stations (CGS 1999). 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : USGS, 1998 FIGURE 3.11-4

Potentially Unstable Slopes tentially Unstable Slopes

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Unstable Slopes

High

Medium

Low

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

3.11-17
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Existing conditions describe current transportation conditions. The No-Project Alternative 

includes existing transportation infrastructure plus all planned, approved, and funded 

projects that can reasonably be expected to be in operation by 2020. This analysis 

assumed that existing major infrastructure (bridges, for example) was designed, has 

been retrofitted, or is currently scheduled to be retrofitted to meet current design 

standards for seismic safety and other geologic constraints, and that future projects 

included in the No-Project Alternative would incorporate similar safeguards as part of the 

development, design, and construction process. However, it is not possible to eliminate 

or mitigate all geologic hazards through design and construction. Some types of 

geologic hazards (seismic hazards in particular) are also unpredictable. While it is 

difficult to evaluate the change in hazards (potential for geologic impacts) between 

existing conditions and No-Project conditions, it is likely that some improvements in 

technology and materials as well as more stringent design codes will be implemented in 

the next 20 years to address seismic design of new structures. Thus the No-Project 

Alternative would be somewhat improved from the existing conditions, but existing 

geologic risks were used to represent geologic risks under the No-Project Alternative. 

Beyond the potential geologic impacts for programmed improvements (to be addressed 

in other project-level documents), the No-Project Alternative potentially would have 

additional impacts on the coastal bluff areas in Del Mar and San Clemente, as compared 

to the Rail Improvement Alternative. The existing LOSSAN rail corridor is constructed 

across the top of the bluffs in Del Mar and along the toe slope of the bluffs in San 

Clemente. Under the No-Project Alternative, the existing rail corridor would continue to 

operate along these coastal bluffs, requiring continued stabilization and drainage efforts 

to counteract ongoing aerial and subaerial erosion. The Rail Improvements Alternative 

would potentially result in a beneficial impact to these bluff areas by precluding further 

rail construction along the bluffs and removing the existing rail service from the bluff 

areas. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

This analysis focused on comparing the difference in potential impacts anticipated with 

the proposed alignment options under the Rail Improvements Alternative, using 2020 

No-Project conditions as a baseline. Table 3.11-2 summarizes the types of impacts 

during both construction and operation that may result from the various geological 

conditions evaluated in this report. 

Table 3.11-3 shows potential impact ratings and the geologic constraints within the study 

area of each of the alignment options. Potential geologic impacts that are categorized 

as high should not be regarded as precluding construction of an alignment option, or as 

necessarily indicating that these would be potentially significant impacts. Rather, they 

identify aspects of project design where additional study would be needed and where 

engineering and design effort would be required to avoid or mitigate the potential 

impacts. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.11-2 

Types of Potential Impacts from Geologic Conditions 

Geologic Condition Potential Impacts 

Seismic hazards 

Potential risk to worker and public safety due to collapse or toppling of partially 

constructed or completed facilities during strong earthquakes. Potential risk to 

public safety due to interruption of service due to derailment caused by ground 

motion during strong earthquakes. Damage to facilities due to secondary hazards 

over soft or filled ground. 

 Active fault crossings 

Potential risk to worker or public safety due to ground rupture along active faults. 

Potential risk to public safety due to interruption of service due to derailment by 

ground rupture along active faults. 

Slope stability Potential risk to worker or public safety due to failure of natural and/or construction 

cut slopes or retention structures. 

Difficult excavation Potential cost and duration of surface or tunnel excavations during construction. 

Oil and gas fields Potential migration of potentially explosive and/or toxic gases into subsurface 

facilities. 

Mineral resources1 Potential project costs and delays due to potential impacts on existing mineral 

resource areas and facilities, including potential remediation. 

1

No mineral resources were identified within the study area for the Rail Improvement Alternative. 

Table 3.11-3 

Summary of Potential Impact Rankings and Geological Constraints 

Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of Length)

Active Fault 

Crossings 

(# of Crossings)

Slope 

Stability 

(% of Length)

Difficult 

Excavation 

(% of Length)

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of Length) 

Union Station To Fullerton 

Station -- 4th Main Track 

High 

(100) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Medium 

(12) 

Fullerton Station To Irvine 

Station--Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between Orange 

and Santa Ana 

High 

(100) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

TRENCH between Orange and 

Santa Ana 

High 

(100) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

Fullerton 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present))

Anaheim High 

(Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Santa Ana High 

(Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Irvine Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present)

San Juan Capistrano Double 

Tracking 

 

TUNNEL along I-5 between Hwy 

73 and Avenida Aeropuerto 

Medium 

(26) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Medium 

(10) 

Low 

(0) 

AT-GRADE and Cut/Cover 

TRENCH along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

High 

(76) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.11-3 

Summary of Potential Impact Rankings and Geological Constraints (continued) 

Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of Length)

Active Fault 

Crossings 

(# of 

Crossings)

Slope 

Stability 

(% of Length)

Difficult 

Excavation 

(% of Length)

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of Length) 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

 

Dana Point Curve Realignment; 

San Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Medium 

(14) 

Low 

(0) 

San Clemente - LONG TWOSEGMENT TUNNEL Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

High 

(50) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

San Clemente 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present) 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade Double Tracking 

Medium 

(26) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; double 

tracking 

Medium 

(11) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(2) 

Low 

(0) 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; doubletracking Low 

(9) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

Oceanside 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; Medium 

(15) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(4) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Encinitas - SHORT TRENCH Medium 

(15) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(2) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Del Mar Double Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino Del Mar High 

(61) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(3) 

Low 

(0) 

TUNNEL along I-5 Medium 

(25) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(4) 

Low 

(0) 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL Low 

(6) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

High 

(30) 

Low 

(0) 

I-5 TUNNEL Medium 

(13) 

Low 

(0) 

Low 

(0) 

High 

(30) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to Miramar 

Hill Tunnel) 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present) 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe Depot 

Curve realignment and Double 

Tracking 

Medium 

(29) 

High 

(2) 

High 

(29) 

Medium 

(18) 

Low 

(0) 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)

Low 

(Not Present) 

High 

(Present) 

Low 

(Not Present)
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Active seismicity represents a key constraint on design and construction for the Rail 

Improvements Alternative. Some of the alignment options would require special design, 

including additional structural ductility and redundancy to withstand severe ground 

shaking as well as the potential for liquefaction and/or other types of seismically induced 

ground failure. Active fault crossings would require special designs to minimize potential 

damage to the tracks and other infrastructure as a result of surface fault rupture and 

surface disruption associated with fault creep. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative ranked high for potential impacts related to seismic 

hazards between Union Station and Irvine, in the San Juan Capistrano and Del Mar 

areas, and between Highway 52 and Santa Fe Depot where the alignment would cross 

the Rose Canyon fault in two locations. These high-impact areas include about half of 

the total rail corridor length between Union Station and San Diego and would include all 

existing and proposed station sites except the Irvine Station site. 

Seismic hazards do not substantially differentiate between alignment options except in 

the Del Mar area. Here, the tunnel option under Camino del Mar is rated as having a 

high seismic hazard because 61 percent of the alignment would cross hazard areas. 

The I-5 tunnel option in Del Mar is rated as having a medium seismic hazard, with 25 

percent of the alignment crossing hazard areas. 

Potential slope stability problems were identified in the areas of San Juan Capistrano, 

and between Highway 52 and Santa Fe Depot. In San Juan Capistrano, the at-grade 

and cut-and-cover option along the east side of Trabuco Creek would encounter 

unstable slopes along 76 percent of its length, due to liquefiable soils. The other option 

in the area, a tunnel under I-5, would avoid unstable areas. 

Coastal bluff areas along the existing LOSSAN rail corridor in San Clemente, Dana Point 

and Del Mar rank high for potential slope instability because of the fragile nature of the 

bluffs. However, the Rail Improvements Alternative would potentially result in a 

beneficial impact to the bluff areas in San Clemente, Dana Point and Del Mar by 

precluding further rail construction along the bluffs and removing the existing rail service 

from the bluff areas. The Short Tunnel option in San Clemente/Dana Point would not 

remove rail service from the beach at Dana Point, but the Long Tunnel would. These 

potential improvements would not occur under the No-Project Alternative. 

The tunnel options proposed as part of the Rail Improvements Alternative would pose 

design and construction issues because of difficult excavation conditions in some areas. 

In the Dana Point/San Clemente area, the two alignment options consist of a long, 

two-segment tunnel (approximately 8 mi (13 km) long), and a short tunnel 

(approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) long) in the same alignment. Both tunnels would 

encounter areas of difficult excavation. Due to its greater length, the long tunnel would 

encounter difficult excavation conditions for 50 percent of its length, compared with 14 

percent of the length of the short tunnel. However, either tunnel option would result in 

lower impacts on coastal geology because impacts on the stability of the coastal bluffs 

would be reduced. 

3.11.4 Design Practices 

The lead agencies have specifically avoided or minimized potential effects related to major 

geologic hazards such as major fault crossings, oil fields, and landslide areas through program-
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-23 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

level alignment studies completed as part of the Program EIR/EIS process. The objective is to 

avoid active fault crossings in tunnel or aerial sections, and this has been carried through the 

development of the alternative alignments to the extent feasible. Any impacts that remain at the 

conclusion of project-level environmental review would be mitigated through specific design and 

construction practices described in the following section. 

3.11.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for geology and soils, the Rail Improvements Alternative would have potentially significant 

impacts. In some alignment segments there would be potential for increased soil disturbance 

due to slope instability. The alternative would involve some seismic hazards along alignment 

segments being susceptible to ground motion. Exposure to seismic risk would be reduced by 

avoiding the crossing any known, active faults in tunnel or aerial sections. Mitigation strategies 

will be applied at the project level, based on site-specific design and geologic information to 

reduce potential impacts. 

This document contains a broad program analysis that generally identifies the locations of 

potential geologic impact areas for the proposed rail improvement options. These are areas 

that would need further study in environmental documentation at the project level. 

Mitigation for potential impacts related to geologic and soils conditions must be developed on a 

site-specific basis, based on the results of more detailed (design-level) engineering geologic 

and geotechnical studies. Consequently, geologic and geotechnical mitigation measures would 

be identified in subsequent, project-level analysis rather than at the program level. Following is 

an overview of general approaches to possible geologic and geotechnical mitigation. 

A. GROUND SHAKING 

The potential for rail safety issues related to ground shaking during a large earthquake 

cannot be mitigated completely; this holds true for most vehicle transportation systems 

throughout California. However, some strategies are available to reduce hazards, 

including the following. 

• The potential for collapse or toppling of superstructures (such as bridges or 

retaining structures) due to strong ground motion can be routinely mitigated by 

designing structures to withstand the estimated ground motions. Designs 

typically include additional redundancy and ductility in the structure. The design 

needed to withstand a certain magnitude of earthquake would be determined 

during subsequent stages of design and development of proposed facilities. 

Temporary facilities, such as shoring, would be designed considering a lower 

probability of seismic events. 

• The potential for structural damage and resulting traffic hazard as a result of 

liquefaction can be mitigated through site-specific methods such as ground 

modification methods (soil densification) to prevent liquefaction, or structural 

design (e.g., deep foundations) to accommodate/resist the liquefiable zones. 

• It is unlikely that the potential for train derailment during a peak event could be 

mitigated by designing a track-wheel system capable of withstanding the 

potential ground motions in most of the project area. Existing train systems 

throughout California, including the existing service along the LOSSAN corridor, 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

face the same challenge. However, a network of strong motion instruments has 

been installed throughout California and additional monitoring stations are 

proposed. These stations provide ground motion data that could be used with the 

rail instrumentation and controls system to temporarily shut down the LOSSAN 

rail operations during or after an earthquake. The system would then be 

inspected for damage due to ground motion and/or ground deformation and then 

returned to service when appropriate. This type of seismic protection is already 

used for many transit systems in seismically active areas and has been proven 

effective. 

B. FAULT CROSSINGS 

The potential for ground rupture along active faults is one of the few geologic hazards 

that can rarely be fully mitigated. However, known active faults are typically monitored, 

and in some cases fault creep is mitigated with routine maintenance, which may include 

minor track re-alignment. Project design could provide for the installation of early 

warning systems triggered by strong ground motion associated with ground rupture. 

Linear monitoring systems such as time domain reflectometers (TDRs) could be installed 

along rail lines within the zone of potential ground rupture. These devices emit 

electronic information that is processed in a centralized location and could be used to 

temporarily control trains, thus reducing accidents. In addition, the alignment options 

where tunnels are proposed have avoided crossing known, active faults within the tunnel 

section. 

C. SLOPE STABILITY/LANDSLIDES 

The potential for failure of natural and/or temporary construction slopes and retention 

structures can be mitigated through geotechnical investigation and review of proposed 

earthwork and foundation excavation plans and profiles. Based on investigation and 

review, recommendations would be provided for temporary and permanent slope 

reinforcement and protection, as needed. These recommendations would be 

incorporated into the construction plans. Additionally, during construction, geotechnical 

inspections would be performed to verify that no new, unanticipated conditions are 

encountered, and to verify the proper incorporation of recommendations. Slope 

monitoring may also be incorporated in final design where warranted. 

D. AREAS OF DIFFICULT EXCAVATION 

The potential for difficult excavation in areas of hard rock and faults cannot be fully 

mitigated, but it can be anticipated so that safety is assured, potential environmental 

impacts are addressed, and project schedule problems are avoided to the extent 

possible. This includes focusing future geotechnical engineering and geologic 

investigations in these areas and incorporating the findings into project construction 

documents, communicating with the contractors during the bid process, and monitoring 

actual conditions during and after construction. 

E. HAZARDS RELATED TO OIL AND GAS FIELDS 

Hazards related to potential migration of hazardous gases due to the presence of oil 

fields, gas fields, or other subsurface sources can be mitigated by following strict federal 

and state Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA/CalOSHA) regulatory 

requirements for excavations, and consulting with other agencies as appropriate, such 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

as the California Department of Conservation (Division of Oil and Gas) and the California 

Department of Toxic and Substances Control regarding known areas of concern. 

Mitigation measures would include using safe and explosion-proof equipment during 

construction and testing for gases regularly. Active monitoring systems and alarms 

would be required in underground construction areas and facilities where subsurface 

gases are present. Gas barrier systems have also been used effectively for subways in 

the Los Angeles area. Installing gas detection systems can monitor the effectiveness of 

these systems. 

F. MINERAL RESOURCES 

Although no mineral resources sites were identified in the study area, more detailed 

investigation would be conducted at the project level. In some cases, mineral resources 

sites may represent valuable sources of materials that should either be completely 

developed prior to use for another purpose or be avoided by proposed facilities to the 

extent feasible. This practice could result in realignment of proposed alignments and/or 

proposed relocation or modification of proposed stations or expansion areas at existing 

stations. To mitigate the potential for significant project redesign, important mineral sites 

will be identified as early as possible during project-level reviews. 

G. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS SEISMIC HAZARDS 

Mitigation strategies to address seismic hazards including liquefaction, seismically 

induced settlement and landslides may include, but would not be limited to: 

• Design and engineer all structures for earthquake activity - Seismic design for the 

structures would be based on the Department’s Seismic Design Criteria 

• Design and install foundations resistant to soil liquefaction and settlement. 

• Identify potential serpentinite bedrock disturbance areas and implement a safety 

plan 

• Apply the requirements of Section 19 (Earthwork) of the Department’s most 

current Standard Specifications to ensure that geotechnically stable slopes are 

planned and created. 

• Subsurface gases: Install passive or active gas venting systems and gas 

collection systems in areas where subsurface gases are identified. 

• Remove corrosive soil and use corrosion protected materials in infrastructure. 

• Address erosive soils through soil removal and replacement, geosynthetics, 

vegetation, and/or rip rap, where warranted. 

• Remove or moisture condition shrink-swell soils, where necessary. 

• Utilize stone columns, grouting, and deep dynamic compaction in areas of 

potential liquefaction 

• Utilize buttress berms, flattened slopes, drains, and/or tie-backs in areas of slope 

instability. 

• Avoid settlement through preloading, use of stone columns, deep dynamic 

compaction, and grouting, and/or special foundation designs. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.11-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.11.6 Subsequent Analysis 

As described in Method of Evaluation of Impacts above, this analysis was performed generally 

on the basis of existing data available in GIS format. The data provided in this section are 

intended for planning purposes, are not meant to be definitive for specific sites, and have not 

been independently confirmed. More detailed geological studies would be required at the project 

level, and would likely include subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering 

analyses to support detailed alignment design and mitigation of potential impacts associated 

with geologic and soils conditions, including seismic hazards. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

This section addresses three types of hydrology and water resources – floodplains, surface 

water, and groundwater – that have the potential to be affected by the proposed alternatives. In 

addition, water quality issues are briefly addressed in relation to surface and groundwater 

resources. The section describes the existing hydrologic resources within the LOSSAN region 

and generally identifies the potential for impacts on those resources from the No-Project and 

Rail Improvements Alternatives and from rail alignments and station options. The analysis 

identifies the number and general extent of areas of hydrologic resources that potentially would 

be affected by the various alignment options for purposes of comparison. 

3.12.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Several federal and state laws regulate and are designed to protect hydrologic 

resources, floodplains and water quality. Below is a list of these statutes. (See 

Appendix 3.12-A for brief descriptions of these authorities.) 

Federal Laws and Regulations

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et. seq.): The purpose of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) is to provide guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters through prevention and 

elimination of pollution. The CWA applies to discharges of pollutants into waters of the 

U.S. The following CWA sections are most relevant to this analysis. 

• Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit 

that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. obtain a state 

certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA. The 

California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB) administers the certification 

program within California through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

(RWQCBs). 

• Section 402 of the CWA established a permitting system for the discharge of any 

pollutant (except dredged or fill materials) into the waters of the U.S. 

• Section 404 of the CWA established a permit program, administered by the 

USACE, regulating discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., 

including wetlands. Implementing regulations by the USACE are found at 33 CFR 

Parts 320-330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines that were developed by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the USACE (40 CFR Part 230). The 

Guidelines allow the discharge of fill materials into the aquatic system only if 

there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.): Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act, administered by the Corps, requires permits for all structures 

(such as riprap) and activities (such as dredging) in navigable waters of the U.S. 

Executive Order 11988 — Floodplain Management (U.S. DOT Order 5650.2; 23 C.F.R. 

650, Subpart A): Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent 

practicable and feasible short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of 

floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Order 5650.2 implements the Executive Order for DOT programs. 

23 C.F.R. 650 prescribes Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies and 

procedures for the location and hydraulic design of highway encroachments on 

floodplains. 

Flood Disaster Protection Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4128; DOT Order 5650.2, 23 C.F.R. 

650 Subpart A; and 23 C.F.R. Part 771): The purpose of the Flood Disaster Protection 

Act is to identify flood-prone areas and provide flood insurance to residents and 

businesses in those areas. 

State Laws and Regulations

California Department of Fish and Game Code (Sections 1601-1603 [Streambed 

Alteration]): Under Sections 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code, agencies are 

required to notify the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) prior to 

implementing any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, 

channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.): The PorterCologne Act is the basic water quality control law for California, and it provides for the 

CWRCB to implement the CWA for California. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Potential impacts on hydrologic resources, floodplains and water quality were evaluated 

using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods. The 

existing conditions as described for the No-Project Alternative provide the primary basis 

of comparison. 

Qualitative Assessment

A qualitative assessment was used to compare the alternatives and alignment options 

when discussing issues such as runoff, sedimentation, potential for impacts to 

groundwater, or other items that would ultimately require a more detailed analytic 

approach (i.e., at the project level, if the decision is made to proceed with the proposed 

Rail Improvements Alternative) than appropriate for a program-level analysis. For these 

items, the differences in impacts between alternatives, and among alignment options, 

are explained in general, qualitative terms. 

Quantitative Assessment

For the quantitative assessment, readily available information on wetland areas, stream 

locations, existing water quality problem areas, flood zones, and general soil information 

was used to estimate the magnitude of the potential area of impacts for the alternatives. 

The following steps were completed to estimate the potential areas of impacts for 

floodplains and water quality from the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives. 

• Acreage of floodplains in the study area defined as Special Flood Hazard Areas 

(SFHAs), as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps, was identified and estimated to evaluate the area of 

floodplain potentially impacted by the alternatives. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Acreage of surface waters (lakes or lagoons) and the linear feet of surface 

waters (rivers and streams) in the study area was estimated, using U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale digital line graphs of blueline streams, 

including ephemeral streams. The linear feet of surface water was calculated 

based on the flow-path length of rivers and streams in the study area to evaluate 

areas potentially affected by the alternatives. Lake/lagoon surface areas 

represent the impoundment at maximum capacity. 

• Waters with impaired water quality in the study area, (i.e., waters identified on the 

Section 303(d) CWA list, distributed by the CWRCB), were identified. 

• Acreage of areas of potential soil erosion in the study area was estimated to 

evaluate areas potentially affected by the alternatives. The calculations included 

those areas with a combination of erosive soils and steep slopes, evaluated as 

the product of kfact and slopeh (listed in the State Soil Geographic-STATSGO 

GIS database). Those conditions where kfact x slopeh is greater than 3.0 are 

potentially susceptible to erosion. Kfact designates the soil erodibility factor 

(including rock fragments) and slopeh indicates the soil slope. 

The quantities of each type of hydrologic resource that could fall in the study area of the 

Rail Improvements Alternative were estimated based on these steps. 

3.12.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for hydrology and water quality is defined as the area within 100 ft (30 m) 

of the centerline of the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative alignment options, and 

within 100 ft (30 m) of the direct footprint of proposed new or expanded station facilities. 

B. HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 

Floodplains

Floodplains are land next to a river that becomes covered by water when the river 

overflows its banks. FEMA designates and maps floodplains. In support of the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA has undertaken flood hazard identification and 

mapping to produce Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and 

Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The zone of interest for the analysis of hydrologic 

resources in this program-level evaluation is defined as a special flood hazard area 

(SFHA) or Zone A, which is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-

year flood hazard area in the hydrologic resource study area. 

Floodplains are important because they provide floodwater storage and attenuate the 

risk of downstream flooding, typically provide important habitat for native species 

(discussed in Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands), improve water quality 

by allowing filtration of sediments and other contaminants, and may provide locations for 

groundwater recharge. 

Floodplains encompass floodways, which are the primary areas that convey flood flows. 

Floodways are typically channels of a stream, including any adjacent areas such as 

lagoons and smaller streams. NFIP has introduced the concept of floodways and 

floodplains to assist local communities in floodplain management. The floodway is the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

channel of a stream, including any adjacent floodplain areas that must be generally kept 

free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial 

increases to flood heights. The area between the floodway and the 100-year floodplain 

boundary is referred to as the floodway fringe. Any approved encroachment may take 

place within the floodway fringe. According to guidelines established by FEMA, increase 

in flood height in the floodway due to any encroachment in the floodway fringe areas 

may not exceed 12 in. (30.48 cm), provided that hazardous velocities are not produced 

in the water body. Constructing levees, rail and road embankments, buildings, etc., that 

encroach on floodplains may reduce the flood-carrying capacity and increase flood 

elevations. 

Figure 3.12-1 shows SFHAs in the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources study 

area. As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains in the study area are associated 

with significant drainage channels or riparian areas just south of Anaheim, or are within 

coastal areas just south of Camp Pendleton to San Diego. 

Surface Waters 

For this analysis, surface waters include improved flood control or drainage channels, 

intermittent river and stream channels, permanent river and stream channels, ponds, 

lakes, reservoirs, coastal estuaries and lagoons, and sloughs. 

Streams and lakes are important for fish and wildlife, for water supply, and because they 

convey floodwaters and may contribute to or attenuate the risk of downstream flooding. 

They provide important habitat for native species and may support wetland and riparian 

habitats (discussed in Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands); provide direct 

pathways connecting to downstream ecological or human resources; and provide 

locations for groundwater recharge. 

Lagoons and estuaries are sheltered, semi-enclosed, brackish bodies of water along 

shorelines where fresh and salt waters interface through tidal flows and currents. 

Pollution from storm water runoff, industrial discharges, and boats can damage these 

resources, especially if their tidal flow is limited, naturally or otherwise. The amount, 

frequency, duration, and quality of freshwater flows affect the salinity levels, which in 

turn dictate the types of biological resources associated with a particular water body. 

Figure 3.12-2 shows surface waters in the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources 

study area. (See Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands, for a discussion of 

wetlands.) The major rivers and channels in the region include Los Angeles, Rio Hondo, 

San Gabriel, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Dieguito, and San Diego 

Rivers. Other, smaller creeks include San Mateo, San Onofre, and Loma Alta creeks, all 

of which may provide critical habitat for the tidewater goby and other listed species. 

Other water resources include the San Diego and Mission Bays which border the 

southern end of the study area, and the coastal lagoons located in northern San Diego 

County. Other, smaller surface waters may exist within potential areas of direct and 

indirect impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative that did not appear in existing 

databases used for this program-level analysis. Project-level studies will include more 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : USGS, 1998 FIGURE 3.12-1

Special Flood Hazard Areas ecial Flood Hazard Areas

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

FEMA Zone A

Special Flood Hazard Area

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.12-5
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

8

20

4

25

14

27

7

22

21

17

29

26

15

11

3

5

6

2

1

10

18

28

24

19

9

12

30

16

23

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Oceanside 

San Clemente 

Union Station 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

San Dieguito Lagoon

Agua Hedionda Lagoon

13

Norwalk 

Santa Ana 

Fullerton 

Solana Beach 

Santa Fe Depot 

San Onofre Power Plant 

San Elijo Lagoon

Batiquitos Lagoon

Buena Vista Lagoon

Los Penasquitos Lagoon

Source : USGS, 1998 FIGURE 3.13-2

Surface Waters & Wetlands rface Waters & Wetlands

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Surface Waters

CWA 303 (d) Impaired Waters

Other Affected Waters

Wetlands

Unaffected Waters

Lakes

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

Key to Concerned Surface Waters

Name Number CWA 303(d)

Batiquitos River 1

Brea Creek 2

Carbon Creek 3

Coyote Creek 4 Yes

Fullerton Creek 5

La Mirada Creek 6

Loma Alta Creek 7 Yes

Los Angeles River 8 Yes

Los Penasquitos Canyon Creek 9

Los Penasquitos River 10

Mission Bay 11

Oso Creek 12

Peters Canyon Wash 13 Yes

Rio Hondo River 14 Yes

San Diego Bay 15

San Diego Creek Channel 16

San Diego River 17 Yes

San Dieguito River 18

San Elijo River 19

San Gabriel River 20 Yes

San Juan Creek 21 Yes

San Luis Rey 22 Yes

San Mateo Creek 23

San Onofre Creek 24

Santa Ana River 25 Yes

Santa Margarita River 26 Yes

Santiago Creek 27 Yes

Soledad Creek 28

Tecolote Creek 29 Yes

Trabuco Creek 30

Lagoons

Agua Hedionda Lagoon Yes

Batiquitos Lagoon Yes

Buena Vista Lagoon Yes

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Yes

San Dieguito Lagoon Yes

San Elijo Lagoon Yes

Key to Surface Waters

3.12-7
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

site-specific mapping, field work, and consultation with resource agencies to identify any 

addition surface waters within the study area. 

The existing LOSSAN railroad corridor generally parallels the coastline between 

Capistrano Beach and San Diego. Along this stretch of coast, six lagoons have formed 

where streams flow into the Pacific Ocean: Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, 

San Elijo, San Dieguito, and Los Peñasquitos. These lagoons contain a mixture of salt 

and fresh water, and the water level is often influenced by tidal cycles and stormwater 

runoff during local and upstream precipitation events. 

When the rail corridor across the lagoons was originally established, the tracks were 

typically built on an earth-fill embankment. A relatively short bridge allowed for water to 

pass under the tracks, but the embankment reduced the degree of water circulation in 

the lagoon. Where previously the stream channel may have meandered across the 

lagoon, the opening to the ocean was now fixed at the bridge location. After the railroad 

was constructed, the old Coast Highway was constructed nearly parallel to the railroad 

tracks. In most of these lagoons, the highway was also built on an earth-fill 

embankment, with a bridge opening in line with the railroad bridge opening. 

Groundwater

Groundwater is found in subsurface water-bearing formations. A groundwater basin is 

defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected and 

interrelated aquifers. Groundwater basins, which do not necessarily coincide with 

surface drainage basins, are defined by surface features and/or geological features such 

as faults, impermeable layers, and natural or artificial divides in the water table surface. 

The elevation of groundwater varies with the amount of withdrawal and the amount of 

recharge to the groundwater basin. Groundwater basins may be recharged naturally as 

precipitation infiltrates, and/or artificially with imported or reclaimed water. Shallow 

groundwater is subject to potential impacts from dewatering during construction. 

The California Coastal Basin Aquifer is the primary aquifer identified in the LOSSAN 

region. Figure 3.12-3 shows the location and extent of this aquifer within the general 

vicinity of the hydrologic resources study area. Groundwater depth within the region 

varies from a few feet to more than 100 ft (30 m). Perched aquifers with a shallow water 

surface occur throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Shallow groundwater is 

also likely adjacent to or in the vicinity of streams, rivers, lagoons and bays. 

Two varieties of groundwater are found along the proposed coastal routes. The first is 

perched water, which infiltrates and percolates through the sandy terraces, then 

becomes perched on or within less porous bedrock units. This contributes to the 

instability of the Del Mar and San Clemente coastal bluffs. Efforts to control the 

instability have included improvements to the storm drain system, surface drainage, and 

sub-drains. The second variety of groundwater is subsurface water that saturates 

surface and formational materials in the vicinity of alluvial or estuarine environments, 

such as the mouths of the major drainage areas and lagoons. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

C. WATER QUALITY 

Surrounding land uses affect surface water and groundwater quality. Both point-source1

and nonpoint-source2 discharges contribute contaminants to surface waters. Pollutant 

sources in the primarily urban areas of the LOSSAN region include parking lots and 

roadways, rooftops, exposed earth at construction sites, and landscaped areas. 

The impacts of nonpoint-source pollutants on aquatic systems are many and varied. 

Polluted runoff waters can result in impacts on aquatic ecosystems, public use, and 

human health from ground and surface water contamination, damage to and destruction 

of wildlife habitat, decline in fisheries, and loss of recreational opportunities. Small soil 

particles washed into streams can smother spawning grounds and marsh habitat. 

Suspended small soil particulates can restrict light penetration into water and limit 

photosynthesis of aquatic biota. Metals and petroleum hydrocarbons washed off of 

roadways and parking lots, and fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides from landscaped 

areas may cause toxic responses (acute or long term) in aquatic life, or may harm water 

supply sources such as reservoirs or aquifers. 

Erosion

Potential impacts on water quality may result from construction activity (e.g., grading, 

which removes vegetation, exposing soil to wind and water erosion). A potential erosive 

condition occurs in areas with a combination of erosive soil types and steep slopes. 

Erosion can result in sedimentation that ultimately flows into surface waters. 

Contaminants in runoff waters may include sediment, hydrocarbons (e.g., fuels, 

solvents, etc.) metals, pesticides, bacteria, nutrients, and trash. Figure 3.12-4 shows 

areas with soils susceptible to erosion in the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources 

study area. 

Impaired Waters

Some water bodies have been given special status under the CWA. Section 303(d) of 

the CWA requires each state to identify waters that will not achieve water quality 

standards after application of effluent limits, and to develop plans for water quality 

improvement. For each water body and pollutant for which water quality is considered 

impaired, the state must develop load-based (as opposed to concentration-based) limits 

called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). TMDL is the maximum amount of pollution 

(both point and non-point sources) that a water body can assimilate without violating 

state water quality standards. Priorities for development of TMDLs are set by the state, 

based on the severity of the pollution and the beneficial uses of the waters. The EPA 

TMDL program provides a process for determining pollution budgets for the nation’s 

most impaired waters. Pollutant loading limits are set and implemented by the CWRCB 

under the Porter-Cologne Act. The program includes development of water quality 

standards, issuance of permits to control discharges, and enforcement action against 

violators. 

 

1 Point source is a stationary location or fixed facility, such as the end of a pipe, from which pollutants are discharged; any single 

identifiable source of pollution (EPA 2002). 

2 Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries 

away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even underground 

sources of drinking water (EPA 2002). 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : USGS, 1998 FIGURE 3.12-3

Groundwater oundwater

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

California Coastal Basin Aquifer

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.12-11
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : Jennings, 1977 FIGURE 3.12-4

Areas Susceptible to Erosion eas Susceptible to Erosion

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Slopeh Kfact (see text)

>10

>3

2-3

1-2

0 - 1

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.12-13
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Water bodies with impaired water quality in the LOSSAN region include the Los Angeles, 

Rio Hondo, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey Rivers. (Refer 

to Figure 3.12-2.) The rivers are considered impaired because they exceed standards 

for algae, ammonia, metals, chloroform count, pesticides, nutrients, toxicity, trash, and/or 

sedimentation. In San Diego County, the lagoons and the San Diego and Mission Bays 

are also considered impaired because of declining water quality, increased freshwater 

input, accumulated sediment, diminished biological productivity, and water circulation 

constraints. 

The water bodies that are tributaries of or discharge into 303(d) impaired waters include 

Batiquitos River, Los Peñasquitos Canyon Creek, Los Peñasquitos River, San Diego 

Creek Channel, San Diego River, San Dieguito River, San Elijo River, Santiago Creek, 

and Soledad Creek. Since these are tributaries of or discharge into 303(d) waters, they 

may be considered part of the 303(d) listed water bodies. 

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 

Potential impacts on hydrology and water resources which may result from the No-Project 

Alternative or the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative include potential encroachment on or 

location in a floodplain, potential impacts to water quality, potential increased or decreased 

runoff and stormwater discharge due to changes in the amount of paved surface, potentially 

increased or decreased contribution of nonpoint-source contamination from automobiles, 

potential impacts on groundwater from dewatering or reduction of groundwater recharge, or 

impediments to tidal flow at lagoon crossings. 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

In addition to existing conditions, the No-Project Alternative includes planned and 

programmed transportation improvements that would be constructed and operational by 

2020. The potential impacts of the No-Project Alternative on hydrologic resources and 

water quality are assumed to be limited because typical design and construction 

practices would need to meet permit conditions. However, some impacts to hydrologic 

resources would likely result from the implementation of the projects under the NoProject Alternative, such as increased runoff from added lanes of paved surface and 

new columns for expanded roadway or railway bridges over rivers, streams, and 

lagoons. However, attempting to estimate these potential impacts would be speculative. 

Project-level environmental documents and permit applications would in all likelihood be 

prepared by project proponents for future projects that would affect hydrologic resources 

and water quality. These project-level documents would identify, analyze, and avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to hydrology and water quality to the extent 

feasible. Therefore, it is assumed that few major changes would occur to hydrologic 

resources as a result of No-Project Alternative and that existing conditions can serve as 

the basis for assessment of the potential for impact from the Rail Improvements 

Alternative. 

Beyond the potential impacts for programmed improvements (to be addressed in other 

project-level documents), the No-Project Alternative potentially would have additional, 

indirect impacts on hydrologic resources and water quality in the coastal bluff areas 

along the LOSSAN corridor. The No-Project Alternative would not provide any 

opportunity for long-term solutions to the continued erosion problems along the existing 

LOSSAN rail corridor in the San Clemente and Del Mar coastal bluff areas, caused by 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

wave action, groundwater infiltration, and slope stability. The No-Project Alternative 

would result in the need for the bluffs to be stabilized over the long-term, and drainage 

facilities maintained or increased, to continue reliable rail service in these areas. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

The estimated areas of potential impacts to hydrologic resources and water quality 

would not provide a primary means of differentiating between the alternatives or among 

the rail improvement alignment options because neither alternative nor any of the 

alignment options presents significant potential impacts that could not be substantially 

avoided, minimized, or mitigated through conventional design and construction 

processes, and compliance with permits and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that 

are required for project permits. For example, it is expected that streams and rivers 

would largely be spanned by bridges (culverts also can be used) or tunneled under to 

minimize potential impacts to the flow and water quality of these hydrologic resources. 

Further, potential impacts on water quality from surface runoff or erosion during project 

construction would be identified during the project-level analysis and the design phase, 

and standard BMPs would be used to minimize potential impacts. The primary difference 

among alignment options would be the cost to bridge over streams and rivers and tunnel 

under waters and wetland areas or construct elevated rail infrastructure to minimize 

potential impacts to surface flow. 

Areas with identified sensitive habitat, such as the tidal lagoons in northern San Diego 

County, are discussed in Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands, of this 

Program EIR/EIS. These areas have waters and wetlands that provide potential habitat 

to special-status species. For example, the following surface waters provide potential 

critical habitat for the tidewater goby, and will be further evaluated at the project level: 

San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, Loma Alta Creek, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 

Avoiding or minimizing impacts on hydrologic resources and riparian corridors would be 

a factor in selecting the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative at the 

project level. 

Potential hydrology and water quality impacts related to construction could result from 

ground-disturbing activities at shafts, portals, and staging areas; generation of spoils; 

construction vibration and noise; and potential ground surface settlement from 

trenching/tunneling and excavation. These impacts would be temporary, and would 

abate as construction is completed and revegetation or surface stabilization measures 

are put in place. 

Overall, it is anticipated that the design of bridge structures over water bodies could 

have a beneficial effect on hydrology and water quality impacts. Implementation of 

alignment options that would modify existing bridge structures across lagoons would 

allow for improved tidal flushing, improving the quality of the water. Options that would 

remove the existing rail corridor from coastal bluff areas in San Clemente and Del Mar 

would reduce long-term bluff erosion by eliminating the need for on-going rail line 

maintenance activities and vehicles along the bluffs, and reduce potential impacts to the 

rail service from increased storm surge and rising sea levels along the coastal rail route. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.12-1 summarizes the potential area of impacts on the various hydrologic 

resources examined as part of this evaluation. Potential impacts of the various alignment 

options are described below by resource. Surface waters other than those identified at 

this program level of analysis may exist within potential areas of direct and indirect 

impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative. Some may not have been mapped in 

existing databases used for this analysis, or did not occur within the defined study area 

for various alignment options. Project-level studies will include more site-specific 

mapping, field work, and consultation with resource agencies to identify any addition 

surface waters within the study area. 

The lack of identification of an impact does not necessarily mean that this portion of the 

proposed alternative would not result in potential impacts on hydrologic resources, only 

that location-specific data would be required to make a more precise determination. 

Likewise, the identification of a potential impact on a specific resource is intended to be 

conservative and in many instances may be an overstatement because the hydrologic 

resource may not be found in or near the footprint of the corridor or actual alignment. It 

is understood that hydrologic resources could still be present, and will be evaluated 

through field studies for project-level environmental reviews. 

Floodplains

Potential flood impacts may occur in areas where designated SFHAs were identified 

along the rail routes. Depending on the alignment option, the total extent of SFHAs 

crossed in the study area ranges from a low of approximately 205 ac (83 ha) to a high of 

315 ac (127 ha). Floodplain impacts are expected to be low overall, because many of 

the proposed improvements would be done within the established LOSSAN rail corridor 

designed in the floodplains, or would involve deep tunnels that would avoid surface 

floodplains. 

From Union Station to Irvine, SFHAs would be equally affected by either alignment 

option along the existing LOSSAN rail alignment. Proposed modifications at the existing 

Anaheim and Irvine Stations would affect SFHAs and potential flood impacts could 

occur. Because the modifications would involve parking expansion and bypass tracks at 

existing stations, it is expected that any potential flood hazard can be avoided or 

mitigated through planning and design. 

The City of San Juan Capistrano rail improvement options include the I-5 tunnel option, 

and an at-grade and trenched option east of Trabuco Creek. Designated SFHAs would 

be crossed along the at-grade portions of the tunnel option, and for a short length of the 

Trabuco Creek option. There is a potential for flood impacts to the western bank of 

Trabuco Creek if the trench were designed with the eastern stream bank serving as the 

trench wall. This could result in hard-armoring of the eastern bank which could then 

cause damage to the western bank and possibly the rail corridor itself during flood 

events. 

SFHAs have been identified in areas along the Dana Point curve realignment and within 

the short tunnel option south of the curve realignment. The long, two-segment tunnel 

alignment does not cross any known SFHAs. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.12-1 

Summary of Hydrologic Resources Potentially Impacted 

Rail Improvement 

Alignment Options

100-Year 

Floodplains

Acres 

(Hectares) 

Streams 

and 

Rivers 

Linear 

Feet 

(Meters) 

Lakes and 

Lagoons 

Acres 

(Hectares) 

High 

Potential 

for Erosion 

Acres 

(Hectares) 

Potential for Impact 

to Groundwater 

(H, M or L) 

Union Station To 

Fullerton Station – 4th

Main Track 

10 

(4)

675 

(203) 0 220 

(89) L

Fullerton Station To 

Irvine Station—Double 

Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa Ana

65 

(26)

2,590 

(777) 0 20 

(8) L

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa Ana 

65 

(26) 

2,590 

(777) 0 20 

(8) 

L (at-grade sections) 

M (trench sections) 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 0 0 15 

(6) 

Anaheim 15 

(6) 0 0 0 

Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 

Irvine 5 

(2) 0 0 0 

San Juan Capistrano 

Double Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between Hwy 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

25 

(10) 

1,195 

(359) 0 35 (14) 

L (at-grade sections) 

M (tunnel sections) 

AT-GRADE and 

Cut/Cover TRENCH 

along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

5 

(2) 

2,340 

(702) 0 5 (2) L 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 L 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL

30 

(12) 

740 

(222) 0 235 (95) 

L (at-grade sections) 

M (trench sections) 

San Clemente - LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT 

TUNNEL 

0 340 

(102) 0 240 (97) 

L (tunnel sections) 

M (trench sections) 

Stations 

San Clemente 

5 

(2) 0 0 0 L 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade Double 

Tracking 

0 940 

(282) 0 0 L 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.12-1 

Summary of Hydrologic Resources Potentially Impacted (continued) 

Rail Improvement 

Alignment Options 

100-Year 

Floodplain

s 

Acres 

(Hectares) 

Streams 

and 

Rivers 

Linear 

Feet 

(Meters) 

Lakes and 

Lagoons 

Acres 

(Hectares) 

High 

Potential 

for Erosion 

Acres 

(Hectares) 

Potential for Impact 

to Groundwater 

(H, M or L) 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; 

double tracking 

15 

(6) 

1,300 

(390) 

7 

(3) 

95 

(38) L 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; 

double-tracking 

15 

(6) 

1,300 

(390) 

7 

(3) 

95 

(38) L 

Stations 

Oceanside 0 0 0 5 (2) L 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; 20 

(8) 

1,615 

(485) 

3 

(1) 

160 

(65) L 

Encinitas - SHORT 

TRENCH 

20 

(8) 

1,615 

(485) 

3 

(1) 

160 

(65) M 

Stations 

Solana Beach 0 0 0 15 

(6) L 

Del Mar Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar 

75 

(30) 

1,310 

(393) 

2 140 

(57) 

L (tunnel sections) 

M (trench sections) 

TUNNEL along I-5 35 

(14) 

1,520 

(456) 

0.5 145 

(59) 

L 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL 15 

(6) 

455 

(137) 0 35 (14) 

L 

I-5 TUNNEL 35 

(14) 

320 

(96) 0 30 (12) 

L 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to 

Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

0 0 0 25 

(10) 

L 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot 

Curve realignment and 

Double Tracking 

15 

(6) 

1,475 

(443) 0 75 (30) 

L (at-grade sections) 

M (trench sections) 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 0 0 2* 

(0.8) 0 L 

*Adjacent to San Diego Bay but does not cross. 

Between Oceanside and San Diego, most segments and options would encompass 

SFHAs, including the trench and at-grade options in Carlsbad and Encinitas, and both 

tunnel options in Del Mar. The tunnel alignment under Camino del Mar crosses about 

75 ac (30 ha) of SFHA, while the I-5 tunnel option crosses about 35 ac (14 ha); however, 

most of the potential floodplain impacts along either of these alignments would be 

avoided by tunneling. Similarly, the two tunnel options south of the I-5/805 Split both 

encounter floodplains, but would not be expected to have a substantive impact due to 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

the depth of the tunneling. Small areas of SFHAs are also present along the alignment 

from Highway 52 to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego where there is some potential for 

impact along the proposed at-grade and trenched alignment. 

Surface Waters

Between Los Angeles Union Station and San Diego Santa Fe Depot, the various rail 

alignment options cross approximately 25 streams and rivers, 13 of which are 303(d) 

waters. In addition, these rail options cross six coastal lagoons in northern San Diego 

County, all of which are considered impaired waters. All of these streams, rivers, and 

lagoons were considered in the Surface Waters analysis. Depending on the alignment 

options, a total of between 11,760 and 13,650 linear ft (3,528 to 4,095 m) of streams and 

rivers are within the study area potentially affected, and between 10.5 and 12 ac (4 to 5 

ha) of lagoons are within the study area potentially affected. 

During project scoping, the lead agencies stated that project design for the Rail 

Improvements Alternative would be such that, at a minimum, there would be no net 

increase in the existing footprint of the rail infrastructure or fill in the coastal lagoons. 

This design commitment would prevent any further reduction in water circulation 

attributable to the railroad infrastructure. 

There is a potential for improving the existing hydrologic conditions in the lagoons, if the 

existing earth-fill embankments were replaced with new causeway structures, and/or 

existing bridge spans were widened. During winter storms, the fresh water streams 

entering the lagoons experience very high flows for short periods of time. The existing 

railroad embankment has the potential to act as a dam, slowing this flow on its way to 

the ocean and raising flood water levels in the lagoons. The replacement of the 

embankment with a series of bridge structures would reduce this backwater effect, 

potentially lowering the water surface elevation in the lagoons during flood events. The 

feasibility, costs versus benefits, and effectiveness of reducing the amount of existing fill 

and improving hydrologic conditions by replacing structures cannot be fully assessed at 

this program-level evaluation. Those issues would be examined in more detail during 

project-level analyses (see Section 3.12.5 below). Removal of existing fill would create 

temporary increases in the amount of sedimentation in lagoons. 

In San Juan Capistrano, the tunnel option along I-5 would potentially affect fewer surface 

water resources than the at-grade and trenched alignment option on the east side of 

Trabuco Creek. The latter would pose potential sedimentation impacts during 

construction from erosion and run-off. 

In the Dana Point/San Clemente area, the short-tunnel option would have somewhat 

higher potential for impacts on surface water than the long, two-segment tunnel option, 

because the short option would involve more at-grade and trenched construction. 

In the Del Mar area, the Camino del Mar tunnel option would result in removal of the 

existing rail corridor from the coastal bluffs, placing it in a tunnel, and crossing two 

lagoons on elevated (bridge) structures. The existing rail bridge across the Los 

Peñasquitos Lagoon would likely be replaced with a new bridge or causeway structure 

that would eliminate the existing fill and increase water circulation and tidal flushing. The 

San Dieguito Lagoon crossing would remain within the footprint of the existing rail 

structure. The I-5 tunnel would also remove the existing rail service from the coastal 

bluffs, placing them in a tunnel and bypassing Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. This tunnel 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

would surface at the southern edge of San Dieguito Lagoon and a new bridge would 

cross the floodplain and river of this lagoon. This structure could cause erosion to the 

lagoon bluffs, and increase sedimentation in the lagoon. Either of the tunnel options in 

the Del Mar area would result in a temporary increase in sedimentation in the two 

lagoons during construction and/or removal of the existing Los Peñasquitos bridge 

structure. Water quality during operation of any of the design options could improve from 

the existing condition with the reduction in vehicle miles traveled on area highways. 

Fewer roadway pollutants would be present in the surface run-off from the roadways. 

This beneficial effect could be particularly helpful in reducing or slowing the further 

impairment of 303(d) waters in the project area. Another potential improvement to 

surface waters could occur in areas where mitigation may include new bridge designs 

over lagoons and other water bodies that would allow for better water circulation and 

tidal flushing. 

Storm Water/Run-off

Storm water run-off from the proposed improvements would be generated during both 

construction and operation. Common sources of storm water pollution during 

construction would include equipment and vehicle leaks of oil, grease, fuel, etc., 

construction materials, and waste material. 

Impacts associated with operational storm water run-off are anticipated to be minimal 

because the Rail Improvements Alternative would not add much new impervious 

surface. Few of the proposed rail improvements would increase existing impervious 

surfaces by any substantive amount, except the additional parking areas planned for 

some existing rail stations, and parking areas at new stations. Most of the existing 

stations along the LOSSAN corridor now have or are developing vertical parking 

structures (garages). At these locations, additional parking requirements would likely be 

met through addition parking levels in the existing structures, so impervious surface at 

ground level would not be increased. 

Any reduction in vehicle miles traveled with the implementation of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would also reduce (or, at least, slow the increase of) the pollutant burden in 

storm water runoff from area highways. However, expected population and travel 

demand increases over the next 20 years in the study area would likely offset initial 

reductions in highway travel resulting from the rail improvements; therefore, it is not 

expected that pollutant burdens from highway runoff would be sustained over that same 

period. 

Erosion

Available data indicates that soils susceptible to erosion (i.e., with a factor greater than 

3.0) are located in a number of areas along the rail corridors. Most erosion potential can 

be controlled and contained through proper design, pollutant prevention plans, and 

mitigation. Erosion potential is not expected to be a substantial construction or operation 

issue in the rail alignments, and it makes no clear differentiation between alignment 

options in any segment (refer to Table 3.12-1). Any of the options proposed in the San 

Clemente and Del Mar coastal areas would improve the existing bluff erosion problem, 

as described earlier under the No-Project Alternative. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Groundwater

Construction methods for the various alignment options between Union Station and San 

Diego include at-grade, trenching, and tunneling. Groundwater impacts are anticipated 

to be low for at-grade construction and most tunnel segments, and medium for most 

trench segments. 

Proposed improvements to existing stations are anticipated to have a low impact on 

groundwater. Potential new stations at San Juan Capistrano (Trabuco Creek design 

option), San Clemente, and University Town Centre would be depressed below grade. 

These conceptual station sites are not located in the California Coastal Basin Aquifer 

area and are not expected to have a substantive impact on groundwater. 

Sea Level Rise

The character of the coastline is the result of various natural processes, one of which is 

rising sea levels. This is a growing concern among coastal communities. It is projected 

that a rise of 19 in (48 cm), with a possible range of 5 to 37 in (13 to 94 cm) in sea level 

could occur by the year 2100 (Wilkinson et al. 2002). A rise in sea level would expose 

the coastline to increased flooding. Impacts from global warming and rising sea levels 

are not expected to impact the rail improvement options between Union Station and 

Irvine Station because of their inland location. Impacts from global warming and rising 

sea levels may impact rail improvements between Irvine Station and San Diego, 

especially where the improvements are in close proximity to the shoreline. 

Rising water levels would have a direct impact on beach erosion, which, in turn, could 

undermine storm protection structures for the tracks. Sea-level rise and associated 

erosion, storm surge, and flooding could have a direct impact on at-grade sections of the 

rail alignments near the shoreline in Encinitas San Clemente, and Del Mar. The design 

options that would remove the existing rail alignment from the coastal bluffs in San 

Clemente and Del Mar would reduce the existing potential for impacts of sea-level rise in 

these areas. 

Bridge structures across lagoons in northern San Diego County could be adversely 

affected by increased erosion around the footings due to rising water levels and storm 

surge. In addition, increased storm surge and flooding would present potential impacts 

to the lagoons themselves. The existing railroad embankment has the potential to shelter 

the lagoon from strong incoming surges from the ocean. The replacement of the 

embankment with a series of bridge structures may allow these surges to pass under the 

tracks, potentially raising the water surface elevation in the lagoons and area estuaries 

during ocean surge events. 

Rising sea levels could also cause greater wave action within lagoons. Particularly if the 

existing fill were removed and crossing structures were replaced, the waves would be 

able to pass under the bridge structure and move freely across the lagoon. This could 

result in higher shoreline erosion within the lagoons. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-23 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.12.4 Design Practices 

Emphasis will be on utilizing existing rail and other transportation corridors for the proposed rail 

improvements to minimize potential impacts to hydrological resources bisecting sensitive areas 

and creating new crossings or encroachments on water resources. Nearly 90 percent of the 

alignments carried forward for the Rail Improvements Alternative are either within or adjacent to 

a major existing transportation corridor (existing railroad or highway rights-of-way). Use of these 

existing transportation corridors helps minimize potential impacts since they have already 

imposed a footprint/crossing along which the rail improvements would be implemented where 

not in a new corridor. Many alignment options would be in tunnel or on aerial structure, which 

would also avoid and/or minimize impacts to surface water resources. 

The lead agencies support continued avoidance and minimization of potential impacts during 

subsequent project level analysis; however, it is unavoidable that lagoons and many streams 

and water resources would be crossed with the proposed rail improvements. Therefore, the lead 

agencies will work closely with the regulatory agencies to develop acceptable, specific design 

and construction standards for lagoon and stream crossings, including, but not limited to, 

maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed culvert) crossings, infrastructure setbacks, 

erosion control measures, sediment controlling excavation/fill practices, and other Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). 

As stated previously, the lead agencies support retaining or reducing the in-water footprint of 

lagoon crossing structures. Project-level analyses and agency consultation, along with more 

detailed design work, will be used to evaluate the feasibility and potential impacts and benefits 

of replacing structures and/or removing existing fill in the lagoons. Design of new structures 

would include features that minimize the amount of discharge into these waters, such as longer 

bridge spans to minimize the number of in-water structures, designs that minimize the need for 

rock-slope stabilization at bridge abutments, etc. 

There is also potential for impacts to groundwater in areas of the system where tunneling or 

substantial excavation would be necessary. For alignment options in tunnels, geologic 

exploration including groundwater sampling would be completed prior to construction. The 

geologic/soils/groundwater conditions would be evaluated prior to and monitored during 

construction to aid in the development of construction techniques and measures to minimize 

effects to ground- and surface water resources. Based on available geologic information and 

previous tunneling projects in the study area, the lead agencies plan to fully line tunnels with 

impermeable material to prevent infiltration of ground- or surface waters. Infiltration of ground 

and surface waters into tunnels is undesirable for operations and maintenance reasons as well 

as the potential for adverse impacts to ground and surface waters. All reasonable measures 

would be taken to avoid water infiltration. In addition, it is assumed that tunnel boring machines 

would be appropriately equipped with shielding to minimize the infiltration of higher pressure 

groundwater during the boring process. 

3.12.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for hydrology and water quality, and considering the sophisticated design, engineering, and 

construction practices that would be used (and required in order to obtain permits), the 

proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would have a potentially less-than-significant effect on 

hydrology and water quality in most areas along the corridor, but would have a potentially 

significant effect in the lagoon environments in northern San Diego County. For areas other 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

than the lagoons, placing the conceptual corridors for the rail improvements within or along 

existing transportation corridors reduces the potential for adverse effects to water resources, 

and engineering and design practices further reduce potential adverse impacts to these water 

resources (e.g., avoiding encroachments on water resources, use of tunnels lined with 

impermeable surfaces, infrastructure setbacks from surface waters, using permeable surfaces 

and structures to reduce flow and drainage obstructions). 

The hydrologic dynamics of the six lagoons crossed by the existing rail corridor are complex, 

and project-level decisions will require in-depth analysis of potential impacts and benefits to 

these water resources. Potential impacts (as described previously) include in-water work for 

new infrastructure, possible removal of existing structures, turbidity, and increased 

sedimentation during construction. There are also potentially significant cumulative impacts that 

may result from rail and highway construction across the lagoons (see Section 316 for more 

information on cumulative impacts). Additional avoidance and mitigation strategies, as well as 

the design practices discussed above, will be applied to reduce impacts to all water resources in 

the project-level analyses and in obtaining permits for facilities included in the Rail 

Improvements Alternative. At the program level of analysis, it is not possible to know precisely 

the location, extent and particular characteristics of all potential, adverse impacts to the lagoon 

resources. Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, will be applied 

to reduce these impacts. 

Proposed general mitigation strategies would be fairly similar for all rail improvement alignment 

options. These strategies are described as general policies that could be adopted and 

developed in detail at the project-level of environmental analysis. First, measures designed to 

avoid or to limit impacts would be considered. If avoidance measures were not feasible, then 

mitigation measures directed at reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of the resource, in 

close coordination with state and federal resource agencies, would be considered as part of 

subsequent project planning, environmental review, and design. Potential mitigation strategies 

are listed below by resource. 

A. FLOODPLAINS 

Mitigation for potential impacts on floodplains would include the following strategies. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, floodplain hydrology/hydraulics would 

be analyzed to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface 

elevations and flood conveyance for low frequency floods and to evaluate 

potential flooding risk. Where feasible, construction of facilities within floodplains 

will be avoided. Where infeasible, the footprint of facilities within the floodplain 

will be minimized. Where feasible, floodplains impacted by construction will be 

restored so they can again operate as before. Where there is no practicable 

alternative to avoid construction in the floodplain, the footprint of facilities within 

the floodplain will be minimized to the extent feasible (e.g., by use of aerial 

structures or tunnels). 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, all opportunities for facility redesign or 

modification to minimize flooding risk and potential harm to or within the 

floodplain will be assessed. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. SURFACE WATERS, RUNOFF AND EROSION 

Mitigation strategies for potential impacts on surface waters include the following. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, conduct studies and evaluate potential 

alteration in coastal hydrology/hydraulics in tidal lagoons from specific 

construction methods or facility designs. Construction methods or facility designs 

to minimize potential impacts would be evaluated and utilized to the extent 

feasible. (See also Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands, for further 

mitigation strategies for lagoon areas.) Efforts to design lagoon crossings would 

be coordinated with resource agencies and local lagoon planning efforts. 

(Details about existing and long-term lagoon planning efforts can be found in 

Appendix 3.13-D.) The replacement of existing embankments within the lagoons 

with a series of bridge structures would be evaluated in consultation with 

responsible agencies and entities, and coordinated with other potential 

construction projects such as the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project (see 

Section 3.16). The feasibility, costs versus benefits, and effectiveness of 

reducing the amount of existing fill and improving hydrologic conditions by 

replacing structures would be examined in detail during project-level analyses. 

• Project-specific studies would also be conducted to determine acceptable 

designs and construction techniques to minimize adverse impacts of increased 

sedimentation that would occur during in-water work in the lagoons and 

elsewhere. Potential minimization measures and timing windows would be 

developed in consultation with resource agencies and lagoon planning 

organizations. 

• Permit requirements as part of project-level review would include Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Under the requirements of the NPDES 

California Department of Transportation Statewide Storm Water Permit and the 

Construction General Permit, a SWPPP would be developed during construction 

and implemented to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges and the 

potential for erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include BMPs to 

minimize potential short-term increases in sediment transport caused by 

construction, including erosion control requirements, stormwater management, 

and channel dewatering for all stream and lake/lagoon crossings. Regional 

NPDES permit requirements would be followed and BMPs, as required for new 

developments, would be implemented. These may include measures to provide 

permeable surfaces where feasible and to retain and treat stormwater onsite 

using catch basins and treatment (filtering) wetlands, especially in areas around 

existing stations if the areal extent of surface parking is expanded or at new 

stations where new parking surface is constructed. Measures to manage the 

overall amount and quality of stormwater runoff to regional systems would be 

detailed as part of the SWPPP. BMPs may include the following: 

− Practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, 

and maintenance supplies with storm water; 

− Practices to reduce erosion of exposed soil including soil stabilization, 

watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of rice straw 

bales, and sediment basins; and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

− Practices to maintain water quality including filtration, detention, and 

retention systems, constructed wetland systems, biofiltration / bioretention 

systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, organic mulch layers, 

planting soil beds, sand beds, or vegetated systems (biofilters) such as 

vegetated swales and grass strips designed to convey and treat either 

shallow flow (swales) or sheetflow (filter strips) runoff. 

• Apply for and obtain appropriate permits under Sections 404 and 401 of the 

Clean Water Act and comply with mitigation measures required in the permits. 

Mitigation measures may include habitat restoration, reconstruction onsite, or 

habitat replacement offsite to compensate for loss of native habitats and 

wetlands. The ultimate goal of the mitigation would be to ensure minimal impact 

on surface water quality. 

• Requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and applicable permit 

conditions would be followed for any work required around a water body 

designated as Navigable. 

• Work along the banks of various surface water bodies would require an 

application for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. 

• A spill prevention and emergency response plan would be implemented to 

handle potential fuel or other spills. 

C. GROUNDWATER 

Mitigation to reduce potential impacts from construction and operation of project 

components on groundwater discharge or recharge would include the following 

strategies. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, minimize development of facilities in 

areas that may have substantial groundwater discharge or affect recharge. 

• Apply for and obtain waste discharge permits where needed (e.g., for dewatering), as part of project-level review. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, develop facility designs that are 

elevated or, at a minimum, are permeable and would not affect recharge 

potential where construction is required in areas of potentially substantial 

groundwater discharge or recharge. 

• Apply for and obtain an NPDES permit and implement permit requirements (see 

Surface Waters above). Implement BMPs that would control release of 

contaminants near areas of surface water or groundwater recharge (include 

constraining fueling and other sensitive activities to alternative locations, 

providing drip pans under some equipment, and providing daily checks of vehicle 

condition). 

• Consider use and retention of native materials with high infiltration potential at 

the ground surface in areas that are critical to infiltration for groundwater 

recharge. 

The above mitigation strategies, which include further study leading to refinement of site-specific 

mitigation measures and Best Management Practices, are expected to substantially lessen or 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-27 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

avoid impacts to hydrology and water quality. At the project-level, applications of these 

mitigation strategies are expected to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality to a lessthan-significant level in areas outside the lagoon environments. In lagoon areas, sufficient 

information is not available at the program level to conclude with certainty that mitigation will 

reduce impacts to affected resources to a less than significant level in all circumstances. 

Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality are considered significant at the program 

level even with the application of mitigation strategies. Additional environmental assessment will 

allow more precise evaluation in the project-level environmental analyses. 

3.12.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent analysis to further identify potential impacts on water quality and hydrological 

resources would be required as project development, environmental review and facility design 

are pursued. This subsequent analysis would include the following: 

• Further analysis and assessment of potential facility impacts on floodplains, specifically 

on flood elevations, as specific locations and facility designs are developed, to determine 

if the proposed facility is in the base floodplain (that area which has a one percent or 

greater chance of flooding in any given year). The analysis would identify potential 

encroachment on study-area floodplains as defined in Executive Order 11998 for 

Floodplain Management (23 C.F.R. Section 650(a)) and DOT Order 5650.2, or location 

of facilities in a 100-year floodplain without adequate mitigation measures. 

• Further analysis (hydrologic modeling of flow rates) of potential construction and facility 

impacts on surface hydrology in coastal areas and tidal marshes and lagoons, and on 

other surface waters. 

• Evaluation of impacts and benefits of removal of existing earthen fill from lagoon 

crossing structures, and of design options for new structures that reduce the amount of 

fill required in lagoons. These evaluations would be done in consultation with resource 

agencies and lagoon organizations, and include an analysis of consistency with lagoon 

plans. Options would be coordinated with other infrastructure construction plans in the 

lagoon areas, including the I-5 North Coast Corridor project proposed by the 

Department. 

• Refine alignment design along Trabuco Creek, including an evaluation of options for 

moving the alignment further from the creek. 

• An analysis of potential construction and facility impacts on surface hydrology in areas 

that are characterized as wetlands and that were not included in this analysis because 

field verification and wetland delineation was not part of this program-level evaluation. 

(See Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands for discussion of wetlands.) 

• Field surveys of potential surface water impacts to further analyze potential impacts on 

water quality and to seek required permits from the appropriate agencies. 

• Identification of potentially substantial alteration in water-flow and drainage patterns, 

including increased storm water runoff, or increased groundwater discharge or reduction 

of groundwater recharge. 

• Evaluation of potential impacts of the design options on groundwater recharge and 

infiltration systems. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.12-28 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Identification and study of areas of shallow groundwater to determine possible 

dewatering impacts resulting from construction. 

• Analysis of how the different alignment options would contribute to total additional 

impervious surface and the subsequent potential additional impacts on surface runoff. 

This analysis would also identify potential mitigation measures, including onsite retention 

facilities. 

• Field geotechnical studies to evaluate the potential for erosion and associated risks. 

• Field surveys of groundwater discharge or recharge conditions. Additional supplemental 

analysis of groundwater conditions with information from other geotechnical studies. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

This analysis reviews the biological resources and wetlands that may in the future require a 

permit and Section 404(b)(1) analysis under the federal Clean Water Act for a proposed action, 

and includes sensitive plant communities and special-status species, marine and anadromous 

fish habitat, riparian corridors, wildlife habitats, wildlife movement corridors, wetlands, and 

waters. Appendix 3.13-A provides a general description of these biological resource topics. 

This section describes the existing sensitive biological resources and wetlands within the 

LOSSAN Region, and identifies the areas of potential impacts of the Rail Improvement 

Alternative alignment and station options for these resources. 

3.13.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

This section briefly identifies the key federal and state laws and regulations relative to 

biological resources. Descriptions of these laws and regulations and the agencies 

responsible for implementing them are provided in Appendix 3.13-B. 

Federal Laws and Regulations

• Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 U.S.C 1531–1543) 

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251–1376) 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) 

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C 401 et seq.) 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C 661–666) 

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456) 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801 

et seq.) 

• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977), DOT Order 

5660.1A 

• Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) 

State Laws and Regulations

• California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) 

• Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900–1913) 

• Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Fish and Game Code Section 

2800 et seq.) 

• Streambed Alterations (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601–1603) 

• California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code section 30000, et seq.) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Data Collection and Geographic Information System Mapping

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would cross a variety of biotic communities 

and could potentially result in impacts on many plant and wildlife species, and many 

water resources. Plant taxonomy and nomenclature follows Abrams (1923, 1944, 1951), 

Abrams and Ferris (1960), Buckingham et al. (1995), Hickman (1993), and Hitchcock et 

al. (1996). Scientific nomenclature and common names for butterflies follows Miller 

(1992); fish, Robins et al. (1991); herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles), Committee on 

Standard English and Scientific Names (2001); birds, American Ornithologists’ Union 

(1983, 1998); and mammals, Wilson and Cole (2000). 

Geospatial data based on the California Gap Analysis Program (GAP) (Davis 1998), 

which uses the Wildlife Habitat Relationship (WHR) classification (Ziener et al. 1988; 

1990a; 1990b), was used as the primary source for delineation of sensitive vegetation 

communities along the Rail Improvements Alternative. However, the classification is 

based on Holland (1986). The most recent vegetation classification for California 

(Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) was not used, as this data is not available in geospatial 

contexts. Geospatial data for threatened and endangered species and special status 

species was obtained from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2004). Geospatial data for Critical Habitat 

areas was obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2002). 

However, it is possible that unmapped critical habitat may be present within potential 

impact zones. Critical habitat would be assessed through field studies and agency 

consultation during project-level environmental evaluations. 

In addition, wildlife movement corridors data were not available for the study area, so 

this evaluation assumed potential corridors were present in any large open areas, 

lagoons and surrounding parks and reserve areas, creeks and riparian areas in 

undeveloped settings. It is also possible that linear areas of narrow natural or seminatural habitats, even in urban areas, may be functioning at some level as wildlife 

movement corridors; however, these smaller areas are not specifically identified at the 

Program level of data analysis and would be evaluated at the project level. 

The type and extent of jurisdictional wetlands within the study areas came from the 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to provide information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the nation’s 

wetlands. NWI digital data files are records of wetlands location and classification as 

developed by the USFWS. The federal Geographic Data Committee adopted this 

classification system as a national classification standard in 1996. The locations of the 

wetlands are mapped on U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic 

quadrangle maps with codes that provide information on the water body type and 

substrate. The maps tend to show wetlands that are readily photo-interpreted given 

consideration of photo and map scale. This level of information, though incomplete for 

some areas, provides a general overview of areas with potential sensitivity for wetland 

impacts that is used in the comparison of alternatives. During project-level analysis, all 

areas will be reconnoitered to identify needs for subsequent fieldwork and wetlands 

delineations to be conducted in the next phase of environmental evaluation. Wetland 

information is quantified below to estimate the approximate acreage potentially affected 

by the alternatives. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Digitized information for vernal pools was obtained from the California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG). There were no geospatial data available for riparian corridors. 

The presence of streams and corresponding riparian vegetation was developed using 

USGS quadrangle maps, and geospatial results of the California GAP and CNDDB for 

specific riparian vegetation polygons. 

GIS data was exported to excel spreadsheets to show acreages of attributes for each 

alignment option. A detailed description of the data collection methods is provided in 

Appendix 3.13-C. No field or onsite visits were made for this Program EIR/EIS. GIS 

files of proposed rail improvement alignments were digitally overlaid on top of the 

datasets of biological resources and wetlands to identify locations where the study areas 

around potential alignments for proposed rail improvements might include portions of 

sensitive biological areas. 

The areas of overlap—wherever the study area included a sensitive vegetation 

community or habitat—were considered to constitute areas of potential impacts from the 

proposed alignment. The number of reported occurrences of a particular biological 

resource within the study area, the linear contact of the study area with the biological 

resource, and acreage of the resource within the study area were counted and compiled. 

Vegetation communities considered to be non-sensitive were not included in this level of 

environmental analysis but would be included in project-level analysis. 

The study area was defined as a broad corridor along alternative alignments to 

characterize the types and extent of biological resources and wetlands present. As 

described later in this chapter, the initial study area was later reduced in areal extent for 

impact analysis. After discussions with regulatory agencies, the impact corridors were 

narrowed to more realistically represent the potential for impacts while still 

encompassing both direct and indirect construction-related and operational impacts. 

There are inevitable inaccuracies and gaps in the statewide and federal datasets and 

vegetation data layers due to differences in collection methods, dates when the data was 

first collected, changes in habitat conditions, and a myriad of other factors. For the scale 

of analysis for this Program EIR/EIS, these available data sources are considered 

appropriate to identify key differences between potential alignment options. Given the 

datasets, the lack of identification of an impact does not necessarily mean that this 

portion of the proposed alternative would not result in potential impacts on biological 

resources, only that location-specific data would be required to make a more precise 

determination. Likewise, the identification of a potential impact on a specific resource is 

intended to be conservative and in many instances may be an overstatement because 

neither habitat that is sensitive nor species of concern may be found in or near the 

footprint of the corridor or actual alignment. This may be the case, for example, for 

improvements proposed within the existing, disturbed LOSSAN rail corridor. Verification 

of potential impacts would require future location-specific study and evaluation to 

determine the level and extent of potential impact. This level of analysis would be part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. 

C. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The significance criteria for identifying potential impacts on biological resources from 

proposed projects/actions are based on federal and state guidelines and general 

indicators of significance, including guidelines or criteria in NEPA, CEQA, CWA, the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

CESA, FESA, and the California Fish and Game Code. Project-specific criteria would be 

applied at the project level of environmental analysis when permits are being sought, if a 

decision is made to proceed with proposed rail improvements following this programlevel analysis. 

Based on the presence or absence of sensitive resources, an alternative may have a 

significant impact on biological resources if its implementation would result in any of the 

following. 

• Potential modification or destruction of habitat, movement/migration corridors, or 

breeding areas of endangered, threatened, rare, or other species as described 

above. 

• Potential loss of a substantial number of any species that could affect the 

abundance or diversity of that species beyond the level of normal variability. 

• Potential impacts on or measurable degradation of protected habitats; sensitive 

natural vegetation communities; wetlands; or other habitat areas’ plans, policies, 

or regulations. 

• Potential conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan 

(HCP), natural community conservation plan1

 (NCCP), or other approved local, 

regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 

• Potential conflict with local ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 

tree or creek preservation policy or ordinance. 

3.13.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area used to characterize the biological resources and wetlands within the 

project region is defined by the following limits. 

• 1,000 ft (305 m) on either side of alignment centerlines and around stations in 

urbanized areas. 

• 0.50 mi (0.81 km) on either side of alignment centerlines and around stations in 

sensitive areas. 

In the LOSSAN project area, all station sites (existing and proposed) are located within 

urbanized areas. Other than the undeveloped area of Camp Pendleton and several 

other small open areas, the majority of the study area is designated by census data as 

urbanized. Therefore, most of the area was inventoried using the 1,000-ft (305-m) on 

either side of centerline (2,000-ft [610-m] corridor). Because of the sensitive nature of 

six lagoons, the areas surrounding lagoons were inventoried using 0.50-mi (0.81-km) 

either side of centerline, or a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) wide corridor. All other undeveloped areas 

within this project area are considered sensitive and therefore also were inventoried 

using the 1.0-mi (1.6-km) corridor. 

 

1 The NCCP program of CDFG is an effort by the State of California and many private and public partners that takes a broad-based 

ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. An NCCP identifies and provides for the 

regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. 

CDFG and USFWS provide the necessary support, direction, and guidance to NCCP participants in these functions. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

Following is a brief description of the resource topics reviewed in this section. A more 

detailed description of these resources and the sources of information used to obtain the 

description are provided in Appendix 3.13-A. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

Sensitive vegetation communities are natural communities (assemblages of species, 

both plant and wildlife, forming communities) and wildlife habitats that are unique, of 

relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These 

resources have been defined by federal, state, and local government conservation 

programs. 

Sensitive Plant Species 

Sensitive plant species include species that have been afforded special status and/or 

recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as private conservation 

organizations, because of documented or perceived decline or limitation of population 

size or geographical extent. 

Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Sensitive wildlife species include species that have been afforded special status and/or 

recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as private conservation 

organizations, because of documented or perceived decline or limitation of population 

size or geographical extent. Special-status species include wildlife that are legally 

protected, or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource 

conservation agencies and organizations. Special-status species include species listed 

as state and/or federal threatened or endangered species under FESA or CESA, those 

considered as candidates for listing, and species identified by USFWS and/or CDFG as 

California species of special concern. 

Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors

Wildlife movement/migration corridors link together areas of wildlife habitat that are 

otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. 

The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization tends to create isolated islands 

of wildlife habitat. 

Water Resources 

Lakes, lagoons, rivers, streams, and other water bodies are protected by federal and/or 

state law. Special aquatic sites, which include wetlands, are considered an important 

subset of these waters. Wetlands and certain other waters would be delineated as part 

of a subsequent environmental review process. 

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS IN THE STUDY AREA 

Following is a discussion of resources within the study area for the topics described 

above. The mapped occurrences of these resources within the study area are 

summarized at the end of this section. In addition, this section discusses habitat 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

conservation plans (HCPs), critical habitat2 areas, and other conservation plans or areas 

that could potentially be affected by one or more of the alignment options discussed in 

this document. 

Regional Summary

The LOSSAN region includes the western portion of the Los Angeles basin and the 

coastal areas of southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego, generally 

following the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. The entire study area lies within the South 

Coast Bioregion, an area of contrasting landscapes ranging from coastal mountains, 

canyons, streams and river valleys, rolling hills, coastal mesas, and beaches to densely 

populated cities. The region more specifically lies within the Peninsular Range 

Physiographic Province. This area is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with 

winter rainfalls and summer droughts. Average annual rainfall ranges from 9 in (23 cm) 

in the San Diego region to 15 in (38 cm) in the Los Angeles basin. 

In San Diego County, the study area is further characterized by the presence of large 

coastal wetlands, including six lagoons located in the northern part of the county. These 

lagoons and the associated open space around them provide vital habitat for resident 

and migratory birds and other wildlife. Sensitive plant and animal species are found 

here in substantial numbers despite increasing urbanization, hydrological changes in the 

watershed, and limited tidal action. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

Upland Vegetation: Diegan coastal sage scrub is the most commonly found sage scrub 

community in coastal southern California, ranging from Los Angeles to Baja. This 

coastal sage scrub community is dominated by low soft-leaved, drought-deciduous 

shrubs and is typically found on dry sites and steep slopes. Diegan coastal sage scrub 

is considered sensitive and provides habitat for many endangered and threatened 

species. Due to spreading urbanization, this vegetation community has suffered severe 

reductions. For the purposes of this program-level of analysis, Diegan coastal sage 

scrub is considered the dominant sensitive vegetation in the study area. The distribution 

of this vegetation type in the study area is shown on Figure 3.13-1, based on the 

database sources used for this analysis (see Section 3.13.1.B). Agency comments 

indicate that there is additional coastal sage scrub (and other sensitive vegetation 

communities) that occur near the rail corridor south of Los Angeles that were not 

indicated in the databases. 

Other sensitive upland vegetation communities may include southern maritime 

chaparral, southern riparian scrub, southern riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow 

riparian forest, Torrey pine forest, southern dune scrub, southern foredunes, and San 

Diego mesa hardpan vernal pool. 

 

2 Critical habitat refers to areas shown on maps developed by USFWS that provide habitat for threatened and endangered species. 
5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : USDA Forest Service, 1997 FIGURE 3.13-1

Distribution of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub stribution of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Coastal Sage Scrub

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-7
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Wetland Vegetation: Lagoons and other wetlands are also considered to encompass 

sensitive vegetation. Sensitive vegetation communities include southern coastal salt 

marsh, and coastal brackish marsh. 

Sensitive Plant Species

The mosaic of vegetation communities that make up Diegan coastal sage scrub and the 

lagoon/wetlands supports a variety of sensitive plant species. Eight federally and statelisted species and 30 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B plants3 have the 

potential to occur in the study area. These species are listed in Table 3.13-1. 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Sensitive wildlife species potentially present within the study area include invertebrates, 

fish, reptiles and amphibians, birds and mammals. Table 3.13-2 lists the wildlife species 

potentially present in the study area that are federally or state-listed as threatened or 

endangered, or state-listed as species of concern. 

Within the study area, all sensitive vegetation communities and lagoons are assumed to 

provide wildlife habitat. Designated critical habitat, as defined by the USFWS, may 

occur within the study area for coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, tidewater 

goby, San Diego fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp. 

Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors

Large open areas, lagoons and surrounding park or reserve areas, and riparian areas in 

undeveloped areas are considered potential wildlife movement corridors in the LOSSAN 

region. Additionally, smaller creeks and areas of disconnected habitat may provide 

connectivity by acting as stepping stones for the regional movement of some avian 

species, or may provide resting areas for migratory species. Potential wildlife 

movement/migration corridors may include San Juan Creek, Camp Pendleton Marine 

Corps Base (includes San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, and Santa Margarita River), 

San Luis Rey River, Buena Vista Lagoon, Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, 

San Elijo Lagoon, San Dieguito River and Lagoon, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, 

Peñasquitos Creek and Canyon, Sorrento Valley, Rose Canyon, San Clemente Canyon, 

and the San Diego River. Smaller creeks and linear areas of narrow natural or seminatural habitat may not be comprehensively identified at this Program-level evaluation 

but would be evaluated for potential wildlife movement functions at the project level. 

Jurisdictional Waters

Non-Wetland Waters: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the jurisdictional 

authority over protection of Waters of the U.S., including non-wetland waters, under the 

provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. The California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) also has authority to protect fish and wildlife in non-wetland waters. The streams 

and rivers in the study area are a mix of natural and channelized water bodies. These 

are considered “non-wetland waters” (Table 3.13-3) although the natural and some of 

the channelized streams and rivers do support wetland or riparian habitat. 

 

3 List 1B plants have been determined by the CNPS to be rare, threatened or endangered in California or elsewhere. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-1 

Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Fed 

List 

Cal 

List CNPS 

DEL MAR MANZANITA ARCTOSTAPHYLOS GLANDULOSA SSP 

CRASSIFOLIA 

E 1B 

COASTAL DUNES MILKVETCH ASTRAGALUS TENER VAR TITI E E 1B 

COULTER'S SALTBUSH ATRIPLEX COULTERI 1B 

SOUTH COAST SALTSCALE ATRIPLEX PACIFICA 1B 

DAVIDSON’S SALTSCALE ATRIPLEX SERENANA VAR DAVIDSONII 1B 

THREAD-LEAVED BRODIAEA BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA T E 1B 

LAKESIDE CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS CYANEUS 1B 

SOUTHERN TARPLANT CENTROMADIA PARRYI SSP AUSTRALIS 1B 

SMOOTH TARPLANT CENTROMADIA PUNGENS SSP LAEVIS 1B 

ORCUTT'S PINCUSHION CHAENACTIS GLABRIUSCULA VAR ORCUTTIANA 1B 

ORCUTT'S SPINEFLOWER CHORIZANTHE ORCUTTIANA E E 1B 

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY 

SPINEFLOWER 

CHORIZANTHE PARRYI VAR FERNANDINA E 1B 

SUMMER HOLLY COMAROSTAPHYLIS DIVERSIFOLIA SSP 

DIVERSIFOLIA 

 1B 

SALT MARSH BIRD'S-BEAK CORDYLANTHUS MARITIMUS SSP MARITIMUS E E 1B 

DEL MAR MESA SAND ASTER CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA VAR LINIFOLIA 1B 

BLOCHMAN'S DUDLEYA DUDLEYA BLOCHMANIAE SSP BLOCHMANIAE 1B 

SHORT-LEAVED DUDLEYA DUDLEYA BREVIFOLIA E 1B 

MANY-STEMMED DUDLEYA DUDLEYA MULTICAULIS 1B 

VARIEGATED DUDLEYA DUDLEYA VARIEGATA 1B 

SAN DIEGO BUTTON-CELERY ERYNGIUM ARISTULATUM VAR PARISHII E E 1B 

PENDLETON BUTTONCELERY ERYNGIUM PENDLETONENSIS 1B 

DECUMBENT GOLDENBUSH ISOCOMA MENZIESII VAR DECUMBENS 1B 

COULTER'S GOLDFIELDS LASTHENIA GLABRATA SSP COULTERI 1B 

ROBINSON'S PEPPER-GRASS LEPIDIUM VIRGINICUM VAR ROBINSONII 1B 

NUTTALL'S LOTUS LOTUS NUTTALLIANUS 1B 

SAN DIEGO GOLDENSTAR MUILLA CLEVELANDII 1B 

SPREADING NAVARRETIA NAVARRETIA FOSSALIS T 1B 

PROSTRATE NAVARRETIA NAVARRETIA PROSTRATA 1B 

COAST WOOLLY-HEADS NEMACAULIS DENUDATA VAR DENUDATA 1B 

BRAND'S PHACELIA PHACELIA STELLARIS 1B 

TORREY PINE PINUS TORREYANA SSP TORREYANA 1B 

NUTTALL'S SCRUB OAK QUERCUS DUMOSA 1B 

OIL NESTSTRAW STYLOCLINE CITROLEUM 1B 

Notes: 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

1B = California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B plant species 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-2 

Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Fed 

List 

Cal 

List CDFG 

INVERTEBRATES 

SAN DIEGO FAIRY SHRIMP BRANCHINECTA SANDIEGONENSIS E 

RIVERSIDE FAIRY SHRIMP STREPTOCEPHALUS WOOTTONI E 

FISH 

TIDEWATER GOBY EUCYCLOGOBIUS NEWBERRYI E SC 

ARROYO CHUB GILA ORCUTTI SC 

SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS IRIDEUS E SC 

REPTILES-AMPHIBIANS 

ARROYO TOAD BUFO CALIFORNICUS E SC 

ORANGE-THROATED WHIPTAIL CNEMIDOPHORUS HYPERYTHRUS SC 

COASTAL WESTERN WHIPTAIL CNEMIDOPHORUS TIGRIS 

MULTISCUTATUS 

 

CORONADO SKINK EUMECES SKILTONIANUS 

INTERPARIETALIS

 SC 

SAN DIEGO HORNED LIZARD PHRYNOSOMA CORONATUM 

BLAINVILLEI 

 SC 

WESTERN SPADEFOOT SCAPHIOPUS HAMMONDII SC 

BIRDS 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RUFOUSCROWNED SPARROW AIMOPHILA RUFICEPS CANESCENS SC 

BURROWING OWL ATHENE CUNICULARIA SC 

COASTAL CACTUS WREN CAMPYLORHYNCHUS 

BRUNNEICAPILLUS COUESI 

 SC 

WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER CHARADRIUS ALEXANDRINUS NIVOSUS T SC 

WHITE-TAILED KITE ELANUS LEUCURUS SC 

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW 

FLYCATCHER 

EMPIDONAX TRAILLII EXTRIMUS E 

CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL LATERALLUS JAMAICENSIS 

COTURNICULUS 

 T 

BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW PASSERCULUS SANDWICHENSIS 

BELDINGI 

 E 

COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA T SC 

LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL RALLUS LONGIROSTRIS LEVIPES E E 

BANK SWALLOW RIPARIA RIPARIA T 

CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN STERNA ANTILLARUM BROWNI E E 

LEAST BELL'S VIREO VIREO BELLII PUSILLUS E E 

MAMMALS 

NORTHWESTERN SAN DIEGO POCKET 

MOUSE 

CHAETODIPUS FALLAX FALLAX SC 

SAN DIEGO DESERT WOODRAT NEOTOMA LEPIDA INTERMEDIA SC 

PACIFIC POCKET MOUSE PEROGNATHUS LONGIMEMBRIS 

PACIFICUS 

E SC 

Notes: 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

SC = Species of Concern 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-3 

Rivers, Creeks and Bays in the Study Area 

Los Angeles River Santiago Creek San Luis Rey River 

Rio Hondo Channel San Diego Creek Loma Alta Creek 

San Gabriel River Peters Canyon Wash San Dieguito River 

Coyote Creek (multiple branches) Oso Creek Soledad Creek 

La Mirada Creek Trabuco Creek Los Penasquitos Creek 

Brea Creek San Juan Creek Mission Bay 

Fullerton Creek San Mateo Creek Tecolote Creek 

Carbon Creek San Onofre Creek San Diego River 

Santa Ana River Santa Margarita River San Diego Bay 

Wetlands: To classify an area as wetlands per the USACE, three jurisdictional criteria 

must be met: presence of wetland hydrology, predominance of hydrophytic plants, and 

presence of hydric soils. The CDFG currently utilizes a definition that requires that only 

one of these criteria be met in order to classify an area as wetlands. 

Wetlands found in the "coastal zone" are also regulated under the California Coastal Act 

(CCA) and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and are within 

jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Under the CCA, wetlands are defined 

as land within the coastal zone that may be covered periodically or permanently with 

shallow water, and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed 

brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The wetlands in the study area 

are mapped on Figure 3.13-2. 

The estuarine lagoons of northern San Diego County are within the coastal zone. They 

are a unique biological resource and are the focus of many resource agencies and other 

entities interested in the quality of these areas. The six lagoons in the study area are 

mapped on Figure 3.13-3, and include the Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, San 

Elijo, San Dieguito and Los Peñasquitos lagoons. Descriptions of these lagoons are 

provided in Appendix 3.13-D. Where restoration plans have been developed for the 

lagoons, these were reviewed and the primary goals of those plans are also summarized 

in the appendix. The six lagoons are currently all single-tracked. Vernal pools, a 

potential component of coastal sage scrub or chaparral landscapes on coastal mesas, 

are also considered another type of wetlands under California Wildlife Protection Act 

(Fish & Game Code §2785), and are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board. Vernal pools are seasonally ponded areas that support a variety of specialized 

plant and animals, including federally and state-listed species. Vernal pools are likely to 

exist within the study area, particularly on the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. The 

confirmation of the presence of vernal pools would be addressed in detail in project-level 

environmental analyses. 
5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

San Juan Capistrano 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon

Los Penasquitos Lagoon

Santa Ana 

Del Mar 

Dana Point 

San Onofre Power Plant 

San Elijo Lagoon

Batiquitos Lagoon

Buena Vista Lagoon

San Dieguito Lagoon

Source : NWI, 2000; IBI,2003 FIGURE 3.13-2

Wetlands

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Wetlands

Unaffected Waters

Lakes

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-13
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

San Juan Capistrano 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Batiquitos Lagoon

Agua Hedionda Lagoon

Los Penasquitos Lagoon

Santa Ana 

Del Mar 

Dana Point 

San Onofre Power Plant 

San Elijo Lagoon

Buena Vista Lagoon

San Dieguito Lagoon

Source : Source : USFW Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Landiscor, 2002 FIGURE 3.13-3

North San Diego County Lagoons rth San Diego County Lagoons

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Lagoon

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

5

Example Lagoon (Batiquitos)

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-15
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Conservation Plans and Habitat Reserves

Within the study area are several elements of regional Natural Community Conservation 

Plans (NCCP) which include various City Subarea Plans under the Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Program (MHCP). The Conservation Plan boundaries are mapped on 

Figures 3.13-4, 3.13-5, and 3.13-6. The Department and FRA support working with the 

cities and counties that implement the NCCPs and MHCPs to ensure compatibility 

during project-level studies. The plans include: 

• County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) 

(Approved) 

− City of San Diego Subregional MSCP Subarea Plan (Approved) 

− County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (Approved) 

− County of San Diego MSCP Quino Amendment (Administrative Draft) 

− North County MSCP Subarea Plan (In Production) 

• San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) (Approved) 

− City of Carlsbad MHCP Subarea Plan (Approved) 

− City of Encinitas MHCP Subarea Plan (Approved) 

− City of Oceanside MHCP Subarea Plan (In Production) 

• USMC Base Camp Pendleton Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

(Subregional) 

• County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregional NCCP and HCP (Approved) 

• County of Orange Southern Subregional NCCP (In Preparation) 

There are also a number of reserve areas identified within the study area from Programlevel data sources and information from CDFG. These include: 

• Agua Hedionda Lagoon Ecological Reserve 

• Batiquitos Lagoon at the southern edge of Carlsbad was made a CDFGdesignated State Ecological Reserve in 1983 

• Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve 

• San Elijo Lagoon is a CDFG-designated State Ecological Reserve 

• A portion of the San Dieguito Lagoon is a CDFG-designated State Ecological 

Reserve 

• Los Peñasquitos Lagoon State Preserve (recently designated) 

• Fishing piers at Oceanside, San Clemente and Embarcadero Park 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Other reserves may exist within the study area, and would be identified and evaluated 

during project-level assessments. 

Conservation plans and habitat reserves will be closely considered in the decisionmaking process at the project level. All proposed improvements must be shown to be 

consistent and compatible with the applicable plans during project-level evaluations. 

Future studies will be guided in part by the specific conservation goals and priorities 

outlined in area conservation plans. Additionally, site-specific mitigation strategies and 

measures will incorporate applicable goals and requirements of these plans, and will be 

coordinated with resource agencies and cities and counties that administer the various 

plans. 

CDFG has identified two mitigation/conservation properties within the study area, the 

Castaic Conservation Easement and the DWR Mitigation LA Property. Although there is 

a potential that the USFWS may designate critical habitat for some plants and animals 

as described in the sensitive species discussion above, there are no other known 

conservation easements, plans, or designated reserves in the study area. Mitigation 

banks and conservation easements will be evaluated further during project-level 

evaluations and agency contacts. 

Summary of Sensitive Resources in the Study Area

Table 3.13-4 summarizes the biological resources inventoried from existing databases 

(see Section 3.13.1.B, Method of Evaluation of Impacts) within the study area. 

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The biological resources and wetlands described above in the affected environment 

section (Section 3.13.2) characterize the existing conditions in the LOSSAN region 

potentially affected by the alternatives, drawing primarily from existing available data. 

Because this is a program-level analysis, data are representative rather than complete, 

and are for comparison purposes. Though some changes may occur between the 

existing conditions and the year 2020 due to natural changes in resources as well as 

urbanization and transportation projects that would be implemented by 2020 under the 

No-Project Alternative, attempting to estimate the extent of these changes would be 

speculative at this time. Further, it is assumed that each of the projects associated with 

the No-Project Alternative would incorporate and implement the appropriate mitigation 

and monitoring measures to minimize or avoid significant impacts on sensitive biological 

and wetland resources. It is also realistic to project that urbanization in some of the 

regions resulting from population growth by 2020 would change the conditions reported 

in this document, and that continued efforts by local communities and nonprofit 

organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) would continue to expand protected areas 

(habitat conservation planning areas). Because estimating the extent of change prior to 

2020 would be speculative, no substantial change to the existing conditions is assumed 

for purposes of this program-level evaluation and comparison of alternatives. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Union Station - Fullerton Station

SEAL

BEACH

INTEGRATED

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

SANTA

MONICA

BAY

RESTORATION

PROJECT

605

405

710

5

10

210

105

110

710

710

10

tu101

!(1

!(39

!(134

!(60

!(19

!(57

!(103

!(90

!(2

!(47

!(110

!(91

!(55 !(73

!(19

!(39

Anaheim

Norwalk

Santa Ana

Fullerton

Union Station

Source : IBI Group, Los Angeles County GIS FIGURE 3.13-4

Conservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor nservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Segments

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

Habitat Conservation Program Areas

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-19
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

Dana Point/San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Irvine Station - San Juan Capistrano

Fullerton Station - Irvine Station

Camp Pendleton

SANTA

ANA

MOUNTAINS

PROJECT

CAMP

PENDLETON

MASTER

PLAN

PENINSULAR

RANGES

COORDINATED

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

5

15

405

!(74

!(241

!(261

!(73

!(1

!(91

!(133

!(55

!(57

!(22

Irvine

Anaheim

Santa Ana

Fullerton

San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Dana Point

San Onofre Power Plant

Source: IBI group, SanGIS, Orange County GIS FIGURE 3.13-5

Conservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor nservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Segments

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

Habitat Conservation Program Areas

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-21
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
!(

!(

!(

!(

Camp Pendleton

Oceanside/Carlsbad

Encinitas/Solana Beach

Del Mar

I-5/I-805 Split - Highway 52

Highway 52 - Sante Fe Depot

SAN

DIEGO

COUNTY

PROJECT

SANTA

ANA

MOUNTAINS

PROJECT

CAMP

PENDLETON

MASTER

PLAN

PENINSULAR

RANGES

COORDINATED

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

PENINSULAR

RANGES

COORDINATED

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

PENINSULAR

RANGES

COORDINATED

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

5

15

805

8

15

!(52

!(75

!(76

!(78

!(163

!(94

!(54

!(15

!(8

!(282

UTC

Oceanside

Solana Beach

Santa Fe Depot

Del Mar

Carlsbad

San Diego

Encinitas

Source : IBI, 2003, SanGIS , County of Orange FIGURE 3.13-6

Conservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor nservation Plans along LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

0 1 2 3 6 Miles

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Construction Types

At-Grade/Cut-Fill

Open Trench

Covered Trench

Tunnel

Bridge

No Improvements

Stations

!( Existing Station

!( Proposed Station

Segments

Habitat Conservation Program

0 1 2 3 4 8 Kilometers

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-23
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-4 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the Study Area 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

(Diegan Coastal 

Sage Scrub)1

acres 

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

linear feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Union Station to 

Fullerton Station – 

4th Main Track 

0 NO 3 0 16,510 

(5,032) 

No 

Fullerton Station 

To Irvine Station – 

Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 2,193 

(668) 

No 

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 2,193 

(668) 

No 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 NO 1 0 0 No 

Anaheim 0 NO 1 0 1,962 

(598) 

No 

Santa Ana 0 NO 2 0 0 No 

Irvine 0 NO 0 0 0 No 

San Juan 

Capistrano Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between HWY 73 

and Avenida 

Aeropuerto 

24 

(10) 

NO 3 34 

(14) 

21,215 

(6,466) 

No 

AT-GRADE and 

OPEN TRENCH 

along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

24 

(10) 

NO 4* 15 

(6) 

30,408 

(9,268) 

Yes* 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

0 NO 1 0 1,469 

(448) 

No 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente Double 

Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente – SHORT 

TUNNEL 

0 3 YES 6 243 

(98) 

23,133 

(7,051) 

Yes 

San Clemente – 

LONG TWOSEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

0 3 YES 7 203 

(82) 

18,631 

(5,679) 

Yes 

Stations 

San Clemente 

0 3 YES 0 0 0 No 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade 

‹1 YES 10 332 

(134) 

14,584 

(4,445) 

No 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-4 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the Study Area (continued) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

(Diegan Coastal 

Sage Scrub)1

acres 

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

linear feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Oceanside/ 

Carlsbad Double 

Tracking 

Carlsbad – ATGRADE; double 

tracking 

0 3 YES 9 158 

(64) 

5,298 

(1,615) 

No 

Carlsbad – 

TRENCH; double 

tracking 

0 3 YES 9 158 

(64) 

5,298 

(1,615) 

No 

Stations 

Oceanside 

0 3 YES 5 4 

(2) 

550 

(168) 

No 

Encinitas/Solana 

Beach Double 

Tracking 

Encinitas – ATGRADE 0 3 YES 11 268 

(108) 

30836 

(9,399) 

No 

Encinitas – SHORTTRENCH 0 3 YES 11 268 

(108) 

30836 

(9,399) 

No 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

0 NO 4 2 

(1) 

600 

(183) 

No 

Del Mar Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL under 

Camino Del Mar 

03 YES 12 337 

(136) 

37,088 

(11,304) 

No 

TUNNEL along I-5 0 3 YES 17 178 

(72) 

32,920 

(10,034) 

No 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 

52 Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill Tunnel 280 

(113) 

Possibly 10 19 

(8) 

9,690 

(2,954) 

No 

I-5 Tunnel 0 3 Possibly 4 5 

(2) 

4,379 

(1,335) 

No 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to 

Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

0 3 YES 1 8 

(3) 

0 No 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot Curve 

Realignment and 

Double Tracking 

0 YES 11 29 

(12) 

18,212 

(5,551) 

No 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

0 NO 2 0 6,033 

(1,839) 

No 

1

 Available GIS data does not allow quantification of lagoon vegetation, so no acreages are noted for potential sensitive vegetation 

communities associated with wetlands. These vegetation types are assumed to be included (where present) within the wetlands 

acreages shown in the table.

* Recent fish surveys in Trabuco Creek may have detected Steelhead according to USFWS (Jan.7, 2004); though unconfirmed, table 

data assumes Steelhead is present. 

3

Available GIS data does not show Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the potential impact zones in these segments, but agency 

comments during the Draft PEIR/EIS review indicate that CSS may occur within the existing rail corridor from northern Orange 

County to the City of San Diego. 

All numbers are rounded. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-27 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE

Biological resources and wetlands were identified within a broad study area, as 

described above in Section 3.13.2, Affected Environment. However, after discussions 

between the lead agencies and resource agencies, it was determined that a narrower 

impact analysis zone would provide a more realistic indication of the potential for 

impacts to biological resources, and a more meaningful comparison of the alternatives. 

The construction disturbance zone, including the area within which indirect impacts 

could occur, and the permanent footprint of the proposed rail improvements would be 

much narrower than the inventoried study area (2,000 ft [610m] to 1.0 mi [1.6 km] in 

width). The maximum footprint of the proposed improvements would be less than 50 ft 

(15 m). Based on this footprint, it was determined that construction-related impacts and 

indirect impacts (such as noise) could occur within 100 ft (30 m) either side of the 

centerline. 

Therefore, two impact analysis zones were delineated that provide for a reasonable 

assessment of the potential for temporary, permanent, direct and indirect impacts to 

biological resources. These impact analysis zones are defined as follows. 

• Impact Zone A: 100 feet (30 m) on either side of the centerline of alignments 

and stations (200 feet; 61 m total) to encompass potential temporary and indirect 

(temporary or permanent) impacts. 

• Impact Zone B: 25 feet (7.6 m) on either side of the centerline of alignments 

and stations (50 feet; 15 m total) to encompass potential direct, permanent 

impacts. 

Temporary impacts would be those related to construction activities including, but not 

limited to, construction access, material storage, excavation spoils handling areas, and 

staging areas. Potential impacts may include disturbance to or removal of habitat or 

sensitive plant species or vegetation communities, and wildlife displacement and 

disruption. In lagoon areas and bridge work across rivers and streams, construction 

may involve extensive in-water work, resulting in turbidity and sedimentation impacts, 

disturbance or removal of underwater habitat features such as large rocks, boulders, or 

existing earthen fill, and vibration impacts to aquatic life from pile driving activities. 

Temporary indirect impacts would include those resulting from construction-related noise 

(including construction equipment, haul trucks, and tunnel portal excavation activities), 

lighting during nighttime work, and other disruptions to or physical separation of habitat 

areas. 

Construction of the project could, in certain circumstances, encourage the spread of 

noxious weeds or other exotic plant species. Seeds of non-native plants can adhere to 

tires of construction vehicles or contaminate fill that may need to be imported into the 

construction area. Trains themselves may also contribute to the spread of seeds of 

exotic plant species. 

Potential permanent impacts may also be direct or indirect. Direct impacts would include 

wildlife mortality, and permanent displacement and removal of vegetation and habitat 

within the footprint of the physical improvements. Indirect operational impacts may 

include noise from trains (including horns), increased shadow effects from elevated 

infrastructure over plant and wildlife habitat areas, mortality to state and federally listed 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-28 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

species from the increased speed and frequency of trains, and leaking cargo containers 

or accidents where toxic chemicals may be spilled into sensitive areas. These potential 

impacts would be assessed in detail at the project-level environmental review to better 

define their likelihood, extent and severity. 

The potential for disturbance to high quality habitat areas would be reduced in areas 

where improvements would be constructed within the disturbed LOSSAN rail right-ofway, and would be avoided in areas of deep tunnels except at tunnel portals. CSS and 

other sensitive vegetation may occur within sections of the existing right-of-way (though 

it may not be mapped in the databases used for this Program-level assessment). 

Sensitive vegetation would be verified through field studies at the project level. Potential 

impacts to sensitive habitat include fragmentation that could occur at tunnel portals. 

Trenching options would disturb more surface and near-surface resources than at-grade 

options because of the need to taper trench walls and utilize lay-down areas for 

excavated spoils. 

As part of the conceptual design at the program level, the lead agencies have proposed, 

at a minimum, maintaining either the same in-water footprint or a smaller footprint than 

the existing rail corridor where improvements would cross water bodies. The footprint of 

existing bridges across bodies of water, including the six lagoons in San Diego County, 

would not be increased under the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative. The lead 

agencies are committed to examining the possibilities of both replacing existing 

structures across the lagoons to create a smaller in-water footprint, and to evaluate the 

efficacy of removing some of the existing earthen fill associated with existing structures. 

These decisions will involve complex studies of hydrology, habitat, impacts of removing 

existing structures and replacing them, and other factors. Therefore, more detailed 

design information is needed, along with fieldwork and agency consultation before such 

decisions can be advanced. If a decision is made during project-level evaluations to 

implement an alignment option that replaces existing bridges across one or more 

lagoons, the new bridges would use materials and designs to minimize the number of 

piles/columns in the water and would therefore reduce the in-water footprint of the 

existing infrastructure and earthen fill. (See also Section 3.13.6, Subsequent Studies, 

and Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts.) 

Federal and State regulations set forth and define required railroad safety standards, 

which dictate maintenance-of-way activities that are to occur on such railroad 

infrastructure. The contiguous linear track area, signal equipment areas, access roads 

and parking areas are typically maintained to be free and clear of vegetation. Other 

maintenance activities may include inspections, replacement of ballast, ties, or rails, 

turn-out or crossing repair, and structures and signal work. As such, infrastructure 

maintenance activities and inspections occurring within the railroad right-of-way almost 

exclusively occur within non-vegetated and disturbed areas. Sensitive areas between 

the road and the track are avoided when practicable. The majority of activities are 

performed directly on the track, some of which implement the utilization of machines that 

also operate solely and exclusively on the track as well. Access from the road to the 

track typically is done in a non-sensitive location and material and equipment is then 

moved along the track to the work location. If work is performed at night, lighting is of 

relatively low-power and is located in close proximity to the work area, focusing directly 

onto the track. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-29 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This section provides a general comparison of resources potentially impacted by the 

various alignment options evaluated for the Rail Improvements Alternative. Table 3.13-5 

summarizes the biological resources and wetlands within the impact analysis zone 

delineated to encompass both temporary (construction) and indirect impacts. 

Table 3.13-6 summarizes the resources potentially affected by the permanent footprint 

of the proposed improvements. Potential impacts and differences between alignment 

options are described below. Appendix 3.13-E provides lists of specific special-status 

plant and wildlife species present within the study area of each of the alignment options. 

As stated earlier, all comparisons are based on information currently available from 

existing databases. Field surveys, which would be performed during a subsequent 

environmental review, would provide more detailed information and could indicate an 

increase or a decrease in the potential impacts on biological resources from a proposed 

alignment option, particularly along routes that have not previously been the focus of 

field surveys or mapping by any of the regulatory agencies such as CDFG or USFWS. 

The number and extent of biological resources potentially affected by the Rail 

Improvements Alternative would vary with alignment options. A range of potential 

impacts was developed that represents the options with the fewest to the greatest 

potential impacts within the region. Based on existing data and information, the amount 

of sensitive vegetation present in Impact Zone A of the Rail Improvements Alternative 

ranges from none to approximately 28 acres (11 ha). The amount of sensitive 

vegetation present in Impact Zone B ranges from none to 7 acres (3 ha). Within Impact 

Zone A, the amount of non-wetland waters ranges from approximately 12,564 to 

15,541 linear ft (3,830 to 4,737 m) of non-wetland waters, and between 41 and 75 ac 

(17 to 30 ha) of wetlands. Within Impact Zone B, non-wetland waters range from 

4,223 to 5,216 linear ft (1,287 to 1,590 m) of non-wetland waters, and between 20 and 

27 ac (8 to 11 ha) of wetlands. Between 36 and 46 different special-status plant and 

wildlife species were identified as potentially occurring within both the A and B impact 

zones and could be impacted by the Rail Improvements Alternative. (This range 

represents the number of species, not the number of occurrences of any given species 

in the study area. One species may occur within the impact zone of numerous rail 

segments. See Appendix 3.13-E for the species in each segment.) 

Regardless of alignment options chosen, at least three-quarters of the proposed 

improvements would be constructed either within the existing LOSSAN rail right-of-way 

or within deep tunnels. These construction methods would substantially reduce the 

potential for impact to biological resources. 

Potential impacts and key differences between alignment options are described below 

for each rail segment. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-30 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13.5 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 200-Foot (61 m) Impact Analysis Zone 

(Impact Zone A) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation acres 

A(Diegan Coastal 

Sage Scrub)1

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

Acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

Linear Feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Union Station to 

Fullerton Station – 

4th Main Track 

0 NO 3 0 1,568 

(478) 

No 

Fullerton Station To 

Irvine Station – 

Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 201 

(61) 

No 

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 201 

(61) 

No 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 NO 1 0 0 No 

Anaheim 0 NO 1 0 0 No 

Santa Ana 0 NO 2 0 0 No 

Irvine 0 NO 0 0 0 No 

San Juan 

Capistrano Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between HWY 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

02 NO 3 3 

(1) 

3,078 

(938) 

No 

AT-GRADE and 

OPEN TRENCH 

along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

02 NO 4* ‹1 

(‹1) 

3,525 

(1,074) 

Yes* 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

02 NO 1 0 0 No 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente Double 

Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente – SHORT 

TUNNEL 

02 YES 6 2 

(‹1) 

1,934 

(589) 

Yes 

San Clemente – 

LONG TWOSEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double 

02 YES 7 2 

(‹1) 

499 

(152) 

Yes 

Stations 

San Clemente 

02 YES 0 0 0 No 

Camp Pendleton Atgrade 02 YES 10 10 

(4) 

218 

(66) 

No 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-31 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13.5 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 200-Foot (61 m) Impact Analysis Zone 

(Impact Zone A) (continued) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation Acres 

(Diegan Coastal 

Sage Scrub)1

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

Acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

Linear Feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Oceanside/ 

Carlsbad Double 

Tracking 

Carlsbad–ATGRADE; double 

tracking 

02 YES 9 8 

(3) 

688 

(210) 

No 

Carlsbad–TRENCH; 

double tracking 

02* YES 9 8 

(3) 

688 

(210) 

No 

Stations 

Oceanside 

02 YES 5 0 0 No 

Encinitas/Solana 

Beach Double 

Tracking 

Encinitas – ATGRADE 02 YES 11 14 

(6) 

2,136 

(651) 

No 

Encinitas – SHORTTRENCH 02 YES 11 14 

(6) 

2,136 

(651) 

No 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

02 NO 2 0 0 No 

Del Mar Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL under 

Camino Del Mar 

02 YES 12 30 

(12) 

2,740 

(835) 

No 

TUNNEL along I-5 02 YES 17 2 

(‹1) 

3,410 

(1,039) 

No 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 

52 Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill Tunnel 02 Possibly 10 3 

(1) 

1,032 

(315) 

No 

I-5 Tunnel 28 

(11) 

Possibly 4 0 607 

(185) 

No 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to 

Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

0 YES 1 0 0 No 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot Curve 

Realignment and 

Double Tracking 

0 YES 11 5 

(2) 

632 

(193) 

No 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

0 NO 2 0 197 

(60) 

No 

1

 Available GIS data does not allow quantification of lagoon vegetation, so no acreages are noted for potential sensitive vegetation 

communities associated with wetlands. These vegetation types are assumed to be included (where present) within the wetlands 

acreages shown in the table. 2 Available GIS data does not show Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the potential impact zones in these segments, but agency 

comments during the Draft PEIR/EIS review indicate that CSS may occur within the existing rail corridor from northern Orange 

County to the City of San Diego. 

* Recent fish surveys in Trabuco Creek may have detected Steelhead according to USFWS (Jan.7, 2004); though unconfirmed, 

table data assumes Steelhead is present. 

All numbers are rounded. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-32 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-6 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 50-Foot (15 m) Impact Analysis Zone 

(Impact Zone B) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

Acres (Diegan 

Coastal Sage 

Scrub)1

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

linear feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Union Station to 

Fullerton Station – 

4th Main Track 

0 NO 3 0 382 

(116) 

No 

Fullerton Station 

To Irvine Station – 

Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 50 

(15) 

No 

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa 

Ana 

0 NO 3 0 50 

(15) 

No 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 NO 1 0 0 No 

Anaheim 0 NO 1 0 0 No 

Santa Ana 0 NO 0 0 0 No 

Irvine 0 NO 0 0 0 No 

San Juan 

Capistrano Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between HWY 73 

and Avenida 

Aeropuerto 

02 NO 3 ‹1 

(‹1) 

1,015 

(309) 

No 

AT-GRADE and 

OPEN/COVERED 

TRENCH along east 

side of Trabuco 

Creek 

02 NO 4* ‹1 

(‹1) 

1,168 

(356) 

Yes* 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

02 NO 0 0 0 No 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente Double 

Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente – SHORT 

TUNNEL 

02 YES 6 ‹1 

(‹1) 

473 

(144) 

Yes 

San Clemente – 

LONG TWOSEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

02 YES 7 ‹1 

(‹1) 

118 

(36) 

Yes 

Stations 

San Clemente 

02 YES 0 0 0 No 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade 

02 YES 10 2 

(‹1) 

54 

(16) 

No 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-33 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.13-6 

Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 50-Foot (15 m) Impact Analysis Zone 

(Impact Zone B) (continued) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

Acres (Diegan 

Coastal Sage 

Scrub)1

(hectares) 

Wildlife 

Movement 

Corridors 

Yes or No 

Number of 

SpecialStatus 

Species 

NWI 

Wetlands 

Acres 

(hectares) 

Non-Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

Linear Feet 

(meters) 

Marine / 

Anadromous 

Fish 

Resources 

Yes or No 

Oceanside/ 

Carlsbad Double 

Tracking 

Carlsbad – ATGRADE; double 

tracking 

02 YES 9 2 

(‹1) 

172 

(52) 

No 

Carlsbad–TRENCH; 

double tracking 

02 YES 9 2 

(‹1) 

172 

(52) 

No 

Stations 

Oceanside 

02 YES 5 0 0 No 

Encinitas/Solana 

Beach Double 

Tracking 

Encinitas – ATGRADE 02 YES 11 4 

(2) 

1,403 

(428) 

No 

Encinitas – SHORTTRENCH 02 YES 11 4 

(2) 

1,403 

(428) 

No 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

02 NO 2 0 0 No 

Del Mar Double 

Tracking 

TUNNEL under 

Camino Del Mar 

02 YES 12 8 

(3) 

652 

(199) 

No 

TUNNEL along I-5 02 YES 17 ‹1 

(‹1) 

1,069 

(326) 

No 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 

52 Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill Tunnel 02 Possibly 10 ‹1 

(‹1) 

235 

(72) 

No 

I-5 Tunnel 7 

(3) 

Possibly 4 0 167 

(51) 

No 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to 

Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

0 YES 1 0 0 No 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot Curve 

Realignment and 

Double Tracking 

0 YES 11 1 

(‹1) 

1588 

(4) 

No 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

0 NO 2 0 52 

(16) 

No 

1

 Available GIS data does not allow quantification of lagoon vegetation, so no acreages are noted for potential sensitive vegetation 

communities associated with wetlands. These vegetation types are assumed to be included (where present) within the wetlands 

acreages shown in the table. 2 Available GIS data does not show Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the potential impact zones in these segments, but agency 

comments during the Draft PEIR/EIS review indicate that CSS may occur within the existing rail corridor from northern Orange 

County to the City of San Diego.

* Recent fish surveys in Trabuco Creek may have detected Steelhead according to USFWS (Jan.7, 2004); though unconfirmed, 

table data assumes Steelhead is present. 

All numbers are rounded. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-34 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Union Station to Irvine Station 

Between Union Station and Fullerton Station, the proposed addition of a fourth main 

track would be constructed at-grade within the existing rail corridor except between the 

Rio Hondo and San Gabriel rivers where up to 1 ac (0.40 ha) of industrial and 

commercial property outside the rail right-of-way may be disturbed. From Fullerton 

Station to the Irvine Station, the proposed alignment options include double tracking at 

grade or trenching within the existing rail right-of-way. 

In this rail segment, no sensitive vegetation communities are present but three specialstatus species are recorded. Due to the dense urbanization of this area and the lack of 

sensitive vegetation communities, it is unlikely that these species exist in or adjacent to 

the highly disturbed rail corridor. However, sensitive species are sometimes found within 

highly disturbed locations, and all areas potentially affected by the project would be 

evaluated further through field surveys and more detailed data collection during projectlevel studies. 

Waters potentially impacted include the Brea Creek, Rio Hondo, Coyote Creek, La 

Mirada Creek, and San Gabriel River. Potential impacts would be minimal because 

proposed improvements would be in the existing rail corridor through a dense urban 

area, and most the waters in this area are channelized. 

San Juan Capistrano

The 1-5 tunnel option through San Juan Capistrano would run underneath Trabuco 

Creek and San Juan Creek. The second option is a covered and open trench and atgrade alignment along the east side of Trabuco Creek. The trench option would leave 

the existing LOSSAN corridor alignment just south of Trabuco Creek, and would include 

a new rail bridge over San Juan Creek and a replacement of the existing bridge over 

Trabuco Creek. A new below-grade station is proposed as part of this option. 

No Diegan coastal sage scrub is mapped in this segment; however, agency comments 

indicate that CSS is present along the rail corridor in this segment. Some southern 

cottonwood willow riparian forest is present in the potential impact area. Three specialstatus species are recorded in the study area for both alignment options. In addition to 

the species recorded in the CNDDB, the USFWS reports that recent fish surveys in 

Trabuco Creek may have detected Steelhead, a federally listed endangered species 

(USFWS, pers. comm., January 7, 2004). If present, this species could be affected by 

trench construction along the eastern bank of Trabuco Creek. USFWS data indicate that 

designated critical habitat for one of these species, the Coastal California gnatcatcher, 

would potentially be affected by either option in this rail segment1. 

Trabuco Creek and its associated riparian vegetation are known to serve as an existing 

wildlife corridor. It is likely that the equestrian facility along the south bank of the creek 

also functions as a wildlife corridor. Additionally, some wildlife movement may occur 

down the San Juan Creek and other creek drainages to and from the coast. Because 

the area is highly urbanized it is likely that drainages in this area are used as core 

movement corridors. 

 

1 USFWS designated critical habitat for a particular sensitive species may be present even if there is no known or recorded 

occurrence of the species or its habitat listed in the databases utilized for this project. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-35 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

There are more non-wetland waters within the study area for the trench/at-grade option 

than for the tunnel alignment. Waters potentially impacted by this alignment include 

Trabuco Creek and San Juan Creek. USFWS has voiced concerns about potentially 

substantial impacts to Trabuco Creek as a result of trenching directly adjacent to the 

eastern bank and potential flood impacts to the western bank (refer to Section 3.12, 

Hydrology and Water Resources). 

The tunnel option would avoid most potential impacts except at portal areas, and would 

be superior to the trench option in minimizing the potential for impacts to biological 

resources. The trench option along Trabuco Creek has more potential for impacts on 

the creek and special-status species. While the trench and at-grade option could be 

routed to avoid direct impacts on the creek, the tunnel option would have less surface 

disturbance and would therefore affect fewer biological resources. 

Dana Point/San Clemente

Two options for rail improvements were evaluated in this section: short tunnel, and one 

long tunnel divided into two segments. The short tunnel would include a curve 

realignment at Dana Point. The long two-segment tunnel option begins north of the 

Dana Point curve realignment project and would therefore make the curve realignment 

unnecessary. The two-segment tunnel would include a new station located between the 

tunnel segments. 

CNNDB records some areas of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern 

coastal salt marsh, and southern dune scrub in the study area for both alignment 

options. Agency comments indicate that CSS is present along this rail section as well. 

There are six special-status species recorded along the short-tunnel alignment, and 

seven along the longer tunnel. Potential impacts would be reduced due to tunneling, 

with the longer tunnel option affecting fewer of these resources. 

USFWS data indicate that designated critical habitat for the Coastal California 

gnatcatcher and tidewater goby present in the study areas of both improvement options1

. 

San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek are within close proximity to each other on 

Camp Pendleton property within this rail segment, and the lands between the two 

creeks, as well as the creeks themselves, are known to function as wildlife corridors. 

The long tunnel option would result in the fewest impacts to these resources due to the 

length of tunneling and by precluding the need for the at-grade curve realignment 

required for the short-tunnel option. 

The San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek area may experience impacts to sensitive 

habitats from alignments outside of the existing right-of-way or from the short tunnel 

alternative. Additionally, the long tunnel alternative will likely have impacts to gnatcatcher 

habitat and could potentially require deconstructing sections of recently constructed 

double track north of the tunnel portal. 

Both tunnel options would run under San Mateo Creek, but the short tunnel would 

transition up to grade just north of San Onofre Creek and require a bridge structure over 

the creek. The potential for both temporary and permanent impacts to San Onofre 

Creek would be greater with the short tunnel option. San Juan Creek runs parallel to the 

Dana Point curve realignment proposed as part of the short-tunnel option, although 

construction would be far enough from the creek that impacts would be unlikely. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-36 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The long tunnel would affect fewer biological resources because of its greater length and 

because the at-grade curve alignment would not be necessary with this option. 

Camp Pendleton

Double tracking would occur within the existing LOSSAN rail right-of-way in this rail 

segment. Available data shows no Diegan coastal sage scrub in this segment, but 

agency comments indicate that this sensitive vegetation community is present in the 

Camp Pendleton segment. Ten special-status species are recorded in this segment. 

USFWS data indicate that designated or proposed critical habitat for the Coastal 

California gnatcatcher, tidewater goby, and Riverside and San Diego fairy shrimp would 

potentially be affected in this segment. It is possible that some vernal pool habitat is 

also present in the study area. Because of the large open and undeveloped areas of 

Camp Pendleton, this area is considered a potential wildlife movement corridor, but the 

addition of a second track within the right-of-way would not change the existing condition 

for wildlife movement. 

A rail bridge replacement project over the Santa Margarita River is part of the 

programmed improvements included in the No-Project Alternative in this rail segment. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would not have any additional impacts on this river. 

(San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek are both on Camp Pendleton property; 

however, these creeks fall within the Dana Point/San Clemente rail segment as 

delineated for this PEIR/EIS. See the discussion of that rail segment above.) 

Oceanside/Carlsbad

Rail alignment options evaluated in this section include an at-grade and a trenched 

double-tracking option within the existing LOSSAN rail right-of-way. The CNDDB 

records some areas of southern coastal salt marsh and other sensitive vegetation 

associated with lagoons in this study area, as well as 9 special-status species. USFWS 

data indicate that designated critical habitat for the tidewater goby and San Diego fairy 

shrimp1

 would potentially be impacted in this segment. Waters and wildlife habitat could 

be impacted at the San Luis Rey River, Buena Vista Lagoon and Ecological Reserve, 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon and surrounding open areas, and the Batiquitos Lagoon and 

Ecological Reserve, particularly during construction near or in the waterways and 

lagoons. Wildlife may utilize this reach of the San Luis Rey River as a movement 

corridor because the area is highly urbanized. Agency comments also indicate that CSS 

occupied by gnatcatchers in this segment could also be affected. Double-tracking 

across Buena Vista Lagoon could also impact the light-footed clapper rail. 

The potential for impacts on biological resources in most portions of this rail segment 

would be minimized because either the at-grade or trenched option would occur within 

the disturbed rail right-of-way through urbanized areas. In lagoon areas, no net increase 

in the footprint of existing rail bridges would occur, but temporary construction 

disturbance in and around the lagoons would potentially affect species and habitat 

associated with the lagoons. (These potentially substantial impacts are described in the 

introduction to this Environmental Consequences section.) There would not be a 

significant difference in potential impacts from the trench and at-grade options in this rail 

segment. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-37 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Encinitas/Solana Beach

The Rail Improvement Alternative in this section includes double tracking either at-grade 

or with a short-trench option within the same alignment in the existing LOSSAN rail rightof-way. The CNDDB records some areas of southern coastal salt marsh, potentially 

occupied by the light-footed clapper rail, and southern maritime chaparral in this rail 

segment, as well as 11 special-status species. Wildlife habitat, and possibly wildlife 

movement corridors, would be temporarily be impacted at the San Elijo Lagoon and 

Ecological Reserve during construction in or around the lagoon. Agency comments also 

indicate that CSS occupied by the gnatcatcher could be affected in this segment. 

Approximately 14 acres of wetlands are mapped within Impact Zone A of both alignment 

options, but construction within the existing rail corridor would minimize potential 

impacts. Jurisdictional waters potentially affected include the San Elijo Lagoon. There 

would be no net increase in the footprint of the rail infrastructure within the San Elijo 

Lagoon, but construction disturbance would potentially impact species and habitat in this 

area. (There may be the opportunity to replace the existing bridge with a new structure 

that would increase the tidal flow and remove the embankment from the lagoon; see 

Section 3.13.5, Mitigation Strategies). 

There would not be a substantial difference in potential impacts from the trench and atgrade options in this rail section. Both options are along the existing LOSSAN corridor 

alignment in urbanized areas, and both would have temporary impacts on the lagoon 

and ecological reserve. 

Del Mar

The Rail improvements Alternative through the Del Mar area includes two alignment 

options: a tunnel under Camino Del Mar, or a tunnel along I-5. These alignment options 

and the existing LOSSAN rail corridor are shown in Figure 3.13-7 to illustrate their 

location in relation to two lagoons. 

No Diegan coastal sage scrub is mapped along either of the alignment options but 

CNDDB records some areas of southern coastal salt marsh. Agency comments indicate 

that high-quality CSS supporting gnatcatchers does exist and may be fragmented where 

the Camino Del Mar tunnel option daylights at the south end of Del Mar, and at the 

northern end of the I-5 tunnel. In addition, there are some areas of southern maritime 

chaparral mapped along the tunnel alignment. 

The CNDDB records 12 special-status species along the Camino del Mar alignment, and 

17 along the I-5 tunnel alignment. For either alignment option, wildlife habitat, and 

possible wildlife movement corridors, would be affected at the San Dieguito Lagoon and 

surrounding open areas, and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and Preserve. These sensitive 

habitat areas would be subject to disturbance during construction, including indirect 

impacts from noise and lighting during possible nighttime construction work. 

There are 30 ac (12 ha) of wetlands and nearly 2,740 linear ft (835 m) of non-wetland 

waters mapped within Impact Zone A for the Camino del Mar tunnel alignment. Some of 

this wetlands acreage includes the San Dieguito River/Lagoon and Los Peñasquitos 

Lagoon that may be impacted during construction. The I-5 alignment encompasses only 

2 ac (less than 1 ha) of wetlands but over 3,400 linear ft (1,036 m) of non-wetland 

waters. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-38 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Either alignment option in the Del Mar area would involve deep tunneling that would 

avoid disturbance along the tunnel routes to most biological resources, except at portal 

areas. The Camino del Mar option would involve double-tracking across the Los 

Peñasquitos and San Dieguito lagoons on the existing or new rail bridges, which would 

be done without any net increase in the in-water footprint of the rail infrastructure within 

the lagoons. Construction along the lagoon perimeters would have direct and indirect 

impacts on habitat and wildlife during construction. (There may be the opportunity to 

replace the existing bridge across Los Peñasquitos with a causeway structure that would 

increase the tidal flow and remove the embankment from the lagoons. This would 

require extensive in-water work, causing higher impacts during construction, but would 

result in a long-term beneficial impact to the lagoon. The feasibility and potential 

benefits and impacts would be determined in project-level analyses, as described in 

Section 3.13.6, Subsequent Studies). 

The I-5 tunnel would avoid crossing of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but the design 

concept would include a new, elevated structure along the south edge of San Dieguito 

Lagoon, following the southern edge of San Dieguito Racetrack View Drive, which may 

result in potential new, temporary and permanent impacts on sensitive biological 

resources. The I-5 tunnel option would allow for the removal of the existing rail bridge 

structure in the future. Bridge removal would have temporary impacts on the lagoon 

from extensive in-water work to remove the existing structure. 

Overall, the Camino del Mar tunnel would likely have fewer potential impacts on 

biological resources associated with the lagoons, because it may not involve extensive 

in-water work during construction across the existing lagoon bridges, and would not 

introduce new structures to the southern edge of San Dieguito Lagoon. 

I-5/805 Split to Highway 52

The Rail Improvement Alternative in this section includes two tunnel alignments: one 

running through Miramar Hill and one running along and under Interstate 5. A new 

underground station is proposed at University Towne Centre (UTC) as part of the 

Miramar Hill tunnel alignment option. 

There are 28 ac (11 ha) of mapped Diegan coastal sage scrub in the study area for the 

I-5 tunnel, while the Miramar Hill alignment contains no mapped sensitive vegetation 

communities. Agency comments indicate that CSS and other sensitive vegetation could 

be fragmented at both ends of either tunnel option in this segment. The CNDDB records 

10 special-status species within the study area of for the Miramar Hill and 4 specialstatus species for the I-5 option. Portals at the ends of either tunnel may affect the 

movement of wildlife along north facing slopes above Peñasquitos Creek and Sorrento 

Valley, and in the canyons south of UTC. 

Potential impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters would be minimal because of the 

deep tunneling with either option, and would occur at the portal areas only. At the 

proposed UTC underground station, some construction impacts could occur on the 

surface; however, the area surrounding the UTC station is urbanized so impacts to 

wetlands and waters are unlikely. 
Source : IBI; Landiscor; 2005 FIGURE 3.13-7

Del Mar Area Lagoons and Alignment Options l Mar Area Lagoons and Alignment Options

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Del Mar Alignment Options

I-5 Tunnel

Existing LOSSAN Corridor

Camino Del Mar Tunnel

 ́

0 0.5 1 Miles

LOS PENASQUITOS

LAGOON

SAN DIEGUITO

LAGOON

Del Mar Heights Road

Future SR56

Torrey Pines Road

Carmel Valley Road

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.13-39
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-40 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-41 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The proposed deep tunneling to be utilized for either option in this segment would 

minimize potential impacts to biological resources and wetlands. The current level of 

data does not allow any significant differentiation between the potential impacts 

associated with these two tunnel options. 

Highway 52 to San Diego Santa Fe Depot

Proposed improvements in this rail segment include double tracking in the existing rail 

corridor, a curve realignment, and a trench between Sassafras Street and Cedar Street. 

Station improvements are proposed at Santa Fe Depot. The CNDDB records some 

areas of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and southern riparian forest in the 

study area, as well as 1 special-status species. Wildlife movement corridors may be 

present in Rose Canyon and San Clemente Canyon adjacent to the existing LOSSAN 

rail corridor. The San Diego River also provides a wildlife movement corridor under the 

existing rail alignment. In this area, there is planning for development of a system of 

parks along the river stretching for 50 miles. 

Approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of wetlands could be temporarily impacted by the proposed 

rail improvements in this segment. Non-wetland waters and associated wetlands within 

the study corridor and around the Santa Fe Depot include the San Diego River and 

Mission Bay. However, the Santa Fe Depot is surrounded by heavy urbanization making 

impacts to jurisdictional waters unlikely in this station area. The Mission Bay parallels 

the study area, but is not likely to be affected due to its distance from the existing rail 

corridor. 

3.13.4 Design Practices 

Emphasis will be on utilizing existing rail and other transportation corridors for the Rail 

Improvements alignment options to minimize potential impacts to biological resources bisecting 

sensitive areas. Nearly 90% of the alignment options are either within or adjacent to a major 

existing transportation corridor (existing railroad or highway corridors). Use of these existing 

transportation corridors helps minimize potential impacts since they have already imposed a 

footprint/barrier. Moreover, many alignment options would be on aerial structures or in deep 

tunnels, allowing for unhindered crossing of the alignment by wildlife. Underpasses or 

overpasses or other appropriate passageways would be designed during project-level for 

implementation at reasonable intervals during construction to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate 

any potential impacts to wildlife movement. 

Major portions of some alignment options would be in tunnels that would largely avoid impacts 

to biological resources. The potential impacts associated with construction access roads would 

be greatly limited in these segments, and could be avoided altogether in some segments by 

using in-line construction (i.e., by using the existing and/or new rail infrastructure as it is built to 

transport equipment to and from the construction site and to transport excavated materials away 

from the construction area. To avoid creating access roads in sensitive areas such as the 

lagoon areas in northern San Diego County, required geologic exploration would be 

accomplished using helicopter transport for drilling equipment and site restoration to minimize 

surface disruption. Small pilot tunnels could be utilized where more extensive subsurface 

geology information is needed. 

The design practices for the project include the use or reuse of excavated materials within the 

confines of the project and avoidance or minimization of any additional impact on sensitive 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-42 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

areas from placement of excess material. While the specific uses or the quantity of placement of 

excavation material cannot be determined at the program level of environmental study, they 

would be addressed during subsequent project-level environmental analysis. The vast majority 

of the excavated tunneling material is anticipated to be suitable for reuse in the construction of 

the proposed rail improvements. Potential uses include aggregate for concrete and fill material 

for other portions of the line. Balancing the earthwork operations will be a key objective in the 

subsequent project-level engineering. Uses of excavated materials would, in part, be 

determined by the timing of project construction. At any point in time, various construction 

projects (with appropriate environmental permits) will require disposal and re-use of fill material. 

During construction of rail improvements, the exchange of fill materials with other ongoing 

projects would be coordinated to the ultimate benefit of each project. 

As stated previously, the lead agencies support retaining or reducing the in-water footprint of 

lagoon crossing structures. Project-level analyses and agency consultation, along with more 

detailed design work, will be used to evaluate the feasibility and potential impacts and benefits 

of replacing structures and/or removing existing fill in the lagoons. Design of new structures 

would include features that minimize the amount of discharge into these waters, such as longer 

bridge spans to minimize the number of in-water structures, designs that minimize the need for 

rock-slope stabilization at bridge abutments, etc. 

3.13.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for biological resources and wetlands, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is 

considered to have a significant effect on biological resources and wetlands. Placing the 

conceptual rail improvement alignment options largely within or along existing transportation 

corridors reduces the potential for adverse effects to these resources, and engineering and 

design practices further reduce potential adverse impacts to these resources (e.g., avoiding 

encroachments on habitat and wetlands, use of aerial structures or tunnels lined with 

impermeable surfaces to avoid sensitive areas). However, some alignment options would 

involve new corridors, and all alignment options in northern San Diego County cross the 

uniquely sensitive lagoon environments. At the program level of analysis, it is not possible to 

know precisely the location, extent and particular characteristics of all potential, adverse impacts 

to these resources. Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, will 

be applied to reduce these impacts. 

Potential strategies to mitigate impacts on biological resources would include: (1) field 

verification of sensitive resources; (2) filling of data gaps; (3) subsequent project-specific 

analyses of environmental impacts; (4) consultation with appropriate resource agencies to refine 

avoidance and mitigation measures; and (5) developing and adopting a mitigation monitoring 

program. 

To the extent practicable, direct and indirect impacts to biological resources will be avoided by 

refinements to detailed alignments to be developed during the project-level design and 

environmental evaluation phase. Further possible mitigation measures for consideration at the 

project level include: (1) project design changes (for example, alignment shifts to avoid certain 

resources, design changes to reduce the impact footprint, longer bridge spans to avoid or 

reduce the amount of in-water structures and fill; (2) participation in or contribution to existing or 

proposed conservation banks or natural management areas, including possible acquisition, 

preservation, or restoration of habitats; (3) relocation of sensitive species; and (4) construction 

of wildlife underpasses, bridges, and/or large culverts, to facilitate known wildlife movement 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-43 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

corridors. Specific mitigation measures would be identified at the project level of environmental 

review. 

Consultation with the appropriate resource agencies to develop site-specific avoidance and 

minimization strategies would be incorporated in the project-level environmental review. Special 

mitigation needs would be considered in the future with the appropriate authorities that are 

responsible for regional mitigation (conservation) banks, HCPs, NCCPs, or special area 

management plans. However, providing sufficient mitigation for compliance with CWA 

requirements for wetlands would likely be difficult and challenging. 

Resource agencies and organizations have expressed interest in helping to develop and 

participate in a mitigation planning and monitoring program to determine impacts and mitigation 

effectiveness for sensitive species and habitats in the lagoon areas. This approach could 

include documenting site-specific baseline conditions, monitoring mitigation effectiveness as 

various proposed projects (highway and rail) are constructed, and adjusting mitigation measures 

as needed based on effectiveness and compatibility with lagoon restoration programs. 

Removal of existing fill embankments and/or replacement of existing bridge structures over 

lagoons may improve the existing condition by increasing water circulation and tidal influence. 

Table 3.13-7 lists of the various agencies, organizations, and entities involved with the 

restoration and management of each lagoon. The lead agencies support working with each of 

these groups to design improved rail crossings of the lagoons, and to share information and 

optimize the ecological benefits to the lagoons from these projects. 

Table 3.13-7 

Lagoon Restoration and Management Entities 

Lagoon Agencies/ Organizations 

Buena Vista California Coastal Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Game, Joint 

Powers Committee of the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista, Buena Vista 

Lagoon Foundation, Buena Vista Audubon Society, CalTrans, Buena Vista Audubon 

Society, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Agua Hedionda City of Carlsbad, NRG Cabrillo Power, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, 

California Department of Fish and Game, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

San Elijo San Diego County Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, 

California State Lands Commission, City of Encinitas, San Elijo Lagoon 

Conservancy, City of Solana Beach, California Coastal Conservancy, United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Batiquitos City of Carlsbad, California State Lands Commission, California Department of Fish 

and Game, Port of Los Angeles, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

San Dieguito California Department of Fish and Game, San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers 

Authority, Southern California Edison, City of Del Mar, City of San Diego, 22nd 

Agricultural District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Los Peñasquitos City of San Diego, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California State 

Coastal Conservancy, Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation, County of San Diego, 

San Diego Gas and Electric, City of Del Mar, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-44 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Additionally, the Department’s I-5 North Coast Project team will be consulted for coordination 

regarding design and construction of the rail and the highway project to reduce impacts and 

benefit mitigation efforts. See Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, for additional information. 

Other local and regional organizations involved in planning and management activities involving 

sensitive habitats, estuaries, and natural areas will be identified and consulted during projectlevel studies. In addition to protection and mitigation measures, there may be opportunities for 

enhancements such as the addition of interpretive material along river parks (e.g., the planned 

San Diego River Park) or estuary areas to increase public understanding of these unique 

environments. 

Because specific biological resource impacts cannot be predicted with certainty at this program 

level, specific mitigation measures also cannot be developed at this time. However, mitigation 

strategies are described below from which specific mitigation measures can be developed once 

the extent of direct and indirect biological resource impacts have been determined at the project 

level. 

Mitigation strategies that could be applied at the project level for potential impacts to biological 

resources include the following: 

• Biological Resources Management Plans (BRMP) would be prepared to specify the 

design and implementation of biological resources mitigation measures, including habitat 

replacement and revegetation, protection during construction, performance (growth) 

standards, maintenance criteria, and monitoring requirements. The USFWS, CDFG, and 

USACE would review Draft BRMPs. The primary goal of a BRMP is to ensure the longterm perpetuation of the existing diversity of habitats in the project area and adjacent 

urban interface zones. BRMPs will contain the following: 

− Specific measures for the protection of sensitive amphibian, mammal, bird, and 

plant species during construction. 

− Identification and quantification of habitats to be removed, along with the 

locations where these habitats are to be restored or relocated. 

− Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to estimate 

their relative composition; site preparation (clearing, grading, weed eradication, 

soil amendment, topsoil storage); irrigation, planting (container plantings, 

seeding); and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system checks, replanting). 

This information would be used to determine the requirements for revegetation 

areas. 

− Sources of plant materials and methods of propagation. 

− Specific parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat 

for temporary disturbance areas. 

− Specification of parameters for maintenance and monitoring of re-established 

habitats, including weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and 

monitoring reports for temporary disturbance areas. 

− Specification of performance standards for growth of re-established plant 

communities and cut-and-fill slopes. 

− Remedial measures to be taken if performance standards are not met. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-45 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

− Methodologies and requirements for monitoring of the restoration/replacement 

efforts. 

− Measures to preserve topsoil and control erosion control. 

− Design of protective fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and 

construction staging areas. 

− Specification of location and quantities of gallinaceous guzzlers (catch 

basin/artificial watering structures, if needed); specification of monitoring of water 

levels in guzzlers. 

− Location of trees to be protected as wildlife habitat (roosting sites) and locations 

for planting of replacement trees. 

− Specification of the purpose, type, frequency, and extent of chemical use for 

insect and disease control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within 

sensitive habitat areas. 

− Specific construction monitoring programs for sensitive species. 

− Specific measures for the protection of sensitive habitats to be preserved. These 

measures may include, but are not limited to, erosion and siltation control 

measures, protective fencing guidelines, dust control measures, grading 

techniques, construction area limits, and biological monitoring requirements. 

− Provisions for biological monitoring during construction activities to ensure 

compliance and success of protective measures. The monitoring procedures 

would (1) identify specific locations of wildlife habitat and sensitive species to be 

monitored; (2) identify the frequency of monitoring, monitoring methodology (for 

each habitat and sensitive species to be monitored); (3) list required 

qualifications of biological monitor(s); and (4) identify reporting requirements. 

• Plant Communities: Impact reduction measures include construction monitoring, onand/or off-site revegetation/restoration, and purchase of credits from existing mitigation 

banks. Mitigation ratios would vary depending on the quality of the plant community 

impacted and whether or not it provides habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. 

Regulatory agencies would be consulted to determine appropriate mitigation ratios. Onsite mitigation would be preferred to off-site mitigation whenever possible. Off-site 

mitigation should be located within the same watershed or in close proximity to the 

impact area, where feasible.

• Sensitive Plant Species: Mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to, preconstruction focused surveys, construction monitoring, relocation of plants, seed 

collection, plant propagation, out-planting to a suitable mitigation site, and participation in 

an existing HCP. Prior to construction, focused surveys should be conducted for 

sensitive plant species identified as occurring in the study area. Locations of sensitive 

plant species observed would be mapped on construction drawings. Research must be 

conducted on appropriate methods to use on a species-by-species basis. Some plant 

species may require transplantation, whereas others may germinate from seed, and still 

others may need to be propagated in a greenhouse prior to planting on an appropriate 

mitigation site. (See also BRMP information above.) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-46 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Weed Control: Specific mitigation measures would be developed to minimize or avoid 

the spread of weeds during construction and operation. Preventive measures during 

construction could include identification of areas with existing weed problems and 

measures to control traffic moving out of those areas (e.g., cleaning of construction 

vehicles, limitations on movement of fill). Mitigation for operational impacts would also be 

developed. 

• Sensitive Wildlife Species: Mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to, preconstruction focused surveys, construction monitoring, restoration of suitable breeding 

and foraging habitat, purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank, and 

participation in an existing HCP. Prior to construction, focused surveys would be 

conducted for sensitive wildlife species identified as occurring in the study area. 

Locations of sensitive wildlife species observed would be mapped on construction 

drawings. Construction could be phased around the breeding season for sensitive 

wildlife species. (See also BRMP information above.) 

• Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors: Wildlife crossings would be of a design, shape 

and size to be sufficiently attractive to encourage wildlife use. Overcrossings and 

undercrossings for wildlife would be appropriately vegetated to afford cover and other 

species requirements. Functional corridors would be established to provide connectivity 

to protected land zoned for uses that provide wildlife permeability. The following process 

would be used in design of corridors: 

− Identify the habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect 

− Select several species of interest from the species present in these areas 

− Evaluate the relevant needs of each selected species 

− For each potential corridor, evaluate how the area will accommodate movement 

by each species of interest 

− Draw the corridors on a map 

− Design a monitoring program 

• Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands: The amount of mitigation required would be 

assessed on an acreage basis, with ratios depending upon the nature and condition of 

the jurisdictional areas located within the impact areas. When appropriate and feasible, 

on-site mitigation would be preferred. Off-site mitigation should be located within the 

same watershed or as close in proximity to the area of impact as possible. Mitigation 

options for unavoidable impacts to state and federal jurisdictional waters would include 

on- or off-site restoration, creation, or enhancement, mitigation banking, or in-lieu fee 

payments, as described below. 

− Restoration – Return degraded habitat to a pre-existing condition. 

− Creation – Conversion of a persistent non-wetland habitat into wetland (or other 

aquatic) habitat. The created habitat may be self-sustaining or dependent upon 

artificial irrigation. 

− Enhancement – Increase one or more functions through activities such as 

plantings or non-native vegetation eradication. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-47 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

− Passive Revegetation – Allow a disturbed area to naturally revegetate without 

plantings. 

− Mitigation Banking - Purchase of units of wetland or waters habitat that have 

been restored or enhanced within a larger managed conservation area. The units 

are typically known as “credits” and are usually sold on an acreage basis. 

− In-Lieu Fee Program – A monetary payment is made to an agency-approved 

entity that provides habitat conservation or restoration. For instance, the Nature 

Conservancy may receive in-lieu fee payments for impacts in all watersheds. (An 

In-Lieu Fee Program is available for impacts to waters within Los Angeles 

County.) 

− Current federal and state policy emphasizes a "no net loss" of wetlands habitats 

policy, which is usually achieved through restoration of areas subject to 

temporary impacts or creation of wetlands to offset permanent impacts. However, 

the January 27, 2003, Special Public Notice for Mitigation and Monitoring 

Guidelines states that the USACE favors the use of approved mitigation banks or 

in-lieu fee programs in cases where they result in more regional or watershed 

benefit than on-site compensatory mitigation. Approved mitigation and in-lieu fee 

programs would include measures that ensure the no net loss of wetlands policy 

is met. 

The above mitigation strategies, which include further study to obtain additional data and to 

refine site-specific mitigation measures, are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to 

biological resources and wetlands. During project-level reviews and as a result of consultations 

with resource agencies, obtaining required permits for segments of the rail improvements, and 

complying with permit terms and conditions, impacts to biological resources and wetlands will 

be reduced. Sufficient information is not available at the program level to conclude with certainty 

that mitigation will reduce impacts to affected resources to a less than significant level in all 

circumstances. Therefore, impacts to biological resources and wetlands are considered 

significant at the program level even with the application of mitigation strategies. Additional 

environmental assessment will allow more precise evaluation in the project-level environmental 

analyses. 

3.13.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Identification of potential impacts on various biological resources for this Program EIR/EIS has 

primarily relied on the available GIS database, other GIS tools, and review of available 

literature. These sources encompass a broad range of information that may not exactly 

correspond to actual field conditions. Project-level studies would be required to obtain more 

reliable assessments of potential impacts on biological resources in the study area. These 

studies would be used to examine the alternative alignment options and design information in 

order to identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). 

The subsequent biological resources analyses required for project environmental 

documentation would focus on project-specific impacts that reflect more precise definitions of 

the right-of-way, the proposed improvement locations, and the operations. Areas of possible 

further study include the following: 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-48 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Field surveys to determine the extent and type of general and sensitive biological 

resources, including focused surveys following resource agency protocols for specialstatus species. 

• Mapping of plant communities and sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to 

the proposed rail improvements right-of-way/impact footprint to address direct and 

indirect impacts on biological resources. 

• Study of wildlife migration corridors. At the program level, wildlife movement and 

migration corridors have been assumed to be present in any large open areas, lagoons 

and surrounding parks and reserve areas, creeks and riparian areas in undeveloped 

settings. It is also possible that linear areas of narrow natural or semi-natural habitats, 

even in urban areas, may be functioning at some level as wildlife movement corridors; 

however, these smaller areas are not specifically identified at the program level of data 

analysis and would be evaluated at the project level. Field studies would identify 

additional locally significant corridors and provide data to assist in the design of bridges 

and wildlife crossings at crucial travel route points. 

• Further identification and mapping of habitat reserves and mitigation banks and 

conservation easements within the study area, and assessment of the potential for 

impact to these areas. 

• Delineation of waters and wetlands to determine the extent of USACE and CDFG 

jurisdiction, and consultation conducted with these agencies regarding appropriate 

mitigation. 

• Hydraulic analyses of lagoon crossings to identify potentially feasible improvements that 

may help improve tidal hydraulics and remove barriers to floodwaters. For new 

structures crossing lagoons and other water bodies, detailed design concepts that 

reduce the amount of fill and minimize the in-water footprint will be examined. 

• Coordination with the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project to reduce impacts and find 

opportunities for coordination during implementation and construction. 

• Consultation with USFWS for potential impacts on federally listed plant and wildlife 

species, including the preparation of a biological assessment or assessments, and 

biological opinions for each phase of project implementation. Early consultation will help 

to refine appropriate mitigation strategies. Upon project level initiation of Section 7 

consultation, the lead agencies would in principle accomplish the steps identified by DOI 

by: (1) identifying the conservation needs of each listed species with the potential to be 

impacted by the proposal; (2) identifying the threats to each listed species’ conservation 

related to the proposed action; (3) identifying species conservation or management units 

and the threats affecting those units; (4) identifying species’ conservation goals framed 

within the context of the Rail Improvements program; and (5) developing 

conservation/management unit strategies. The lead agencies would prepare Biological 

Assessments to address the affected conservation/management units identified. 

• In some areas along the LOSSAN corridor, it may be appropriate to consider preparation 

of a Programmatic Biological Opinion for future projects. This may be particularly useful 

in the north San Diego County area where a number of Rail Improvement options could 

be implemented along several segments encompassing the system of coastal lagoons 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-49 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

and coastal marsh ecosystems. The desirability and feasibility of a Programmatic 

document will be explored with federal and state lead and regulatory agencies and 

lagoon organizations during project-level evaluations. If various rail improvements were 

funded within a similar timeframe, and/or if rail improvements could be timed to coincide 

in some areas with other transportation improvements (such as the North Coast corridor 

project), a Programmatic Biological Opinion may be the best vehicle for addressing the 

full set of issues concerning biological resources. 

• Consultation with CDFG regarding potential impacts on state-listed plant and wildlife 

species and appropriate mitigation for such impacts. Early consultation will help to refine 

appropriate mitigation strategies. 

• Consultation with managers of lands administered for natural values regarding the 

impacts and mitigation strategies for such areas. 

• Preparation of an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. 

• Refinement of an alignment design along Trabuco Creek, including an evaluation of 

options for moving the alignment further from the creek, and an evaluation of potential 

improvements for Trabuco Creek habitats. 

• Assessment of potential for participation in HCPs. 

• Development of a mitigation monitoring plan for environmental compliance during 

construction. 

• Identification of all areas subject to various regulations and permit actions, followed by 

application for necessary permits (USACE Nationwide Permit or Section 404, USFWS 

Biological Opinion, CDFG consistency determination with USFWS Biological Opinion, 

Coastal Zone Development Permit, and 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement, RWQCB 

Section 401). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.13-50 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.14 SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND 

RECREATION) 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS include publicly owned 

parklands, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites that are covered by 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This section describes the existing Section 4(f) and 

6(f) resources within the project region and identifies the potential uses of and potential impacts 

on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources for each alternative. Because this is a program-level 

environmental document, the uses of and impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources are 

analyzed at a program level. 

3.14.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Section 4(f)

Section 4(f) of DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. § 303) states the following. 

(a) It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort is made to 

preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. 

(b) The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of 

the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States, 

in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain 

or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or 

facilities. 

(c) Approval of Programs and Projects - Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may 

approve a transportation program or project (other than any project for a park road or 

roadway under section 204 of title 23) requiring the use of publicly owned land of a 

public park, recreation area or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national State or local 

officials, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as 

determined by the Federal State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, 

area refuge, or site) only if, 

(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 

(2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic site resulting from 

the use. 

(d) de Minimis Impacts 

(1) Requirements 

(A) Requirements For Historic Sites -The requirements of this section 

shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described 

in paragraph (2) if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this 

subsection, that a transportation program or project will have a de 

minimis impact on the area. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

(B) Requirements For Parks, Recreation Areas, And Wildlife Or Waterfowl 

Refuges - The requirements of subsection (c)(1) shall be considered 

to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) if the 

Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a 

transportation program or project will have a de minimis impact on the 

area. The requirements of subsection (c)(2) with respect to an area 

described in paragraph (3) shall not include an alternatives analysis. 

(C) Criteria - In making any determination under this subsection, the 

Secretary shall consider to be part of a transportation program or 

project any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement 

measures that are required to be implemented as a condition of 

approval of the transportation program or project. 

(2) Historic Sites - With respect to historic sites, the Secretary may make a finding of 

de minimis impact only if: 

(A) the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the consultation 

process required under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), that 

(i) the transportation program or project will have no adverse effect 

on the historic site; or 

(ii) there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation 

program or project; 

(B) the finding of the Secretary has received written concurrence from the 

applicable State historic preservation officer or tribal historic 

preservation officer (and from the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation if the Council is participating in the consultation process); 

and 

(C) the finding of the Secretary has been developed in consultation with 

parties consulting as part of the process referred to in subparagraph 

(A). 

(3) Parks, Recreation Areas, And Wildlife Or Waterfowl Refuges - With respect to 

parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make 

a finding of de minimis impact only if: 

(A) the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for 

public review and comment, that the transportation program or project 

will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the 

park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for 

protection under this section; and 

(B) the finding of the Secretary has received concurrence from the 

officials with jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, or wildlife or 

waterfowl refuge. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Similarly, California law requires a state agency that proposes a project which may result 

in adverse effects on historical resources listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NHRP) or the California Register of Historical Resources 

(CRHR) to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office and to identify feasible and 

prudent measures that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse effects (California Public 

Resources Code §§ 5024 and 5024.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5). 

Section 6(f)

State and local governments often obtain grants through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 460-4 through 460-11, September 3, 1964, as amended 1965, 1968, 

1970, 1972–1974, 1976–1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993–1996). Section 6(f) 

of the act prohibits the conversion to a non-recreational purpose of property acquired or 

developed with these grants without the approval of the Department of the Interior’s 

(DOI’s) National Park Service. Section 6(f) directs DOI to ensure that replacement lands 

of equal value (monetary), location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such 

conversions. Consequently, where such conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed 

for transportation projects, replacement lands must be provided. 

California statutes similarly require replacement lands. The California Public Park 

Preservation Act of 1971 (California Public Resources Code § 5400 et seq.) provides 

that a public agency that acquires public parkland for non-park use must either pay 

compensation that is sufficient to acquire substantially equivalent substitute parkland or 

provide substitute parkland of comparable characteristics. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

This evaluation of potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources focuses on 

identifying uses of historical, cultural, parkland, and wildlife resources under existing 

conditions, and potential uses of and impacts on these resources under the No-Project 

and Rail Improvements Alternatives. For this program document, the primary goal of the 

analysis was the identification of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources on or very close to the 

proposed Rail Improvements alignment options and the relative potential impacts of the 

alignments on these resources. At this stage, it is not practical to study and measure the 

severity of each potential impact identified. No fieldwork was conducted as part of this 

analysis. In subsequent project-level analysis, should a decision be made to proceed 

with the Rail Improvements Alternative, Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, potential uses 

and impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures would be identified in detail. 

Various sources were consulted to identify potential resources in the LOSSAN region, 

including available databases, studies, and other documents. These documents are 

listed in the references chapter of this document. To identify and quantify the potential 

impacts by resource type, the improvements included under each alignment option were 

overlaid on available databases and maps. 

Two types of potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources were identified: direct 

and proximity. During project-level studies, potential applicability of the de minimis 

impact finding will be analyzed. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Direct Impact: A physical feature of a proposed improvement would directly 

intersect with a portion or all of the resource and require the use of property from 

that resource. 

• Proximity Impact: A physical feature of a proposed improvement has the 

potential to impact the resource as a result of its proximity to the resource. 

Potential impacts were assigned a qualitative ranking of high, medium, or low based on 

the proximity of the resource to the centerline of the proposed improvement. The 

rankings are summarized in Table 3.14-1. 

Table 3.14-1 

Rankings for Potential Direct and Proximity Impacts 

on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

Ranking Distance of Resource 

from Centerline Potential Impact 

High 0 to 150 ft (0 to 46 m) Direct 

Medium 150 to 450 ft (46 to 137 m) Proximity 

Low 450 to 900 ft (137 to 274 m) Proximity 

3.14.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for the analysis of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources encompasses the area 

within 900 ft (274 m) on either side of the centerline of each alignment and within a 

900-ft (274-m) radius of existing and proposed stations. 

Because the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would cross urbanized and 

developed areas, a variety of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources could be affected. The 

proposed alignment options were developed with the intent of avoiding these resources 

to the extent feasible. There are potential locations within the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternatives, however, where Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources would not be 

avoided. These are discussed in the environmental consequences section below. 

B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources refer to publicly owned lands of a park, recreation area, 

or wildlife and waterfowl refuge; or land of a historic site of national, state, or local 

significance (as determined by the federal, state, regional, or local officials having 

jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site). 

Historically, urban and suburban development follows the establishment of 

transportation corridors and facilities. In California in the late 19th and early 20th 

centuries, most cities formed around ports and rail lines, the primary modes for 

transporting people and goods. After World War II, in the early 1950s, highways and the 

automobile became the dominant mode of transportation, bringing urban and suburban 

development to areas along highways that were formerly farm-to-market roads 

connecting rural areas to cities. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The location and identification of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources reflect this historic 

transportation corridor and urban development pattern. Today, in the urban areas that 

developed around the railroads at the turn of the century, there is a high concentration of 

historical resources. In many southern California cities the railroad station is one of the 

oldest historical resources in the city. In the suburban and rural areas where 

development followed highways, some open space and natural areas have been 

preserved as public parks. In addition to these passive park1 areas, new public parks 

and playgrounds have been built as part of residential developments. All of these 

historical resources and public parks are considered potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources. Therefore, in urban areas an alternative would be more likely to affect 

historical and archeological resources, while in suburban, wilderness, or open space or 

natural areas (e.g., lagoons) an alternative would be more likely to affect public parks 

and recreation lands, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. 

C. SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 

The most significant Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources in the LOSSAN region (except 

historical and archaeological resources) are identified below. (See Section 3.12, Cultural 

and Paleontological Resources, for an analysis of historical and archeological 

resources.) The project area includes the western portion of the Los Angeles basin and 

the coastal areas of southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego, generally 

following the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. The Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources in the 

project area are predominantly local and regional parks. However, this region includes 

older coastal cities, and several areas have a high number of historic properties listed on 

the NRHP and the CRHR. 

In addition to local and regional parks, the study area encompasses ten state beaches 

that are Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources (San Onofre, San Clemente, Doheny, Leucadia, 

Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Moonlight, Cardiff, San Elijo, and Torrey Pines). Several 

areas associated with lagoons are also 4(f) resources in the study area, including 

Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve, San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, and San 

Dieguito Lagoon Ecological Preserve. 

Specific Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within the study area are listed by rail segment in 

Appendix 3.14-A. 

The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT), an approved project within San Diego County, will be 

located along an alignment parallel to and either within or adjacent to the existing 

LOSSAN rail right-of-way. The CRT is currently in various stages of implementation, 

with some segments already completed and in use. The CRT is mainly used for 

transportation purposes, with incidental use for public recreational activities including, 

but not limited to, landscaping, cycling, jogging, and walking. Because transportation is 

the primary use definition and recreational activities are incidental, Section 4(f) resource 

protections would not apply to the CRT. 

 

1 Passive park refers to a park that is used for picnicking or passive water sports; it also describes zoos and arboretums. An active 

park is a park that includes facilities such as children’s play equipment, playing fields, tennis or basketball courts, etc. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 

The identification of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources could result in significant differences among 

the alignment options, because of the potential disruptions and costs associated with the 

avoidance, minimization, and possible need to mitigate impacts on such resources. These 

impacts could range from temporary construction impacts to the acquisition of Section 4(f) and 

6(f) resources. 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions are based on transportation infrastructure that was identified as 

part of the alternatives definition process. The No Project Alternative is based on existing 

conditions and the funded and programmed transportation improvements that are 

projected to be developed and in operation by 2020. It is not possible as part of this 

study to identify or quantify the potential uses and impacts expected to occur by 2020 

with implementation of the No Project Alternative. Rather, it is assumed that the 

improvements to be developed and implemented under the No Project Alternative would 

undergo typical design and construction practices that would avoid or greatly limit 

potential impacts. Additionally, each improvement associated with the No Project 

Alternative will be subject to a project-level environmental document that will identify 

potential uses and impacts, as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the 

impacts. Thus, no impacts are quantified under the No Project Alternative. 

B. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative is the assumed 2020 condition, as described above. Any 

potential impacts associated with the Rail Improvements Alternative would occur in 

addition to the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative. For this analysis, the 

difference in impacts between the Rail Improvements Alternative relative to No Project 

(existing conditions in this case) are compared. 

A majority of the proposed Rail Improvements alignment options would be within the 

existing LOSSAN rail right-of-way. However, the potential for impacts to known and 

potential historical and archeological resources is high in a number of these areas, 

primarily because these resources are generally located in urban centers where the 

range of possible alignment options is limited. (A detailed analysis of historical and 

archeological resources is found in Section 3.12, Cultural and Paleontological

Resources.) 

The Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources identified in the LOSSAN region are primarily local 

and regional parks, state beaches, and several ecological preserves. Although 

construction of the Rail Improvements Alternative is expected to occur within 150 ft (46 

m) of some parks and refuge lands, the majority of the activities would be within the 

existing LOSSAN rail corridor. The railroad was originally constructed in the 1800s, 

before most parks and conservation lands were established around it. Because most 

alignment options would be within existing rail or roadway corridors, the potential for 

impacts would be temporary or could be reduced by mitigation strategies. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Tunneling options in several rail segments could reduce or avoid impacts on some of the 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Because tunneling could result in the removal of 

existing aboveground track, new parklands could potentially be created for public use, 

which would result in beneficial impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties. Specific 

areas where this could occur include the Del Mar Bluffs area, the San Clemente coastal 

area, and the San Juan Capistrano area. This would need to be evaluated in detail 

during project-level studies. 

Table 3.14.2 summarizes the number of potential high impacts (that is, direct impacts 

within 150 ft [46m] of the centerline of an alignment option) for the Rail Improvements 

alignment options. Specific Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources are listed in Appendix 3.14-A. 

In comparing alignment options in the same rail segments, there is little or no difference 

in the number of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources that are within 150 ft (46 m) of the 

proposed improvements. Where a tunnel option exists, that option would avoid most if 

not all potential impacts. 

3.14.4 Impact Avoidance Strategies, Including Alternatives Screened 

from Further Consideration 

Throughout the environmental review process, the Department has emphasized minimizing 

harm to the environment. One of the Department’s policies, as stated in Chapter 1, is “to 

maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and right-of-way, to the extent feasible.” 

This policy is one of the primary impact avoidance strategies for the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternative. This policy and the other goals implicit in the project purpose and 

need were used in the scoping process and successive screening stages of the program 

environmental process (see Chapter 2, Alternatives). The screening evaluation considered the 

potential impacts of the various alignments and all the environmental parameters, including 

impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. The Department and the FRA developed the 

screening recommendations, with input from federal cooperating agencies; state, regional, and 

local agencies; and members of the public. 

3.14.5 Avoidance Alternatives or Reasons for No Prudent or 

Feasible Alternative for Use of Section 4(f) or 6(f) Resource 

Direct impacts on many Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources could be avoided by remaining within 

existing railroad right-of-way, or moving horizontally within the right-of-way, where feasible. 

Avoidance of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources would be explored during project-specific design 

and environmental evaluation. Project-level evaluations of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resource use 

would include documentation of the avoidance alternatives and/or reasons for no prudent or 

feasible alternative for impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources for the segments being 

studied. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.14-2 

Summary of 4(f)/6(f) Resources Potentially Affected in Study Area 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Potential High1

Impacts on 

Section 4(f) 

Resources) 

Potential High1

Impacts on 

Section 6(f) 

Resources 

Total 

Potential 

High1

Impacts 

Union Station To Fullerton Station – 4th Main Track 4 0 4 

Fullerton Station To Irvine Station--Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between Orange and Santa Ana 3 0 3 

TRENCH between Orange and Santa Ana 3 0 3 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 0 0 

Anaheim 0 0 0 

Santa Ana 0 0 0 

Irvine 1 0 1 

San Juan Capistrano Double Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 between Hwy 73 and Avenida 

Aeropuerto 1 0 1 

AT-GRADE and Cut/Cover TRENCH along east side 

of Trabuco Creek 1 0 1 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve Realignment; San Clemente - 

SHORT TUNNEL 5 1 6 

San Clemente - LONG TWO-SEGMENT TUNNEL 4 1 5 

Stations 

San Clemente 0 0 0 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade Double Tracking 2 0 2 

Oceanside/Carlsbad Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; double tracking 3 0 3 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; double-tracking 3 0 3 

Stations 

Oceanside 0 0 0 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; 2 1 3 

Encinitas - SHORT TRENCH 2 1 3 

Stations 

Solana Beach 0 0 0 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino Del Mar 3 0 3 

TUNNEL along I-5 2 0 2 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL 2 0 2 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.14-2 

Summary of 4(f)/6(f) Resources Potentially Affected in Study Area (continued) 

Rail Improvements 

Alignment Options 

Potential High1

Impacts on 

Section 4(f) 

Resources) 

Potential High1

Impacts on 

Section 6(f) 

Resources 

Total 

Potential 

High1

Impacts 

I-5 TUNNEL 3 0 3 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to Miramar Hill Tunnel) 1 0 1 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe Depot Curve realignment and 

Double Tracking 3 0 3 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 0 0 0 

1

:High impacts assume resource is located within 150 ft (46m) of improvement centerline. Potential impacts on historical and 

archaeological resources are not included here because they are discussed in detail in Section 3.10.

There are several potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) recreation resources and cultural resources 

within or immediately adjacent to the proposed alignments. Avoidance of these resources would 

be possible in many cases by redesigning or narrowing the disturbance limits, in combination 

with noise walls and/or visual screening. However, there may be locations where avoidance 

could not be achieved, possibly for one of more of the following reasons: 

• Shifting the centerline (and the whole facility) to avoid one or more resources could 

result in greater potential impacts on other resources. 

• The alignment options cannot be shifted easily because of the large turning radii 

required for rail operations and other design considerations. A minor shift in one location 

on the rail alignment could result in a substantial shift elsewhere on the alignment, 

potentially resulting in impacts on other Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

• Measures to reduce potential proximity impacts, such as noise walls, could result in 

potential adverse visual impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Potential measures 

to minimize harm at each resource need to be analyzed in consultation with the owners 

of the resources to ensure that measures to minimize harm do not adversely affect the 

values of the Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

3.14.6 Design Practices 

Utilizing existing rail and other transportation corridors for the proposed Rail Improvements 

Alternative will be emphasized in order to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties, 

particularly parks and recreational lands. Nearly 90% percent of the alignment options carried 

forward are either within or adjacent to a major existing transportation corridor (existing railroad 

or highway right-of-way), thus minimizing potential for impacts to these important resources. 

Should USDOT participate in project-level reviews, compliance with Sections 4(f) of the DOT 

Act of 1966 as amended, and 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as 

amended, will be completed. Many potential 4(f) and 6(f) uses have been avoided through 

evaluation incorporated in this program EIR/EIS and additional steps will be taken at the project 

level to ensure that there is no prudent or feasible alternative to the use of 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources, in addition to the potential applicability of a de minimis impact finding. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Potential impacts to Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources will be evaluated during project-level studies 

to identify possible design refinements that would avoid or minimize these impacts. The 

majority of alignment options are within the existing rail corridor or in deep tunnels, which greatly 

reduces the potential for impacts. Alignment shifts and other design refinements during projectlevel reviews are expected to further reduce potential impacts. 

3.14.7 Mitigation Strategies 

Possible mitigation measures for impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources include sound 

walls, visual buffers/landscaping, and modification of transportation access to/egress from the 

resource. Some of these measures could include design modifications or controls on 

construction schedules, phasing, and activities. Planning efforts would be undertaken as a part 

of the project-level documentation phase to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) and 6(f) protected 

resources. This is anticipated to include measures that may be taken to mitigate potential 

adverse environmental impacts, such as beautification measures, replacement of land or 

structures or their equivalents on or near their existing site(s), tunneling, cut and cover, cut and 

fill, treatment of embankments, planting, screening, creating wildlife corridors, acquisition of land 

for preservation, installation of noise barriers, and establishment of pedestrian or bicycle paths. 

Other potential mitigation strategies could be discovered with public input. 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for recreation resources, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would have a potentially 

significant effect on public parks and recreation resources. Although public parks and other 

recreational resources have largely been avoided by the placement of conceptual corridors, 

most of which are within the existing rail corridor or in tunnels, and additional avoidance and 

mitigation strategies will be applied in the project-level analyses, some parks and recreational 

resources may ultimately be affected. At the programmatic level of analysis, it is not possible to 

know precisely the location, extent and particular characteristics of impacts to park resources. 

Because of this uncertainty, at the programmatic level of analysis the impact is considered 

significant. Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, will be 

applied to reduce these impacts. 

In the event that rail improvement alignments or facilities are located within or in proximity to 

public parks, mitigation measures for natural, cultural, aesthetic and recreational impacts would 

be evaluated for feasibility and efficacy, including but not limited to: 

• Compensation for temporary and loss of park and recreation use. 

• If necessary, provide alternative shuttle access service to park visitors. 

• Restore directly impacted park lands to a natural state. 

• If any facilities must be relocated, provide planning studies as well as design and 

appropriate replacement with minimal impact on park use. 

• Inventory and record affected historic structures. Provide appropriate mitigation for 

adverse effects to historic structures. 

• Require appropriate vehicle cleaning for all construction equipment used near units of 

the California State Park System to protect against spreading exotic plants or disease. 

• Use local native plants for revegetation. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Use best management practices during construction and maintenance to protect wetland 

resources. 

• Design and construct cuts, fills, and aerial structures to avoid and minimize visual impact 

to units of the State Park System. 

• In addressing impacts to wildlife movement corridors and habitat directly related to 

California State Park System units, consult with the California Department of Parks and 

recreation. 

• Incorporate wildlife under- or over-crossings as necessary. 

• Adopt construction practices to protect critical wildlife corridors and visitor use areas 

within public parks. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to public 

park resources in most circumstances. At the project-level it is expected that, for proposed rail 

alignments which would result in impacts to park resources, most of the impacts to individual 

park resources will be avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level, but it is possible that 

for some parks impacts will be significant. Sufficient information is not available at the program 

level to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation strategies will reduce impacts to all 

affected Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources to a less than significant effect in all circumstances. 

Therefore, potential impacts to these resources are considered significant at the program level 

even with the application of mitigation strategies. Additional environmental assessment will 

allow more precise evaluation in the project-level environmental analyses, as well as any 

needed 4(f) and 6(f) findings. 

3.14.8 Subsequent Analysis 

The Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluation process would continue at the project-specific level to the 

extent that US DOT or one of its operating administrations has a role in the specific, subsequent 

project. Given the broad focus of analysis for this Program EIR/EIS, the primary goal for 

project-level analysis would be to identify Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources and potential impacts 

in greater detail, to identify the existence of potential prudent and feasible alternatives, and to 

identify and analyze potential mitigation measures. 

The following items would be included in the Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluations at the project 

level. 

• Detailed physical descriptions of a specific portion of the proposed Rail Improvements 

alignments (including plans and profiles). 

• Updated list of all Section 4(f) and 6(f) recreation resources in proximity to the proposed 

alignment centerlines and project components, using the most recent mapping available 

such as annually updated Thomas Bros. maps, general plans, state Web sites, local 

jurisdiction Web sites, etc. 

• Updated list of NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible cultural resources. As part of detailed 

cultural resources studies required for project-level environmental review (see Section 

3.10.7), all previously identified potentially eligible resources would be further evaluated 

to determine NRHP eligibility. NRHP-eligible resources would be carried forward to the 

project-level Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluation. Field reconnaissance would be needed to 

complete the required Section 4(f) inventory sheets. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.14-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION) 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• List of the CRHR-listed and eligible resources and field reconnaissance to provide a 

complete inventory and description of these resources. 

• Descriptions of uses and functions of each Section 4(f) and 6(f) resource, including 

location map; size; services and facilities; annual patronage; unique qualities; 

relationship to other lands in the project vicinity; owner/operator; other relevant 

information regarding the resource; and explanation of the significance of the properties 

as determined by federal, state, regional, or local officials with jurisdiction over the 

resource. 

• Detailed descriptions of the proposed uses of and potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 

6(f) resources and of the methods used to identify them. Specific potential impacts on 

each resource would be identified, including proximity impacts as a result of impacts on 

ambient noise, air quality, transportation, and visual resources. 

• Applicability of the de minimis finding would be evaluated for proposed uses and 

potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

• Identification and refinement of strategies to avoid or minimize use of and impacts on 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources by narrowing rights-of-way/disturbance limits, realigning/ 

relocating project features, and developing other alignment adjustments. These 

strategies would analyze, as appropriate, the technical feasibility, including cost 

estimates with figures showing percentage differences in total project costs, possibility of 

community or ecosystem disruption, and other potential significant adverse 

environmental impacts of each alternative; and show the financial, social, or ecological 

costs or potential adverse environmental impacts of each alternative, as well as unique 

problems and extraordinary magnitudes of impacts. 

• Documentation of consultation with the affected local jurisdictions and owners/operators 

of the identified Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. This would include documentation of 

concurrence or efforts to obtain concurrence from the public official or officials having 

jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources and documentation of the planning to 

minimize harm to the affected resources. Documentation would include input from the 

public or efforts to obtain input from the public on effects to recreational or wildlife refuge 

resources as well as documentation that consulting parties were involved in the findings 

of effect for historic resources. (Refer to Chapter 8, Persons and Organizations 

Contacted, for additional discussion of these consultations.) In addition to the mitigation 

proposed, the Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluation should document the National Park 

Service’s tentative position relative to any proposed Section 6(f) conversion and should 

address the need for replacement lands under federal and California law (Federal 

Highway Administration 1987). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.15-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.15 GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

Transportation investments can lead to reduced travel time or cost, improved accessibility within 

or among regions, or reduced accidents or air pollution. These effects contribute to economic 

growth by allowing time and money previously spent on travel to be used for other purposes, 

attracting businesses and residents to places with increased accessibility or improved quality of 

life, and reducing overall costs to society. The population and employment growth that result 

comprise the growth-inducing effects of transportation investments. This growth can contribute 

to additional impacts beyond those directly attributable to the changes in the transportation 

system. These effects are known as indirect effects. 

CEQA requires that the growth-inducing impact of a proposed project be discussed in the EIR. 

CEQA Guidelines (§15126) state that the EIR shall “...discuss the ways in which the proposed 

project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, 

either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” 

This section addresses the potential for growth inducement and related impacts from the NoProject Alternative and from the construction and operation of the proposed Rail Improvements 

Alternative. 

3.15.1 No-Project Alternative 

The No-Project Alternative would not have any growth-inducing impacts on the LOSSAN region. 

The highway and rail improvement projects that are programmed to be completed by 2020 

under the No-Project Alternative would help to accommodate existing and projected travel 

demands rising out of the population growth over the next 20 years. 

3.15.2 Rail Improvements Alternative 

A. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would not introduce a new rail corridor into 

the region. Based on population and employment forecasts for the LOSSAN region1, the 

number of passenger trains in the LOSSAN corridor is projected to nearly double 

between 2005 and 2020, increasing from an average of about 70 trains per weekday in 

2005 to about 125 trains per weekday in 2020 without the proposed Rail Improvements. 

During this same time period, freight trains in the corridor are projected to increase from 

approximately 45 to 98 per day between Union Station and Fullerton (then traveling east 

out of the LOSSAN region), with approximately 6 per day between Fullerton and 

San Diego2. Under the Rail Improvements Alternative, passenger trains would increase 

approximately 10% over the No-Project levels, and freight trains south of Fullerton would 

double. 

The increases in passenger and freight trains on the LOSSAN corridor are projected to 

occur as a result of increased population and employment in the region. The population 

in the LOSSAN region (defined as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties) is 

 

1 Amtrak 2020 projections based on Amtrak "California Passenger Rail Plan System 20 Year Improvement Plan" (200?); Metrolink 

2020 projections based on SCRRA 30 year Strategic Plan (2000); NCTD 2020 projections based on SANDAG Regional 

Transportation Plan (2003). 

2 BNSF 2020 projections based on LAEDC Growth Rate Projections, July 2002 for the LA to Fullerton Segment; SANDAG 2020 

population and employment forecasts for the Oceanside to San Diego Segment. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.15-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

projected to increase 23 percent between 2000 and 2020, from 13.8 million to 

18.6 million (SCAG 2001; SANDAG 2002). The growth of the region, and the resultant 

increased demand for passenger and freight service, would occur with or without the 

proposed rail improvements. Therefore, the Rail Improvements Alternative would not 

create growth, and would not have any discernible effect on projected growth in the 

LOSSAN region. The project would help to accommodate the existing and projected 

intercity travel demand between Los Angeles and San Diego by increasing the capacity 

and reliability of the existing rail service. 

Implementation of the Rail Improvements Alternative could have some localized effects 

on the type of development that may occur around station areas. The majority of 

stations along the LOSSAN corridor would remain in their existing location, with only 

parking expansion proposed as part of the Rail Improvements Alternative. At those 

stations, there would not be any change in the type of surrounding development, and a 

change in the density of development is not likely because the station areas are already 

developed or would be developed according to local land use plans. 

There are several stations that could be added to the system as part of certain rail 

improvement alignment options. These include potential new stations in San Juan 

Capistrano (Trabuco Creek option only), San Clemente, and University Towne Centre 

(Miramar Tunnel option only). These potential station sites are in developed, mixed-use 

commercial/residential areas. The presence of a new rail station could increase the rate 

of development, or change the types of establishments that develop. Overall, the 

impacts of such changes would be small, given the existing and planned land uses in 

these suburban areas. 

There would be incremental growth in the number of railroad employees for operations 

and maintenance between now and 2020. This growth would be caused by the 

projected increase in train traffic along the LOSSAN corridor, and would not be 

substantively attributable to the proposed rail improvements. It is reasonable to expect 

that the additional employees would be drawn from regional employment pool, and 

would not cause an influx of workers that would require additional housing or public 

services. 

B. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would be implemented incrementally over the next 20 

years. The construction period for any particular improvement project could vary from 

approximately one year or less (for short distances of at-grade double tracking) to 

multiple years (for long tunnels). Because individual projects within the corridor would 

be phased, it is expected that each construction effort would be of a size allowing 

workers to be readily drawn from the available regional work force. It is unlikely that any 

phase would require an influx of workers from outside the region, so no increase in 

housing or public services would be required to accommodate the work force. No 

significant growth in employment is expected to result from construction of the proposed 

project. 

3.15.3 Mitigation 

Based on the above analysis, the Rail Improvements Alternative is not anticipated to have a 

significant growth-inducing impact on the LOSSAN region or in localized areas. Some growth-
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.15-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

related impacts may occur on a local level around expanded or new stations. Mitigation is 

expected to reduce these impacts. 

For potential impacts around stations, particularly new stations associated with some alignment 

options as described above, new station development will be coordinated early in project-level 

reviews with local jurisdictions. This will ensure that land use plans and controls can be revised 

and implemented in conjunction with any new station development. 

3.15.4 Subsequent Analysis 

During project-level reviews, localized studies will be conducted around proposed new station 

sites and local jurisdictions will be consulted. Context-sensitive station designs will be 

developed and public and agency input will help to refine those designs and provide consistency 

with applicable land use plans. Stations will be designed to maximize inter-modal traffic and 

transfers, and reduce congestion in and around the station areas. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.15-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION 

This section describes the potential cumulative impacts of the No-Project and Rail 

Improvements Alternatives in the study area analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS. As provided for 

in CEQA and NEPA for program documents, this Program EIR/EIS generally analyzes broad 

environmental effects of the alternatives. Project-level environmental review will be required for 

implementation of the various elements of the program. The level of analysis in this PEIR/EIS is 

consistent with the level of detail of the program; for subsequent approvals, where more detailed 

environmental studies and advanced design of the rail alignment options are completed, more 

detail regarding the impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in subsequent CEQA and 

NEPA reviews. The cumulative impact analysis for this Program EIR/EIS, therefore, follows this 

basic tenet – cumulative impacts are analyzed at a broad, landscape-level of detail because of 

the general nature of the program description. Consideration of local area cumulative effects, 

including specific urban development, or those relevant to a specific project will be undertaken 

as part of future project level environmental reviews. 

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts of all 

projects/actions in the study area taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts 

include direct and indirect effects of proposed projects/actions that result from incremental 

impacts of the proposed project/action added to the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects/actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such 

projects or actions (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8; 14 C.C.R. § 15130). 

The term cumulative impact refers to “two or more individual effects which, when considered 

together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA 

Guidelines § 15355). As defined by the State of California, cumulative impacts reflect “...the 

change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added 

to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking 

place over a period of time” (CEQA Guidelines, Sec. 15355[b]). This is consistent with NEPA’s 

use of the term (see CEQ NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1508.7). The President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on cumulative impacts further recognizes two categories 

of cumulative impacts: those that represent the additive effect of repeated activities taking place 

as part of a single proposed undertaking, and those that represent the combined effect of 

activities taking place under more than one proposed undertaking (Council on Environmental 

Quality Guidance Regarding Cumulative Effects, January 1997). CEQA requires the lead 

agency to identify projects and programs related to the undertaking being analyzed and 

evaluate the combined (cumulative) effects of those related projects on the environment. If any 

cumulative impacts are identified as significant, the lead agency must then assess the degree to 

which the proposed undertaking would contribute to those impacts, and identify ways of 

avoiding or reducing any contribution evaluated as “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA 

Guidelines Sec. 15130[b]). CEQ’s cumulative impact guidance similarly directs lead agencies to 

restrict analysis of cumulative impacts to those that are meaningful (Council on Environmental 

Quality 1997). 

Although both CEQA and NEPA include the requirement to consider “past projects” when 

addressing cumulative impacts, recent CEQ guidance discounts the value of this assessment of 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

past projects, directing that relevance of addressing past projects relates to the “concise 

description of the identifiable present effects” (CEQ June 24, 2005 Memorandum). 

Under CEQA, lead agencies may use a “list” approach to identify related projects for analysis, or 

may base the identification of cumulative impacts on a summary of “projections” in an adopted 

general plan or related planning document. CEQ’s guidance is consistent with CEQA’s 

approach and offers additional strategies to identify cumulative impacts requiring analysis, such 

as: input from questionnaires, interviews, and panels; use of analytical tools such as checklists, 

matrices, and system diagrams; modeling and trends analysis; and for resources where spatial 

relationships are important, GIS analysis. In this Program EIS/EIR, both the list and projections 

approaches have been adapted and used. This analysis focuses on the resources potentially 

affected by the proposed action and the No Action Alternative and identifies where there may be 

impacts to these resources, when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

The impact analysis focuses on other broad, regional past, present and probable future projects, 

primarily other highway improvements and transit projects within the study area and within the 

same areas of potential effect evaluated for the Rail Improvements conceptual alignment 

options. Information was used from existing environmental documents completed for regional 

transportation plans that include the highway and rail improvement projects approved for future 

implementation under the No-Project Alternative and projections made in the state 

implementation plan for air quality. The list of these projects is included in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, in Table 2.4.2-1. 

This cumulative impacts section also addresses other projects within the study area and within 

the same areas of potential effect evaluated for the specific corridors included as part of the NoProject and Rail Improvement Alternative alignments. The major projects within the study area 

are described in the following sections; a list of other highway and transit projects is provided in 

Appendix 3.16-A. Additionally, because of the sensitivity of the coastal lagoons in northern San 

Diego County, this analysis considers current and planned lagoon restoration and enhancement 

plans and programs. There also are a number of Natural Community Conservation Plans 

(NCCPs) and Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) in place and pending in the study area (refer 

to Biological Resources and Wetlands, Section 3.13.2.C). While a detailed analysis of these 

numerous plans is not part of this program-level evaluation, the general goals and objectives of 

these plans are addressed in this section, and also help to frame future, project-level studies 

(see Section 3.17, Next Steps in the Project Development Process). 

While other project actions may be likely to occur in the study area by 2020, this PEIR/EIS 

analyzes the broad environmental issues based on the program definition and the regional 

cumulative impacts and, therefore, does not consider the more localized cumulative issues 

related to subsequent approvals. 

The cumulative impact analysis for each resource identifies whether there is a significant 

cumulative impact under the No-Project Alternative, if the Rail Improvements Alternative would 

have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and the availability of mitigation 

measures at the program level to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the cumulative impact. 

However, specific analysis of localized impacts and related cumulative impacts, as well as 

mitigation related to these cumulative impacts that could occur for subsequent project 

approvals, will need to be addressed through project-level CEQA and NEPA compliance. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is provided below, followed by 

a discussion of potential cumulative impacts for each environmental resource. 

3.16.2 Summary of Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions 

A. Past and Present Actions 

The primary past and present projects evaluated in the cumulative impacts analysis 

include those along the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor, the existing LOSSAN rail corridor, and 

habitat restoration projects in the northern San Diego County lagoon area. (In addition 

to projects described in this section, see Tables 2.4.2-1 and 2.4.2-2 in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, for a list of programmed projects considered under the No-Project 

Alternative.) 

I-5 parallels the LOSSAN rail corridor for the majority of the corridor from Union Station 

to Santa Fe Depot. The Interstate has six general-purpose lanes between LA Union 

Station to the vicinity of Anaheim Transportation Center. It is ten lanes from Anaheim to 

near the Irvine Transportation Center, and then decreases to eight or six generalpurpose lanes going south to near Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. 

The existing number of rail tracks in the LOSSAN corridor is shown in Table 3.16-1 by 

segment. 

Table 3.16-1 

Rail Corridor Segments 

LOSSAN 

Corridor Segment Existing Number of Tracks 

Union Station to Commerce 3 

Commerce to Fullerton 3 

Fullerton to Irvine 1 

Irvine to San Juan Capistrano 2 

San Juan Capistrano 1 

Dana Point to San Clemente 1 

Camp Pendleton 2 

except 6 miles of 1 track 

Oceanside to Santa Fe Depot 1 

Both I-5 and the LOSSAN rail corridor currently cross six coastal lagoons in northern 

San Diego County. The embankments for both the rail and highway infrastructure across 

these lagoons have had detrimental effects on the hydrology in the lagoons. When the 

rail corridor across the lagoons was originally established, the tracks were typically built 

on an earth-fill embankment. A relatively short bridge allowed for water to pass under 

the tracks, but the embankment reduced the degree of water circulation in the lagoon, 

affecting tidal flushing. After the railroad was constructed, the highway was constructed 

nearly parallel to the railroad tracks. In most of these lagoons, the highway was also 

built on an earth-fill embankment, with a bridge opening in line with the railroad bridge 

opening. The combination of these embankments have the potential to act as a dam, 

slowing lagoon flow on its way to the ocean and raising flood water levels in the lagoons. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The lagoons and their associated wetlands and habitats are increasingly under duress in 

most cases, due to development pressure, impaired water quality, and reduced tidal 

flow. These conditions are being addressed through a number of restoration and 

enhancement plans and projects, which may slow or reverse declines and increase the 

health of these areas and the diversity of species and habitat available. 

Table 3.16-2 and Figure 3.16-1 show the proximity of the rail corridor and the I-5 corridor 

across the six lagoons. This information is relevant to the discussion in Section 3.16.3 

regarding potential cumulative impacts and coordination opportunities presented by the 

possible coincidence of I-5 and LOSSAN corridor construction. 

Table 3.16-2 

Proximity of Interstate 5 and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Across Lagoons 

Lagoon 

Largest Distance 

Between Corridors 

Feet 

(Meters) 

Smallest Distance 

Between Corridors 

Feet 

(Meters) 

Average Distance 

Between Corridors 

Feet 

(Meters) 

Buena Vista 3,630 ft 

(1,106 m) 

3,369 ft 

(1,027m) 

3,451 ft 

(1,052 m) 

Agua Hedionda 1,223 ft 

(373 m) 

653 ft 

199 m 

779 ft 

(237 m) 

Batiquitos 2,484 feet 

(757 m) 

2,396 ft 

(730 m) 

2,430 ft 

(741 m) 

San Elijo 4,977ft 

(1,517 m) 

2,713ft 

(827 m) 

3,552 ft 

(1,083 m) 

San Dieguito 6,024 ft 

(1,836 m) 

4,190 ft 

(1,277 m) 

4,706 ft 

(1,434 m) 

Los Peñasquitos 5,416 ft 

(1,651m) 

108 ft 

(333 m) 

2,116 ft 

(645 m) 

Three of the lagoons have undertaken habitat restoration projects that have recently 

been completed and are in the monitoring phase. These are briefly described below, to 

better characterize existing conditions. 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon: The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is unique among San Diego 

County lagoons because both recreational and commercial uses are permitted. This 

lagoon is a healthy tidal body, with a large wetland area supporting several endangered 

species. The entire 400-acre lagoon, created in 1954, was completely re-dredged in 

1998/1999 to an average depth of 8 to 11 feet, significantly increasing tidal flushing. An 

extensive eelgrass planting program was initiated after the dredging, resulting in 

additional marine nursery areas. In 2000, CDFG acquired 186 acres of wetlands located 

at the eastern end of the lagoon for an Ecological Reserve. 

The watershed is drained by the Agua Hedionda and Macario Creeks and is a 

component of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. The creeks are normally a trickle in the 

summer, but become sources of storm water runoff from continuing residential and 

commercial development. The lagoon and wetlands form a major element of Carlsbad’s 

Habitat Management Program and are connected by corridors to other elements of the 

program. The wetlands and surrounding slopes of coastal sage scrub provide habitat for 

sensitive species including the California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, light-footed 

Clapper rail, and others. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

San Juan Capistrano 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon

Los Penasquitos Lagoon

Santa Ana 

Del Mar 

Dana Point 

San Onofre Power Plant 

San Elijo Lagoon

Batiquitos Lagoon

Buena Vista Lagoon

San Dieguito Lagoon

Source : Caltrans, District 11 FIGURE 3.16-1

Existing Conditions of Interstate 5 and LOSSAN Rail Corridor isting Conditions of Interstate 5 and LOSSAN Rail Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Existing Conditions

Current Number of Tracks

1

2

3

Current Number of Lanes

6

8

10

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 4 8 16 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.16-5
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration Project: The purpose of the Batiquitos Lagoon 

Enhancement Project was to permanently restore tidal influence to the lagoon while 

protecting important habitat. The subtidal and intertidal areas of the lagoon were used to 

mitigate the loss of habitat in the Outer Los Angeles Harbor, for the Port of Los Angeles. 

As part of a 1987 interagency agreement, the CFDG was identified as the long-term 

manager of the lagoon as an ecological reserve. A number of studies, including 

hydrological studies, pre-restoration surveys of plant, fish and wildlife species, and 

historic resources, were done to establish baseline data against which to measure longterm development and success of restoration efforts. After the approvals of the 1990 

EIR/EIS, final design and permitting were completed and construction began in 1994. 

The project, completed in 1996, included a rock tidal inlet structure to allow uninterrupted 

tidal flushing; dredging to create habitats and maintain an open inlet; replacement of two 

highway bridges (Old Coast Highway); and scour protection for the I-5 and LOSSAN rail 

corridor that cross the lagoon. 

A 10-year monitoring program was developed for the lagoon, with several goals ranging 

from verification of mitigation acreage to documenting resource changes for application 

in future restoration programs. 

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon: Los Peñasquitos Lagoon is a relatively small estuary (380.54 

acres; 154 hectares) in northern San Diego County. Historic evidence indicates it may 

have once remained open to the sea year-round. However, increased erosion and the 

resultant sediment loads due to past agriculture and grazing, combined with railroad line 

construction across the lagoon in 1925, reduced the lagoon's tidal prism and cut off 

many tidal channels. A pattern of seasonal mouth closure emerged that was 

exacerbated by coastal highway construction in 1932-3. In the 1960s, dumping of 

treated effluent containing nitrates and phosphates from upstream sewage treatment 

facilities increased, and contributed to algal growth in lagoon waters, leading to the 

depletion of dissolved oxygen and hypoxic conditions. 

The Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan was developed in 1985 by the 

California Coastal Conservancy to deal with these problems, with partial funding 

provided by local developers and homeowners associations. A management program 

was formulated for the lagoon which called for the monitoring of channel water quality 

and the mechanical opening of the mouth before water quality became low enough to kill 

channel organisms. As part of the Lagoon management program, the Pacific Estuarine 

Research Laboratory (PERL), based at San Diego State University, was contracted to 

monitor lagoon resources and use the data in its studies of regional wetland 

ecosystems. PERL has monitored the physical and chemical characteristics of Los 

Peñasquitos Lagoon channel water since 1987, and sampled benthic invertebrates, fish, 

and salt marsh vegetation since 1988. These studies have led to the timely opening of 

the mouth and an increase in knowledge concerning the biology of southern California's 

estuaries. 

The planned restoration program has proceeded so that tidal action approaches the 

stated goals, with more extensive work projected into the future. Wetland acquisition 

has been achieved through state purchase of the more than 200 acres (80.94 hectares) 

of former San Diego Gas & Electric utility land which encompasses major lagoon 

channels into Torrey Pines State Reserve. Other additions to the south include 

approximately 20 acres (8.09 hectares) of wetlands in Sorrento Valley. Stewardship 

has been accepted for the 22 acre (8.90 hectare) open space easement that extends 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

from the Torrey Pines Extension to the lagoon below, south of Carmel Valley Road. The 

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation continues in its main function which is to keep the 

lagoon mouth open, monitor physical changes, restore habitat, and improve channel 

circulation. 

B. Foreseeable Future Actions 

The major, relevant projects considered herein are both habitat restoration and 

transportation related (i.e., highway and rail transit improvements). The transportation 

related projects are based on planned improvements that are included as part of the 

fiscally unconstrained (not programmed at present) portion of the regional transportation 

plans for each region in the study area. Table 3.16-3 lists the major projects identified 

for consideration in this analysis. These projects are briefly described below to provide 

additional information relevant to the assessment of existing conditions and potential 

cumulative impacts in the study area. 

Table 3.16-3 

Major Projects Identified for Consideration in Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Project Name Project Description Project Status 

I-5/805 Merge 

Widening Widen Freeway and Bridges In construction, estimated completion 

2007. 

North Coast I-5 

Corridor North Coast I-5 Corridor Widening Environmental documentation stage, estimated completion 2016. 

I-5/SR 78 

Freeway 

Connectors 

Freeway Connectors Planning stage, completion date to be 

determined. 

CA High Speed 

Train 

High Speed Train Corridors in San Diego 

along I-15 corridor, and in Los Angeles to 

Anaheim or Irvine along LOSSAN corridor. 

Project-level environmental 

documentation and preliminary 

engineering beginning in early 2007; 

estimated system completion 2020. 

Three DoubleTrack Rail 

Projects on 

LOSSAN Corridor 

San Mateo Creek Bridge and Double-Track 

Project; Pulgas to San Onofre Double-Track 

Project; San Luis Rey River Bridge 

Replacement and Double-Track Project 

Programmatic Biological Opinion 

issued 2005; re-initiation required for 

final effects and incidental take 

determinations. 

Foothills South 

Corridor 

Extend the existing Foothills Transportation 

Corridor from Oso Parkway to I-5 near the 

Orange County/San Diego County boundary 

or at an intermediate point at an intersecting 

arterial road. 

Final Subsequent EIR certified 

February 2006 

San Dieguito 

Lagoon 

San Dieguito Lagoon Wetland Restoration 

Project – San Dieguito Joint Powers 

Authority and Southern California Edison 

Final engineering design prepared for 

submittal to regulatory agencies for 

permits. Construction to begin late 

2006; coastal permit pending. 

San Elijo Lagoon San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Feasibility 

Study – San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy 

Draft EIR ready for public review in 

mid 2007. 

Buena Vista 

Lagoon 

Buena Vista Lagoon Restoration Project – 

Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation 

Restoration Feasibility Analysis 

completed. Permits in progress 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

I-5/805 Merge Widening: The Interstate 5/Interstate 805 widening project, currently in 

progress, involves constructing a separate freeway bypass system from the junction of 

Interstates 5 and 805 to the Del Mar Heights Road Interchange. The project also 

includes construction of a diamond interchange at Carmel Mountain Road. The average 

daily traffic volume within the project limits has more than doubled during the past 15 

years, increasing dramatically from 75,000 vehicles per day to 261,000 vehicles per day. 

Also during this time frame, this section of freeway has reached its capacity of 2,100 

vehicles per lane per hour during peak periods. Traffic projections for the year 2015 

indicate volumes will be close to doubling today’s figure. Project goals include: (1) 

reducing traffic congestion through the corridor; (2) improving safety by separating truck 

traffic; and (3) improving access to SR-56 and local roadway systems. 

The involved partners are California Department of Transportation, District 11, the San 

Diego Association of Governments, and the City of San Diego. Construction started 

March 2002, and is anticipated to be completed in late 2007. 

North Coast I-5 Corridor Project: The Department and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) are preparing a draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement 

(EIR/EIS) for the North Coast I-5 Corridor Project located in northern coastal San Diego 

County. The project proposes construction of carpool/managed lanes in each direction 

from north of Mira Mesa Blvd on I-805 to I-5 in the City of San Diego, and on I-5 from 

north of La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego to Harbor Drive in the City of Oceanside. 

The project also proposes additional general purpose lanes on I-5 from south of Via de 

la Valle in San Diego to SR 78 in Oceanside, and construction of Direct Access Ramps 

(DARs) and auxiliary lanes at various locations. The project goals include: (1) reduction 

of current and future traffic congestion on I-5 in the North San Diego area; (2) increased 

traffic capacity and long range improvements for the enhancement of I-5; (3) provision of 

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) / Managed Lanes to enhance mobility for carpools and 

buses; (4) enhanced goods movement between Mexico, San Diego, and the Los 

Angeles area; and (5) minimization of environmental impacts while enhancing corridor 

scenic values and community character. (See also Section 2.4 for additional detail on 

this proposed project.) 

Preliminary engineering and environmental studies are underway. Environmental 

studies are expected to be completed in 2007, with a Draft EIR/EIS anticipated in late 

2007. Construction could begin in 2009. This project coincides with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative alignments through the lagoon environments in northern San 

Diego County, presenting a potential for significant, cumulative impacts of concurrent 

infrastructure construction, but also opportunities for coordination and collaboration that 

may reduce impacts and result in beneficial long-term enhancement of the lagoons (see 

further discussion later in this section). The project description in the Notice of 

Preparation for the project states that, “Alternatives will be examined at the lagoon 

locations. At each lagoon, it is anticipated that an alternative to remove all or part of 

existing fill and the placement of a structure will be examined.” 

I-5/SR 78 Freeway Connectors: This project will add two freeway connectors at the 

interchange of I-5 and State Route 78. These connectors will reduce traffic congestion, 

improve the transitions from southbound I-5 to eastbound SR 78 and from westbound 

SR 78 to southbound I-5, and reduce peak period travel times through the interchange. 

It is designed to complement the planned managed-lane improvements on I-5 and SR 

78. In addition, the project will add auxiliary lanes on I-5, north and south of the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

interchange, as well as on SR 78 east of I-5 to provide a weave area for entering and 

exiting traffic. Currently, during the peak commute periods, the traffic volumes 

approaching the interchange exceed the capacity of the existing connectors, causing 

congestion on both freeways. 

The preliminary engineering and environmental work is set to begin as soon as funds 

are available. The proposed project crosses Buena Vista Lagoon, where special design 

and construction considerations will be required. Early identification of biological issues 

associated with the project will occur as part of the overall I-5 North Coast project. 

California High Speed Train: The California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) 

proposes a high-speed train system for inter-city travel in California between the major 

metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in the north, 

through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south, for a distance of 

about 700 miles. The electrically powered system would be capable of speeds in excess 

of 200 mph (320 kph) on dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks. The high-speed train 

system is projected to carry a million passengers annually by the year 2020. The 

Authority certified the Program EIR in November, 2005 and the FRA issued its Record of 

Decision. An additional program-level environmental review related to a section in 

Northern California was initiated in 2005. Project-level environmental studies and 

preliminary engineering work was initiated on several segments in 2007. 

The segments of the proposed high-speed train system relevant to this cumulative 

impacts analysis are those from Los Angeles south to San Diego. In southern California, 

the proposed high-speed train corridor runs from LA Union Station to San Diego via the 

Inland Empire (through Riverside) along the I-15 corridor. The California High-Speed 

Rail Authority's preferred alignment option for the Los Angeles to San Diego portion of 

the proposed High Speed Train system would use the LOSSAN right-of-way between 

station stops at University City (University Towne Centre) and downtown San Diego. In 

addition, a high speed train corridor is proposed between L.A. Union Station and Orange 

County (to either Anaheim or Irvine) possibly sharing tracks (at reduced speeds) with 

other passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor. 

Double-Track Rail Projects on LOSSAN Corridor: Six double-track projects within the 

LOSSAN Corridor, between the Orange County border and just north of the Buena Vista 

Lagoon in south Oceanside, were proposed between 2002 and 2004 (separate from this 

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvements Program), and were addressed in a Programmatic 

Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS in September, 2005. The purpose of these 

projects is to perform needed repairs and complete double-tracking across Marine Corps 

Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP) and through the City of Oceanside. 

Three of the projects are completed or underway (O’Neil to Flores, Santa Margarita 

Bridge, and Oceanside Passing Track Extension). The other three were addressed 

programmatically in the Biological Opinion, and are under final development. These 

include the San Mateo Creek Bridge and Double-Track, the Pulgas to San Onofre 

Double-Track, and the San Luis Rey River Bridge Replacement and Double-Track 

projects. The Biological Opinion provides information on habitat, species, and 

conservation and mitigation measures that will help to inform the future project-level 

studies for the additional proposed Rail Improvements between Orange/San Diego 

County line and Oceanside. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Foothills South - South Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement 

Project (SOCTIIP): The SOCTIIP proposes to extend the existing Foothills 

Transportation Corridor (FTC or SR 241; also referred to as FTC-North) from Oso 

Parkway to I-5 near the Orange County/San Diego County. The Preferred Alternative 

would consist four lanes initially and six lanes ultimately (after 2025). The Subsequent 

EIR was certified by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) in 

February 2006. TCA anticipates seeking permits only for the initial phase of 

construction. Construction is expected to take from 30 to 42 months; no expected 

construction-start date has been proposed to date. 

Buena Vista Lagoon Restoration Project: In 1996, the Buena Vista Lagoon Strategic 

Plan was created by members of the Joint Powers Committee, representatives from 

Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, officials from the California State Coastal Conservancy, 

Coastal Commission, California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Army 

Corps of Engineers, all of whom play an active role in the preservation, protection, and 

enhancement of the lagoon’s resources. This Strategic Plan helps guide the planning 

and implementation actions for the lagoon. The Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation 

cooperated with the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Network to propose a 

Restoration Feasibility Analysis, which would outline alternatives for the future of the 

Buena Vista Lagoon. In February 2001, the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation received a 

grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy to conduct this study. The primary 

objective of the Study was to provide the information for decision makers to select which 

hydraulic regime to pursue in the development of subsequent restoration plans and the 

associated lagoon Land Management Plan. 

A range of alternatives was developed to present potential restoration alternatives, 

including a no action alternative identifying the habitat value and impacts that might 

occur if no restoration action is taken within the near future. The action alternatives 

examine three different hydraulic regimes – saltwater, freshwater, or mixed water, 

examining biological and sociological factors. The findings of the report were presented 

at a public meeting on April 8, 2004. Restoration alternatives are now under discussion. 

The Foundation will seek other grant funds and/or agency contributions or in-kind 

services to begin implementation of the plan once a specific project is proposed. 

San Elijo Lagoon – Restoration Feasibility Study: The purpose of the San Elijo Lagoon 

Restoration Feasibility Study is to provide a basis for deciding among different land 

management alternatives within the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve and to 

evaluate alternative actions to restore the habitat functions and values of the lagoon. 

The types of actions envisioned to help meet the goals and objectives of the Restoration 

Feasibility Study include dredging of channels; increasing tidal circulation; reducing 

sediment inputs to the lagoon; improving water and habitat quality; and removing 

invasive/exotic plant species. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District is the federal lead agency for 

the Encinitas and Solana Beach Shoreline Feasibility Study that was authorized in 1993 

by a resolution of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. In September 

1999, funds were provided to conduct the reconnaissance phase of the coastal bluff 

erosion problem at the Cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach including investigating 

opportunities for the ecosystem restoration of San Elijo Lagoon, potentially using 

sediments from the lagoon to provide toe protection for the coastal bluffs. The lagoon 

restoration and shoreline protection investigations were joined in one feasibility study to 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

facilitate this potential beneficial re-use of lagoon sediment for beach nourishment. The 

San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which is approximately 1,000 acres (404.69 

hectares), is collectively owned and managed by the State of California (managed by the 

CDFG), County of San Diego, and the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy (SELC). SELC 

plays an active role in evaluating and designing the alternatives for the project. 

The objective of the project is to formulate and evaluate an array of feasible alternatives 

and recommend the one that most effectively improves environmental conditions in the 

lagoon while complying with local, state, and Federal environmental laws and 

regulations. A Draft Environmental Impact Report concerning the feasibility study is 

expected for release in early 2007. 

San Dieguito Lagoon – Wetland Restoration Project: This wetland restoration project will 

implement tidal wetland restoration at the San Dieguito Lagoon and serve to (1) restore 

the aquatic functions of the lagoon through permanent inlet maintenance and expansion 

of the tidal basin; and (2) create subtidal and intertidal habitats on both the east and 

west sides of I-5. 

The project is part of a Park Master Plan that has been adopted for the coastal area that 

would also provide for non-tidal wetland and upland habitat restoration, and public 

access. Tidal restoration work would be accomplished primarily by Southern California 

Edison and partners (SCE), provided the restoration satisfies the conditions of the 

California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit for the construction and operation of the 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The San Dieguito River Park Joint 

Powers Authority (JPA), USFWS, and a variety of state and local agencies would be 

involved in the implementation of the remainder of the Park Master Plan for the overall 

project area. 

On September 15, 2000, the San Dieguito River Park Board of Directors certified the 

Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement (FEIR/S) for the San Dieguito Park Master 

Plan and Wetland Restoration Project, approving the "Mixed Habitat" Alternative. The 

project includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: 

• Tidal inlet maintenance to promote regular tidal exchange through excavation of 

the river channel and periodic maintenance dredging; 

• Excavation of tidal and upland areas to create subtidal and intertidal habitat; 

• Creation of seasonal salt marsh and nesting habitat, and restoration of native 

habitat to non-tidal areas surrounding the wetland project; 

• Construction of berms within the river's effective flow area in order to maintain 

the existing sediment flows within the river and to the beach; 

• Dredge disposal sites within the project boundary; 

Implementation of the wetland restoration project will require excavation and disposal of 

approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of dredge material. Some of the excavated 

material will be used on-site, for construction of the berms and the nesting sites. All 

beach quality sand that is not used to create the nesting sites will be deposited on the 

beach. The remaining excavated material will be deposited at various sites within the 

project area. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Engineering designs were submitted to the Cities of San Diego and Del Mar for review in 

summer 2004. Before construction on the wetland project can begin, a Coastal 

Development Permit must be obtained. Construction is expected to begin in late 2007, 

and take approximately three years to complete. 

3.16.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

The following analysis describes the potential for the Rail Improvements Alternative to 

contribute to cumulative impacts under each environmental topic. The environmental topics are 

discussed herein in the same order as they appear in Chapter 3. The No-Project Alternative is 

mentioned only when there are potential cumulative impacts that would result from not 

proceeding with the Rail Improvements Alternative (examples: geology and soils, noise). Where 

the No-Project Alternative would not result in impacts by 2020, or where the existing conditions 

would not change (or conditions were considered too speculative to feasibly predict for future 

years), the No-Project Alternative is not addressed. The No-Project Alternative is not addressed 

in Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental 

Justice; Public Utilities; Hazardous Materials and Wastes; Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources; Hydrology and Water Resources; Biological Resources and Wetlands, and Section 

4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreational Resources). Typical construction 

impacts are described in Section 2.7, and operational impacts were described by resource in 

previous sections of Chapter 3. 

A. MULTIPLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION 

Depending on construction and implementation schedules developed for transportation 

and other projects in the study area, the potential for cumulative impacts to many 

resources could increase substantially in areas of multiple project development. In 

particular, there is potential for overlapping development schedules (depending on 

funding, permitting, and other contingencies) for the Rail Improvements Alternative and 

(1) the California High Speed Train project from Union Station to Anaheim (or Irvine), 

and in downtown San Diego; (2) the I-5 North Coast Corridor project in northern San 

Diego County, including areas of lagoon crossings, coastal cities, and Camp Pendleton; 

(3) various lagoon and habitat restoration and enhancement projects; and (4) potential 

extension of the San Diego Trolley service along the existing LOSSAN right-of-way to 

the University City area (the "Mid-Coast light rail project). The proposed Foothills South 

project would also overlap with the I-5 widening and interchanges as well as the 

proposed double-tracking in the area of San Onofre State Beach. 

To reduce potential cumulative impacts, efforts should be made to coordinate planning 

and implementation in overlapping project areas where feasible. If development 

schedules coincide, or can feasibly be made to coincide, the responsible and affected 

agencies and entities will have an opportunity to conduct joint development and 

construction logistics planning. This could include streamlining and coordinating 

construction activities such that the number and duration of disturbances along the 

corridor will be minimized. Regardless of actual construction timing (which may not 

coincide due to funding constraints), there are a number of activities that can be planned 

jointly among project proponents and resource agencies to reduce impacts and to 

increase communication regarding the implementation of various projects. It may also be 

possible to coordinate maintenance activities in some areas where project overlap, and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

potentially reduce the amount of equipment traffic in sensitive areas or prevent 

overlapping applications of herbicides. 

Entities involved with the Rail Improvements and the I-5 North Coast Corridor project 

need to coordinate planning, construction and implementation efforts to the extent 

feasible, to reduce potential cumulative impacts in the northern San Diego County area. 

The Department is involved in both projects, and other involved parties may include 

FHWA, FRA, rail owners and operators, the local cities and the county, and SANDAG. 

Resource agencies and entities will include USFWS, CDFG, lagoon foundations, EPA, 

the Coastal Commission, and USCOE, among others. During future, project-specific 

design and impact assessment efforts, all involved entities should engage in joint 

planning sessions to (1) evaluate the feasibility of combining at least some construction 

schedules and activities to minimize disturbance and duration of construction impacts to 

the public and the natural resources in the coinciding project areas; (2) joint planning 

and use of construction access roads, staging areas, equipment yards, and other 

construction-related disturbance zones; (3) evaluate and plan potential joint mitigation 

measures that all responsible entities can participate in; and (4) develop performancebased (i.e., outcome based) mitigation monitoring plans that all affected entities 

participate in, to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation actions and provide a process 

by which adjustments can be made if needed, based on scientific data collection and 

evaluation during and after construction. 

In the case of lagoon restoration and enhancement projects, these on-going and future 

efforts can be coordinated with the I-5 and Rail Improvements planning efforts as 

described above. It may be feasible to develop joint agreements for financial 

participation in some restoration or enhancement activities in a manner that benefits all 

affected entities. Goals and objectives of lagoon plans, as well as other habitat 

conservation plans along the corridor, may serve as the basis of specific mitigation 

actions, design refinements, and/or construction sequencing and logistics. 

In the case of the California High Speed Train, it will be important for the Authority, the 

Department, affected cities, rail owners and operators, resource agencies and regional 

transportation authorities to conduct joint planning and reviews of station and rail 

infrastructure design at points where the projects will co-exist in the future. This 

coordination should include access, ingress/egress, and circulation patterns. There may 

also be opportunities to cooperate in any additional, major intersection improvements or 

street widening in station areas. This coordination will also need to involve the San 

Diego Trolley extension. It is expected that there is sufficient room within the LOSSAN 

corridor to accommodate both the trolley line (two tracks) and the rail line, and the High 

Speed Train would run on its own elevated tracks above the LOSSAN tracks. All 

involved and affected entities will need to work together to develop specific operational 

and physical design parameters to avoid conflicts within this complex portion of the rail 

corridor. 

These potential coordination efforts among those involved in future projects could 

reduce impacts and increase mitigation success for a number of different environmental 

and public resources. These efforts are referenced below in applicable topic areas 

where they may be most effective. Joint planning and coordination efforts are also 

referenced in Section 3.17, Next Steps in Project Development. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION AND TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, intercity travel in southern California is 

expected to grow from 36 million trips, in 1997, to more than 47 million trips by 2020, 

with an estimated 98% of these intercity trips made by automobile within the study area. 

All but one of the 8 highway segments discussed in Chapter 1 would operate at 

unacceptable conditions (level of service F) under the No-Project Alternative. The 

expected increase in the number of autos on the highways by 2020 would also result in 

significant travel delays and congestion under No-Project, which would have significant 

potential impacts on the regional and statewide economy and quality of life. 

Implementation of the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would result in a more 

reliable and safe travel mode option and could help to reduce passenger trips by 

automobile. This outcome would benefit intercity highways and would potentially reduce 

travel delays on the affected highways and on surface streets leading to and from 

intercity highways. Localized traffic conditions around some rail stations would 

experience a decrease in level of service and some added delays, and transit lines 

serving the stations areas could experience increases in passengers during peak hours. 

Although these potential effects could contribute to localized cumulative impacts, they 

could be mitigated, and any potential contribution to cumulative impacts could be 

minimized. Site-specific traffic analysis would be part of subsequent project-level 

evaluation of local impacts around station locations. 

Depending on construction and implementation schedules, the potential for cumulative 

traffic impacts could increase substantially in areas of multiple project development. As 

described in Section 3.16.3.A above, the California High Speed Rail Authority, the 

Department, and other involved entities could conduct coordinated reviews of 

construction and implementation activities and schedules. These could include 

streamlining and coordinating construction activities such that the number and duration 

of traffic delays will be minimized, as well as other coordination described previously. 

Entities involved with the Rail Improvements and the I-5 North Coast Corridor project 

also could coordinate planning, construction and implementation efforts to reduce traffic 

impacts in the northern San Diego County area. 

Other mitigation for traffic and travel patterns is outlined in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and 

includes Transportation System Management (TSM) / Signal Optimization (including 

retiming, rephrasing, and signal optimization); possible turn prohibitions, use of one-way 

streets, and traffic diversion to alternate routes. Major intersection improvements (full 

lane widening) may also be required to accommodate additional left-turn or through 

lanes. Traffic management plans would be prepared prior to construction, in coordination 

with local jurisdictions, to reduce the traffic impacts during construction. In addition, 

station and access planning would be done in consultation with all responsible local and 

regional jurisdictions and agencies. Transit-oriented development around existing 

stations may provide opportunities for coordinated planning of travel ways, parking, and 

ingress/egress to new or expanded station locations. 

C. AIR QUALITY 

The analysis of air quality considers emissions projected by the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) for eight criteria pollutants (CO, SOx, HC (TOG), NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5, 

and Pb) in the two air basins potentially affected, and therefore, includes all reasonably 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

foreseeable project/actions and population growth as part of the No-Project Alternative. 

The analysis is structured to estimate the potential impacts on the air quality on the local 

and regional levels in the two air basins directly affected by the project alternatives, 

South Coast and San Diego County. Overall, the potential impacts of either the NoProject or Rail Improvement Alternative, in combination with the air quality impacts of 

other highway and rail projects identified for this cumulative impact analysis and those 

projects considered in the state implementation plan for air quality could contribute to 

cumulative air quality impacts within the two-basin study area. 

As described in Section 3.3, in both air basins NOx, TOG, and CO emissions are 

decreasing (in some cases dramatically), largely due to cleaner vehicle technology. 

These trends are expected to continue. Particulate matter, however, is increasing due 

largely to fugitive dust and re-entrained dust from paved and unpaved roads. 

Under the No-Project Alternative, air emissions from locomotive travel in the LOSSAN 

corridor would increase substantially between now and 2020, due to projected train 

traffic and based on the maximum threshold of train traffic that could operate in the 

corridor without the proposed improvements (see Chapter 2 and Section 3.3). Under the 

No-Project Alternative, locomotive miles in the corridor are projected to increase a total 

of 62 percent by 2020, with passenger locomotive miles increasing 56 percent and 

freight by 66 percent. Locomotive emission standards have and will continue to result in 

lower emissions for all pollutants. However, based on current standards, the No-Project 

locomotive travel in the corridor would result in significant increases by 2020 for TOG 

(24%), CO (64%), NOx (15%), PM (21%), SOx (64%), and CO2 (64%). 

Under the Rail Improvements Alternative, locomotive miles in the corridor would 

increase 17 percent over No-Project levels. This additional mileage also would increase 

emissions of all pollutants by 17% over the No-Project Alternative. These additional 

emissions would potentially cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. Calculations 

for this study estimate that daily significance thresholds in the South Coast air basin for 

NOx would be exceeded under the Rail Improvements Alternative (see Appendix 3.3-A). 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would reduce train congestion and delays along the 

corridor, and the amount of locomotive idling time associated with delays and 

bottlenecks. Proposed grade separations would reduce vehicular delays and idling at 

grade crossings throughout the corridor. These benefits would decrease the cumulative 

contribution of locomotive and vehicular emissions somewhat along this travel corridor. 

Construction of rail improvements would contribute to short-term cumulative PM 

emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust. Both air basins are 

nonattainment for PM10 so this contribution could be potentially significant. Due to 

increased concern about diesel particulates, the increase in locomotive travel in the 

corridor also poses potentially significant increases in these pollutants. 

Mitigation measures and cleaner locomotive technologies will combine to reduce the 

potential increases in pollutants from the Rail Improvement Alternative. These will be 

especially important for reducing PM in the affected air basins. Cumulative contributions 

to air pollution from operations can be reduced by installation of diesel particulate filters, 

fleet turnover to newer technologies, and reduction of idling through infrastructure 

improvements and automatic anti-idling devices installed on locomotives. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Construction emissions of PM and other pollutants can be managed through timely 

revegetation of disturbed areas, watering of construction sites, street sweeping, soil 

stabilization, and restrictions on equipment idling times. In addition, joint construction 

planning with the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project and the High Speed Train (Section 

3.16.3.A) may allow for streamlining construction in a manner that reduces construction 

durations and associated air quality impacts to local communities. 

D. NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise, particularly in growing urban areas and along highway and rail corridors, will 

continue to increase as population grows and use of highways, rail, and airports 

increases. Increased train traffic in the corridor under the No-Project Alternative would 

increase associated noise along the corridor between now and 2020. Nighttime noise 

may increase substantially, especially between Union Station and Fullerton, because the 

projected doubling of freight traffic in this segment would likely require increasing 

numbers of trains to run at night. The No-Project Alternative would also have higher 

noise impacts at grade crossings than the Rail Improvement Alternative, because of the 

high noise levels of warning bells and train horns. The No-Project Alternative would not 

provide grade separations at these crossings, and warning alarms would increase with 

the increase in train traffic. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative has the potential to cause high noise impacts along 

approximately 20 mi (32 km) of the corridor, between Fullerton and Irvine. These 

potential impacts, when combined with the potential noise impacts of other highway, 

roadway, and transit expansion projects in the region, would contribute to localized 

cumulative noise impacts during operation. This alternative would reduce noise levels at 

grade crossings by providing grade separation. The elimination of horn and warning bell 

noise would provide a significant but very localized noise reduction to nearby residential 

and recreational areas. 

Noise mitigation will be examined at the project level to determine efficacy and other 

impacts (e.g., aesthetic) that may result from infrastructure such as noise walls. Other 

methods, including earth berms, may also be effective in localized areas to reduce the 

cumulative contribution to noise from additional, faster train traffic along the corridor. 

Construction noise will be localized as construction moves along the corridor, and can 

be reduced by measures including restricting construction schedules during nighttime 

and weekends, and limiting haul-truck hours and routes to avoid neighborhoods and 

recreational or open space uses. Joint planning with the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project 

may present opportunities for reducing construction-related noise impacts in the north 

San Diego County area (Section 3.16.3.A). Construction noise impacts associated with 

in-water work in the lagoons should also be coordinated with restoration projects, to 

minimize the number of disturbances to the lagoons and the noise impacts of pile driving 

and dredging activities. 

E. ENERGY 

Energy consumption from the number of locomotives traveling in the LOSSAN corridor 

would increase approximately 17% over No-Project levels for the Rail Improvements 

Alternative. This increase would result in consumption of approximately 54,960 more 

barrels of oil annually than the No-Project Alternative. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would reduce train congestion and delays along the 

corridor, and the amount of locomotive idling time associated with delays and 

bottlenecks. Proposed grade separations would reduce vehicular delays and idling at 

grade crossings throughout the corridor. These benefits would increase fuel efficiency 

and somewhat reduce the cumulative energy consumption of locomotives and on-road 

vehicles along this travel corridor. Operational energy consumption would be reduced by 

reducing grades where possible during final design, and maximizing intermodal transit 

connections to reduce automobile VMT related to the passenger rail service. 

Construction of rail improvements would consume on the order of 14,066 billion Btus. 

This, along with energy consumed by other transportation and development construction 

in the region, would potentially represent a significant cumulative use of nonrenewable 

resources. Construction energy consumption would be reduced through mitigation 

measures developing and implementing a construction energy conservation plan, using 

new, more energy-efficient construction equipment, and implementing worker programs 

for carpooling or using public transportation. Joint construction planning, where feasible, 

with other area projects (Section 3.16.3.A) may also help streamline construction 

activities, worker commuting, and construction energy consumption. 

F. LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, PROPERTY, 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to potential cumulative 

impacts associated with community and neighborhood cohesion and property loss. 

Some alignment options would exacerbate existing barrier effects of the LOSSAN rail 

corridor by double tracking at grade. Combined with other transit (light rail and 

commuter rail) and roadway projects considered for this cumulative impact analysis, 

these localized impacts would contribute to cumulative community/neighborhood 

impacts. Other alignment options would improve existing conditions by removing the 

barrier with grade separated crossings, below-grade double tracking or tunneling. Under 

the Rail Improvements Alternative, between about 5 and 7 mi (8 and 11 km) of rail 

alignment and station improvements (4% to 6% of total alignment distance) has a high 

potential to impact land uses (new corridor in residential areas), and between 5 and 

10 mi (8 and 16 km) of track alignment (4% to 8% of alignment distance) has a medium 

potential to impact land uses (widening existing corridors in residential and commercial 

business areas). These impacts, in combination with other transit extension and 

roadway projects, would contribute to potential cumulative impacts on various property 

types, neighborhoods, and communities. 

In addition to mitigation measures noted in Section 3.6, joint implementation planning 

with other potential projects (Section 3.16.3.A) may provide opportunities for design 

refinements around stations or other populated areas that would reduce or avoid barrier 

effects or neighborhood impacts. Construction activities in the northern San Diego 

County area, including rail and highway work, could be coordinated to the extent feasible 

to reduce construction duration and disturbances in and around coastal cities. 

G. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The No-Project Alternative would contribute to potential cumulative impacts on 

aesthetics and visual quality in costal beach communities and state beaches. The 

existing rail corridor would remain in beach/coastal bluff areas in the Dana Point/San 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Clemente and Del Mar areas, contributing to the cumulative visual impacts to coastal 

views from residences, beaches, and commercial establishments. 

The aesthetic and visual quality analysis focused on potential impacts on visual 

resources (particularly scenic resources, areas of historic interest, natural open space 

areas, and significant ecological areas) along the proposed alignments for the Rail 

Improvements Alternative and around expanded or potential rail station sites. The Rail 

Improvements Alternative would impact existing visual quality and would contribute to 

potential cumulative impacts on aesthetics and visual quality throughout the study area 

for visual resources (0.25 mi [0.40 km] from the centerline of proposed alignment options 

and around stations). 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to both short- and longterm potential cumulative impacts on visual resources. Construction of the proposed 

improvements would have short-term potential impacts on visual resources. 

Construction equipment, staging areas with construction materials, signage, and night 

lighting would be visible from adjacent properties and roadways during the construction 

period. The number of years such disruptions would continue could be about 10 to 15 

years corridor-wide; however, potentially a few months to two years for most local areas. 

Thus the Rail Improvement Alternative could contribute to construction-related 

cumulative impacts on visual resources. 

Long-term visual changes would result from: The track, fencing along open trenches, 

sound walls (if included), elevated structures (where included), and trains themselves 

that would introduce a linear element into the landscape that would contribute to 

potential cumulative visual impacts when considered with the strong linear element of 

the existing highway and transmission lines that the rail corridor parallels. The 

significance of the visual change would vary by location, depending on the sensitivity of 

the landscape and the compatibility with existing landscape features. 

In a number of locations the Rail Improvements Alternative would present opportunities 

to improve the existing visual environment with alignment and/or construction options 

that would either place existing and new rail infrastructure in a tunnel or covered trench, 

or remove existing rail infrastructure from areas of high scenic value and relocate it in 

tunnels. Thus, the improvements would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect when 

combined with other planned improvements along the coastal landscape. 

In addition to mitigation measures described in Section 3.7, joint construction planning 

with other potential projects (Section 3.16.3.A) could reduce visual impacts and 

durations of activities such as night lighting, staging and equipment areas, and signage. 

H. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

Construction of multiple linear facilities (e.g., highway expansions, rail extensions, 

pipelines, transmission lines) in the region would potentially contribute to cumulative 

impacts on public utilities and future land use opportunities because of right-of-way 

needs and property restrictions associated with these types of improvements. These 

multiple facilities would place constraints on future development, including future 

development of public utilities. If the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is 

advanced, the next stage of environmental review would emphasize detailed alignment 

design to avoid potential contribution to cumulative impacts from linear facilities on land 

use opportunities and to minimize conflicts with existing major fixed public utilities and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

supporting infrastructure facilities. The potential for cumulative impacts to public utilities 

would be minimized because the proposed rail improvements would be within the 

existing LOSSAN corridor or in deep tunnels for most alignment options. Joint 

construction planning with other projects along the corridor (Section 3.16.3.A) would also 

help reduce potential conflicts with utilities, as well as potentially providing opportunities 

for one-time relocation and/or protection of major utilities. 

I. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

Implementation of the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would not directly or 

indirectly generate hazardous materials or wastes. Any hazardous wastes encountered 

through ground-disturbing activities during construction would be handled and disposed 

of in accordance with regulatory requirements. Therefore, no cumulative hazardous 

material impacts would result from the Rail Improvement Alternative in combination with 

other projects. 

J. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The proposed Rail Improvement Alternative would contribute to potential cumulative 

impacts on archaeological resources, historical structures, and paleontological resources 

in the study region. Potential impacts would likely occur in areas that cross formations 

with paleontological sensitivity and in areas where the alignment options are within the 

existing rail corridor through urban areas because the corridor tends to be surrounded by 

historical structures. Urban transportation corridors also tend to have high sensitivity for 

prehistoric sites that could be impacted by both at-grade and below-grade (trenched) 

construction. Subsequent field studies to verify the location of cultural resources would 

provide opportunities to avoid or minimize direct impacts on resources. 

Joint implementation planning with other major projects along the corridor (Section 

3.16.3.A) would help to confirm presence of any sensitive areas and resources, and also 

allow for coordinated protection of those resources during construction. There may also 

be opportunities to jointly participate in data recovery and curation efforts if required by 

SHPO prior to construction. 

K. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

The No-Project Alternative would contribute to the cumulative slope instability and 

drainage issues in coastal bluff areas. Continued stabilization measures would need to 

be taken to ensure reliable rail service along the bluffs. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative could impact slope stability in locations of cut and fill. 

Some construction activities, such as placing fill material on top of a slope or performing 

additional cuts at the toe of a slope, can decrease the stability of the slope. These 

activities, when combined with similar activities from other projects in the region, could 

potentially result in cumulative impacts on slope stability in areas susceptible to slope 

failure. 

Pumping or construction dewatering associated with the Rail Improvements Alternative 

in segments where tunneling or extensive earthwork would be undertaken would 

potentially impact the ground surface and could result in subsidence at some locations. 

This could contribute to cumulative impacts if other projects under construction in the 

area also needed to dewater from the same drainage basin. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to a cumulative beneficial impact on 

the coastal bluffs in San Clemente and Del Mar, where proposed alignment options 

would remove the existing rail line from the bluffs and place them in a tunnel. This would 

improve the stability problems with the bluffs, and reduce the need for drainage and 

slope stabilization structures in these areas. 

Joint implementation planning with other projects along the corridor (Section 3.16.3.A) 

may provide opportunities for streamlined efforts regarding slope and soil stabilization, 

revegetation, site-specific seismic studies and design refinements, and dewatering 

during construction. 

L. HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to potential cumulative 

impacts on hydrologic resources. Depending on the alignment options, between 205 

and 315 ac (83 and 127 ha) of floodplains, 11,760 and 13650 linear ft (3,528 and 4,095 

linear m) of streams, and up to 12 ac (5 ha) of lagoons would be within the vicinity of the 

improvements, and some of these resources would be directly impacted. Groundwater 

in the California Coastal Basin Aquifer could also be affected in the northern portion of 

the study area. The amount of impervious surface associated with the rail improvements 

would be small because the at-grade alignments would consist of permeable track-fill. 

Improvements within the existing rail corridor or in tunnels would reduce potential 

hydrologic impacts. Potential cumulative hydrologic impacts could occur in the lagoon 

areas because of the potential for I-5 widening and rail improvement work to be done, 

potentially within the same time frame. These waters also have impaired water quality, 

and additional construction and operational impacts could increase the amount of 

contamination in these waters. 

The existing hydrologic conditions at lagoons in northern San Diego County may be 

improved by removal of existing embankments or fill with the construction of 

replacement causeway or open-cell bridge structures. These actions would increase 

tidal flow and contribute to a cumulative, beneficial effect on these waters. Joint planning 

with the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project, as well as the lagoon restoration projects, may 

allow for coordinated bridge design, removal of fill, and demolition activities. It may also 

allow for all major construction to occur during one time frame, reducing the number of 

disturbances within and around lagoon environments. This would limit the impacts of 

sedimentation and turbidity in the lagoons. Even if all construction could not be 

accomplished in one time frame (due to funding constraints or other issues), there would 

be opportunities for joint mitigation planning and monitoring, water sampling studies 

before and after construction, and other such technical studies that may contribute to the 

overall health of lagoon hydrology. There may also be opportunities for improving the 

water quality and reducing the future potential for contamination of the lagoon waters. 

Coordinated planning and design of drainage facilities, catch basins, swales, or other 

features associated with the infrastructure projects may be possible and could increase 

the water quality despite additional vehicular and rail traffic in the future. 

M. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

The analysis of potential impacts on biological resources and wetlands includes 

sensitive plant communities, sensitive habitats of concern, special-status species, 

marine and anadromous fish habitat, riparian corridors, wildlife habitats, wildlife 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

movement corridors, jurisdictional wetlands, and waters of the U.S. that would require a 

permit and Section 404b(1) analysis. The additional land required and the linear 

features added under the Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to the potential 

for cumulative impacts on biological resources and wetlands throughout the project area. 

The Rail Improvement Alternative would potentially have temporary and permanent, 

direct and indirect impacts on sensitive biological resources and wetlands and would 

contribute to potential cumulative impacts on these resources when combined with other 

foreseeable projects in the study area. Many of the alignment options would use the 

existing LOSSAN rail corridor or would be in deep tunnels and would therefore not result 

in direct disturbance of sensitive habitats. Although there is a potential for cumulative 

impacts on biological resources from increased noise from the collective projects in the 

area, the information for assessing this potential additive effect is not considered at this 

program level of analysis and would be addressed when site-specific analysis is 

completed in a subsequent phase of evaluation. 

The additional right-of-way, and surface and sub-surface disturbance associated with the 

proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would potentially affect up to 28 ac (11 ha) of 

sensitive vegetation, 12,564 linear ft (3,830 linear m) to 15,541 linear ft (4,737 linear m) 

of non-wetland jurisdictional waters, 20 to 27 ac (8 to 11 ha) of wetlands, and 36 to 46 

special-status species throughout the study area, depending on the alignment options 

selected. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would generally be located within or adjacent to 

existing transportation corridors or would be in tunnels or on elevated causeways or 

bridges through sensitive habitat areas. During project-level environmental review, field 

studies would be conducted to verify the location, in relation to the proposed rail 

alignments, of sensitive habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and wetlands. These 

studies would provide further opportunities to minimize and avoid potential impacts on 

biological resources through changes to the alignment plan and profile in sensitive 

areas. For example, the inclusion of design features such as elevated track structures 

over drainages and wetland areas would minimize potential impacts to wildlife and 

sensitive species. However, when combined with the potential impacts of other highway, 

water, and transit projects in the region, the Rail Improvements Alternative would 

contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. The 

potential for cumulative direct and indirect (noise, light, and shadow effects) impacts on 

biological resources would be of particular concern in the areas of the tidal lagoons in 

northern San Diego County, where the widening of Interstate 5 would potentially occur in 

the same time frame and in the same lagoon areas as the proposed Rail Improvement 

Alternative. There is also potential across Camp Pendleton to affect critical habitat and 

sensitive species by both the rail improvements and the I-5 project. 

Due to continued growth and development throughout the study area, biological 

resources overall, including wetlands, critical habitat, and surface waters, have been 

decreasing in abundance and quality over the years. A number of mitigation and 

restoration projects have increased resources in some areas, and habitat conservation 

plans are in place or being developed (see Section 3.13) that will help to prevent or slow 

further degradation. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-23 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Joint planning and implementation efforts (as described in Section 3.16.3.A) would 

reduce the potential for significant cumulative impacts to the lagoons and other areas of 

important habitat and wildlife movement corridors. In addition to the objectives of joint 

planning outlined in Section 3.16.3.A, there may be opportunities for streamlining 

permitting and regulatory requirements. Examples could include programmatic Biological 

Opinions, joint Section 404 permitting under the Clean Water Act, etc. Joint planning 

may also help in determining the logical limits of future projects under the Rail 

Improvements Alternative (see Section 3.17), including whether all lagoon crossings 

should be combined into one future project (which may be difficult due to funding 

constraints), or whether that rail segment can be divided into several projects on the 

basis of some programmatic permitting vehicles to ensure adequate analysis of 

cumulative impacts. 

Lagoon foundations and resource agencies can also be instrumental in helping to 

develop, implement and streamline mitigation monitoring programs. A performancebased program can be developed that allows flexibility and cooperation from all involved 

parties to design, fund, implement, and adjust mitigation actions to increase the health of 

habitat and lagoons, and decrease the potential for cumulative adverse effects now and 

in the future. 

It may be possible to coordinate or combine certain maintenance activities after 

construction in sensitive areas such as the lagoons. Responsible entities should explore 

potential for shared maintenance of proximate rights-of-way, potential reductions in the 

amount of separate maintenance equipment in the same areas, or coordinated 

schedules. These efforts could reduce equipment disturbance or the potential for 

overlapping or excess application of herbicides or other chemical agents in sensitive 

environments. 

N. SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL 

RESOURCES) 

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would contribute to the cumulative impact 

on parkland resources. The potential impacts on many parkland resources would be 

minimized because most of the proposed rail improvements would be within the existing 

rail corridor or in tunnels. Depending on the combination of alignment options selected, 

the Rail Improvements Alternative could result in potential impacts to parkland resources 

in 29 to 33 locations along the corridor. During project-level environmental review, field 

studies would offer the opportunity to avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts on 

parklands by making adjustments in the alignment plan or profile. There may also be 

opportunities to create new parkland resources in areas where the existing LOSSAN rail 

line would be removed from coastal beach areas and placed in tunnels. This could 

contribute to a cumulative beneficial increase in the number of parkland resources in the 

study area. 

Joint project planning with other project proponents (Section 3.16.3.A) and state and 

local parks and recreation agencies and foundations may allow for reduction of 

construction-related impacts and durations, as well as developing measures to minimize 

harm if required. In the area of San Onofre State Beach, there is potential for 

overlapping implementation and construction activities from proposed rail improvements, 

I-5 widening and interchanges, and the Foothills South project. These proposals should 

be coordinated to the extent feasible, to identify and reduce potential cumulative impacts 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.16-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

to this recreational and open space area. There may also be opportunities to coordinate 

enhancement efforts such as funding, interpretive materials along trails, or other public 

benefits as part of joint project planning. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.17 NEXT STEPS IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 

This Program EIR/EIS considers the No-Project Alternative and the Rail Improvements 

Alternative which includes a number of alignment and design options for various segments of 

the LOSSAN corridor. In this document, the Department and FRA identify the Rail 

Improvements Alternative as the preferred alternative. At the completion of this Program level 

environmental process, the Department expects to be able to certify the Program EIR/EIS and 

make findings for compliance with CEQA, and the FRA expects to be able to issue a Record of 

Decision for compliance with NEPA. Both agencies then expect to be able to make additional 

decisions, including whether to advance the Rail Improvements Alternative to the next phase of 

project development and environmental analysis and, if so, how to structure and organize the 

processes needed. 

After completion of the Program environmental process, should the lead agencies decide to 

proceed with development of the proposed rail improvements along the LOSSAN corridor, 

preliminary engineering and project-level environmental review would commence as needed to 

assess site-specific issues and potential environmental impacts not already addressed in this 

Program EIR/EIS. Project-level environmental reviews would focus on a portion or portions of 

the proposed rail improvements to provide further analysis of potential impacts and issues at an 

appropriate site-specific level of detail to select a preferred alignment option in segments where 

more than one option was carried forward from the Program level, and ultimately to obtain 

necessary permits and implement the rail improvements. 

The LOSSAN corridor extends over 125 miles between Los Angeles and San Diego, and the 

Rail Improvements Alternative includes a number of alignment and design options in most parts 

of the corridor. Table 3.17-1 summarizes the options carried forward from this Program EIR/EIS 

for evaluation at the project level (see Chapter 2 for additional detail on alignment/design 

options). These options have been assessed at a programmatic level, and substantive 

differences among the options are described for each resource topic in previous sections of this 

chapter. 

There are a number of issues that would need to be evaluated and prioritized before 

commencing project-level reviews of the various proposed rail improvements. These are 

outlined below in Section 3.17.1, and the major entities that would have responsibility and input 

to the evaluations are identified. Section 3.17.2 summarizes the approach and general 

elements to be incorporated into project-level environmental reviews, should the Rail 

Improvements Alternative be carried forward to the next phase of development. 

3.17.1 Project Definition 

As shown in this Program EIR/EIS, the proposed rail improvements along the LOSSAN corridor 

vary widely in their extent, complexity, environmental effects, operational benefits, and cost. The 

first step in the next phase of project development would be the definition of “projects” – that is, 

the set(s) of proposed improvements within certain geographic areas along the corridor that can 

be grouped together into projects that are logical from an operational, environmental, schedule, 

and financial standpoint. Decisions regarding project definition would be influenced by a 

combination of three major factors: 

1. Logical Operational Project Limits 

2. Logical Environmental Project Limits 

3. Cost/Benefit Evaluation and Project Prioritization 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.17-1 

Summary of Alignment and Design Options Carried Forward 

for Project-Level Review 

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Segment 

and Proposed Improvements Alignment/Design Options Under Consideration 

Union Station To Fullerton Station 

Add Fourth Main Track 

1. AT-GRADE 4th Main Track – existing corridor 

Fullerton Station to Irvine Station 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

Fullerton 

Anaheim 

Santa Ana 

Irvine 

1. AT-GRADE double tracking between Orange and Santa 

Ana 

2. TRENCH double tracking between Orange and Santa 

Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

San Juan Capistrano 

1. TUNNEL along I-5 between Hwy 73 and Avenida 

Aeropuerto 

2. AT-GRADE and Cut/Cover TRENCH along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

San Clemente 

1. Dana Point AT-GRADE Curve Realignment; San 

Clemente SHORT TUNNEL 

2. No Curve Realignment; San Clemente LONG TWOSEGMENT TUNNEL 

Camp Pendleton 

Double Tracking Remaining Single-Tracked 

Segments 

1. AT-GRADE double tracking 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

Oceanside 

1. Carlsbad AT-GRADE double tracking 

2. Carlsbad TRENCH double tracking 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

Solana Beach 

1. Encinitas AT-GRADE double tracking 

2. Encinitas SHORT TRENCH double tracking 

Del Mar 

Double Tracking 

1. TUNNEL under Camino del Mar 

2. TUNNEL along Interstate 5 

I 5/I 805 Split to Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Stations: 

University Towne Centre (Miramar Hill Option 

Only) 

1. Miramar Hill TUNNEL 

2. Interstate 5 TUNNEL 

Hwy 52 to Santa Fe Depot 

Curve Realignment and Double Tracking 

Stations: 

Santa Fe Depot 

1. AT-GRADE curve realignment and double tracking 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The first task in advancing the Rail Improvements Alternative to the next phase would be an 

evaluation of these decision factors by the project proponent(s) in concert with affected and 

involved rail owners and operators, resource agencies and permitting authorities, local and 

regional jurisdictions and transportation authorities, and public foundations and joint power 

authorities in the study area and region. This evaluation would be an iterative process, because 

the three decision factors are highly interrelated and none can be adequately evaluated without 

taking into account the other two. The three decision factors are further described below. 

A. Independent Utility and Logical Operational Project Limits 

Strictly speaking, from an operational and a regulatory standpoint, the proposed rail 

improvements described in this document all have independent utility from one another. 

This means that if proposed improvements were made in one part of the corridor, they 

would provide operational benefits to the LOSSAN corridor even if no further 

improvements were made in the other segments. In other words, for example, each 

segment of additional track, or each grade separation where train traffic is separated 

from automobile traffic, would increase the capacity and/or ease existing congestion at 

points along the LOSSAN corridor. These benefits would help to accommodate the 

projected train traffic in the corridor between now and 2020, and would not depend on 

other proposed improvements being completed. 

However, there are limits to the benefits of isolated improvements that need to be 

considered, even if the improvements have operational and regulatory independence 

from other improvements. (This is the reason that the Rail Improvements program is 

being assessed as a whole, along the entire 125-mile length, in this Program EIR/EIS.) 

For example, if the corridor was double-tracked north of and south of a particular area, 

but remained single-tracked in between double-track segments, the single-tracked 

portion would result in a choke-point that may offset or at least reduce benefits gained by 

double-tracking. The extent of such reductions in benefits will vary along the corridor, 

depending on a number of operational factors, and would need to be evaluated during 

project definition. 

Another operational aspect of independent utility has to do with the effect of actions in 

one corridor segment on potential future actions in other segments. From an operational 

standpoint, improvements in one segment need to be compatible with potential 

improvements in another segment. (For example, if a new rail bridge was built in 

Segment A, and a future trench was proposed in adjacent Segment B, the design and 

location of the bridge would need to take into account the distance needed for the 

gradual transition of the rail line from elevated to below-grade. Otherwise, the bridge in 

Segment A would preclude the possibility of building the trench in Segment B without redesigning and replacing infrastructure in the area where Segments A and B come 

together.) 

For the reasons described above, independent utility is not the same thing as logical, 

operational project definition. An important part of establishing the approach to the next 

phase of the Rail Improvements Alternative would be to define those logical 

combinations of improvements that have strong stand-alone operational benefits and 

could be implemented without constraining or adversely affecting sequential 

improvements elsewhere along the corridor. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The primary responsibility for evaluating these operational parameters would lie with the 

project proponent(s) and other affected existing and potential rail operators and owners 

(including the Department, Metrolink, BNSF, Amtrak, NCTD, and the California High 

Speed Rail Authority). FRA would be involved from both an operational and regulatory 

viewpoint. Local and regional transportation agencies and authorities (such as MTA, 

OCTA, and SANDAG, as well as municipal transportation and public works 

representatives) would also be involved in these decisions. Operational modeling 

conducted at the Program level would provide much of the required data, but additional 

refinements or updates may be required. 

B. Logical Environmental Project Limits 

Defining the logical project limits (endpoints) within the Rail Improvement Alternative 

program also must take into account a number of environmental and resource 

considerations. Relevant factors to consider include the following: 

• Plans and programs related to the management of ecosystems seldom 

correspond to geo-political boundaries or what might otherwise be logical, 

operational project limits. For example, habitat conservation plans or wetland 

mitigation/restoration programs may extend across numerous jurisdictional 

boundaries, based on the nature of the resources. These types of resource 

management frameworks should be evaluated as part of the definition of logical 

project limits in the next phase of Rail Improvements development. This would be 

particularly important for highly sensitive areas, such as lagoon environments, 

critical habitat that is at risk from existing fragmentation, or wildlife movement 

corridors that extend beyond (and may be affected by) any particular 

infrastructure footprint. 

• Natural systems may present connectivity issues that go beyond physical or 

jurisdictional project boundaries, and have the potential for effects beyond logical 

operational project definitions. For example, there may be hydrologic 

connectivity between lagoons that are close together geographically, such as the 

Peñasquitos and the San Dieguito Lagoon. If so, it may be logical to group 

certain infrastructure improvements together so that project-level studies provide 

a comprehensive understanding of both direct and indirect effects. 

• As described in Section 3.16, there are numerous projects proposed in the study 

area that could affect the same resources as the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

Project definition and planning should include an evaluation of opportunities to 

coordinate and streamline environmental studies and data collection, 

construction planning, logistics, and mitigation activities where practical and 

beneficial to both natural resources and the traveling public. 

• Innovative or streamlined regulatory reviews may provide benefits to both the 

environmental resources in an area and to project implementation schedules. 

Such opportunities should be explored with regulatory agencies, and might 

include various programmatic actions. For example, a Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) addressing the approach to cultural resources surveys, testing, mitigation, 

and monitoring for the LOSSAN corridor as a whole would provide the framework 

for all project-level activities, even if project timeframes are widely separated due 

to fiscal constraints or other issues. There may also be advantages to 

programmatic approaches to other consultation and permitting processes, such 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

as Section 7 (biological resources), and Section 404/401 permitting (water 

resources). 

These factors and potential opportunities should be evaluated with appropriate agencies 

as part of project definition, because they may affect (adversely or beneficially) project 

schedules, costs, logistics, feasibility, and other factors. The project proponent(s) should 

involve local, state and federal regulatory and natural resource agencies (including but 

not limited to USFWS, CDFG, EPA, USCOE, Regional Water Resources Control 

Boards, California Coastal Commission, Department of Parks and Recreation, SHPO, 

NAHC, and others as appropriate). They should also involve proponents of other 

pending projects in the study area, including transportation and transit agencies and 

lagoon foundations, as well as other entities and organizations with jurisdiction and/or 

involvement with environmental and public resource management. 

C. Cost/Benefit Evaluation and Project Prioritization 

Based on an iterative evaluation of operational and environmental issues and 

opportunities described above, the project proponent(s) would define the limits 

(endpoints and components) of the future rail improvement projects along the LOSSAN 

corridor. Because funding is constrained, and is expected to be available incrementally 

over several or many years, the projects will need to be prioritized for the next phase of 

engineering design and environmental review. Priorities would be based on anticipated 

funding availability, balanced with operational priorities and permitting complexity and 

difficulty. 

It is anticipated that there will be projects identified that can be designed, permitted and 

implemented within the short-term, mid-term, and long-term timeframes. It is likely that 

some projects will be identified where environmental clearance, permitting, design and 

construction can be accomplished within a relatively short timeframe (for example, 

perhaps grade separations within one city). There would be other projects where 

clearances could take substantially longer (for example, perhaps a series of segments 

with tunnel options and new stations would be combined into a project). If funding is 

available, it would be prudent to begin the project-level design and environmental 

reviews on a number of projects simultaneously, so that the improvements with shorter 

lead-times can move toward construction expeditiously, while longer lead-time project 

reviews are started as early as possible. 

3.17.2 Project-Level Analysis 

Specific environmental studies that will need to be completed during the next phase of 

project development were described previously, under the Subsequent Analysis sections 

at the end of each resource discussion. Once projects are identified and prioritized, 

specific work plans would be developed to guide the project-level design and 

environmental assessment efforts for each. It is expected that most, if not all, projects 

within the corridor will have many commonalities in approach, methods, and impact 

criteria, but each project may have unique elements due to site-specific issues. In 

general, the following elements would be incorporated into work plans as applicable for 

individual projects: 

1. Early consultation with regulatory and resource agencies will be conducted to 

define project-level issues, approaches, survey requirements and seasonal 

constraints, and procedures. This information, as well as that obtained earlier 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.17-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NEXT STEPS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

during project definition, will be incorporated into project work plans. Overarching regulatory requirements and guidelines will frame the approach and 

objectives of the work plans, including (but not limited to) project-level 

requirements such as identification of the Least Environmentally Damaging 

Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), avoidance alternatives for Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources, Biological Opinions, Section 106 compliance for cultural resources, 

costal consistency reviews, air quality conformity determinations, and 

NEPA/Section 404 coordination. 

2. Rail improvements will be designed considering consistency with local land use 

plans, lagoon plans and restoration programs, area and regional habitat 

conservation plans, the Coastal Rail Trail (between Oceanside and Santa Fe 

Depot), and regional transportation plans and policies. Project-level work plans 

will be framed by the goals and objectives of these plans, and any conflicts will 

be identified early and rectified either through design changes or revisions to 

plans where appropriate. 

3. Based on project definition and design data, detailed construction plans and 

methods will be developed that define disturbance areas for staging, access 

roads, truck haul routes, equipment yards, and construction rights-of-way. These 

plans will be used to provide accurate and specific quantifications of potential 

footprint impacts of proposed projects. Additional information including, but not 

limited to, duration of in-water work, quantities of cut and fill, quantities of tunnel 

material to be removed and disposed of, and (potentially) the amount of fill that 

may be removed from lagoons based on alternative crossing designs (see 

number 4 below) 

4. Work plans for projects in San Diego County will include working with agencies, 

local jurisdictions, lagoon foundations, and others to evaluate the potential 

impacts and benefits to lagoon hydrology and habitat through design of new 

crossing structures and/or reducing the amount of existing fill. This evaluation 

will also be coordinated with the Department regarding the proposed I-5 bridges 

crossing the lagoons. 

5. Cumulative impacts assessments will be re-evaluated at the project-level to 

ensure that reasonably foreseeable projects in the project vicinity (at the time of 

project-level assessment) are accounted for in the identification of impacts. At the 

project level, a more accurate estimate can be made of where the Rail 

Improvement projects can be coordinated with other projects (such as the I-5 

North Coast Corridor project or lagoon restoration work). Based on funding 

timeframes, environmental review status, planned construction schedules, and 

required in-service dates of various projects, the feasibility of combining or 

coordinating data collection, construction timeframes, and mitigation design and 

monitoring programs can be more accurately assessed, and opportunities for 

reducing potential cumulative impacts may be identified. 

6. Work plans would include community involvement programs that will serve to (1) 

keep the public and local jurisdictions informed on project plans and schedules; 

(2) provide opportunities for input on issues, concerns, potential design 

refinements of conceptual alignments, and environmental processes and 

products; and (3) involve communities in station planning through workshops and 

meetings. 
3.2-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

3.2 TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

This section describes existing conditions and describes the potential of the No-Project 

Alternative (No-Project) and Rail Improvements Alternative to affect travel conditions. 

Automobiles currently carry more than 98%1 of intercity trips within the study area, and together 

with the rail mode, are therefore the focus of this section. For this analysis travel conditions are 

defined as the experience, quality, sustainability, safety, reliability, and cost of intercity travel 

within the study area. Travel factors were developed based on the purpose and need 

(Chapter 1) for the proposed incremental improvements, and are used to evaluate the relative 

impact of proposed changes to the transportation system for each of the alternatives. 

3.2.1 METHODS OF EVALUATION 

A. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The overall method used to evaluate travel conditions is described below. To evaluate 

the relative differences in travel conditions that would result from implementation of the 

alternatives, six travel factors were considered that relate directly to the purpose and 

need and the goals and objectives defined in Chapter 1. These factors are listed below. 

• Travel time 

• Reliability 

• Safety 

• Connectivity (modal) 

• Sustainable capacity 

• Passenger Cost 

Travel Time

Travel time is the total time required to complete a journey. With the exception of the 

automobile, intercity transportation options require multiple modes to complete a trip. 

Most people acknowledge that a train trip is not just the time spent on the train (the linehaul portion of the trip), but also includes the time required to travel to the station, check 

in, board the train, and travel to their final destination. The total travel time of a mode is 

also dependent on its reliability. If a mode is unreliable, a traveler must allow more time 

to complete a trip, effectively lengthening the total travel time. 

Reliability

Reliability is the delivery of predictable and consistent travel times and is a key factor in 

attracting passengers to use a particular mode of travel. Travel time and reliability 

directly affect productivity, as they determine the ease and speed with which workers 

and products arrive at their destinations. Greater travel demand on capacity-constrained 

facilities results in further congestion and is one of the primary reasons for longer travel 

times. Reliability is primarily a function of unexpected delays due to many factors 

including traffic congestion, accidents, mechanical breakdowns, roadwork, and 

inclement weather. 

 

1 California High Speed Rail Authority, Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County Program EIR/EIS, February 2004 
3.2-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Safety

Projected growth in the movement of people and goods in Southern California by road 

underscores the need for improved travel safety. National and statewide statistics 

indicate that the rate of fatality or serious injury by private motor vehicle is increasing, 

primarily because more people are traveling by this mode. 

Connectivity 

Connections between modes of transportation are a significant element in the 

development and operation of a successful total transportation system. It is important to 

consider the passengers’ final destination in order to be competitive with the automobile. 

The ability to transfer easily between modes and the frequency of service are additional 

key factors that can determine a traveler’s modal choice. Under existing conditions and 

No-Project, alternative intercity modal connections are limited and the connections and 

services available are fragmented and not provided as an integrated system with 

coordinated fares, schedules, and amenities. In addition to travel time improvements 

and improved reliability, it is also important to enhance local bus connections, 

implementing infrastructure improvements to support this, develop marketing strategies 

and incentives that will encourage alternative transportation use. 

Sustainable Capacity 

Sustainable capacity is a measure of the transportation system’s capability to meet 

projected demand without the need to develop additional infrastructure. The current 

Southern California transportation system is stressed beyond capacity in many places 

and for considerable periods of the day. As demand increases without sufficient 

capacity, the severity of the congestion will increase and result in more frequent delays 

and longer peak travel periods throughout the day. This demand-capacity imbalance will 

worsen over time as system use increases. As a result, the transportation system will 

lose the ability to absorb short-term or long-term demand increases and become 

increasingly inflexible because of the lack of capacity. 

The six travel factors are summarized in Table 3.2-1. These travel factors are used to 

evaluate the relative difference between the No-Project and Rail Improvements 

Alternatives both qualitatively and quantitatively. The method by which the travel factors 

have been applied to the alternatives is summarized in Table 3.2-2. Each of the travel 

factors is described in greater detail as they are applied in the potential environmental 

consequences of travel conditions discussion. 

In general, the No-Project Alternative would include the same intercity travel modes that 

are available under existing conditions, which are the automobile, intercity bus, and 

conventional rail as it exists today. The intent of the environmental analysis performed 

in this Program EIR/EIS is to broadly assess the highest potential level of impact. 

Therefore, the high-end improvements for the LOSSAN Corridor are used to describe 

the operations and required facilities for the proposed improvements. However, in a few 

areas where the high-end forecast produced the lowest impacts or highest benefit, 

analysis of conditions based on the low-end improvements is also included. 
3.2-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 3.2-1 

Relation of Travel Factors and Purpose and Need/Objectives 

Travel Factors 

Connectivity Travel 

Time Reliability Safety Sustainable Capacity 

Passenger 

Cost 

Project Purpose 

Increase the costeffectiveness of the rail 

service 

X X X X 

Increase capacity on 

existing routes X 

Reduce running times X X X 

Improve the safety of the 

rail service X X 

Project Need 

Future growth in travel 

demand X X X X 

Capacity constraints X X 

Reliability X X X X 

Safety X X 

Air Quality X X 

Environmental Concerns X 

X = Directly applies

Table 3.2-2 

Transportation Factors 

Typology Description Measurement 

Travel Time Total door-to-door travel time Total travel time including access and in-vehicle times 

Reliability Ability and perception to arrive at 

the destination on-time 

Accidents 

Inclement weather 

Transportation-related construction 

Volume variation 

Special events 

Traffic control devices and procedures 

Base capacity 

Vehicle availability 

Safety Loss of life or injury Comparison of safety performance characteristics by 

mode (operator, vehicle and environment) 

Connectivity Transportation options that 

connect to other systems and 

destinations 

Modal 

Number of intermodal connections and options, and 

frequency of service provided by each alternative 

Sustainable 

capacity 

Ability to accommodate 

additional demand beyond the 

design demand 

Amount of additional infrastructure required to meet a 

threshold demand above and beyond the design 

demand 

Passenger cost One-way travel costs Total costs including fares and other costs for intercity 

travel by mode 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003
3.2-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

3.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

This program-level analysis of travel conditions and potential impacts does not measure 

the specific potential impact to individual transportation facilities (e.g., a transit line or 

highway). Rather, travel conditions have been evaluated for the total project area and 

regional level. Specific examples of representative travel conditions in the corridor for a 

specific highway or rail facility are identified where possible. The study area for this 

analysis of travel conditions encompasses the cities within Los Angeles, Orange and 

San Diego Counties along the existing rail corridor between downtown Los Angeles and 

downtown San Diego. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

For travel conditions, the affected environment is Southern California’s intercity travel 

network, which consists of two main components: highways and rail. Of these two, 

automobiles currently carry over 98% of intercity trips, and are therefore the focus of this 

section. 

The highway system is congested near and around urban centers (e.g., Los Angeles, 

Central Orange County and San Diego) and in suburban communities (e.g., South 

Orange County and North San Diego County) during both the morning and evening peak 

hours. As shown in Figure 3.2-1 the Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan area 

experiences the worst congestion and travel delay (the extra time spent traveling 

because of congestion) in the country. According to the San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) all four major interstate routes in the region are faced with ever 

growing recurrent traffic congestion, with forecasted volumes in the year 2020 nearing 

400,000 vehicles a day on Interstate 5 (I-5) and 15. Of these two freeways, I-5 is the 

only highway that directly connects San Diego with Los Angeles and Orange County. 

Figure 3.2-1 

Nationwide Highway Congestion Comparison 
3.2-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Although the main contributors to this congestion are local and commuter highway trips, 

intercity trips compete for the limited capacity on these overburdened facilities. 

In Section 3.1, Traffic and Circulation, of this Program EIR/EIS it notes that several of 

the routes within the study area are currently operating at or near congested levels of 

operation during the peak periods. In fact, I-5 (the key intercity route assessed in this 

analysis) is designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a 

“high emphasis focus route” of critical importance to the movement of goods in Southern 

California. 

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS VS. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative includes programmed and funded transportation 

improvements to the existing transportation system that will be implemented and 

operational by 2020. The primary differences between existing conditions and the NoProject Alternative are the increased level of intercity travel demand and the 

implementation of new infrastructure. Improvements (programmed and funded) focus on 

existing modes; therefore, the same modes of intercity transport will continue to be 

available. The programmed or funded transportation improvements assumed to be in 

operation by 2020 are not major system-wide capacity improvements (e.g., major new 

highway construction or widening) and will not result in a general improvement or 

stabilization of existing highway conditions across the study area. Connectivity is not 

expected to improve with the No-Project Alternative because no new major intermodal 

terminals are expected to be built over the next 20 years. 

As described in Section 3.1, Traffic and Circulation, existing facilities are currently 

operating at congested levels of service at numerous locations, and traffic conditions are 

projected to deteriorate further under the No-Project Alternative. Of the 8 intercity 

highway segments analyzed in Section 3.1, more than half are operating during the peak 

period at LOS F or a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio over 1.0 under existing conditions. 

On average V/C ratios could deteriorate by as much as 36% in some areas of the 

region. Capacity in the No-Project Alternative is insufficient to accommodate the 

projected growth in highway travel in the region. Consequently, there would be no 

sustainable improvement to the transportation system’s capacity. 

Although intercity travel is only a small percentage of all highway trips, it must compete 

for limited capacity on already congested infrastructure for which insufficient capacity 

improvement projects are planned to be operational by 2020. The region could be faced 

with further attempts to control demand through congestion pricing and construction of 

additional toll roads like SR-91 in Orange and Riverside Counties. In many instances, 

the a.m. peak period could extend from 2 hours to 4 hours. Figure 3.2-2 shows the 

primary highway corridors in Southern California for the Year 2025, areas where 

increasing demand will lead to greater congestion, was well as the total travel delay (as 

expressed as a percentage of the peak period during which delays will be expected). 

Given these travel trends, overall travel safety is also expected to worsen. As VMT 

continues to rise over the next 20 years under No-Project, the accident rate will not 

change appreciably, but the net number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities could 

increase, particularly for highway-based trips. As evidence of this trend, the National 
3.2-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that between 1998 and 2001 fatalities on 

California’s roadways have increased by an average 4% annually (National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 2001). 

Travel costs are also expected to rise because of the capacity constraints. The region 

could be faced with further attempting to control demand through congestion pricing for 

the auto mode. This approach could result in more congestion-priced toll roads like 

SR-91 in Orange and Riverside Counties. 

As summarized in Table 3.2-3, the No-Project Alternative could result in either a 

deteriorated level of service or no change compared to existing conditions. 

Table 3.2-3 

Comparison of Existing Conditions to No-Project Alternative 

Travel Factor No-Project Alternative (2020) 

Change from Existing 

Conditions 

Comment 

Travel Time Deteriorate Increased congestion could result in further delays. 

Reliability Deteriorate Increased congestion and no change in modal options or 

characteristics could result in greater unreliability. 

Safety Deteriorate No change in modal options would maintain existing 

fatality and injury rates; however, increased demand 

could result in greater number of fatalities. 

Connectivity None No additional intercity intermodal connections or options, 

or increased frequencies will be available. 

Sustainable Capacity Deteriorate No significant mainline capacity improvements will be 

operational. 

Passenger cost Deteriorate Airfares are anticipated to increase beyond their current 

fare structures relative to other modal options.* 

* Based on high-end forecasts from Final Business Plan, California High Speed Rail Authority 2000. 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE VS. RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

This section presents expected travel conditions for the Rail Improvements Alternative 

and compares relative differences between the No-Project and the Rail Improvements 

Alternative. This section is organized by the six travel factors identified earlier. Each 

travel factor begins with a summary of the specific methods used to define and evaluate 

the Rail Improvements Alternative and the characteristics of the mode followed by an 

evaluation of the impacts of the alternatives. 

Travel Time

Travel time is a key travel factor that determines the attractiveness of the mode of travel 

to passengers. Travel time is also an important economic factor that directly affects 

productivity (travel time for workers and products to get to their destination). For the 

purpose of this analysis, improved travel time is a benefit to the traveler because it can 

improve the intercity travel experience. Travel time for this analysis was measured as 

the total (door-to-door) travel time. 
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal

Railroad

Administration

FIGURE 3.2-2

Southern Californina Area Highway Congestion (Year 2025)

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

Source : Southern California Association of Governments 2001 Regional Transportation Plan

3.2-7
3.2-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
3.2-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Automobile Mode Characteristics: Travel time in an automobile largely depends on 

three factors: distance traveled, roadway design speed (and associated speed limit), 

and congestion levels. The design of a roadway dictates the time that will be required to 

travel between two destinations. The time of day and associated congestion also plays 

a role in how long a trip will take. For this analysis it is assumed that the top speed of 

the automobile is 70 mph (113 kph). 

Automobile travel times are based on driving times between the representative city pair 

origins and destinations, as summarized in Table 3.2-4. The travel time for highways is 

the same as the times used in the California High Speed Rail Authority’s Final Business 

Plan and is based on weighted averages of peak and off-peak travel times. 

Intercity Rail Mode Characteristics: With a maximum operating speed of 79-90 mph, 

Intercity Passenger Rail service provides a convenient way to travel between 

metropolitan areas (for example, between San Diego and Los Angeles via Amtrak’s 

Pacific Surfliner service), and is an alternative to the automobile. 

Intercity Rail travel in the United States has enjoyed a resurgence in ridership on many 

routes. While transcontinental service has seen reductions in riders, regional services 

such as the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol, and San Joaquin in California, Cascades in 

Oregon and Washington, and the Regional in the Northeast serve very active markets 

and are seeing increased ridership. The Pacific Surfliner service in Southern California 

is Amtrak’s second-busiest (behind the Regional Northeastern service), carrying more 

than 2.1 million passengers during its 2003 Fiscal Year. 

Table 3.2-4 

Total Point-to-Point Travel Times (Hours:Minutes) 

Baseline Condition No-Project Alternative Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

Auto Rail Auto Rail Low High 

Union Station to 

San Diego

2:35 2:44 3:15 2:36 1:58 1:48 

Alternatives Comparison for Travel Time

No-Project Alternative: There are minimal travel-time benefits associated with the NoProject because the programmed improvements for 2020 do little to improve the 

capacity of the highway or rail system. The No-Project results in longer travel times for 

the highway mode compared to existing conditions, increasing by 40 minutes. Travel 

time for intercity rail service decreases slightly as a result of the projects incorporated 

into the No-Project Alternative. However, this small improvement in travel time could 

easily be eliminated due to potential delays caused by the remaining segments of singletrack along the corridor. 

Rail Improvements Alternative: Travel time savings of the Rail Improvements Alternative 

would vary depending on the number and location of the improvements implemented. 

The greatest times savings would be achieved using express service between 

Los Angeles and San Diego. Because of its faster line haul speed, an improved intercity 

passenger rail system would compete more with the automobile for intercity trips, even 

when door to door times are taken into account. 
3.2-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Reliability

In its simplest form, reliability can be defined as variation in travel time, hour-to-hour and 

day-to-day for the same trip. Reliability is important for almost any travel need and on 

any travel mode. Business travelers want to be able to predict how long it will take them 

to arrive at a meeting, either across town or across the region. Express shippers need 

to know where packages are at all times and when they will be available for delivery. 

Vacationers who want to spend as little of their time off as possible traveling to and from 

their destinations often find themselves making their trips during the most congested 

days of the year. Reliable travel means fewer late arrivals, improved efficiency, saved 

time, and reduced frustration. 

Travel on most transportation modes is consistent and repetitive, yet at the same time 

highly variable and unpredictable. This apparent contradiction accrues because travel is 

consistent and repetitive since peak usage periods occur regularly and can be predicted. 

The relative size and timing of rush hour is well known in most communities. 

Simultaneously, travel is variable and unpredictable because on any given day unusual 

circumstances such as a rainstorm or an auto accident can cause serious delays at any 

time. 

The traveling public’s experience with variations in travel reliability affects their decisions 

of how and when to travel, so that they have a reasonable expectation that they will 

arrive at their destination at a particular time. For example, if a highway is known to 

have highly variable traffic conditions, a traveler using that route routinely leaves extra 

time to reach their destination or may also seek an alternate route. 

Travel time reliability is the direct result of the variable and often unpredictable events 

that can occur on different travel modes and at any time of day. The traditional way of 

measuring and reporting travel times experienced by highway users is to consider only 

average or typical conditions. However, the travel times experienced by users are 

seldom constant, even for travel on the same facility in the same peak or off-peak time 

period. Reliability is influenced by several underlying factors that vary over time and that 

influence the environment within which transportation operates. These factors are listed 

below. 

• Incidents: Incidents are events that disrupt normal travel flow, such as 

obstructions in the travel lanes of highways. Events such as vehicular crashes, 

mechanical breakdowns, and debris in travel lanes are the most common form of 

incidents for any mode. On highways, events that occur on the shoulder or 

roadside can also influence traffic flow by distracting drivers, leading to changes 

in driver behavior and ultimately to the quality of traffic flow. 

• Inclement Weather: Inclement weather and related environmental conditions 

(rain, fog, snow, ice, sun glare, etc.) can lead to changes in operator behavior, 

vehicle performance, and operational control requirements that affect traffic flow. 

Motorists respond to inclement weather by reducing their speeds and increasing 

their headways. In cases of severe weather, authorities respond by closing 

roadways and creating vehicle caravans. 

• Construction: Construction can often reduce the number, width, or availability of 

travel lanes and rail tracks. Nearby construction activities can also reduce 

reliability if operating rules or conditions are changed (e.g., slow orders on rail 
3.2-11

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

tracks). Delays caused by work zones have been cited by highway travelers as 

one of the most frustrating conditions they encounter on trips. 

• Volume Variation: Volume variation is day-to-day variability in demand that leads 

to some days with higher travel volumes than others. Different demand volumes 

superimposed on a system with fixed capacity results in variable, less reliable 

travel times. 

Special Events: Special events such as concerts, fairs, and sports events cause 

localized congestion and disruption in the vicinity of the event that is radically different 

from typical travel patterns in the area. 

• Traffic Control Devices and Procedures: These can lead to intermittent 

disruption of travel flow through means such as, railroad signals and switches, 

railroad grade crossings, drawbridges, and poorly timed signals. 

• Base Capacity: Base capacity refers to the physical capacity of a transportation 

system, such as the number the highway lanes or runways. The interaction of 

base capacity with the other influences on reliability has an effect on 

transportation system performance. This is due to the nonlinear relationship 

between volume and capacity on any mode. When congested conditions are 

approached, small changes in volume lead to diminished throughput of the 

transportation system and consequent large changes in delay. Further, facilities 

with greater base capacity are less vulnerable to disruptions; for example, an 

incident that blocks a single lane has a greater impact on a highway with two 

travel lanes than a highway with three travel lanes. 

• Vehicle Availability and Routing: These can directly affect a traveler’s ability to 

make an on-time trip, particularly on a common carrier such as a train, or by 

rental car. End-to-end routing and other strategies to maximize vehicle operation 

time can affect reliability when a vehicle that is needed in one location first has to 

complete a trip from a different location. Short layovers or “pads” that are 

scheduled between trips for a given vehicle also affect vehicle availability. 

The extent to which these eight factors affect each of the major intercity travel modes 

and, by extension, the Rail Improvements Alternative is analyzed and compared on a 

qualitative basis by describing and ranking the extent to which each mode is potentially 

susceptible to each of the eight factors and is presented in Table 3.2-5 and further 

detailed below. Because the alternatives are composed of combinations of elements 

(including different modes for trip segments like station or terminal access), rankings 

have been combined, providing a qualitative understanding of the reliability of each 

alternative. 
3.2-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 3.2-5 

Modal Reliability 

Relative Susceptibility to Reliability Factors* Factor 

Automobile Improved Intercity Rail 

Incidents High 

Automobile travel can be influenced by 

minor and major incidents at any location 

along the roadway and is frequently 

affected by incidents outside of the rightof-way. 

Low 

Rail has very few major incidents and is 

generally not influenced by incidents on 

other modes since the number of grade 

crossings is minimal in the high-build 

alternative. 

Weather High 

A variety of weather conditions can 

degrade operator ability, make roadways 

impassible, or damage roadways. 

Low 

Trains can operate under virtually any 

conditions. Track is constructed to 

minimize weather impact. 

Construction Moderate 

Construction activities (major and minor) 

are common, but generally occur during 

warm weather months. Lane closures 

are often of long-term duration. 

Low 

Most activities are scheduled for hours 

when passenger trains are not operating. 

High-quality construction minimizes 

routine maintenance needs. 

Special events Moderate 

Special events are common and can 

create volume fluctuations or short-term 

lane closures. 

Low 

Most special events can be easily 

accommodated on trains without effect 

on travel time. 

Traffic control 

devices or 

procedures 

Moderate 

Auto travel influenced by traffic signals, 

railroad crossings, and other devices. 

Influence depends on level to which 

devices are optimized. 

Moderate 

Trains operate in largely, gradeseparated right-of-way, minimizing 

external influences. Passenger trains 

share tracks with freight trains. Doubletrack minimizes switching needs. 

Inadequate base 

capacity 

High 

This is one of the strongest influences on 

highway reliability, particularly for 

facilities with three or fewer lanes per 

direction. Travel time degrades quickly 

as capacity is approached. 

Low 

Operations are not allowed to exceed 

design capacity. 

Volume variation High 

Peak-period travel in medium to large 

urban areas highly influenced by day-today or seasonal volume variations. 

Strong interaction with inadequate base 

capacity. 

Low 

Day-to-day variation in train volumes 

tends to be low. Passenger volume 

variation generally does not influence 

travel times. 

Vehicle availability 

or routing 

Low 

Private automobiles are ubiquitous and 

are widely available for rental in 

emergency situations. The road and 

highway network provides alternative 

routes for most trips. 

Moderate 

Vehicles complete multiple end-to-end 

trips in a day, potentially affecting 

availability at specific times and 

locations; simple routing schemes 

generally followed. 

Automobile Mode Characteristics: On a day-by-day basis, automobiles tend to be the 

least reliable of the two modes. Highway travel is highly or moderately susceptible to 

seven of the eight factors described above. It is only when considering the influence of 

vehicle availability and routing that automobiles would potentially have a lower 

susceptibility than would other modes. 
3.2-13

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Recent research provides further evidence on the unreliability of highway travel (Texas 

Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2003). This research, which 

used actual travel time data covering 579 miles of freeways in the Los Angeles area, 

shows that reliability problems exist on highways at all times of the day, all days of the 

week, and all weeks of the year. This research expressed unreliability in terms of a 

buffer index, the amount of extra time motorists would need to budget to be certain of 

arriving on time at their destination 95% of the time. Results showed that a motorist in 

Los Angeles would need to allow an additional 45 minutes for a typical 1-hour highway 

trip—fully 75% of normal driving time. Even in mid-day periods, a traveler would need to 

budget an additional 30 minutes for the same 1-hour trip, or 50% of the normal time. It is 

important to note that a buffer does not represent certainty and on any given day this 

buffer may or may not be needed. 

Intercity Rail Mode Characteristics: An improved intercity rail system has been shown to 

have a low susceptibility to nearly all of the major factors that affect reliability. It is only 

on the issues of vehicle availability that rail, like all common carrier modes, has a higher 

level of susceptibility than highways. 

Also, an improved intercity rail system has the same or lower level of susceptibility on all 

eight factors compared with the existing conventional rail system. The need to share 

space with freight and passenger trains, coupled with extensive sections of single-track 

on the existing rail corridor, often lead to delays, since the delay of a single train often 

has the consequence of affecting other trains operating within the corridor. Double 

track, as an example, eliminates the delays currently associated with trains waiting at a 

passing track for others to clear a single tracked-section. Elimination of this type of 

delay alone would provide for more consistent operating schedule for trains, significantly 

increasing on-time performance and reliability. Proposed grade separations would also 

reduce the impacts of inclement weather (such as the coastal fog experienced during 

much of the year. These grade-separations would increase not only the reliability and 

operating performance of trains, but also provide for increased traffic flow on local 

streets that are presently subject to delays when trains are crossing. 

Alternatives Comparison for Reliability

A qualitative comparison of the alternatives was conducted by considering the relative 

reliability of the modes that are present in each alternative, the relative modal usage in 

each alternative, and any major changes such as highway lane additions or modal 

diversion that are present in an alternative. As described more fully below, an improved 

intercity rail system (Rail Improvements Alternative) is projected to have the highest 

reliability, while No-Project is projected to have the lowest reliability. 

No-Project Alternative: Reliability under No-Project is likely to be lower than under the 

other alternatives for the following reasons. 

• No-Project depends heavily on the automobile, which has been shown to have 

the worst reliability of the two modes. 

• Existing congestion and reliability problems continue because No-Project 

provides no new highway base capacity 

• Greater highway congestion and more reliability problems accrue because NoProject absorbs an increasing demand for travel with little increase in base 

capacity. 
3.2-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Rail Improvements Alternative: The Rail Improvements Alternative is likely to provide 

the greatest degree of travel reliability for the following reasons. 

• An improved intercity rail system would divert some intercity demand from less 

reliable highways. 

• An improved intercity rail system provides a greatly improved transportation 

system that would have less susceptibility to many factors influencing reliability. 

The various rail alignment options are not likely to exhibit appreciable differences in 

system reliability since system capacity and demand would be roughly equivalent. Major 

design differences (e.g. extent of tunneling) would not make a meaningful difference in 

reliability, and differences in base travel times on trains would not influence reliability. 

Sensitivity to Travel Demand Forecasts: As with travel time, reliability is also influenced 

by the level of travel demand. Other things being equal, reliability is expected to be 

better on facilities that have lower travel demand (or experience lower volume-tocapacity ratios) due to the non-linear relationship between volume and capacity, as 

mentioned above. Therefore, lower levels of highway or air travel demand, would be 

expected to improve reliability for all modes. The reliability improvement would likely be 

greatest for No-Project since its base capacity is most constrained and would experience 

the largest relative improvement in volume-to-capacity ratios and delay. For the same 

reasons, the Rail Improvements Alternative would likely also experience a large 

improvement in reliability. Given the large reliability advantage enjoyed by an improved 

intercity rail system, the Rail Improvements Alternative would still be expected to provide 

the greatest degree of travel reliability across the range of travel demand scenarios. 

Safety

In transportation, four basic characteristics interact to influence the safety of a mode. 

• The Operator – His or her training, regulation, and experience. 

• The Vehicle – Its condition, regulation, control systems, and crashworthiness. 

• The Environment – The weather, guideway type, guideway condition, and terrain. 

• National Security Level – Since September 11, 2001 the security threat level 

indicator which was adopted related to the threat level imposed by terrorists 

serves to greatly influence overall rail safety. 

Each of these characteristics plays a role in the overall safety of the modes, which for 

this analysis is quantified as the probability of passenger fatality. Injuries are more 

difficult to compare between modes because they are categorized differently by mode 

and different injury ratings are used. For instance, automobile injuries are generally 

related to automobile crashes, while for rail they can include injuries that occur as part of 

a crash, while boarding/alighting, or in the terminal. The severity of these injuries can 

vary from scrapes and bruises to life-threatening ones. For the purposes of this 

analysis, injuries by mode will be discussed but are not measured as a key indicator of 

safety. This analysis also only considers injuries and fatalities of passengers and does 

not include employees or other staff. 

Automobile Mode Characteristics: The automobile is unquestionably the most used and 

the most dangerous mode of transportation being considered in this Program EIR/EIS. 
3.2-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the national motor 

vehicle fatality rate is 0.80 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles traveled. Nationally 

in 2000, there were about 6.4 million reported motor vehicle crashes that resulted in 

42,000 fatalities and 3.2 million injuries. About 4.2 million crashes involved property 

damage only (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2001). The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that deaths and injuries resulting from 

motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons between the ages of 4 

and 33, while traffic-related fatalities account for over 90% of all transportation-related 

fatalities. According to the California Highway Patrol, in 2000, there were 3,331 fatal 

crashes in California alone (California Highway Patrol 2000). The risk to an individual 

depends most strongly on the time spent behind the wheel or in the passenger’s seat. 

The longer the journey or the more frequently the journey is made, the greater the risk of 

a crash. Some of the factors that influence auto and highway safety are listed below. 

• Operator 

- Drivers vary in age, experience, ability, and numerous other factors. 

- Non-professional drivers typically operate automobiles. 

- Limited regulatory requirements govern who can operate an automobile and 

the type of training that is needed, and these requirements vary between 

states. 

• Vehicle 

- Privately owned vehicles are mechanically not as reliable as the public 

transportation modes. 

- Maintenance and inspections are not regulated, and are performed by 

mechanics of varying skill levels. 

- Crashworthiness and roadworthiness varies depending on make and model. 

- Minimum requirements rather than optimum standards dictate safe operating 

conditions. 

• Environment 

- Highways provide no latitudinal or longitudinal control to individual 

automobiles. 

- Fixed objects (e.g. trees, light poles, sign posts, etc.) are frequently placed 

within the highway right-of-way. 

- Weather and lighting conditions (wind, rain, fog, snow, ice, darkness, and sun 

glare) can adversely impact vehicle and driver performance. 

- Traffic control systems that regulate the speed and safe operation of an 

automobile are limited in influence. 

- Roadway conditions and designs are varied and can include systems based 

on different design speeds, vehicles, and operating conditions. 

- Drivers are subject to a multitude of potential distractions and interferences. 
3.2-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• Security 

- Traffic and passengers are dispersed presentation a low system risk 

- Highways are very difficult to secure and operators and passengers can not 

be screened. 

Intercity Rail Mode Characteristics: Statistics show that when compared with the 

automobile, rail travel is by far the safest mode. In 1999 there were a total of 110 railroad 

fatalities in the State of California, this can be compared to 3,539 automobile fatalities 

within the same year. Since its formation in 1971, Amtrak has had only 100 fatalities 

nationwide, while moving more than 600 million passengers. For the purposes of this 

analysis the likelihood of injury is associated with boarding and alighting, and during 

operation, with injuries ranging from minor to severe. The distinguishing reasons for the 

safety of rail travel relative to highway travel are summarized below. 

• Operator 

- Operators would be rigorously trained and tested and are required to update 

their qualifications regularly. 

- Operators would be required to submit to drug tests and are subject to 

regulation by the FRA and operating railroads. 

• Vehicle 

- FRA passenger equipment safety standards (49 C.F.R. Part 238) dictate the 

buff strength or amount of force a train can withstand in a collision, for all 

passenger equipment. The buff strength is adjusted to the operating and rail 

traffic conditions and is designed to minimize injuries of fatalities due to rail 

crashes. 

- The infrastructure they operate on (tracks and control systems) would be 

maintained on a regular schedule. Maintenance records are subject to 

inspection by the FRA. 

- Passenger train equipment is built for a long service life. If maintained 

properly, a modern train car can have a useful life of at least 30 years. 

- Traffic control and communications systems would be state-of-the-art, 

regulated and managed during all hours of operation. These systems control 

the train’s schedule, routing, and headway (following distance behind another 

train). These systems combined with the operator have integral redundancy 

and ensure safety. 

• Environment 

- The improved rail system would include numerous additional grade 

separations, reducing pedestrian and motor vehicle conflicts. 

- Inclement weather has only a minimal impact on operations. Modern 

locomotives can use a cab signaling system that transmits commands directly 

to the driver. This technology makes higher-speed operation possible in 

darkness, rain, and fog. 
3.2-17

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

- Although the system does operate in a highly seismic area, no injuries or 

fatalities have ever occurred as a result of a seismic event. 

- The rail system, like other public intercity modes, is inspected on a regular 

schedule as required in federal regulations. This regular inspection of both 

rolling stock and track would ensure the safety of the system. 

• Security 

- Rail systems are moderately difficult to secure and passenger trains carry 

many people presenting a moderate system risk. 

- Passengers can be subject to limited forms of screening to reduce security 

risks. 

The safety characteristics of each mode are summarized in Table 3.2-6. This table 

shows that for all four safety characteristics, the rail mode has the best safety 

performance. The automobile mode fares poorest in terms of safety. 

Table 3.2-6 

Safety Performance by Mode 

Safety Performance Characteristics 

Mode Operator

Training 

Regulation 

Experience 

Vehicle

Condition 

Regulation 

Control Systems 

Crashworthiness 

Environment

Weather 

Guideway Condition 

Terrain 

Security 

System Risk 

Screening 

Capacity

Automobile Poor Good Poor Good 

Intercity Rail Excellent Excellent Excellent Good 

Alternatives Comparison for Safety

The safety performance for each alternative is shown in Table 3.2-7. The rigorous 

requirements of rail operators, regular vehicle inspection, maintenance, control systems, 

crashworthiness, and ability to operate in virtually all weather conditions, makes the Rail 

Improvements Alternative superior to No-Project. 

Table3.2-7 

Safety Performance by Alternatives 

Safety Performance Characteristics 

Mode Operator

Training 

Regulation 

Experience 

Vehicle

Condition 

Regulation 

Control systems 

Crashworthiness 

Environment

Weather 

Guideway condition 

Terrain 

Security 

System Risk 

Screening 

Capacity

No-Project Poor Good Poor Good 

Rail Improvement 

Alternative Excellent Excellent Excellent Good 
3.2-18

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

No-Project Alternative: While the rate of injury or fatality is not expected to increase 

under No-Project, the increase in highway travel would be expected to cause the 

number of injuries and fatalities to increase as compared to existing conditions. 

Rail Improvement Alternatives: The Rail Improvements Alternative provides a superior 

safety benefit compared to the No-Project Alternative. The safety improvements included 

in the alternative will help in improving rail passenger safety within the LOSSAN 

corridor. 

Connectivity

Connectivity in the study area can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively using the 

number of modal options that offer competitive transportation services, the availability of 

intermodal connections, and the frequency of service (number of departures). A greater 

number of competitive modal options is considered a benefit because it increases the 

diversity, redundancy, and flexibility of the overall transportation system and provides 

travelers with greater choices. 

• Modal options are a measure of the intercity modal diversity of each alternative. 

• An intermodal connection or facility allows passengers to transfer from one mode 

to another to complete a trip. A connection can be as simple as a timed 

connection between a train and a bus or as elaborate as the connections present 

at the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LA Union Station) where heavy 

rail, light rail, subway, local and long-distance buses all converge to give multiple 

transportation options. 

• Frequency is measured as the number of departures available to travelers in the 

study area. High service frequency benefits travelers because it increases the 

number of possible connections to different modes and the number of options 

available for travel to a destination. 

Modal Options: The No-Project Alternative provides three modal options: automobile, 

bus and existing intercity rail. However, intercity travel in Southern California is 

dominated by automobile. The automobile accounts for over 97% of all intercity trips in 

Southern California, with conventional rail carrying roughly 3% of the trips. Table 3.2-8 

shows intercity trips by mode between the major metropolitan regions in the study area. 

Table 3.2-8 

1997 Intercity Trip Table Summary 

1997 Base Trip Tables Market 

Auto Intercity Rail 

Los Angeles to San Diego 34,870,032 934,322 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would provide a vastly improved intercity and 

regional passenger mode that could provide opportunities for increased connectivity with 

other existing transit modes. The improved rail system would bring competitive travel 

times and frequent and reliable service to the traditional urban centers of the 
3.2-19

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Los Angeles and San Diego Metropolitan Areas. It would significantly improve the 

modal options available throughout Southern California. 

Tables 3.2-9 shows intercity trips by mode within the study area projected for 2020. 

Under these assumptions intercity rail is projected to capture roughly 12% of the travel 

market. 

Table 3.2-9 

2020 Intercity Trip Table Summary 

Market Auto Intercity Rail 

Los Angeles to San Diego 42,023,218 5,770,000 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003 and Amtrak California 

Intermodal Connections: The automobile can be used to go virtually anywhere in 

Southern California. Unlike common carrier transportation modes (bus or rail), the 

automobile does not require or depend upon intermodal connections to get from the trip 

origin to the trip destination. The automobile mode would have the same flexibility in NoProject and the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

It is assumed that there would be limited new intermodal connections under the NoProject Alternative because a limited number of these improvements are currently 

planned and programmed. 

Passenger rail stations are generally located where they can serve a wider area through 

public transit and can enhance intermodal connections in the region. Stations in the 

traditional urban cores of Los Angeles and San Diego currently connect to the heart of 

the established public transit networks. For example, LA Union Station is the transit hub 

of Los Angeles County and is the primary destination for the Metrolink Commuter rail 

services, the LA Metro Red Line, the Pasadena Gold Line, the Amtrak Surfliner service, 

and the regional bus transit services. 

Frequency: The automobile, by offering unlimited potential frequency and because it 

can be driven at virtually any time and to virtually any destination, has the highest 

connectivity of any mode. 

An improved rail system would enhance the service to the regional intercity 

transportation network that offers a variety of services with different stopping patterns 

(express, skip-stop, and local services) to serve intermediate, and shorter-distance 

intercity trips. 

The improved intercity rail system would serve the existing stations along the LOSSAN 

corridor, adding two additional stations in Norwalk and University Towne Centre, with 16 

intercity passenger trains a day forecasted for 2020, providing hourly service in each 

direction. 

Alternatives Comparison for Connectivity

No-Project Alternative: Under No-Project, there would be no net improvement to the 

connectivity options in the Southern California over the existing conditions. There would 

no new modes introduced and no new intermodal terminals or connections. 
3.2-20

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Rail Improvements Alternative: The Rail Improvements Alternative would vastly improve 

the rail mode in Southern California’s intercity transportation system. The improved rail 

system would improve intermodal connections at rail stations in urban centers. The 

system would add frequencies to the region’s intercity travel network, allowing greater 

flexibility in travel time and location. Of the two alternatives, the Rail Improvement 

Alternative provide the highest level of connectivity in the study area. 

Sustainable Capacity

Sustainable capacity is a measure of the transportation capacity of an alternative to 

meet not only the projected demand, but to provide a sustainable capacity over time 

without the need to develop additional infrastructure. Sustainable capacity is 

quantitatively measured by the amount of additional transportation infrastructure 

required to accommodate potential future demand beyond the demand forecast for this 

system. 

Highway Mode Characteristics: The sustainable capacity of a highway facility depends 

largely on the availability of travel lanes and the speed that autos are able to travel. This 

relationship is expressed as level of service (LOS), which is defined in Section 3.1, 

Traffic and Circulation. While all modes are subject to capacity constraints that affect 

the vehicle’s speed, given the small capacity of most automobiles (5 passengers), more 

vehicles are required to accommodate a large passenger demand. To meet a higher 

travel demand, automobiles have two basic options for increasing capacity. 

• Vehicle size may be increased (buses): the higher the capacity of the vehicle, 

the more passengers can be carried at a high rate of speed and this assumes or 

requires a change in typical driver behavior. 

• Capacity of the roadway may be increased (highway expansion): the addition of 

lanes allows more autos to travel safely with sufficient stopping distance. 

Intercity Rail Mode Characteristics: Sustainable capacity of a rail system is determined 

by the attributes listed below. 

• The capacity of rail-line (e.g., single track or double track). 

• The capacity of the train (number of trainsets, or locomotives and coaches). 

• The capacity of stations and passenger facilities, and the lengths of platforms. 

• The speed at which the train can travel. 

• The train control system. 

• The degree that shared-use track is utilized by other services, thereby reducing 

available capacity of the passenger rail system. 

The capacity constraints affecting the existing Los Angeles to San Diego intercity 

passenger system are in large part due to the extensive single-tracked segments along 

the corridor. The proposed improvements would alleviate this capacity constraint, 

allowing for a more balanced transportation system that would relieve some of the 

projected near and long-term demand on the regional transportation system. 
3.2-21

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Alternatives Comparison for Sustainable Capacity

No-Project Alternative: There is little to no sustainable capacity in No-Project. The 

future transportation infrastructure is severely constrained by the limited number of 

capacity improvements funded or programmed for 2020. Improvements associated with 

No-Project are generally to existing interchanges versus line capacity expansion or 

improvement projects. The highway system’s sustainable capacity would require 

additional infrastructure to accommodate any growth in demand. Therefore, No-Project 

would not accommodate the theoretical demand and would require extensive highway 

infrastructure expansion to have sustainable capacity. 

Rail Improvements Alternative: The Rail Improvements Alternative would provide a train 

system with sufficient infrastructure to meet the projected demand and to allow for 

capacity expansion beyond the design year requirements. It would provide an improved 

mode for the region’s intercity transportation system, effectively creating a capacity 

release valve for the other intercity modes. The ultimate capacity of the system could 

exceed the forecasted 20- to 40-year demand by increasing frequency of service or 

adding cars to trainsets on the dual-track system. The Rail Improvements Alternative 

would have the highest sustainable capacity. 

Passenger Cost

Passenger cost is a measure of the relative differences in travel costs between the NoProject and Rail Improvements Alternative. Passenger cost for this analysis means the 

total cost of the trip, including the cost of traveling to the station, the train fare, and other 

associated expenses. Cost is one of the key factors that can influence a passengers’ 

choice of modes. Passenger cost is quantitatively measured by actual costs to the 

passenger associated with a typical door-to-door trip. 

Automobile Mode Characteristics: For highway travel, it is assumed that the entire doorto-door trip is made with a private automobile and that there are no ancillary access 

costs. Automobile travel costs are shown as the total costs per passenger and per 

automobile. The total costs of owning and operating a vehicle include depreciation, 

maintenance, repairs, taxes, insurance, etc. and are shown on a per mile basis in 

Table 3.2-10. Perceived auto trip costs are considered to be lower than the total cost of 

auto trips based upon the assumption that fixed costs of auto ownership would be 

incurred regardless of trip mode choice. 

Table 3.2-11 summarizes the costs for making a one-way trip for between Los Angeles 

and San Diego. Parking is not included even though this could be an additional expense. 

(All-day parking in downtown Los Angeles can be as high as $25.) As shown in the 

table, the door-to-door average perceived one-way cost per person for traveling between 

representative city pairs by highway range from $15 to $48 per passenger, and $25 to 

$81 for total cost. 
3.2-22

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 3.2-10 

Auto Ownership and Operating Costs by Category (2003$)* 

Cost Category Percent of Cost Cents (per mile) 

Financing 15 7.7 

Depreciation 35 18.0 

Fuel Tax 4 2.0 

Fuel 9 4.6 

Repairs 2 1.0 

Maintenance 5 2.6 

State Fees 3 1.5 

Insurance 27 13.8 

Total 100 51.2 

a

 All costs escalated by 3% for 3 years to calculate 2003 dollars. 

Source: FHWA, Our Nation’s Highways, 2000

Table 3.2-11 

One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Automobile Costs - (2003$)a

City Pair 

Average Total 

Cost per 

Passengerc

Total Costs 

per Auto 

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown $25 $61 

a

 All costs escalated by 3% for 3 years to calculate 2003 dollars. 

b

 Total cost based on average cost of owning and operating a vehicle of 51 cents per mile divided by the assumed 

average auto occupancy rate of 2.4 persons (for intercity travel). Source: Federal Highway Administration, Our 

Nation’s Highways, 2000. c

 Full cost of driving a single-occupant auto based on average cost of owning and operating a vehicle of 51 cents 

per mile. 

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation’s Highways, 2000; Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003

Intercity Rail Mode Characteristics: The primary cost associated with intercity rail travel 

is the cost of the train ticket. For this analysis, the fare schedule currently used by 

Amtrak was used for comparison purposes (Table 3.2-12). This cost represents a 

standard one-way fare charged to passengers along the corridor from Los Angeles to 

San Diego. 

Since train travel involves use of another mode at the beginning and end of the trip, an 

access and egress fee of about $5 or $6 ($10 to $12 total) are part of the average total 

costs1. Intercity rail travel requires at least one mode change to access the nearest 

station. 

 

1 This cost is used as an estimate for planning purposes, and could include a variety of costs, including automobile costs to get to 

or from the station, transit or taxi fares. 
3.2-23

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 3.2-12 

Intercity Rail One-Way Trip Passenger Costs (2003$)a

City Pairs Average 

Total Costa

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown $37 

a

 Sample costs include fares as well as parking, taxi fares, and other costs 

involved with traveling to and from the train station. 

For single occupant vehicles, the Rail Improvements Alternative would provide an overall 

per trip cost savings. On average the improved intercity rail system could save around 

39% of the per trip costs associated with the No-Project Alternative. The intercity rail 

mode is cost-competitive with the highway mode for single occupant trips. 

3.2.4 ALIGNMENT OPTION COMPARISON 

Travel time and connectivity for the intercity rail system can all be affected by the alignment 

option. The improvements proposed for the LOSSAN corridor would provide a higher level of 

connectivity to Metrolink and the regional transit systems along the corridor, in addition to 

providing a higher level of reliability and safety. However, the decision on which alternative 

alignments to take through selected segments of the travel corridor would have implications as 

to the level of connectivity, reliability and safety provided. The segments, which provide the 

greatest difference in alternative alignments are: 

• San Juan Capistrano 

• Dana Point / San Clemente 

• Del Mar 

• University Towne Centre 

Each alignment option developed for these segments has both benefits and impacts to the 

operations and travel conditions of the intercity rail service. Table 3.2-13 below outlines the 

differences between the major alignment alternatives by the established transportation factors. 
3.2-24

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 3.2-13 

Alignment Option Comparisons 

Alternative Connectivity Travel Time Reliability Safety Capacity Passenger 

Cost 

San Juan Capistrano 

Trabuco Creek 

(Low-Build) 

Provides a full 

replacement 

station 

Slower travel 

time due to 

station 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Interstate 5 

(High-Build) 

Reduces 

connectivity by 

reducing service to 

existing station 

Faster travel 

time as it 

bypasses 

station 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Dana Point / San Clemente 

Short Tunnel 

(Low-Build) 

Same as HighBuild Slower travel 

time due to 

greater 

number of 

curves 

Preserves 

part of old 

alignment 

with speed 

restrictions 

along beach 

Preserves 

part of old 

alignment 

along beach 

with a high 

frequency of 

trespassing 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Long Split Tunnel 

(High-Build) 

Same as Low-Build Faster travel 

because of 

fewer curves 

Fully grade 

separated 

on new 

alignment 

Fully grade 

separated 

on new 

alignment 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Del Mar 

Camino Del Mar Tunnel 

(Low-Build) 

Same as HighBuild Slower travel 

time due to 

greater 

number of 

curves 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Interstate 5 

(High-Build) 

Same as Low-Build Faster travel 

because of 

fewer curves 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

University Towne Centre 

Interstate 5 

(Low-Build) 

No additional 

station provided 

Faster travel 

time as it has 

no station 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

Same as 

High-Build 

UTC Tunnel 

(High-Build) 

Higher connectivity 

with a new 

intermodal station 

Slower travel 

time due to 

station 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 

Same as 

Low-Build 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.3 AIR QUALITY 

This section provides an overview of the two air basins studied for this Program EIR/EIS and 

describes the composition of air pollutants in and the status of these air basins. In addition, this 

section describes the potential impacts that may directly and indirectly affect regional air quality 

under the No Project and proposed Rail Improvements Alternative, using the existing and No 

Project conditions for comparison. 

Air pollution is a general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the 

quality of the atmosphere. Eight air pollutants have been identified by EPA as being of concern 

nationwide: carbon monoxide (CO) sulfur oxides (SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), ozone (O3), particulate matter sized 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter sized 

2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and lead (Pb). Except for HC, all of these pollutants (NOx in the form 

of NO2 and SOx in the form of SO2) are collectively referred to as criteria pollutants. Pollutants 

that are considered greenhouse gases also affect air quality. Greenhouse gases include, NOx, 

HC, and carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of these pollutants, their effects on human health 

and general welfare, and their final deposition in the atmosphere vary considerably. This 

section also describes diesel particulate matter (DPM). 

3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Federal Regulations

Air quality is regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the 

Final Conformity Rule (40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 93). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 (Public Law [P.L.] 101-549, November 15, 1990) direct the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to implement strong environmental policies and regulations 

that will ensure cleaner air quality. According to Title I, Section 101, Paragraph F of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.): “No federal agency may 

approve, accept or fund any transportation plan, program or project unless such plan, 

program or project has been found to conform to any applicable state implementation 

plan (SIP) in effect under this act.” Title 1, Section 101, Paragraph F of the 

amendments, amends Section 176(c) of the CAA to define conformity as follows: 

conformity to an implementation plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and that such activities will not 

cause any of the following occurrences. 

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area. 

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any 

area. 

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emissions 

reductions or other milestones in any area. (42 U.S.C. § 7506[c][1].) 

State Regulations

Air quality is regulated at the state level by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

the agency designated to prepare the SIP required by the federal CAA, under the 

California Clean Air Act of 1988 (Assembly Bill [AB] 2595) and other provisions of the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

California Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code § 39000 et seq.). 

California’s Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires all districts designated as nonattainment for 

any pollutant to “adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the 

state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources 

under their jurisdiction.” 

The responsibility for controlling air pollution in California is shared by 35 local or 

regional air pollution control and air quality management districts, CARB, and EPA. The 

districts issue permits for industrial pollutant sources and adopt air quality management 

plans and rules. CARB establishes the state ambient air quality standards, adopts and 

enforces emission standards for mobile sources, adopts standards and suggested 

control measures for toxic air contaminants, provides technical support to the districts, 

oversees district compliance, approves local air quality plans, and prepares and submits 

the SIP to EPA. EPA establishes NAAQS, sets emission standards for certain mobile 

sources (airplanes and locomotives), oversees the state air programs, and reviews and 

approves the SIP. CARB inventories sources of air pollution in California’s air basins 

and is required to update the inventory triennially, starting in 1998 (Health and Safety 

Code §§ 39607 and 30607.3). CARB also identifies air basins that are affected by 

transported air pollution (Health and Safety Code § 39610; 17 C.C.R. Part 70500). 

National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (P.L. 91-064, December 31, 

1970) and the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 (P.L. 95-95, August 7, 1977), EPA has 

established NAAQS for the following air pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, PM10, SOx, and Pb. 

CARB has also established standards for these pollutants. Recent legislation requires 

CARB to develop and adopt regulations to reduce greenhouse gases (AB 1493, 2002). 

The federal and state governments have both adopted health-based standards for 

pollutants. For some pollutants, the national and state standards are very similar; for 

other pollutants, the state standards are more stringent. The differences in the 

standards are generally due to the different health effect studies considered during the 

standard-setting process and how these studies were interpreted. 

Table 3.3-1 lists the federal and state standards. The federal primary standards are 

intended to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. The federal 

secondary standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for airpollutant impacts on soil, water, visibility, vegetation, and other aspects of the general 

welfare. Areas that violate these standards are designated nonattainment areas. Areas 

that once violated the standards but now meet the standards are classified as 

maintenance areas. Classification of each area under the federal standards is done by 

EPA based on state recommendations and after an extensive review of monitored data. 

Classification under the state standards is done by CARB. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.3-1 

State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

California Standardsa Federal Standardsb

Pollutant Averaging 

Time Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f,g Methodg

1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 ug/m3

) 

0.12 ppm (235 

ug/m3)

h

O3

8 hour N/A 

Ultraviolet 

photometry 0.08 ppm (157 

ug/m3)

h

Same as 

primary 

standard 

Ultraviolet 

photometry 

24 hour 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3

PM10 Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

20 ug/m3

Gravimetric or 

beta 

attenuation 50 ug/m3

Same as 

primary 

standard 

Inertial 

separation 

and 

gravimetric 

analysis 

24 hour No separate 

state standard 65 ug/m3

PM2.5 Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

12 ug/m3

Gravimetric or 

beta 

attenuation 15 ug/m3

Same as 

primary 

standard 

Inertial 

separation 

and 

gravimetric 

analysis 

8 hour 9.0 ppm 

(10 mg/m3

) 

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 

1 hour 20 ppm 

(23 mg/m3

) 

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3 CO ) 

8 hour 

(Lake 

Tahoe) 

6 ppm 

(7 mg/m3

) 

Non-dispersive 

infrared 

photometry 

(NDIR) 

N/A 

None 

Nondispersive 

infrared 

photometry 

(NDIR) 

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

N/A 0.053 ppm 

(100 ug/m3

) NO2

1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(470 ug/m3

) 

Gas phase 

chemilumincescence 

N/A 

Same as 

primary 

standard 

Gas phase 

chemilumincescence 

30 days 

average 1.5 ug/m3 N/A N/A 

Pbi

Calendar 

quarter N/A 

Atomic 

absorption 

1.5 ug/m3 Same as 

primary 

standard 

High volume 

sampler and 

atomic 

absorption 

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

N/A 0.030 ppm 

(80 ug/m3

) N/A 

24 hour 0.04 ppm 

(105 ug/m3

) 

0.14 ppm 

(365 ug/m3) N/A 

3 hour N/A N/A 0.5 ppm (1300 

ug/m3

) 

SO2

1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(655 ug/m3

) 

Ultraviolet 

Fluorescence 

N/A N/A 

Spectrophotometry 

(Pararosoaniline method) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.3-1 

State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (continued) 

California Standardsa Federal Standardsb

Pollutant Averaging 

Time Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f,g Methodg

Visibility 

reducing 

particles 

8 hour 

(10 a.m. to 

6 p.m., 

Pacific 

Standard 

Time) 

In sufficient amount to produce an 

extinction coefficient of 0.23 per 

km-visibility of 10 mi (16 km) or 

more (0.07–30 mi [.011–48 km] or 

more for Lake Tahoe) due to 

particles when the relative 

humidity is less than 70%. 

Method: Beta attenuation and 

transmittance through filter tape. 

Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m3

Hydrogen 

sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 ug/m3

) 

Ultraviolet 

fluorescence 

Vinyl 

Chlorideh 24 hour 0.01 ppm 

(26 ug/m3) 

Gas chromatography 

No 

federal 

standards 

a

 California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, suspended particulate matterPM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be 

equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 

of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b

 National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic 

mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 

8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour 

standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 

above 150 ug/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98%of the daily 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standards. c

 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are 

based upon a reference temperature of 25o

 C (77 o F) and a reference pressure of 760 mm (30 in) of mercury. 

Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25o

 C (77 o F) and reference 

pressure measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25o C (77 o F) and a 

reference pressure of 760 mm (30 in) of mercury (1,013.2 milibar [1 atmosphere]); ppm in this table refers to ppm 

volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. d

 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of CARB to give equivalent results at or near the 

level of the air quality standard may be used. e

 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the 

public health. 

National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or 

anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. f

 Reference method as described by EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a 

“consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by EPA. g

 New federal 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards were promulgated by EPA on July 18, 1997. h

 ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for 

adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below 

the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 

Source: California Air Resources Board 2003
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Pollutants

Pollutants that can be traced principally to transportation sources and are thus relevant 

to the evaluation of the project alternatives include CO, O3 precursors (NOx and total 

organic gases or TOG), PM10, and CO2. Since high CO levels are mostly the result of 

congested traffic conditions combined with adverse meteorological conditions, high CO 

concentrations generally occur within 300 ft (91 m) to 600 ft (183 m) of heavily traveled 

roadways. Concentrations of CO on a regional and localized or microscale basis can 

consequently be predicted appropriately. TOG and NOx emissions from mobile sources 

are of concern primarily because of their role as precursors in the formation of O3 and 

particulate matter. O3 is formed through a series of reactions that occur in the 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight over a period of hours. Since the reactions are 

slow and occur as the pollutants are diffusing downwind, elevated O3 levels are often 

found many miles from sources of the precursor pollutants. The impacts of TOG and 

NOx emissions are therefore generally examined on a regional level. CO2 emission 

burdens, because of their global impact, are currently expressed only on the statewide 

level by CARB and EPA. In this analysis, however, CO2 impacts are discussed on the 

regional level. It is appropriate to predict concentrations of PM10 on a regional and 

localized basis. (EPA is currently developing standardized methodologies to evaluate 

PM10 and PM 2.5 on a quantitative, local level [EPA420-B-06-902; March 2006]). Diesel 

particulate matter (DPM) is addressed qualitatively in this section, and would be 

addressed further in project-level studies where potential sensitive receptor sites can be 

specifically identified. 

Pollutant Burdens

The air quality analysis for this Program EIR/EIS focuses on the potential regional 

impacts on air quality. The estimated regional pollutant burdens were quantified for the 

No Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives, based on the changes that would occur 

in the number of locomotives traveling along the LOSSAN corridor. Regional changes in 

vehicular traffic are not addressed in this analysis. Although the Rail Improvements 

Alternative is expected to accommodate part of the demand for increased passenger rail 

service, the projected population and employment increase between now and 2020 

would result in increased vehicular traffic as well. Therefore, the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would not have a substantive effect on regional VMT. 

Estimated emissions for 2005 and for year 2020 with and without the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternative were calculated using emission-factor equations in EPA 

Publication 420, Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA420-F-97-051, December 

1997). Fleet average emission factors were used (Table 9, Publication 420) after being 

adjusted for only line-haul locomotive emission factors (Table 3, Publication 420). 

Appendix 3.3-A of this PEIR/EIS provides additional details and all calculations used in 

this analysis. 

Operational characteristics were assumed for this Program-level analysis based on 

available information regarding locomotive traffic in the LOSSAN corridor. All passenger 

trains were assumed to have one locomotive, while all freight trains were assumed to 

have four due to the grades and loads being carried. Calculation of fuel usage assumed 

that the region-wide average speed of passenger trains would be 70 miles per hour, and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

freight trains would be 50 miles per hour. (Top speeds are expected to be higher than 

this, as described in Chapter 2; however, a conservative, average corridor speed was 

used for the air quality assessment, based on an increase of over 80% in locomotive 

travel in the corridor between 2005 and 2020 with the proposed improvements in place.) 

The increase in the number of trains assumed under the Rail Improvements Alternative 

varies by day of the week and by corridor section. Appendix 3.3-A provides a detailed 

chart showing numbers of trains (for both the No-Project and the Rail Improvements 

alternatives), as well as additional details on air quality calculations and estimates. 

Potential changes in localized vehicular traffic and in emissions caused by construction 

are addressed qualitatively in this analysis. These potential changes cannot be 

quantified without project-level design and construction planning information, which 

would not be available until a later analysis stage. 

3.3.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

California is divided into 15 air basins (17 C.C.R. § 60100 et seq.). Each has unique 

terrain, meteorology, and emission sources. The two air basins directly affected by the 

proposed alternatives are the South Coast and San Diego air basins (see Figure 3.3-1). 

Air quality in nearby air basins could also be affected by the proposed alternatives. 

These effects are expected to be less than those experienced by the basins that 

physically contain the project. For this program-level analysis, potential impacts on air 

quality are described only for the air basins that physically contain the LOSSAN rail 

corridor. Nearby air basins are not discussed in this program-level analysis. Once the 

alternatives are refined and more detailed analyses are conducted, nearby basins 

should be studied. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF AIR QUALITY RESOURCES 

Each pollutant is briefly described below. 

• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban 

environment primarily by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor 

vehicles. Relatively high concentrations of CO can be found near crowded 

intersections and along heavily used roadways carrying slow-moving traffic. CO 

chemically combines with the hemoglobin in red blood cells to decrease the 

oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. Prolonged exposure can cause 

headaches, drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium. 

• Sulfur oxides (SOx) constitute a class of compounds of which sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and sulfur trioxide (SO3) are of great importance in air quality. SOx is also 

generated by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. 

However, relatively little SOx is emitted from motor vehicles, particularly now 

because of the low-sulfur fuel standards in place (see also Section 3.3.A). The 

health effects of SOx include respiratory illness, damage to the respiratory tract, 

and bronchio-constriction. 
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SOUTH COAST

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Fresno

San Jose

Las Vegas

San Diego

Sacramento

Long Beach

Los Angeles

San Francisco

FIGURE 3.3-1

Air Basins Potentially Affected by Project Alternatives r Basins Potentially Affected by Project Alternatives

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.3-7
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

• Hydrocarbons (HC) comprise a wide variety of organic compounds, including 

methane (CH4), emitted principally from the storage, handling, and combustion of 

fossil fuels. Hydrocarbons are classified according to their level of photochemical 

reactivity: relatively reactive or relatively non-reactive. Non-reactive hydrocarbons 

consist mostly of methane. Emissions of total organic gases (TOG) and reactive 

organic gases (ROG) are two classes of hydrocarbons measured for California’s 

emission inventory. TOG includes all hydrocarbons, both reactive and nonreactive. In contrast, ROG includes only the reactive HC. TOG is measured 

because non-reactive HC have enough reactivity to play an important role in 

photochemistry. Though HC can cause eye irritation and breathing difficulty, 

their principal health effects are related to their role in the formation of ozone. 

HC is also considered a greenhouse gas. 

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) constitute a class of compounds that include nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO), both of which are emitted by motor vehicles. 

Although NO2 and NO can irritate the eyes and nose and impair the respiratory 

system, NOx, like HC, is of concern primarily because of its role in the formation 

of ozone. Nitrogen oxide is also considered a greenhouse gas. 

• Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant that is a major cause of lung and eye 

irritation in urban environments. It is formed through a series of reactions 

involving HC and NOx that take place in the atmosphere in the presence of 

sunlight. Relatively high concentrations of O3 are normally found only in the 

summer because low wind speeds or stagnant air coupled with warm 

temperatures and cloudless skies provide the optimum conditions for O3

formation. Because of the long reaction time involved, peak ozone 

concentrations often occur far downwind of the precursor emissions. Thus, 

ozone is considered a regional pollutant rather than a localized pollutant. 

• Particulate matter includes both airborne and deposited particles of a wide range 

of size and composition. Of particular concern for air quality are particles smaller 

than or equal to 10 microns and 2.5 microns in size, PM10 and PM2.5, 

respectively. The data collected through many nationwide studies indicate that 

most PM10 is the product of fugitive dust, wind erosion, and agricultural and 

forestry sources, while a small portion is produced by fuel combustion processes. 

However, combustion of fossil fuels account for a significant portion of PM2.5. 

Airborne particulate matter mainly affects the respiratory system. 

• Lead (Pb) is a stable chemical element that persists and accumulates both in the 

environment and in humans and animals. There are many sources of lead 

pollution, including mobile sources such as motor vehicles and other gasolinepowered engines, and non-mobile sources such as petroleum refineries. Lead 

levels in the urban environment from mobile sources have significantly 

decreased due to the federally mandated switch to lead-free gasoline. The 

principal effects of lead on humans are on the blood-forming, nervous, and renal 

systems. 

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the 

earth’s atmosphere. Significant quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil 

fuel combustion. CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. The natural greenhouse 

effect allows the earth to remain warm and sustain life. Greenhouse gases trap 

the sun’s heat in the atmosphere and help determine our climate. As atmospheric 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

concentrations of greenhouse gases rise, so may temperatures. Higher 

temperatures may result in more emissions, increased smog, and respiratory 

disease. 

• Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel 

exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, either gas or particle. The 

gas phase is composed of many of the urban hazardous air pollutants, such as 

acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons. The particle phase also has many different types of 

particles that can be classified by size or composition. The size of diesel 

particulates that are of greatest health concern are those that are in the 

categories of fine and ultra fine particles. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad 

range of diesel engines, including the on-road diesel engines of trucks, buses 

and cars, and the off-road diesel engines that include locomotives and heavyduty equipment. Diesel exhaust can cause health effects from both short-term 

exposures and from long- term exposures, such as repeated occupational 

exposures. Acute exposure to diesel exhaust may cause irritation to the eyes, 

nose, throat and lungs, and some neurological effects such as lightheadedness. 

Acute exposure may also elicit a cough or nausea as well as exacerbate asthma. 

CARB has designated diesel particulates as a toxic air contaminant since 1998. 

DPM is addressed qualitatively in this document. Additional, localized risk 

analyses would be conducted during project-level reviews (see Section 3.3.6). 

Populations most vulnerable to locomotive DPM in the study area may include 

railroad employees in rail yards and large depots where locomotives idle for long 

periods of time in close proximity to workers. Other sensitive areas may include 

outdoor school yards and recreational fields or parks near operational rail 

corridors, especially in areas where locomotives may idle due to traffic 

congestion along the rail line. 

Figure 3.3-2 shows the percentage contribution of four transportation and utility sources 

statewide for the year 2020. Of the four sources of concern shown in the figure, on-road 

mobile sources are the largest single contributor for all the pollutants. 

The existing baseline pollutant burden for each of the air basins is described in the 

following section. The existing baseline represents the current air quality conditions in 

each of the air basins in the study area. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.3-2

CO, PM, NOx, TOG Source Distribution - Year 2020

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

2020 CO Source Distribution Statewide

Electric Utilities

1%

Planes

4%

On Road Mobile

32%

Other Sources

63%

Trains

0%

2020 PM10 Source Distribution Statewide

Other Sources

98%

Trains

0%

Electric Utilities

0%

Planes

0%

On Road Mobil e

2%

2020 NOx Source Distribution Statewide

Electric Utilities

2%

Other Sources

66%

On Road Mobile

24%

Planes

4%

Trains

4%

2020 TOG Source Distribution Statewide

On Road Mobile

6% Electric Utilities

1% Planes

1%

Trains

0%

Other Sources

92%

3.3-11
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

C. AIR RESOURCES BY AIR BASIN 

The air quality attainment status based on state and federal standards for CO, 

particulate matter, and O3 for each of the air basins in the study area is shown in 

Table 3.3-2. All air basins are assigned an attainment status for air pollutants based on 

meeting state and federal pollutant standards. There are some differences between 

state and federal standards, so a pollutant might not have the same status under each 

standard. A basin is considered in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets the 

standards set for that pollutant. A basin is considered in maintenance for a pollutant if 

the standards were once violated but are now met. A basin is considered nonattainment 

for a particular pollutant if its air quality exceeds standards for that pollutant. A basin is 

considered unclassified if the area cannot be classified on the basis of available 

information as meeting or not meeting the applicable standard. The standards and 

status designations are discussed in more detail above in Section 3.3.1, Regulatory 

Requirements and Methods of Evaluation. 

Table 3.3-2 

Attainment Status of Affected Air Basins 

Pollutant 

Air Basin CO PM10 O3

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

South 

Coast 

Nonattainment Nonattainment/

transitional 

Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment

San Diego 

County 

Maintenance Attainment Unclassified Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment

Source: California Air Resources Board 2002

South Coast Air Basin

The South Coast Air Basin encompasses 6,729 sq mi (17,428 sq km). It includes 

California’s largest metropolitan region: all of Orange County, the western highly 

urbanized portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, and the southern twothirds of Los Angeles County. It accommodates a population of 14.9 million, or more 

than 40% of California’s population, and is the most populous air basin in the state. 

About 30% of the state’s total criteria pollutant emissions are generated in the basin. The 

basin is generally a lowland plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by 

mountains on the other three sides. 

The population in the South Coast Air Basin grew at high rates from 1981 to 2000, 

increasing 34% from 11.1 million in 1981 to 14.9 in 2000. Daily VMT increased about 

84% during that same period. While high growth rates are generally associated with 

increased emissions, the implemented control programs in the basin have resulted in 

emission decreases. 

The warm weather associated with predominantly high-pressure systems in the basin is 

conducive to the formation of O3. The surrounding mountains help cause frequent low 

inversion heights and stagnant air conditions. These factors combine to trap pollutants in 

the air basin, and resulting concentrations are among the highest in the state. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Aggressive emission controls have resulted in a downward trend in O3 levels. The basin 

is classified as both a state and national nonattainment area for O3 (1-hour standard). 

NOx emissions in the basin fell by about 38% from 1985 to 2000 and are forecasted to 

continue that trend to 2010. ROG emissions remained relatively flat from 1975 to 1985. 

Between 1985 and 2000 they decreased by approximately 60%. ROG emissions are 

predicted to decrease another 40% by 2010. 

Emissions of CO in the South Coast Air Basin have been trending downward since 

1975, even though VMT has increased and industry activity has grown. Los Angeles 

County is designated as nonattainment for the state ambient air quality standards, while 

the remainder of the air basin is designated as attainment. The basin is designated as 

nonattainment for CO for the national ambient air quality standards. 

Direct emissions of PM10 have increased in the South Coast Air Basin since 1975. The 

increase is attributed to emissions from area-wide sources such as fugitive dust from 

paved and unpaved roads. Growth in activity of the area-wide sources reflects the 

increased population growth and VMT in the basin. PM10 continues to be a problem in 

the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated as nonattainment for both the state and 

national ambient air quality standards. More controls specific to PM10 will be needed to 

reach attainment. 

San Diego Air Basin

The San Diego Air Basin is located in the southwestern corner of California and 

comprises all of San Diego County. It is bounded on the south by Mexico, on the west 

by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by Orange and Riverside Counties, and on the east 

by Imperial County. Its 4,260 sq mi (11,033-sq km) area accommodates a population of 

2.9 million or 8% of the state’s population and produces about 7% of the state’s criteria 

pollutant emissions. 

In the last 20 years, the San Diego Air Basin has experienced one of the highest 

population growth rates of the state’s urban areas. Population grew from over 1.9 million 

in 1981 to 2.9 million in 2000. VMT more than doubled during that same period from 35 

million to approximately 74 million mi (56 million to 119 million km). Despite this growth 

trend, the overall air quality of the basin has improved, reflecting the benefits of cleaner 

technology. 

Much of the San Diego Air Basin has a relatively mild climate due to its southern location 

and proximity to the ocean. The majority of the population is concentrated in the 

western portion of the basin, and the emissions are concentrated there. The basin is 

impacted by locally produced emissions as well as pollutants transported from other 

areas. O3 and O3 precursor emissions are transported from the South Coast Air Basin 

and Mexico. Implemented controls have resulted in a downward trend in O3 levels and 

reductions in emissions from its precursors NOx and ROG in the basin. However, O3

levels continue to pose problems because exceedances of the state and national 

ambient air quality standards persist. 

CO concentrations in the San Diego Air Basin decreased approximately 56% from 1981 

to 2000. As a result, the national CO standards have not been exceeded since 1989, 

and the state standard has not been exceeded since 1990. The basin will likely maintain 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

its attainment status for both national and state standards by continuing the enforcement 

of the stringent motor vehicle regulations currently in place. 

Direct emissions of PM10 in the San Diego Air Basin increased 69% from 1975 to 2000, 

and the forecast is for a continued increase at a rate of approximately 7% to 2010. 

Growth in area-wide source emissions, mainly fugitive dust from vehicles on paved and 

unpaved roads, dust from construction and demolition operations, and particulates from 

residential fuel combustion are mainly responsible for this increase. The growth in these 

area-wide sources primarily derives from the increase in population and VMT in the 

basin. The San Diego Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for the state ambient air 

quality standard and is unclassified for the national standard. 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the volume of train traffic on the 

LOSSAN corridor is projected to increase by over 60% by the year 2020, based on 

maximum threshold modeling that assumed acceptable operational conditions in the 

corridor. (Refer to Section 1.2.2-A, Travel Demand, and Section 2.4, No-Project 

Alternative, for numbers of existing and projected trains in the corridor.) The number of 

locomotive miles (kilometers) traveled in the corridor will increase an estimated 62% by 

2020, with passenger rail miles increasing 56% and freight rail miles increasing 66% 

above 2005 levels1. 

This change from existing to future No-Project conditions will increase the air pollutant 

emissions from locomotives in the project region. The estimated emissions and percent 

change between 2005 and 2020 are shown in Table 3.3-3. An approximate division of 

those emissions between the South Coast and the San Diego air basins is shown in 

Table 3.3-4. Appendix 3.3-A provides detail on the assumptions and emission factors 

used for these estimates. 

Table 3.3-3 

Estimated Locomotive Emissions in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor 

Year 2005 and 2020 No-Project Alternative 

Pollutant 

Total Emissions 

20051 

tons/year 

Total Emissions 

20201 

tons/year 

Difference 

tons/year 

Percent Change 

2005-2020 

TOG 86.83 107.87 21.05 24% 

CO 237.62 388.65 151.03 64% 

NOx 1741.63 2000.27 258.64 15% 

PM 58.09 70.54 12.45 21% 

SOx 0.86 1.41 0.55 64% 

CO2 90,359 147,790 57,430 64% 

1 Combined passenger and freight rail. Each freight train is assumed to have 4 locomotives. 

 

1 Passenger trains typically include just one locomotive, while most freight trains in the corridor include four locomotives; therefore, 

the number of locomotive miles is higher for freight even if the increase in the number of freight trains is lower. See Appendix 3.3-A 

for more detail. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 3.3-4 

Estimated Total Locomotive Emissions in the LOSSAN Corridor by Air Basin 

Year 2005 and 2020 No-Project Alternative 

Pollutant 

Total Emissions 

2005 

tons/year 

Total Emissions 

2020 

tons/year 

Change from 

2005 to 2020 

tons/year 

Percent Change 

2005-2020 

South Coast Air Basin

TOG 57.56 81.64 24.08 42% 

CO 157.51 294.13 136.61 87% 

NOx 1154.48 1513.78 359.30 31% 

PM 38.51 53.38 14.88 39% 

SOx 0.57 1.07 0.50 87% 

CO2 59,897.01 111,845.64 51,948.64 87% 

San Diego Air Basin

TOG 29.27 26.24 -3.04 -10% 

CO 80.11 94.52 14.41 18% 

NOx 587.15 486.49 -100.66 -17% 

PM 19.58 17.16 -2.43 -12% 

SOx 0.29 0.34 0.05 18% 

CO2 30,462.49 35,943.97 5481.48 18% 

1 Combined passenger and freight rail. Each freight train is assumed to have 4 locomotives. 

Emissions shown in the tables above are likely overstated for several reasons. First, 

because the rate of growth in freight rail is higher in the western US than the rest of the 

country, the BNSF (and other west coast rail operators) is likely to have a more rapid 

locomotive turnover rate (older units replaced with new or overhauled units), increasing 

the ratio of newer, lower emission units to older units in its fleet. Additionally, the South 

Coast Locomotive NOx Fleet Average Agreement was signed in 1998 by CARB, BNSF 

and the Union Pacific Railroad. This agreement requires the locomotive fleets that 

operate in the SCAQMD to meet, on average, U.S. EPA’s Tier 2 locomotive emissions 

standards by 2010. Tier 2 locomotives became commercially available in 2005 and 

provide a 65 percent reduction in NOx and 50 percent reduction in diesel particulate 

matter (DPM) emissions. This agreement will provide locomotive fleet benefits in 

southern California 20 years earlier than the rest of the country. 

EPA is also in the process of developing the Tier 3 locomotive emission standards. Draft 

rules have been released and final regulations are expected to be approved by early 

2008. CARB supports the introduction of locomotives built with diesel particulate filters 

and selective catalytic reduction; combined, these features are expected to provide up to 

a 90 percent reduction in NOx and PM (including DPM) emissions. 

The on-road vehicle travel in the LOSSAN region is expected to increase substantially 

by 2020. As described in Chapter 1, automobile traffic between Los Angeles and San 

Diego is expected in increase 18% by 2025. The increased highway travel will also add 

to pollutant burdens in the project region. However, emissions per vehicle are dropping 

significantly in California as a result of CARB’s clean vehicle and clean fuel programs. 

Pollutant burden levels of CO, NOx, and TOG are predicted to decrease statewide 

through 2020 compared to current levels due to the implementation of stringent 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

standards, control measures, and state-of-the-art emission control technologies. The 

low emission vehicle (LEV) and LEVII regulations adopted in 1990 and 1998, 

respectively, require a declining average fleet emission rate for new cars, pickup trucks, 

and medium-duty vehicles (including sport utility vehicles). These regulations, which are 

being implemented between 1994 and 2010, are expected to result in about a 90% 

decline in new vehicle emissions. Similar emission reductions are occurring in the 

heavy-duty diesel truck fleet as progressively lower emission standards for new trucks 

are introduced. The next phase of tighter diesel truck standards, scheduled to be 

implemented between 2007 and 2010, is expected to produce an overall reduction of 

98% from uncontrolled engine emissions. 

Emissions of PM10 are expected to increase in both air basins for the No Project 

Alternative compared to existing conditions. The upward trend in PM10 emissions is 

primarily due to increased emissions from area-wide sources, including dust from 

increased VMT on unpaved and paved roads. PM10 emissions from stationary sources 

are also expected to increase slightly in the future because of industrial growth. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

By 2020, under the Rail Improvements Alternative, the number of locomotive miles 

traveled in the LOSSAN corridor would increase approximately 16% over No Project 

miles, with passenger rail miles increasing 10% and freight rail miles increasing 20% 

over No-Project miles. (As stated previously, freight trains typically include four 

locomotives per train). 

Table 3.3-5 shows the comparison of estimated emissions in the study area for the 2005 

(existing) condition, the 2020 No-Project Alternative, and the 2020 Rail Improvements 

Alternative. All pollutants would increase over the No-Project levels within the corridor 

study area by approximately 17%, due to the increase in locomotive miles that are 

projected for the Rail Improvements Alternative. DPM would also be expected to 

increase by approximately 17% over No-Project conditions by 2020. 

It is likely that emissions estimated in Table 3.3.-5 are overstated (i.e., conservative) for 

future conditions, for the reasons previously outlined in Section 3.3.3-A above. 

Table 3.3-6 shows the same data as Table 3.3-5, broken down by air basin. Some air 

quality management districts, including SCAQMD, have established air quality 

significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Using the SCAQMD thresholds, without 

applying mitigation and not assuming the use of Tier 3 locomotives, the Rail 

Improvements Alternative would exceed the threshold for NOx in the South Coast Air 

Basin by 2020. (See Table 27 in Appendix 3.3-A.) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 3.3-5 

Estimated Locomotive Emissions – Year 2005, 2020 No-Project Alternative, 

and 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative 

Pollutant 

Emissions 

2005 

(tons/year) 

Emissions 

2020 

No-Project 

(tons/year) 

Emissions 

2020 

RI Alternative

(tons/year) 

Difference 

(tons/year) 

No-Project vs. 

RI Alternative 

% Change 

No-Project vs. 

RI Alternative 

TOG 86.83 107.87 126.58 18.70 17% 

CO 237.62 388.65 456.04 67.39 17% 

NOx 1,741.63 2,000.27 2,347.10 346.83 17% 

PM 58.09 70.54 82.77 12.23 17% 

SO2 0.86 1.41 1.65 0.24 17% 

CO2 90,359 147,790 173,415 25,625.46 17% 

RI = Rail Improvements Alternative 

See Appendix 3.3-A for emission calculation details 

As described in text, air quality emission comparisons shown here include only those from diesel locomotives along the 

LOSSAN corridor and do not include automobile travel (induced or otherwise) within the study area. 

Table 3.3-6 

Estimated Locomotive Emissions by Air Basin 

Year 2005, 2020 No-Project Alternative, and 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative 

Pollutant 

Emissions 

2005 

(tons/year) 

Emissions 

2020 

 No-Project 

(tons/year) 

Emissions 

2020 

RI Alternative

(tons/year) 

Difference 

(tons/year) 

No-Project vs. 

RI Alternative 

% Change 

No-Project vs. 

RI Alternative 

South Coast Air Basin 

TOG 57.56 81.64 87.97 6.33 8% 

CO 157.51 294.13 316.93 22.8 8% 

NOx 1154.48 1513.78 1,631.16 117.38 8% 

PM 38.51 53.38 57.52 4.14 8% 

SO2 0.57 1.07 1.15 0.08 7% 

CO2 59,897.01 111,845.64 120,517.85 8,672.21 8% 

San Diego Air Basin 

TOG 29.27 26.24 38.61 12.37 47% 

CO 80.11 94.52 139.11 44.59 47% 

NOx 587.15 486.49 715.94 229.45 47% 

PM 19.58 17.16 25.25 8.09 47% 

SO2 0.29 0.34 0.50 0.16 47% 

CO2 30,462.49 35,943.97 52,897.23 16,953.26 47% 

RI = Rail Improvements Alternative 

See Appendix 3.3-A for emission calculation details

Traffic around existing LOSSAN stations would increase somewhat over 2020 NoProject levels as a result of the proposed project, because the increased efficiency and 

reliability of passenger rail service would attract additional riders. This could increase 

vehicular emissions in localized air quality hotspots around stations, as compared with 

the No-Project Alternative. Hotspots are areas where the potential for elevated pollutant 

levels exist. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

The projected increase in rail traffic between now and 2020 would result in higher levels 

of congestion and delays in train traffic without the proposed improvements to the 

corridor. The existing rail service is subject to delays and congestion, particularly in 

segments where the corridor is single tracked. These bottlenecks would increase in 

severity as rail service increases over the next 20 years and beyond. The Rail 

Improvements Alternative would decrease the likelihood of delays along the corridor, 

which would decrease the emissions from idling locomotives. The proposed double 

tracking would also decrease locomotive idling time at existing LOSSAN stations as rail 

service increases. At this program level of analysis, it is not possible to quantify the 

potential air quality benefits of decreased congestion and locomotive idle time along the 

corridor. Site-specific modeling would be done during project-level studies to identify 

idling locations and durations, and to estimate emissions attributable to that idling. This 

information would help to refine design plans for the corridor, to eliminate or reduce 

idling and to assess whether idling would occur in specific locations where potentially 

sensitive receptors (e.g., school yards, parks, etc.) could expose the public to increased 

levels of DPM and other emissions in concentrated amounts or longer durations. 

The grade separations that would occur with many of the proposed improvement options 

would also contribute to a reduction in potential emissions from idling automobiles and 

trucks at grade crossings. Reductions in emissions from reduced waiting time at 

crossings would be greatest in the congested urban roadways in the metropolitan areas 

of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The proposed double tracking through 

the study area could also reduce vehicular delays at crossings by allowing two trains to 

pass through a given area at the same time. 

If the Miramar Hill tunnel option were constructed in the rail segment between the 

I-5/805 split and Highway 52, a new underground station would be constructed at 

University Towne Centre (UTC). This station could increase local traffic congestion and 

create hotspots at intersections in the vicinity. 

Construction of the proposed improvements would cause temporary increases in 

pollution burdens in the project area. Emissions sources would include diesel-powered 

construction equipment, work-force travel to and from the project site, and fugitive dust 

from construction activities. Implementation of the Rail Improvements Alternative would 

be done incrementally over a period of many years. Impacts to air quality would be 

spread out both geographically and over time in the study area, reducing the potential for 

high cumulative impacts in the air basins. PM emissions from fugitive dust and 

construction equipment would be short-term but could be potentially significant due to 

the nonattainment status of the South Coast and San Diego air basins and the likelihood 

of continued increases in PM from development in the region. 

Overall, the Rail Improvements Alternative would result in some beneficial reductions in 

emissions in localized areas by decreasing rail congestion and associated locomotive 

idling along the corridor and at existing stations, and by reducing the number of grade 

crossings where vehicular traffic delays now occur. However, without mitigation and/or 

changes in the locomotive fleet, the project could have potentially significant air quality 

impacts in the study area. Construction of the improvements would also have short-term, 

potentially high impacts on air quality. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

3.3.4 Design Practices 

Expansion at existing stations of parking and efficient design of ingress and egress to 

new or expanded parking areas will minimize increases in air emissions in and around 

station areas. For new stations, efficient design that minimizes train, bus, and 

automobile idling time will also minimize increases in emissions. 

3.3.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of 

significance for air quality, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is considered to 

have a potentially significant effect on air quality in the LOSSAN region. From data 

currently available at the Program level, for example, it appears that the project could 

result in exceedances of daily air quality thresholds for NOx and, potentially, for other 

pollutants. Continued improvements in air pollution controls for locomotives, along with 

the anticipated Tier 3 standards (potentially finalized by 2008 and implemented 

thereafter), will result in continued reductions of pollutant emissions per mile of 

locomotive travel. In addition, as older locomotives are replaced with new ones, 

additional reductions will occur. Mitigation measures, along with new technologies and 

locomotive emission standards, are expected to reduce potential air quality impacts of 

the Rail Improvements Alternative below significance thresholds in the future. However, 

at this time, it cannot be determined with certainty that this would occur, or that new 

emission standards and technologies would be implemented throughout passenger and 

freight locomotive fleets in a time frame coinciding with project implementation. 

At the project level, mitigation measures will be evaluated based on ultimate design of 

alignments and stations to address the potential for regional and localized impacts of the 

Rail Improvements Alternative. Potential construction impacts, which will be analyzed 

once more detailed project plans are available, can be reduced by following local and 

state guidelines, and by implementing the following measures as appropriate during 

construction: 

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all 

trucks maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 

• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all 

unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and 

staging areas at construction sites. 

• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto 

adjacent public streets. 

• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas 

(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed 

stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public 

roadways. 

• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 

• Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

• Minimize equipment idling time. 

• Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

Mitigation measures and strategies to reduce operational impacts to air quality will be 

examined in detail for efficacy and feasibility at the project level. Measures to be 

evaluated include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Install diesel particulate filters on locomotives. 

• Use liquefied natural gas for engines. 

• Reduce idling time to reduce DPM and other emissions. 

• Install anti-idling devices on locomotives, designed to automatically shut-off the 

main diesel internal combustion engine used for locomotive motive power after a 

specified time period when specified parameters (e.g., engine water temperature, 

ambient temperature, battery charge, railcar brake pressure, etc.) are at 

acceptable levels, and then automatically restart the engine when parameters 

are no longer at acceptable levels.

• Retrofit head-end power sources (HEPs) in passenger locomotives with aftertreatment technologies to reduce emissions. 

• Use a combination of lean-NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filter. 

• Design stations and associated ingress/egress to provide efficient vehicle 

movements, to reduce idling time and congestion. 

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent air quality analysis would be undertaken for individual rail improvements 

that have a potential to increase rail related emissions as follows: 

Locations of potential hotspots, especially around existing and new stations, will be 

identified and analyzed at the project level. Local traffic counts would be conducted at 

access roads near any new station locations. 

Specific locations of potential sensitive receptors for air toxics such as DPM will be 

identified based on project-level design information. A risk assessment of potential 

health impacts will be conducted in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies, 

and mitigation measures will be refined based on results. 

Potential construction impacts and mitigation measures will also be addressed in 

subsequent analyses. Once an alignment option is established a full construction 

analysis will be conducted. This analysis should quantify emissions from construction 

vehicles, excavation, worker trips, and other related construction activities. Mitigation 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.3-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

AIR QUALITY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

measures will be evaluated further, and a construction monitoring program, if required 

would be designed. 

Potential tunnel ventilation (if required) would be designed at the project-level, and any 

air quality effects of such design would be evaluated at that time. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section identifies the potential for noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors or 

receivers, such as people in residential areas, schools, and hospitals, for the No-Project and 

Rail Improvements Alternatives. This analysis generally describes the sensitive noise receptors 

in the project region and the methodology for determining the potential for noise and vibration 

impacts on those receptors for each alternative and alignment option. The comparison of 

alignment options considers the potential for noise impacts from both passenger and freight 

trains on the LOSSAN rail corridor. The section also discusses the potential for benefits of 

adding grade separations1 along the existing LOSSAN corridor, thereby reducing noise 

generated at grade crossings. Since this is a program-level environmental document, the 

analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts broadly compares the relative differences in the 

potential for impacts between the proposed alignment options. 

3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Noise and vibration are among the environmental issues to be evaluated under NEPA 

and CEQA. The FRA enforces compliance with the Noise Emission Regulation adopted 

by the EPA for noise emissions from interstate railroads. The FRA’s Railroad Noise 

Emission Compliance Regulation (49 C.F.R. Part 210) prescribes minimum compliance 

regulations for enforcement of the railroad noise emission standards adopted by the 

EPA (40 C.F.R. Part 201). The FRA has also established criteria for assessment of 

noise and vibration impacts for high-speed2 ground transportation projects (U.S. 

Department of Transportation 1998). For speeds less than 125 mph (200 kph) the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has similar criteria for assessment of noise and 

vibration impacts (U.S. Department of Transportation 1995). The methodology and 

impact criteria for noise and vibration from the FRA and FTA guidance manuals have 

been used in the assessment of the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

As described below, each agency’s criteria were used to define a screening distance for 

assessing the potential for noise impact from relevant sources. The FRA and FTA have 

also established vibration impact criteria related to rail transportation. 

At the state level, the California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and 

Safety Code § 46010 et seq.) and provides for the Office of Noise Control in the 

Department of Health Services to (1) provide assistance to local communities developing 

local noise control programs, and (2) work with the Office of Planning and Research to 

provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county 

general plans, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(f). In preparing the noise 

element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify to 

the extent practicable current and projected noise levels for various sources, including 

highways and freeways, passenger and freight railroad operations, ground rapid transit 

systems, commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations, and other 

ground stationary noise sources. Noise level contours must be mapped for these 

sources, using both community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and day-night average 

 

1 For this analysis, a grade separation is the separation, using overpasses or underpasses, of the rail and roadway components of 

an at-grade crossing. This separation reduces the need for trains to blow horns at grade crossings and eliminates the need for

warning bells. 

2 In this context, “high speed” is defined as rail with a maximum speed of 125 mph (200 kph) or greater. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

level (Ldn) and are to be used as a guide in land use decisions to minimize the exposure 

of community residents to excessive noise. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Two basic evaluation techniques were used for this analysis: a screening analysis, and 

more specific analysis of typical case studies of representative locations for the 

proposed Rail Improvements Alternative. The screening analysis provides a basis for a 

comparison of relative differences between existing conditions and the Rail 

Improvements Alternative in potential noise impacts. The case studies were used to 

verify screening analysis assumptions and to provide a basis for comparison of 

alignment options, including consideration of the potential effectiveness of mitigation and 

the potential impacts or benefits associated with grade separation of the existing rail line. 

Screening Procedure 

Transportation noise impacts are typically assessed according to the number of people 

and noise-sensitive land uses potentially impacted by new or changed noise sources 

from a project. However, for a three-county project such as the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternative (especially before many project-level details have been 

defined) it is not possible to develop a specific measure of the potential noise impacts 

because information necessary for performing a detailed noise analysis is not available. 

Consequently, a screening method was used to develop a general estimate of the 

relative potential for impact among alignment options. Screening distances were applied 

from the center of potential alignments to estimate all potentially impacted land uses in 

noise sensitive environmental settings (Appendix 3.4-A). The estimated number of 

people and number of noise-sensitive land uses are tabulated within the defined 

screening distance (see Appendix 3.4-B). The method is conservative in that it 

overestimates the potential impact. The method identifies all potentially impacted 

developed lands by type of use within the study area, but subsequent project-level 

analysis using better-defined system parameters and affected populations is likely to 

indicate lower levels of potential impact. Because potential noise impacts decrease 

dramatically if a structure blocks the path to the receptor, this is a conservative 

approach. 

Noise screening analyses were performed for the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

Screening distances were selected for the railroad based on criteria established by the 

agencies that regulate these modes, the FRA and FTA (see Appendix 3.4-A). 

The analyses were accomplished using available GIS data for land use and alignment 

geometry for each alternative. The number of people potentially affected and the area of 

noise-sensitive land uses within the screening distance were determined using GIS and 

census data. 

The potential impacts were subsequently combined to develop an impact rating for each 

rail segment, described as low, medium, or high, as an indication of the potential for 

noise impact. 

Application of Screening Method to Conventional Rail Mode

Railroad noise and vibration criteria developed by FTA are consistent with criteria 

adopted by the FRA for high-speed trains. The FRA screening procedure was 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

developed for train speeds from 125 mph to 210 mph (200 kph to 338 kph).3 For speeds 

less than 125 mph (200 kph) and for areas near stations, the FTA screening method was 

used in concert with the FRA method. The FRA and FTA screening distances for noise 

are included in Appendix 3.4-A. They were used to assess conventional rail operations 

in the No-Project and the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

Criteria for rail noise impact assessment are based on activity interference and 

annoyance ratings developed by EPA. These criteria, described and presented in 

graphical form in Appendix 3.4-C, provide the basis for the rail noise analysis procedures 

used in the screening and the representative typologies (U.S. Department of 

Transportation 1998). 

The screening procedure used by the FRA and FTA takes into account the noise impact 

criteria, the type of corridor, and the ambient noise conditions in typical communities. 

Distances within which potential impacts may occur are defined based on operations of 

a typical high-speed train system. These distances were developed from detailed noise 

models based on empirical measurements of noise emissions of existing steelwheel/steel-rail high-speed trains, expected maximum operation levels and speeds, and 

residential land use. The width of the potential impact along the length of the rail 

alignment is the area in which there is potential for noise impact. 

The screening distances are different for the different types of developed areas along a 

potential alignment according to their estimated existing ambient noise. “Urban” and 

“noisy suburban” areas are grouped together. These areas are assumed to have 

ambient noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn. Similarly, “quiet suburban” and “rural” or 

“natural open-space” areas are grouped as areas where ambient noise levels are less 

than 55 dBA Ldn. For developed land with Ldn between 55 and 60 dBA, the classification 

is dependant on other factors such as proximity of major transportation facilities and 

density of population. The screening procedure was applied to first allow for the 

comparison of impacts between alignment options and to identify areas of potential 

impacts for further consideration in project-level analysis. The screening procedure 

estimates the affected receptors to ensure that all potential impacts are included at the 

program level. 

While the screening procedure is based on the type of equipment, operational 

characteristics of the future rail services (speeds and frequencies), the type of support 

structure (aerial or at grade), and the general ambient noise level, it does not address 

the horn and bell noise associated with existing passenger and freight trains because 

these are regarded as part of the existing environment and are assumed to be held 

constant for both the No-Project and the Rail Improvements Alternatives. To develop a 

relative comparison of the rail improvement alignment options, the results of the 

screening analysis were adjusted to account for noise reductions from the elimination of 

grade crossings along the existing rail line, proposed as part of some alignment options. 

The degree of adjustment was based on the representative typologies for similar 

circumstances and is defined in the following section. 

As a final step for those areas rated medium or high for potential impacts, the screening 

analysis assessed the potential use of noise barriers and other mitigation options to 

 

3 The maximum speed of the trains on the LOSSAN corridor with proposed rail improvements in place is expected to be 125 mph 

(200 kph). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

assess the potential for reducing noise impacts. The mitigation analysis is discussed in 

Section 3.4.5. 

Vibration impact screening was performed for the Rail Improvements Alternative to 

compare potential impacts among alignment options and to provide an estimate of the 

length of alignments where consideration of vibration attenuation features may be 

appropriate. 

Representative Typologies for Trains

To better understand the potential impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative, several 

noise impact assessment studies were prepared for representative situations of noiseand vibration-sensitive land uses. The more detailed General Assessment Method of 

FTA’s and FRA’s guidance manuals were used to provide noise impact estimations. 

The FRA and FTA noise impact criteria of severe impact, impact and no impact were 

applied to the results. These typological studies verified the general results from the 

screening procedure. Representative situations were chosen to provide a range of 

potential impact types and levels. This approach provides a means of considering at the 

program level the potential impacts on communities along any potential rail improvement 

alignments. The typology locations in the study area are illustrated on Figure 3.4-1. 

(Between Union Station and Fullerton, no specific land use points are shown on Figure 

3.4-1. This segment of the corridor is urban residential and commercial, largely built up 

to or near the existing rail corridor. This entire segment was characterized by the 

residential typology in the screening analysis.) 

Developed land use categories consist of individual medium- and low-density residential 

zones, schools, hospitals, parks, and other unique institutional receptors such as 

museums, libraries, etc. Residential land uses were chosen for the typologies for new 

and shared corridors that varied in local zoning densities, ambient noise conditions, set 

back distances from the alternative corridors, and rail operational speeds. Institutional 

uses as mentioned above and parks were individually identified for each focused study. 

These representative typologies were evaluated on the topics listed below. 

• Verification of screening distances (noise and vibration). 

• Effectiveness of noise barriers. 

• Benefits from elimination of grade crossings. 

Verification of Screening Distances (Noise and Vibration): The results of the 

representative typologies confirm that the screening method used an appropriate upper 

boundary as an indicator of potential for noise impact. Impacts were found to occur in 

80% of the cases identified in the screening procedure; in 70% of those studied, 

consideration of mitigation may be appropriate. Those that would have insignificantly 

low noise impact were either at outer edges of the screening distance or were shielded 

sufficiently by other buildings. Shielding by terrain features or buildings is not taken into 

account in the screening process, except to indicate some receptors would not need 

further analysis. 
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal

Railroad

Administration

FIGURE 3.4-1

Noise and Vibration Land Use Typologies LOSSAN Region

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

3.4-5
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Representative studies were also completed that assess the range of the potential 

vibration impact levels that are likely to be encountered in project-level analyses. The 

results generally show that the nearer buildings would be to a proposed alignment, the 

greater the likelihood of impact. Where speeds are expected to be low, the vibration 

potential impacts are confined to within 100 ft (30 m) of the track. At top speeds, the 

potential impacts extend to 200 ft (61 m). The special typologies generally validate the 

vibration screening distances that are included in Table 3.4-A2 in Appendix 3.4-A. 

Effectiveness of Noise Barriers: The representative typology studies generally indicated 

that mitigation by sound barrier walls can be an effective means of reducing the potential 

impacts by one category, for example, from severe impact (mitigation appropriate) to 

impact. Noise barrier mitigation is shown to be especially effective for receivers close to 

the tracks. While noise barrier walls would not be the only potential mitigation strategy 

to be considered, they were used to represent mitigation potential in this Program 

EIR/EIS.

Benefits from Elimination of Grade Crossings: The representative typology studies were 

also used to estimate the potential benefit of noise reduction resulting from grade 

separations. A focused noise study was done for the existing grade crossing at 

Tamarak Street in Oceanside. Assessment of noise impact from horns at grade 

crossings was performed with FRA’s horn noise model and annoyance based criteria. 

The study showed that the elimination of horn blowing by commuter trains at this grade 

crossing would result in a 77 percent reduction in the number of people impacted within 

0.25 mi (0.40 km) of that intersection. Although results would vary depending on the 

local population density and proximity of residences and other sensitive land uses at 

each grade crossing, the Oceanside study illustrates the magnitude of the potential 

change to be expected if the sounding of horns and bells at existing rail crossings could 

be eliminated. 

Removing all potential remaining horn noise would not eliminate noise impacts, 

however, because the sound of the trains would remain. As described in Chapter 1, 

under the No-Project Alternative, train traffic in the corridor would increase over 60 

percent between now and 2020. The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would 

accommodate approximately 10 percent more train traffic in the corridor than the NoProject Alternative by 2020, and therefore would increase train noise. Nonetheless, 

there would be a clear benefit from the elimination of the horns and warning signals. 

Based on these results, the potential noise impact ratings from screening were adjusted 

to account for segments where grade crossings would be eliminated for existing 

passenger and freight trains as part of the implementation of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative along that segment. A reduction of one impact rating level (high to medium 

or medium to low) was made for segments where a proposed alignment option would 

eliminate horn and bell noise due to grade separation. 

This adjustment was made on the segments listed below. 

• Fullerton to north of San Juan Capistrano. 

• Oceanside to Solana Beach. 

• University Towne Centre to the northern portion of Mission Bay. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.4.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for the noise and vibration assessment is defined by the screening 

distances that are used by the FRA (U.S. Department of Transportation 1998) and FTA 

(U.S. Department of Transportation 1995) to evaluate rail corridors. The study area is 

within 1,000 ft (305 m) of the centerline of the rail improvement alignment options. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes the characteristics and associated terms and measurements 

used for transportation-related noise and vibration. When noise from a train or highway 

reaches a receptor, whether it is a person outdoors or indoors, it combines with other 

sounds in the environment (the ambient noise level) and may or may not stand out in 

comparison. The distant sources may include traffic, aircraft, industrial activities, or 

sounds in nature. These distant sources create a background noise in which usually no 

particular source is identifiable and to which several sources may contribute, but is fairly 

constant from moment to moment and varies slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed 

on this slowly varying background noise is a succession of identifiable noisy events of 

relatively brief duration. Examples include the passing of a train, the over flight of an 

airplane, the sound of a horn or siren, or the screeching of brakes. These single events 

may be loud enough to dominate the noise environment at a location for a short time, 

and when added to everything else, can be an annoyance. The descriptors used in the 

measurement of noise environments are summarized below. 

The fundamental measure of noise is the decibel (dB), a unit of sound level based on the 

ratio between two sound pressures—the sound pressure of the source of interest (e.g., 

passenger and freight trains) and the reference pressure (the quietest sound that a 

human can hear). Because the range of actual sound pressures is very large (a painful 

sound level can be over 1 million times the sound pressure of the faintest sound), the 

expression of sound is compressed to a smaller range with the use of logarithms. The 

resulting value is expressed in terms of dB. For example, instead of a sound pressure 

ratio of 1 million, the same ratio is 120 dB. 

The human ear does not respond equally to high- and low- pitched sounds. In the 1930s, 

acoustical scientists determined how humans hear various sounds and developed 

response characteristics to represent the sensitivity of a typical ear. One of the 

characteristics, called the A-curve, represents the sensitivity of the ear at sound levels 

commonly found in the environment. The A-curve has been standardized. The 

abbreviation dBA is intended to denote that a sound level is expressed as if a 

measurement has been made with filters in accordance with that standard. 

• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), measured in dBA, is the highest noise level 

achieved during a noise event. 

• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), measured in dBA, describes a receptor’s 

cumulative noise exposure from all noise events that occur in a specified period 

of time. The hourly Leq is a measure of the accumulated sound exposure over a 

full hour. The Leq is computed from the measured sound energy averaged over 

an hour (nothing one would read from moment to moment on a meter) 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

representing the magnitude of noise energy received in that hour. FHWA uses 

the peak traffic hour Leq as the metric for establishing highway noise impact. 

• Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) describes a receptor’s cumulative noise exposure 

from all noise events that occur in a 24-hour period, with events between 10 p.m. 

and 7 a.m. increased by 10 dB to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to 

noise. The Ldn is used to describe the general noise environment in a location, 

the so-called “noise climate.” The unit is a computed number, not one to be read 

from moment to moment on a meter. Its magnitude is related to the general 

noisiness of an area. EPA developed the Ldn descriptor and now most federal 

agencies, including the FRA, use it to evaluate potential noise impacts. Typical 

Ldns in the environment are shown in Figure 3.4-2. 

• CNEL, a variant of Ldn, is used in noise assessments in California. Rather than 

dividing the day into two periods, daytime and nighttime, CNEL adds a third 

period to account for increased sensitivity to noise in the evening when people 

are likely to be engaged in outdoor activities around the home. An evening 

addition of 5 dB is applied to noise events between the hours of 7 p.m. and 

10 p.m. to reflect the additional annoyance noise causes at that time. In general, 

the difference between Ldn and CNEL is slight and the two measures will be 

considered interchangeable for purposes of this noise analysis. 

The way people react to noise in their environment has been studied extensively by 

researchers throughout the world. Based on these studies, noise impact criteria have 

been adopted by the FRA (U.S. Department of Transportation 1998) and other federal 

agencies to assess the contribution of the noise from a source like conventional rail to 

the existing environment. The FRA bases noise impact criteria on the estimated

increase in Ldn (for buildings with nighttime occupancy) or increase in Leq (for institutional 

buildings) caused by the project for direct and indirect impacts. Criteria are discussed in 

Section 3.4.1 and Appendix 3.4-C. 

Transportation Noise

Noise from highways and rail lines tends to dominate the noise environment in their 

immediate vicinity. Each mode has distinctive noise characteristics in both shape and 

source levels. Highway and rail noise affects an area that is linear in shape, extending 

to both sides of the alignment. Individual highway vehicles are generally relatively quiet, 

but the accumulation of noise from the volume of traffic throughout the majority of the 

day and night results in a nearly continuous high sound level. Noise from road traffic is 

generated by a wide variety of vehicle types, makes, and models. In general, the noise 

associated with highway vehicles can be divided into three classes of vehicle: 

automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks. Each class has its own noise 

characteristic depending on vehicle type, speed, and the condition of the roadway 

surface. 

Train Noise and Vibration: If the Rail Improvements Alternative were implemented, 

higher operating speeds for passenger rail operations on the LOSSAN corridor of up to 

125 mph (200 kph) would be possible for the less constrained areas, in terms of 

alignment (i.e., flat and straight). In contrast, much lower operating speeds would be 

expected in the more developed areas. Noise from a train can be expressed in terms of 

a source-path-receptor framework. The source of noise is the train moving on its tracks. 

The path describes the intervening course between the source and the receptor wherein 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

the noise levels are reduced by distance, topographical and human-made obstacles, 

atmospheric effects, and other factors. Finally, at each receptor, the noise from all 

sources combine to make up the noise environment at that location. 

The total noise generated by a train is the combination of sounds from several individual 

noise-generating mechanisms, each with its own characteristics, including location, 

intensity, frequency content, directivity, and speed dependence. These noise sources 

can be grouped into two categories according to the speed of the train. 

For low speeds, below about 40 mph (64 kph), noise emissions are dominated by the 

propulsion units, cooling fans, and under-car and top-of-car auxiliary equipment such as 

compressors and air conditioning units. 

In the speed range from 60 mph to about 150 mph (98 kph to 241 kph), mechanical 

noise resulting from wheel/rail interactions and structural vibrations dominate the noise 

emission from trains. In the existing LOSSAN rail corridor, trains seldom exceed 79 mph 

(127 kph), so this speed range is the top end of noise characteristics for trains with 

which most people are familiar. 

Noise from trains also depends on the type and configuration of its track structure. 

Typical noise levels are expressed for conventional rail at grade on ballast and tie track. 

For trains on elevated structure, train noise is increased, partially due to the loss of 

sound absorption by the ground and partially due to extra sound radiation from the 

bridge structure. Moreover, the sound from trains on elevated structures spreads about 

twice as far as it does from at-grade operations of the same train, due to raising the 

sound source higher above ground. 

Horns are an example of a train noise source that is a dominant noise source at any 

speed. Audible warnings at grade crossings, including train horns and warning bells, are 

a common feature of conventional trains and a vital safety component of railroad 

operations. These noise sources often prove to be a source of annoyance to people 

living near railroad tracks. Elimination of horns and bells at existing grade crossings 

would provide a noise benefit associated with the implementation of the Rail 

Improvements Alternative for some alignment options along the existing LOSSAN 

corridor. 

Ground-borne vibration from trains refers to the fluctuating motion experienced by 

people on the ground and in buildings near railroad tracks. In general, people are not 

commonly exposed to vibration levels from outside sources that they can feel. Little 

concern results when a door is slammed and a wall shakes or something heavy is 

dropped and the floor shakes momentarily. Concern results, however, when an outside 

source like a train causes homes to shake. The effects of ground-borne vibration in a 

building located close to a rail line could at worst include perceptible movement of the 

floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and 

rumbling sounds. None of these effects is great enough to cause damage, but could 

result in annoyance if repeated many times daily. 
Ldn 50 dBA 60 dBA 70 dBA 80 dBA

Typical

Sound

Environments

Downtown

city

"Very noisy"

urban res. area

"Quiet"

urban res. area

Suburban res. area

Small-town

res. area

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.4-2

Typical Day-Night Sound Level Environments

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

3.4-11
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

As with noise, ground-borne vibration can be understood as following a source-pathreceptor framework. The source of vibration is the train wheels rolling on the rails. They 

create vibration energy that is transmitted through the track support system into the track 

bed or track structure. The path of vibration involves the ground between the source 

and a nearby receptor such as a building. 

Mode Noise-Level Comparisons

Noise levels of typical individual transportation vehicles are compared in Figure 3.4-3 

with each other and with other commonly experienced sounds in the environment. Jet 

aircraft are clearly the noisiest of the transportation sources, followed by train horns and 

diesel trucks. Noise levels of freight and commuter trains at speeds of 50 to 80 mph 

(80 to 129 kph) are similar to high-speed trains at speeds of 100 to 150 mph (161 to 

200 kph). The descriptor for the figure is the Lmax which represents the highest sound 

level associated with a single event such as the passage of a train, aircraft, or truck. 

As described above, the descriptor used in environmental assessments is the Ldn, which 

represents the cumulative noise exposure during a 24-hour period, rather than the Lmax. 

A comparison of noise associated with surface transportation sources at various 

distances on either side of an unobstructed highway or railway is shown in Figure 3.4-4. 

This example is based on conventional passenger and freight trains at typical operating 

speeds compared with high-speed trains at a range of speeds, for a hypothetical 

situation of one train per hour. The graph shows the relative differences between these 

types and speeds of trains in terms of cumulative noise exposure. The graph also 

includes the cumulative noise levels over a 24-hour period of an 8-lane freeway with 

traffic traveling at 65 mph (105 kph) in relation to the train examples.

The graph in Figure 3.4-5 shows the difference in cumulative noise exposure for the 

same train types and speeds given typical frequency levels. Commuter trains are 

assumed to have much higher frequencies than freight trains based on existing rail 

operations in the LOSSAN Corridor. For this illustration commuter trains are assumed to 

have 46 day- and 28 night-trains made up of 1 locomotive and 5 coaches; and freight 

trains are assumed to have 10 day- and 3 night-trains made up of 2 locomotives and 

40 freight cars. The 8-lane freeway in this and the preceding plot is assumed to carry 

1,885 vehicles/hour/lane with 2% medium trucks and 3% heavy trucks. This example 

shows that as commuter train frequencies and speeds are increased the noise exposure 

is increased relative to the existing rail services on the LOSSAN Corridor. Again, the 

graph includes the cumulative noise levels of a typical 8-lane freeway with traffic 

traveling at 65 mph (105 kph) in relation to the train examples. This example also shows 

how the cumulative noise diminishes with distance from the linear-type surface 

transportation sources. In the first 300 ft (91 m) from the centerlines, Ldn from rail 

sources tends to diminish more with respect to distance than that from a busy freeway. 

The freeway constitutes a continuous long source of noise, whereas a rail line has a 

series of transient noise events with relatively short sources. 

C. NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN THE STUDY AREA 

Regional noise and vibration environments are generally dominated by transportationrelated sources, including vehicle traffic on freeways, highways, and other major roads, 

existing passenger and freight rail operations, and aviation sources, including civilian 

and military. Existing noise along highway and rail corridors has been estimated using 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

data in the noise element from the general plan for cities and counties in the project 

area, along with general methods provided by FHWA, FRA, and FTA for estimating 

transportation noise. Ambient noise levels are characterized in the section below. 

Ambient vibration conditions are very site-specific in nature and are not characterized as 

part of the program environmental process. 

The project region includes a portion of the Los Angeles basin and the coastal areas of 

southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego, generally following the existing 

LOSSAN rail corridor. The ambient noise in the northern portion of the region is 

dominated by motor vehicle traffic in densely populated areas and along freeways. 

Along the LOSSAN corridor south from Union Station, existing passenger service 

(Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster) and freight rail contribute to the local noise. 

Throughout this portion of the region, roadway traffic also contributes to the ambient 

noise. In Los Angeles and northern Orange counties, freight rail and motor vehicle traffic 

comprise the sources of ambient noise. Along the coast, local roadway traffic and 

passenger rail service contribute to the ambient noise conditions, most notably horn 

blowing at grade crossings. Freeway noise is the dominant noise source in this region. 

In the urban areas and suburban areas of Los Angeles and northern Orange counties, 

the ambient noise ranges from Ldn 63 to 68 dBA depending on the proximity to noise 

sources such as rail, roadways and airports. In the more suburban areas of the region, 

the ambient noise ranges from 58 to 63 dBA. Along the coast, the ambient noise 

environment ranges from Ldn 54 to 64 dBA depending on proximity to local noise 

sources. 

For this program-level assessment, sensitive noise receptors in the study area were 

defined as residences, schools, hospitals and other medical care facilities, parks, historic 

structures, and other unique institutional receptors such as libraries and museums. 

These uses are prevalent throughout the study area, and are more concentrated along 

the urban parts of the corridor. These uses were not mapped in the study area at this 

program level, but representative receptors were specifically identified for the screening 

analysis for noise. Sensitive receptors used in the screening analysis were shown 

previously on Figure 3.4-1. 

The existing LOSSAN rail corridor was established before most of surrounding land 

uses, and in many instances sensitive receptors are at least partially buffered by other 

uses from the rail corridor. New development expected within the study area was also 

planned with the existing rail corridor in mind, so it is expected that most future sensitive 

receptors would not be directly adjacent to the rail corridor. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.4-3

Typical Lmax Values

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

Noise Level

dBA Extremes

Home

Appliances

3ft

Speech

at 3 ft

Motor Vehicles

at 50 ft

Trains

at 100 ft

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120 Jet aircraft

at 500 ft

Chain saw

Power

Lawn mower

Shoptools

Blender

Dishwasher

Air conditioner

Refrigerator

Diesel Truck

(not muffled)

Diesel Truck

(muffled)

Automobile

70 mph

Automobile

40 mph

Shout

Loud voice

Normal Voice

Normal voice

(back to listener)

Automobile

20 mph

Freight Cars

50 mph

Passenger Train

50 mph

Locomotives 50 mph

HST, 150 mph

HST, 200 mph

Horns

Threshold

of hearing

3.4-15
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
Distance, ft.

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Ldn, dBA

8-Lane Freeway, 65 mph

Freight, 60 mph

High Speed Rail, 100 mph

LOSSAN Commuter Rail, 79 mph

High Speed Rail, 150 mph

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.4-4

Example of Noise Exposure vs. Distance

with Typical Frequencies

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

3.4-17
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Distance, ft.

Noise Normalized to One Train/Hour

Ldn, dBA

8-Lane Freeway, 65 mph

Freight, 60 mph

High Speed Rail, 100 mph

LOSSAN Commuter Rail, 79 mph

High Speed Rail, 150 mph

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.4-5

Example of Noise Exposure vs. Distance

with Normalized Frequency

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

3.4-19
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative includes programmed and funded transportation 

improvements that will be implemented and operational by 2020 in addition to the 

existing conditions. These improvements are not major system-wide capacity improvements (e.g., major new highway construction or widening) and will not result in a general 

improvement of intercity travel conditions across the study area. 

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that there will be no additional noise and 

vibration impacts associated with the development of the programmed projects included 

under the No-Project Alternative, as compared to existing conditions. The potential 

significant impacts associated with programmed projects would be addressed with 

mitigation measures in a manner consistent with existing conditions in accordance with 

the project-level environmental documents and approvals for the projects as prepared by 

the project sponsors. While the implementation of the No-Project Alternative may result 

in some increases, any estimate of such increases would be speculative. 

Beyond the potential noise and vibration impacts for programmed improvements (to be 

addressed in other project-level documents), the No-Project Alternative potentially would 

have additional noise impacts on sensitive land uses along the LOSSAN rail corridor. As 

described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, combined passenger and freight rail service 

in the corridor is projected to increase approximately 62 percent over 2005 levels by 

2020, independent of the proposed rail improvements. The No-Project Alternative would 

leave the rail corridor at grade along much of its length. With the projected increase in 

numbers of passenger and freight trains in the corridor, there would be a substantial 

increase in the noise from train horns and warning bells at grade crossings, compared 

with existing conditions. 

B. NO-PROJECT COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

Potential direct noise impacts include increases in the ambient noise near sensitive 

receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and other areas where people live, 

sleep, or generally expect relative quiet. Potential indirect impacts may include an 

increase in noise levels that alter the overall setting of historic structures, or that occur in 

relatively quiet open-space and wildlife habitat areas. During construction, temporary 

increases in ambient noise levels may occur from construction equipment and increased 

truck traffic. These temporary impacts may be more pronounced if construction occurs 

during nighttime hours when the ambient noise levels are lower. 

The No-Project Alternative is used as the basis for comparison of potential noise 

impacts. It is assumed that any impacts associated with the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternative would be in addition to No-Project conditions. 

Operational Impacts

The relative level of potential operational noise impacts for the Rail Improvements 

Alternative is illustrated in Figure 3.4-6. The figure shows the relative noise impacts in 

terms of high, medium and low categories for all of the alignment options. The potential 

noise impact ratings account for the reduction of horn and bell noise associated with the 

elimination of grade crossings on the existing LOSSAN rail line, where appropriate. As 

shown in the figure, only the rail section between Fullerton and Irvine (approximately 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

20 mi [32 km]) would have potentially high noise impacts attributable to the proposed 

Rail Improvements Alternative. 

South of San Clemente the noise impact rating for conventional rail improvements would 

be low due to the presence of the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton. Through 

this area, rail service could reach speeds up to 125 mph (200 kph). At Oceanside the l-5 

rail alignment would encounter higher population densities and would represent medium 

potential impact from there through Encinitas. Maximum speeds south of Oceanside 

would not be expected to exceed 100 mph (161 kph). All alignment options from 

Encinitas to San Diego would have a low noise impact rating. 

Overall, the LOSSAN corridor would benefit from grade crossing eliminations that would 

be part of the proposed improvements. A major benefit is the elimination of horn noise 

at the grade crossings. Horn noise dominates the area within 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of a 

grade crossing, such that its elimination would more than make up for any increased 

train noise due to higher speeds or more frequent service. It is estimated that potential 

noise impacts can be reduced by approximately 80 percent at adjacent receptors by 

eliminating freight and passenger train horns, according to the focused noise study 

results performed at a grade-crossing site in Oceanside. 

South of Irvine, the higher-level rail improvement options would result in a fully grade 

separated LOSSAN rail alignment. The communities along the LOSSAN alignment 

would receive benefits from full grade separation by the elimination of warning bells and 

train horn noise from existing services (Amtrak, Metrolink, and freight) along this heavily 

used rail line. In contrast, the lower-level rail improvement options would result in 

continued noise impacts without the benefits of full grade separation. 

Potential noise impacts and key differences between alignment options are summarized 

below. 

Between Los Angeles Union Station and Fullerton, communities along the LOSSAN 

alignment would receive benefits from full grade separation due to the elimination of 

warning bells and train horn noise from existing services (Amtrak, Metrolink, and freight) 

along this heavily used rail line. Between Fullerton and Irvine, the trenching option also 

would result in a fully grade-separated LOSSAN rail alignment. The communities of 

Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin would benefit from full grade separation and the 

elimination of warning bells and train horn noise. In contrast, the at-grade option in this 

rail segment would permit additional frequencies of service and higher speeds, which 

would have additional noise impacts without the benefits of grade separation. 

Based on the program-level noise assessment, both alignment options within San Juan 

Capistrano would have a low impact rating for noise. However, the Trabuco Creek option 

would be expected to have more impact than the tunnel under I-5. Trabuco Creek would 

be at-grade on the edge of the historic district, while the I-5 option would completely 

bypass historic San Juan Capistrano. 

The long tunnel option through San Clemente would have a low potential for impacts 

since it completely removes the LOSSAN alignment from the sensitive coastal 

communities, and would place it in a deep tunnel under I-5. The short tunnel option is 

ranked as having medium potential impacts. This option would remove the LOSSAN 

alignment from the beach along San Clemente, resulting in significant benefits to that 

community. However, the short tunnel option would continue to utilize the coastal 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE 3.4-6

Rail Alternative Potential Noise Impacts

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

3.4-23
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

alignment along Dana Point. While there could be some noise improvement from the 

partial grade separation (elimination of warning bells and train horns), this corridor 

segment would continue to be a source of rail noise, particularly along Capistrano Beach 

and the residential areas along the existing rail corridor. 

The short trench option through Carlsbad would have fewer potential noise impacts for 

downtown Carlsbad than the option to leave several crossings at grade through 

downtown near the Carlsbad Coaster Station. The short trench concept would eliminate 

the train horn noise and remove the warning bells at the existing at-grade crossing. It 

would also place part of the alignment underground in a cut-and-cover tunnel, reducing 

train noise through the center of this coastal community. Leaving several crossings at 

grade through the town center would result in continued noise impacts. 

The short trench option through Encinitas, like Carlsbad, would have fewer noise 

impacts for downtown Encinitas than the option to leave several crossings at grade 

through downtown near the Encinitas Coaster Station. The short trench option would 

eliminate the need for train horn noise and remove the warning bells at the existing atgrade crossing. It would also place part of the alignment underground in a cut-and-cover 

trench, reducing train noise through the center of this coastal community. Leaving 

several crossings at grade through the town center would result in continued noise 

impacts. 

Both of the tunnel concepts for Del Mar would be expected to have low potential noise 

impacts. While these options may result in some additional noise impacts (particularly at 

the portals for the I-5 tunnel, which would be located between two residential areas), 

both would provide considerable benefit to the community as a result of gradeseparation improvements (the elimination of warning bells and train horn noise). 

In quieter, open-space or wildlife areas, increased noise levels could degrade the quality 

of recreational activities. These potential indirect impacts are not likely to be substantial 

because the proposed rail improvements would be done along existing rail and highway 

corridors where the ambient transportation-related noise dominates the noise 

environment. Increases in noise due to increased rail service would be gradual, 

intermittent, and incremental, rather than sudden and sustained. 

Construction Impacts

During construction, temporary noise impacts would occur in active construction zones 

and could affect residential, commercial and institutional uses along the rail corridor. 

These impacts would be higher if construction occurred during quieter times such as 

evenings, nights, and weekends. 

Construction noise sources include the use of heavy equipment, tunnel boring machines, 

truck or rail traffic associated with muck hauling, and pile driving. In quieter, open space 

areas and park or beach settings, construction noise may disrupt recreational activities 

and enjoyment of these facilities. Tunneling operations could involve nighttime haul-truck 

traffic, and would typically last longer than at-grade construction operations. 

Construction noise impacts would be localized and would migrate along the alignment as 

construction proceeds. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Vibration Impacts

Vibration impacts are less predictable at a program level of analysis due to the sitespecific nature of vibration transmission and variable soil conditions along the alignment. 

Generally, vibration impacts would occur in areas where the rail right-of-way and/or 

tracks would be moved closer to existing, sensitive receptors, depending on the 

underlying soil conditions. At this program level, it is estimated that the proposed Rail 

Improvements Alternative has the potential to create additional vibration impacts along 

up to approximately 40 mi (64 km), or about 30 percent of the corridor. These areas 

include the following: 

• Parts of the Union Station to Fullerton segment, where a fourth main track would 

move the existing rail corridor somewhat closer to sensitive receptors (within the 

existing rail corridor, based on conceptual design information). 

• The Trabuco Creek alignment in San Juan Capistrano, where new rail corridor 

would be constructed along the east side of the creek. 

• The Dana Point curve realignment/short tunnel option, where straightening the 

curve would move the tracks closer to some receptors and would remain at 

grade. 

• The alignments through Carlsbad and Encinitas, where a second track would 

move the existing rail corridor slightly closer to sensitive receptors. 

3.4.4 Design Practices 

Many of the alignment options carried forward are in a tunnel or trench section. For 

these segments of the system the potential for substantial operational noise impacts are 

greatly reduced. 

Where the existing rail corridor would be grade separated from roadways, reduced noise 

benefits would occur. Particularly in the urban areas where potential for noise impacts is 

typically at the highest levels, grade separations would eliminate existing horn sounding 

and warning bells at existing grade crossings and would result in noise benefits that 

would offset much of the noise impact attributable to increased rail service along the 

corridor. 

3.4.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of 

significance for noise, the Rail Improvements Alternative would have a potentially 

significant impact on noise. The Rail Improvements Alternative would create temporary 

construction-related noise impacts. It would also create long-term noise impacts from an 

increase in both speed and frequency of service for passenger rail, and additional freight 

rail service (especially between Los Angeles and Fullerton). At the same time, the Rail 

Improvements would result in some long-term noise reduction benefits due to elimination 

of noise sources with grade separation of existing grade crossings. While the 

significance of the impacts is dependent on the sensitivity of the landscape and noise 

receptors, the analysis finds some high impacts on noise-sensitive land uses and 

populations and these impacts are therefore considered significant. Mitigation strategies, 

as well as the design practices discussed above, will be applied to reduce this impact. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-27 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

General mitigation strategies are discussed in this programmatic review of potential 

noise impacts associated with proposed alignment options. Specific mitigation for 

expected noise and vibration impacts would be developed in the next stage of 

environmental analysis. Noise and vibration mitigation measures can generally be 

applied to the source (train and associated structures), the path (area between train and 

receiver) and/or the receiver (property or building). 

Treatments such as sound insulation or vibration controls to impacted buildings may be 

possible, but could be difficult to implement for the potentially numerous properties 

adjacent to the right-of-way. Such treatments require protracted implementation 

procedures and separate design considerations. The most feasible and effective 

mitigation treatments are typically those involving the path. These mitigation measures 

can often be applied to the path within the right-of-way, adjacent to the tracks. Potential 

noise impacts can be reduced by the installation of sound barrier walls constructed to 

shield receivers from train noise. For vibration mitigation, a number of track treatments 

may be considered for reducing train vibrations. The appropriateness of treatments 

would depend on the site-specific ground conditions found along the corridor. This 

program-level analysis has identified areas where potential project-induced vibrations 

should be assessed in the future. 

A. NOISE BARRIERS 

Noise barriers are often a practical way to reduce noise impacts from transportation 

projects including rail corridors. The representative typologies considered mitigation with 

noise barriers for certain areas. In most cases the potential noise impacts could be 

reduced from the severe impact category to FRA’s impact category, and to the no impact 

category in some locations, with the application of appropriately dimensioned noise 

barriers next to the tracks. The design of noise barriers appropriate for the rail right-ofway line would depend on the location and height of noise-sensitive buildings, as well as 

the speeds of the trains. Noise barriers 8 to 12 ft (2 to 3.7 m) tall might be used to 

reduce noise in noise-sensitive areas. 

Application of mitigation to the Rail Improvements Alternative would result in a 

considerable reduction of potential noise impacts. The estimates obtained from the 

results of the representative typologies showed noise barriers to be effective in reducing 

the potential noise impact rating by one category, for example, from high to medium or 

from medium to low. Consequently, segments with a medium rating would be adjusted 

down to a low rating. 

The cost of constructing a noise barrier on one side of a rail line is estimated at 

approximately $1 million per mi ($625,000 per km) for a concrete wall of 12 ft (4 m) in 

height. Specific mitigation would be developed as a part of project-level review, 

including a cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of other impacts that may be 

caused by noise walls (such as visual or land use impacts). 

Sound walls in semi-rural areas such as in parklands, wildlife or recreational areas are 

typically impractical. Alternatives to noise barriers, such as trenches or earth berms, 

could be explored during project level environmental review; however, they may be 

impractical due to cost and other impacts related to the extent of land required as well as 

the associated construction impacts. Other noise mitigation techniques would be 

considered during project-level studies to address site-specific noise impacts. For 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-28 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

alignment options where the corridor would remain at-grade, potential strategies for 

reducing horn and warning bell noise will be examined on a site-specific basis during 

project-level environmental evaluations. 

B. VIBRATION MITIGATION 

Vibration mitigation is less predictable at a program level of analysis due to the sitespecific nature of vibration transmission through soil conditions along the alignment. 

However, an estimate can be made of the length of corridor where special mitigation 

may need to be considered by totaling the segments with potential vibration impact 

rating of high. Preliminary estimates show that up to 40 mi (64 km) of the rail corridor 

could have vibration impacts, depending on site-specific soil conditions. 

C. CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION 

Potential mitigation strategies for construction noise impacts associated with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative are listed below. 

• Reduce construction noise by using enclosures or walls to surround noisy 

equipment, installing mufflers on engines, substituting quieter equipment or 

construction methods, minimizing time of operation and locating equipment 

farther from sensitive receptors. 

• Identify specific truck haul routes, avoiding quieter areas (residential, hospital, 

etc.) where feasible, and restrict truck operations during nighttime hours in these 

areas. 

• Suspend construction operations between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and on 

weekends or holidays in residential areas. 

• Require that contractors comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, 

regulations and ordinances. 

• Equip internal combustion engines with mufflers of a type recommended by the 

manufacturer. 

Other measures that will be evaluated during project-level analyses include the 

following: 

• Specifying the quietest equipment available would reduce noise by 5 to 10 dBA. 

• Turning off construction equipment during prolonged periods of non-use would 

eliminate noise from construction equipment during those periods. 

• Requiring contractors to maintain all equipment and train their equipment 

operators would reduce noise levels and increase efficiency of operation. 

• Locating stationary equipment away from noise sensitive receptors would 

decrease noise impact from that equipment in proportion to the increased 

distance. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce the short-term and long-term 

noise impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative to a less-than-significant level. 

Additional environmental assessment will allow a more precise evaluation in the projectlevel environmental analyses. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-29 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis 

A. NOISE ANALYSIS 

The FRA provides guidance for two levels of analysis in project environmental review, a 

general assessment method to quantify the potential noise impacts at locations with 

potential noise impacts, and a detailed analysis procedure for evaluating suggested 

noise mitigation at locations where general assessment shows there is potential for 

significant impacts. The process is designed to focus on problem areas as more detail 

becomes available during project development. Subsequent analysis would proceed 

along the following lines. 

Ambient Noise Conditions 

Ambient noise values would be measured at the project-level. A measurement program 

involving both long-term and short-term noise monitoring would be performed at selected 

locations to document the existing noise environment. As it would be impractical to 

measure everywhere, the monitoring would be supplemented by estimates of noise 

environments at locations considered to be typical. 

Noise Propagation Characteristics

The next stage of analysis would incorporate topography as well as consideration of 

shielding by buildings, vegetation, and other natural features in a particular corridor

Impact Criteria

In the next stage of analysis, assessments using the full, three-level FRA and FTA 

impact criteria would be performed (U.S. Department of Transportation 1998 and 1995, 

respectively). This detailed assessment would specifically identify locations where 

potential impacts may occur and locations where potentially high impact may occur and 

would provide for consideration of specific mitigation measures where appropriate. 

In project-level analyses, an assessment would also be performed in the lagoon areas of 

northern San Diego County, to determine whether any potential noise impacts would 

adversely affect the wildlife resources. Potential impacts and mitigation strategies, if 

needed, would be assessed in consultation with agency representatives with specific 

knowledge of noise-related impact studies on wildlife in settings such as the lagoons. 

Mitigation

As more detail becomes available in the project phase, there may be many areas that 

were identified as potentially impacted during screening analysis for which further 

analysis would not be needed, because they would not be impacted. The detailed 

analysis would provide information useful for the engineering design of mitigation 

measures. These measures would be considered in the project-level environmental 

review, and potential visual and shadow impacts of noise barriers would also be 

considered. 

During subsequent, project-level analyses, some local jurisdictions may want to explore, 

with project proponents and the FRA, the potential feasibility and efficacy of establishing 

Quiet Zones in their communities. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.4-30 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. VIBRATION ANALYSIS 

The steps involved in the project level analysis of ground-borne vibration would be 

similar to those for noise. The major difference would be the need for study of sitespecific ground-borne vibration characteristics. Considerable variation of soil conditions 

may occur along the corridor, resulting in some locations with significant levels of 

vibration from trains and other locations at the same distance from the track where 

vibrations can hardly be perceived. Determining the potential vibration characteristics in 

the detailed analysis would involve a measurement program performed according to the 

method described in the FRA guidance manual (U.S. Department of Transportation 

1998). This method would allow for the prediction of vibration levels and frequency 

spectrum information valuable not only in the assessment of impact, but also in the 

consideration of mitigation measures. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.5 ENERGY 

This analysis provides an overview of the potential operation and construction impacts 

associated with the use of energy for the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternative. 

3.5.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Federal Regulations 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural 

gas, oil, and electricity. FERC also regulates natural gas and hydropower projects. As 

part of that responsibility, FERC regulates the transmission and sale of natural gas for 

resale in interstate commerce, the transmission of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce, 

and the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce. FERC 

also licenses and inspects private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects; approves 

the sighting of and abandonment of interstate natural gas facilities, including pipelines, 

storage, and liquefied natural gas; oversees environmental matters related to natural gas 

and hydroelectricity projects and major electricity policy initiatives; and administers 

accounting and financial reporting regulations and conduct of regulated companies. 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU): The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA—LU), passed in 2005, builds on the initiatives established 

in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). SAFETEA—LU directs transportation 

agencies to “encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and 

development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of 

people and freight and foster economic growth and development within and between 

States and urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption 

and air pollution through metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes.” 

Additionally, SAFETEA-LU requires transportation agencies to consult with resource 

agencies in statewide and metropolitan planning. Agencies must discuss potential 

environmental mitigation activities during the transportation planning process. 

Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas (December 17, 

1979, 44 F.R. § 75093): This executive order encourages additional conservation of 

petroleum and natural gas by recipients of federal financial assistance.

State Regulations

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, 

Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards promotes 

efficient energy use in new buildings constructed in California. The standards regulate 

energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The 

standards are enforced through the local building permit process. These standards may 

apply to any buildings (e.g., stations) constructed as part of or in association with the NoProject and Rail Improvements Alternatives.
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

This section explains the methodology used to evaluate the potential energy impacts 

and benefits attributable to operation (direct energy) and construction (indirect energy) of 

the alternatives under study. This section also explains the criteria used to determine 

whether a potential impact on energy consumption would be significant. 

Direct Energy

Operational energy use is addressed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The estimated 

direct energy consumption related to locomotive traffic in the LOSSAN corridor is 

quantified for the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives, based on the changes 

that would occur between now and 2020 in the number of locomotives traveling along 

the corridor. Regional changes in vehicular traffic are not addressed in this analysis. 

Although the Rail Improvements Alternative is expected to accommodate part of the 

demand for increased passenger rail service, the projected population and employment 

increase between now and 2020 would result in increased vehicular traffic as well. 

Therefore, the Rail Improvements Alternative would not have a significant effect on 

regional VMT. 

The heat content of diesel fuel was used to convert gallons of fuel consumed to energy, 

measured in British thermal units (Btus). Overall direct energy (Btus) was then 

converted to equivalent barrels of crude oil to represent potential energy impact. (Btus 

are the standard units used by industry and government literature for such comparisons. 

Metric units for energy [i.e., Joules] are not used in this report.) Annual direct-energy 

consumption values for locomotive travel in the LOSSAN corridor were calculated for 

existing conditions, the No-Project Alternative, and Rail Improvements Alternative, and 

compared. 

The qualitative analysis of regional direct energy consumption considers the estimated 

effect that each alternative would have on localized vehicular and rail travel along the rail 

corridor, congestion and travel speeds, which would affect fuel efficiency and, therefore, 

energy use. 

Indirect Energy

The indirect energy impacts considered here include two potential construction-related 

energy consumption factors, construction of proposed rail improvements and 

construction of secondary facilities. 

Construction of Rail Improvements: The estimated construction-related energy 

consumption for the construction of rail tracks and support facilities under the Rail 

Improvements Alternative is quantified in this analysis, based on data gathered for 

typical heavy rail systems and a heavy rail commuter system, San Francisco Bay Area 

Rapid Transit District (BART). Projected construction-related energy consumption for the 

Rail Improvements Alternative is presented in Table 3.5-1. These estimates are 

appropriate for comparison purposes. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.5-1 

Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors for Rail Improvements 

Type of 

Construction 

Rural vs. 

Urbana Factor (billions of Btus) 

Ruralb 12.29/one-way rail mi At grade 

Urbanc 19.11/one-way rail mi 

Ruralb 55.46/one-way rail mi Elevated 

Urbanc 55.63/one-way rail mi 

Ruralb 117.07/one-way rail mi Below grade (cut) Urbanc 163.14/one-way rail mi 

Ruralb 117.07/one-way rail mi Below grade (tunnel) Urbanc 328.33/one-way rail mi 

Station N/Ad 78e/station 

a Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural 

settings reflect differences in construction methods, demolition requirements, utility 

accommodation, etc. b Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. c Estimates reflect BART system construction energy consumption as surrogate for rail construction 

through urban area. d

 Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because 

the data used to develop the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference 

between the actual values might be expected. e Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for unknown air gate and HST station 

consumption factors. 

Sources: 

U.S. Congressional Budget Office 1977 

U.S. Congressional Budget Office 1982 

Congressional Budget Office in Energy and Transportation Systems, Prepared for the Federal 

Highway Administration, Sacramento, CA, by California State Department of Transportation 

(California Department of Transportation 1983).

Energy consumption related to transportation of materials and equipment to and from 

the work site cannot be estimated without project-level implementation and construction 

plans. 

Secondary Facilities: A secondary facility is a facility that consumes energy in the 

production of materials related to the project alternatives. For example, a factory that 

produces construction materials and machinery that would be used in the construction 

and maintenance of the alternatives’ structures and attendant facilities would be a 

secondary facility. Potential impacts resulting from energy consumption of secondary 

facilities are discussed qualitatively. Consideration was given to whether nonrenewable 

resources would be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner, (with 

special attention given to the efficiency of production of construction materials and 

machinery and the choices made regarding construction methodology and procedures, 

including equipment maintenance). 

C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS 

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of 

conserving energy include (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, 

(2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

energy sources. The significance criteria discussed herein are used to determine 

whether the alternatives would have a potentially significant effect on energy use, 

including energy conservation. 

The No-Project Alternative is the primary basis against which potential impacts of the 

Rail Improvements Alternative is compared. Significant potential operational energy 

impacts would occur if the Rail Improvements Alternative would result in either 

substantial demand on statewide and/or regional energy supply, or a significant 

additional capacity requirement. 

Significant potential construction-related energy impacts would occur if construction of 

the proposed rail improvements would consume nonrenewable energy resources in a 

wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Implementation of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would have a significant adverse effect if it, together with regional growth, 

would contribute to a collectively significant shortage of regional or statewide energy. By 

contrast, if the implementation of the alternative resulted in energy savings or alleviated 

demand on energy resources, the alternative would contribute to energy conservation 

and would have a beneficial effect. 

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area affected by energy use of the alternatives is defined as the LOSSAN rail 

corridor and the localized roadway system along the corridor that is affected by grade 

crossings with the rail corridor. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

Transportation accounts for a large portion of the California energy budget, with 

approximately 46% of the state’s energy consumption resulting from the transport of 

goods and people. Between 1997 and 2020, according to the State Department of 

Finance, the state is forecasted to grow by about 11 million people, or approximately 

30% (California Department of Finance 1998). During this same period, intercity travel is 

projected to grow by almost 40% to almost 215 million trips per year (California High 

Speed Rail Authority 2000). Although the average fuel economy of vehicles in the state 

has improved, the fuel savings achieved are overshadowed by the increased number of 

miles traveled and the marked shift in personal vehicle preference, from the standard 

passenger automobile (sedan) toward larger vehicles such as sport utility vehicles 

(SUVs) and pick-up trucks. Currently, California’s 24 million automobiles consume more 

than 17 billion gal (64 billion L) of petroleum, most of which is consumed in southern 

California. The state is the third largest consumer of petroleum fuel in the world. Only 

the United States as a whole and the former Soviet Union exceed this volume. Because 

of this dependence on petroleum fuels, events in the international petroleum market can 

immediately and adversely affect the price and adequacy of California’s fuel supply 

(California Energy Commission 1999). 

Statewide, automobile trips account for over 84 percent of all intercity travel and over 58 

percent of the longer trips. In Southern California, this is even more pronounced, as the 

automobile currently dominates intercity travel. Automobile travel between Los Angeles 

and San Diego is currently the second largest geographic travel market in the state, 

accounting for 34.9 million trips in 1997. Traffic volume on I-5, the major highway link 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

between Los Angeles and San Diego, is expected to increase 18 percent between 2001 

and 2025. 

Currently, this intercity corridor is also the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the 

nation, carrying approximately 4,700 riders each day (1.7 million riders annually) along 

the entire Pacific Surfliner corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego (California 

Department of Transportation 2001). Of this service, the segment between Los Angeles 

and San Diego has a current daily ridership of 3,900 (1.4 million riders annually). 

Intercity rail travel is anticipating exponential growth within the next 20 years. In 2001, 

Amtrak’s 20-Year Improvement Plan projected 2005 and 2020 ridership along the rail 

corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, using the total travel demand growth and 

constant mode share. By 2005, ridership is forecast to increase to approximately 5,500 

riders per day (2 million riders annually) and to 15,800 daily riders (5.77 million riders 

annually) by 2020. 

The effects of transportation congestion on energy consumption and air emissions can 

be major. Automobiles are most efficient when operating at steady speeds of 35 mph to 

45 mph (56 kph to 72 kph) with no stops (Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2002). Fuel 

consumption increases by about 30% when average speeds drop from 30 mph to 

20 mph (48 kph to 32 kph), while a drop from 30 mph to 10 mph (48 kph to 16 kph) 

results in a 100% increase in fuel use. Studies estimate that approximately 10% of all 

on-road fuel consumed is a result of congestion (California Energy Commission 1990). 

Likewise, energy consumption by locomotives increases as rail corridors become more 

congested. Bottlenecks caused by single-tracked sections of the LOSSAN corridor 

(currently about 41 percent of the corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego) result in 

locomotive idling along the corridor. At-grade crossings in urban areas require speed 

reduction, and there are also speed restrictions in sensitive coastal areas such as San 

Clemente and Del. All of these factors decrease the efficiency of locomotive travel and 

increase energy consumption. 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Operational (Direct) Energy

Between now and 2020, the number of locomotive miles (kilometers) traveling in the 

LOSSAN corridor will increase an estimated 62% by 2020, with passenger rail miles 

increasing 56% and freight rail miles increasing 66% above 2005 levels. (Passenger 

trains have one locomotive, while most freight trains have four locomotives, so 

locomotive miles for freight are higher per train.) 

These changes in existing and future No-Project conditions will increase the energy 

consumption by locomotives in the project region. The estimated energy consumption 

change between 2005 and 2020 is shown in Table 3.5-2. As indicated in the table, the 

2005 energy used to power the estimated 55.4 million passenger and freight rail miles 

(89.2 million km) in the LOSSAN corridor was 1,124,024 million Btus (MMBtus), or 

193,797 barrels of oil. The 107.9 million passenger and freight rail miles (173.6 million 

km) estimated under the 2020 No-Project Alternative would consume the equivalent of 

about 1,838,423 MMBtus, or 316,969 barrels of oil. This increase of 64% from existing 

to 2020 No-Project conditions would be caused primarily by the projected population and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

employment increases. Because congestion levels under the No-Project Alternative 

would likely be higher than they are under existing conditions, the increase in direct 

energy used in 2020 would be higher than the projected 64% increase. 

Table 3.5-2 

Annual Locomotive Operational Energy Consumption 

in the LOSSAN Corridor 

Energy Consumption 2005 Existing 2020 No-Project 

Alternative 

Annual Rail Fuel Usage -- Gal (L) a

Passenger Rail 2,202,095 

(8,335,588) 

3,436,866 

(13,009,568) 

Freight Rail 5,901,896 

(22,340,447) 

9,817,808 

(37,163,349) 

TOTAL RAIL FUEL USAGE 8,103,991 

(30,676,035) 

13,254,674 

(50,172,916) 

Annual Direct Energy Consumption (MMBtus) b, c 

Passenger Rail 305,431 476,693 

Freight Rail 818,593 1,361,730 

TOTAL DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1,124,024 1,838,423 

CHANGE IN DIRECT ENERGY

CONSUMPTION (2005 – 2020) 714,399 

Annual Energy Consumption (Barrels of Oil) d

Passenger Rail 52,660 82,188 

Freight Rail 141,137 234,781 

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION 193,797 316,969 

CHANGE IN TOTAL ENERGY

CONSUMPTION (2003-2020) 123,172 

a Gallons (liters) of fuel are estimated as shown in Appendix 3.3-A for air quality. b MMBtus = million Btus. One British thermal unit (Btu) is the quantity of energy necessary to raise 

one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. c

 Heat content of diesel fuel used for conversion to Btus = 138,700 Btus per gallon d One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. 

Construction (Indirect) Energy

The No-Project Alternative is based on the assumption that projects currently included in 

existing plans and programs, including local, state, and interstate transportation system 

improvements, would be implemented. It is assumed that construction of the projects 

included in the No-Project Alternative would not result in the consumption of energy 

resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

Operational (Direct) Energy 

As described in Chapter 2, the number of trains in the study area by 2020 is projected to 

increase by approximately 10% over 2020 No-Project levels. The number of locomotive 

miles in the corridor would increase approximately 16% over No-Project levels, with 

passenger locomotive miles increasing 10% and freight increasing 20%. (Locomotive 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

miles are a higher percent increase than trains, because each freight train is assumed to 

include four locomotives.) 

Therefore, there would be a corresponding increase of approximately 16% in operational 

(direct) energy usage associated with the Rail Improvements Alternative, as compared 

with the No-Project Alternative. Table 3.5-3 shows the estimated energy consumption 

differences between the No-Project and the Rail Improvements Alternative in the year 

2020. 

Table 3.5-3 

Annual Locomotive Operational Energy Consumption 

in the LOSSAN Corridor – No-Project Compared with Rail Improvements 

Energy Consumption 2020 

No-Project 

2020 Rail Impr. 

Alternative 

Annual Rail Fuel Usage -- Gal (L) a

Passenger Rail 3,436,866 

(13,009,568) 

3,765,145 

(14,252,205) 

Freight Rail 9,817,808 

(37,163,349) 

11,787,776 

(44,620,268) 

TOTAL RAIL FUEL USAGE 13,254,674 

(50,172,916) 

15,552,921 

(58,872,473) 

Annual Direct Energy Consumption (MMBtus) b, c 

Passenger Rail 476,693 522,226 

Freight Rail 1,361,730 1,634,965 

TOTAL DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1,838,423 2,157,190 

CHANGE IN DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

(2005 – 2020) 318,767 

Annual Energy Consumption (Barrels of Oil) d

Passenger Rail 82,188 90,039 

Freight Rail 234,781 281,890 

TOTAL ENEGY CONSUMPTION 316,969 371,929 

DIFFERENCE IN TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

(Rail Improvements vs. No-Project) 54,960 

a Gallons (liters) of fuel are estimated as shown in Appendix 3.3-A for air quality. 

b MMBtus = million Btus. One British thermal unit (Btu) is the quantity of energy necessary to raise one 

pound of water 

one degree Fahrenheit. 

c Heat content of diesel fuel used for conversion to Btus = 138,700 Btus per gallon 

d One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. 

In addition to the locomotive energy consumption, there would be other impacts on 

operational energy consumption for the Rail Improvements Alternative. The projected 

increase in rail traffic between now and 2020 would result in higher levels of congestion 

and delays in train traffic without the proposed improvements to the corridor. The 

existing rail service is subject to delays and congestion, particularly in segments where 

the corridor is single tracked. These bottlenecks would increase in severity as rail 

service increases over the next 20 years and beyond. The Rail Improvements 

Alternative would decrease the likelihood of delays along the corridor, which would 

decrease the energy consumption from idling locomotives. The proposed double 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

tracking would also decrease locomotive idling time at existing LOSSAN stations as rail 

service increases. At this program level of analysis, it is not possible to quantify the 

potential for energy benefits of decreased congestion and locomotive idle time along the 

corridor. 

The grade separations that would occur with many of the proposed improvement options 

would also contribute to an increase in fuel efficiency and a reduction in energy 

consumption from idling automobiles and trucks at grade crossings. These reductions 

from reduced vehicular waiting time at crossings would be greatest in the congested 

urban roadways in the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San 

Diego. The proposed double tracking through the study area could also reduce 

vehicular delays at crossings by allowing two trains to pass through a given area at the 

same time. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would be consistent with the California Energy Plan 

(CEC 1997), which encourages reduction of transportation related energy needs by 

means including efficient public transportation. 

Construction (Indirect) Energy

Construction of the programmed and funded transportation improvements under the NoProject Alternative would require less energy than construction of those improvements 

plus the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative construction-related energy consumption would 

result in the one-time, non-recoverable energy costs associated with construction of atgrade, underground and aerial track, stations, and support facilities. Details regarding 

energy conservation practices have not been specified for the Rail Improvements 

Alternative, which has not been designed in detail, nor have construction methods and 

staging been planned at this time. Given the scope and scale of the improvements 

proposed, however, it is anticipated that the construction-related energy requirement 

would be substantial. 

Table 3.5-4 shows estimates of potential construction-related indirect energy 

consumption for the Rail Improvements Alternative, based on a higher level route 

combination. (Higher level is defined as alignment options within each rail segment that 

would require the greatest construction effort, such as tunneling or trenches as 

compared with at-grade work.) The proportion of rural versus urban areas is based on 

visual interpretation of the alignment in the context of the California Atlas & Gazetteer 

(DeLorme 2000). For this analysis, 30 percent of the corridor was characterized as 

rural, and 70 percent as urban. As shown in the table, construction of the Rail 

Improvement Alternative would consume energy on the order of 14,066 billion Btus. 

It is reasonable to assume that secondary facilities, such as those used in the production 

of cement, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the 

interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Industry in California reduced 

electricity usage (which is mostly generated by natural gas, a nonrenewable fuel) from 

54.7 million megawatt hours (MWh) in 2000 to 52.2 million MWh in 2001, a 4.6 percent 

reduction, even as the state’s population increased by 513,352, or 1.5% (California 

Energy Commission 2002d). Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that 

construction-related energy consumption by secondary facilities would not consume 

nonrenewable energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner under 

the Rail Improvements Alternative. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.5-4 

Non-Recoverable Construction-Related Energy Consumption 

Structure Rural vs. 

Urbana Facility Quantity Energy Consumption 

(Billion Btus) 

Rural 38.55 mi (62.04 km) 473.78 At Grade 

Urban 89.95 mi (144.76 km) 1718.94 

Rural 6.74 mi (10.85 km) 373.80 Aerial Rail Tracks 

Urban 15.73 mi (25.31 km) 875.06 

Rural 5.68 mi (9.14 km) 664.96 Below Grade (Cut) Urban 13.26 mi (21.34 km) 2163.24 

Rural 8.74 mi (14.07 km) 1023.19 Below Grade (Tunnel) Urban 20.39 mi (32.81 km) 6694.65 

New Rail Stations N/A 1 station 78 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative Total 14,065.62 

a Differences between the construction-related energy consumption for urban and rural settings reflect 

differences in construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc. This 

analysis assumes improvements would be construction in 30 % rural areas and 70 % urban areas. 

Construction of the Rail Improvements Alternative is anticipated to take about 10 years, 

assuming funding becomes available on a timely and consistent basis. Construction 

would occur in stages, and some segments would be open for operation while others are 

still under construction. Given the scope and scale of the proposed improvements, it is 

anticipated that secondary construction-related energy requirements would be 

substantial. 

Construction-related energy impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative, both project 

and secondary, would potentially represent a significant use of nonrenewable resources. 

3.5.4 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the discussion in CEQA Appendix F on Energy 

Conservation, the Rail Improvement Alternative would have a potentially significant effect 

related to construction and operational fuel consumption. While the Rail Improvements 

Alternative would increase annual locomotive fuel usage in the LOSSAN corridor by 

approximately 16% over the No-Project condition, it will also decrease congestion-related 

delays and locomotive idling along the corridor, offsetting some of that increase. Construction 

would also consume a significant amount of fuel over an estimated ten-year timeframe. 

Mitigation strategies will be applied to reduce these impacts. 

This is a broad program-level analysis reviewing potential energy use and impacts related to the 

proposed rail improvements. Measures to reduce the amount of energy consumed are outlined 

below. If the proposed improvements were implemented, the project-level of analysis and 

design will be evaluated for the feasibility of incorporating these measures: 

• Minimize grade changes in steep terrain areas to reduce the use of diesel fuel. 

• Maximize intermodal transit connections to reduce automobile VMT related to the rail 

system. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.5-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

ENERGY 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

• Use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment. 

• Implement a program to encourage construction workers to carpool or use public 

transportation for travel to and from the construction site. 

3.5.5 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent analysis would be required for proposed rail improvements at the project level. 

Comprehensive traffic analysis for future conditions would be required to assess energy impacts 

in more detail. 

Subsequent energy analysis at the project level would follow the methodology applied in this 

evaluation, but would employ more detailed traffic data for the energy consumption analysis. 

Energy consumption factors would be updated using the latest available published information. 

Detailed construction staging, sequencing, methods, and practices would be necessary to 

support a quantitative analysis of construction energy consumption. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND 

NEIGHBORHOODS, PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE 

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the No-Project and Rail Improvements 

Alternatives on land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, and property. This 

section also addresses environmental justice in accordance with the provisions of Executive 

Order (EO) 12898. This evaluation describes how existing conditions compare with the NoProject Alternative and how the No-Project Alternative compares with the potential impacts of 

the Rail Improvements Alternative, including a comparison among the alignment and station 

options. 

3.6.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY PROVISIONS 

Land Use, Communities and Neighborhoods, and Property

This section addresses the potential effects of each of the alternatives on existing and 

planned land uses. This section includes a discussion of the existing uses in and 

adjacent to areas where property acquisition may be needed for an alternative, an 

analysis of the changes to these uses which may occur with an alternative, a discussion 

of potential inconsistencies with land use plans, and identification of general mitigation 

strategies. The discussion of potential inconsistencies with planned land uses does not 

imply that the Department, a state agency, would be subject to such plans or local 

ordinances, either directly or through the NEPA or CEQA process. The information is 

provided in order to indicate potential land use changes that could result in potential 

environmental impacts. 

Environmental Justice

EO 12898, known as the federal environmental justice policy, requires federal agencies 

to address to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law the disproportionately 

high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities, on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

Federal agency responsibilities under this EO also apply to Native American programs. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2 on environmental justice defines 

“disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations” to 

mean an adverse effect that is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a 

low-income population, or will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income 

population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse 

effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income 

population (DOT Order 5610.2, Appendix Definitions, subd.[g]). 

The California Government Code defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment of 

people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” 

(California Government Code § 65040.12[e]). There are no specific state procedures 

prescribed for consideration of environmental justice issues related to the proposed 

LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvements Alternative. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The analysis was conducted using existing U.S. Census 2000 tract information/data 

compiled in a geographic information systems (GIS) format, local community general 

plans or regional plans, and land use information provided by the planning agencies in 

the region. Existing and future conditions were described for the No-Project Alternative 

by documenting existing information for existing and planned future land use policy in 

potential alignment and potential station areas, development patterns for employment 

and population growth, demographics, communities and neighborhoods, housing, and 

economics. The No-Project Alternative was compared to the planned uses reflected in 

general plans and regional plans to see if it may result in potential effects on future 

development. The general and regional plans consulted for this section are listed in 

Chapter 11, Sources Used in Document Preparation. 

The ranking systems described below were used to evaluate potential impacts for the 

alternatives for land use changes, land use compatibility, and property. Potential 

impacts on communities and neighborhoods were also considered. The presence of 

minority populations and low-income populations in the study area for the alternatives 

was identified in order to consider potential environmental justice issues. Because this 

is a program-level environmental review, the analysis of these potential impacts was 

performed on a broad scale to permit a comparison of relative differences between the 

alternatives and among the alignment options. Further evaluation of potential impacts 

would occur at the project-level environmental review, should a decision be made to 

proceed with the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

Land Use Compatibility

The potential compatibility of the proposed alignment options with existing land uses is 

evaluated based on the potential sensitivity of various land uses to the changes which 

would result from the Rail Improvements Alternative, and the potential impact of these 

changes on existing and planned land uses. For example, homes and schools are more 

sensitive to changes that may result in increased noise and vibration (see Section 3.4, 

Noise and Vibration) or increased levels of traffic congestion (see Section 3.1, Traffic 

and Circulation). Industrial uses, however, are typically less sensitive to these types of 

changes because these changes interfere less with normal industrial activities. Because 

an area’s sensitivity or compatibility is based in this analysis on the presence of 

residential properties, low, medium, and high levels of potential compatibility are 

identified based on the percentage of residential area affected, the proximity of the 

residential area to facilities included in the Rail Improvements Alternative, whether or not 

the proposed improvement would occur within the existing LOSSAN rail right-of-way, 

and the presence of local or regional uses and public services(such as parks, schools, 

employment centers, law enforcement, fire and emergency services). For proposed 

alignment options, land use compatibility was assessed using GIS layers and aerial 

photographs to identify proximity to housing and population, and to determine whether 

the alignments would be within or outside an existing right-of-way in the study area. 

Potential impacts are considered low if existing land uses within a potential alignment or 

station site are found to be compatible with the land use changes that may result from 

the Rail Improvements Alternative. The type of improvement proposed would also affect 

the level of potential impact. For example, improvements that would be done within the 

existing rail right-of-way generally would be more compatible with existing land uses 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

than those that would introduce a new rail corridor to an area. Future land use 

compatibility is based on information from general plans and other regional and local 

transportation planning documents. These documents were examined to assess an 

alignment option’s potential consistency with the goals and objectives defined therein. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative is considered highly compatible if alignment options 

would be located in areas planned for transportation multi-modal centers or corridor 

development, redevelopment, economic revitalization, transit-oriented development, or 

high-intensity employment. Compatibility would be considered low if an alternative 

would be potentially inconsistent with local or regional planning documents. Table 3.6-1 

summarizes the potential compatibility rating of existing and planned land use types with 

the alignment options. Thus, where potential compatibility would be rated low, the 

potential for impacts would be higher, and where potential compatibility would be rated 

high, the potential for impacts would be lower. 

Table 3.6-1 

Compatibility of Land Use Types 

Compatibility 

Low Medium High 

Single-family residential, 

community parks, neighborhood 

park, habitat conservation area, 

elementary/ middle school 

(widened or new right-of-way 

needed) 

Multifamily residential, high 

schools, low-intensity industrial, 

hospitals 

Business park/regional 

commercial, multifamily 

residential, existing or planned 

transit center, high intensity 

industrial park, service 

commercial, commercial 

recreation, college, 

transportation/utilities, highintensity government facilities, 

airport or train station, agricultural 

(tunnel, covered trench, or no 

new right-of-way needed) 

Communities and Neighborhoods

A potential impact on a community or neighborhood was identified if an alignment option 

would create a new physical barrier, isolating one part of an established community from 

another and potentially resulting in a physical disruption to community cohesion. 

Improvements to existing transportation corridors, including grade separations, would 

not generally result in new barriers. 

Property

Assessment of potential property impacts is based on the types of land uses adjacent to 

the particular proposed alignment, the amount of right-of-way potentially needed due to 

the construction type, and the land use sensitivity to potential impacts. Impacts include 

potential acquisition, displacement and relocation of existing uses, or demolition of 

properties. Potential property impacts were ranked high, medium, or low as summarized 

below in Table 3.6-2. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.6-2 

Rankings of Potential Property Impacts 

Residential Non-residential 

Facility 

Requirements Rural/ 

Suburban 

Suburban/

Urban Urban Rural 

Developed 

Suburban 

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Urban 

Business 

Parks/ 

Regional 

Commercial 

No additional right-of-way 

needed (also applies to 

tunnel segments for Rail 

Improvements Alternative) 

Low Low Low Low Low Low 

Widening of existing right-ofway required Medium Medium High Low Medium High 

New corridor (new right-ofway required; includes aerial 

and at-grade improvements) 

High High High Medium Medium High 

To determine potential property impacts, the land uses within 50 ft (15 m) of either side 

of the existing corridor, or within 50 ft (15 m) of either side of the centerline for new rail 

alignments, were characterized by type and density of development. Densities of 

structures, buildings, and other elements of the built environment are generally higher in 

urbanized areas. Rural/suburban residential refers to low-density, single-family homes. 

Suburban/urban is medium density, multifamily housing such as townhouses, duplexes, 

and mobile homes. Urban residential refers to high-density multifamily housing such as 

apartment buildings. Rural developed non-residential uses typically occur in nonurbanized areas. Suburban industrial/commercial refers to medium density nonresidential uses and includes some industrial uses, as well as transportation, utilities, 

and communication facilities. Urban business parks/regional commercial refers to nonresidential uses that occur in urbanized areas and includes such uses as business 

parks, regional commercial facilities, and other mixed use/built-up uses. The 

classification of development types was based on land use information provided by the 

planning agencies in the LOSSAN region. 

Environmental Justice

This analysis is based on identifying the presence of minority populations and lowincome populations in the study area (0.25 mi [0.40 km] from a potential alignment), and 

generally in the counties crossed by the alignment options. This assessment was done 

using U.S. Census 2000 information and alignment information to determine if minority 

or low-income populations exist within the study area and if they do, whether the 

alignments would be within or adjacent to an existing transportation right-of-way (lower 

potential for impacts) or new alignments (higher potential for impacts). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Based on the above information, the analysis determined the following. 

• Whether at least 50% of the population in the study area may be minority or lowincome. 

• Whether the percentage of minority or low-income population in the study area 

may be at least 10% greater than the average generally in the county or 

community. 

The assessment of potential for impacts on minority and low-income populations 

considered the size and type of right-of-way needed for the alternatives. For example, if 

an alignment were within an existing right-of-way, the potential for impacts would be 

lower. If the alignment would be on new right-of-way, then the potential for impacts may 

be higher. The potential alignments, however, have been identified to largely use or be 

adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way in order to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on natural resources and existing communities to the extent feasible and 

practicable (see Chapter 2, Alternatives). Since this is a program-level document, the 

analysis considers the Rail Improvements Alternative on a corridor-wide basis. It is not 

expected that the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative as a whole would result in 

disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Additional analysis 

would take place during project-level analysis to consider potential localized impacts. 

3.6.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, property, 

and environmental justice is 0.25 mi (0.40 km) on either side of the centerline of the rail 

alignment options included in the alternatives, and the same distance around stations. 

This is the extent of area where the Rail Improvements Alternative might result in 

changes to land use; the type, density, and patterns of development; and socioeconomic 

conditions. For the property impacts analysis the study area is narrower—100 ft (30 m) 

on either side of the alignment centerlines—to better represent the properties most likely 

to be impacted by the proposed rail alignment options. 

The planned land uses for the region are generally described by city and county general 

plans that encompass the alignment options. Several regulatory agencies and special 

districts also have future development plans that are considered in this analysis for lands 

these alternatives would cross. Communities have typically recognized and incorporated 

the existing LOSSAN rail corridor in their general land use plans, and most communities 

encourage transit-oriented development and transit facilities to relieve highway 

congestion and improve mobility. 

Other resources such as U.S. Census 2000 data, aerial photos, and field observations 

were used to document existing and future (Year 2020) conditions for demographics, 

communities, and neighborhoods. 

B. LAND USE-RELATED RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 

Figure 3.6-1 shows the general land uses existing along the LOSSAN corridor. For this 

discussion, land use data came from local governments and regional agencies such as 

metropolitan planning organizations. The source of demographic information (existing 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

population and projects, ethnicity, income, and housing) was primarily U.S. Census 

2000. These data, as well as existing and planned land use information, were compiled 

in a GIS format. 

Existing Land Use

The existing LOSSAN rail corridor traverses a variety of existing land uses, the majority 

of which are single-family residential, community parks, and low-intensity industrial uses. 

The area of potential impact is considered to be a 0.25-mi (0.40 km) buffer on each side 

of the segments of the rail line in which improvements are being considered. The 

LOSSAN region is largely urbanized, with the exception of the U.S. Marine Corps Base 

at Camp Pendleton between San Clemente and Oceanside. Between San Juan 

Capistrano and Del Mar, the existing train tracks run along beaches and through coastal 

communities. 

Existing land uses and public facilities within the 0.25-mi (0.4 km) study area are 

summarized in Table 3.6-3. There are some agricultural lands within the study area, 

between Santa Ana and Irvine and near Oceanside, which include prime farmlands and 

farmlands of local importance. However, in these areas, proposed rail improvements 

would occur within the existing LOSSAN rail corridor right-of-way, so no agricultural 

lands would be affected. Therefore, agricultural lands are not addressed further in this 

document. The location of local law enforcement and emergency service facilities were 

not identified at this program level. 

Table 3.6-3 

LOSSAN Existing Land Uses 

Land Use within Study Area Acres Percent of Study 

Area 

Single Family Residential 7,461 27% 

Community Parks 4,639 17% 

Low-intensity Industrial 3,715 14% 

Transportation/Utilities 2,969 11% 

High Intensity Industrial Park 1,958 7% 

Commercial Recreation 1,738 6% 

Business Park/Regional Commercial 1,027 4% 

Agriculture 785 3% 

Multi-family Residential 645 2% 

College 600 2% 

Neighborhood Park 597 2% 

High Intensity Government Facilities 587 2% 

High Schools 346 1% 

Service Commercial 151 <1% 

Hospitals 47 <1% 

Elementary/Middle School 35 <1% 

Total 27,301 100% 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Dana Point 

Santa Ana 

San Juan Capistrano 

Del Mar 

San Onofre Power Plant 

FIGURE 3.6-1

Generalized Existing Land Uses neralized Existing Land Uses

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

General Land Use Catagory

Non-Residential

Open Space

Residential

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration

3.6-7
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Population Characteristics

The LOSSAN region includes three counties: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. 

The region’s population increased by 10% between 1990 and 2000, from 13.8 million 

persons to 15.2 million. By 2020, population in this region is forecast to reach 18.6 

million, an increase of 23% (Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] 

2001; San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 2002). 

Minority persons accounted for 51% of Los Angeles County in 2000, 35% of Orange 

County, and 34% of San Diego County. The Hispanic population is 45% in Los Angeles 

County, 31% in Orange County, and 27% in San Diego County. 

Income

According to 2000 Census data, the study area of the alignment options and expanded 

or new stations pass through a total of 332 Block Groups with a total population of 

1,124,297 and 336,305 households. Of these, 36,060 households (11%) are living below 

the federal poverty level of $17,603 annual income. In Los Angeles County per-capita 

income was $20,683, with 18% of the population below the federal poverty level. Percapita income in Orange County was $25,826, with 10% of the population below the 

federal poverty level. San Diego County had a per-capita income of $22,926, with 12% 

of the population below the federal poverty level. 

Neighborhood and Community Characteristics

The proposed Rail Improvements Alternative alignment options would pass through 

communities in the metropolitan area of Los Angeles, south Orange County, and the 

metropolitan area of San Diego. Communities in these areas have both common and 

unique characteristics shaped by a variety of political, physical, social, and economic 

factors. The Los Angeles metropolitan area can be characterized as a highly urbanized 

mix of single- and multifamily neighborhoods, with commercial and industrial 

development in such communities as Los Angeles, Norwalk, Fullerton, and Anaheim. 

The area is strongly influenced by the existing transportation network. The south 

Orange County area is characterized by smaller communities with strong ties to the 

coastline. The communities comprise largely single-family neighborhoods with 

supporting commercial and industrial development. Communities such as San Juan 

Capistrano, Dana Point, and San Clemente represent this area. The San Diego 

metropolitan area can be characterized as a highly dense urban area rimmed by lower 

density suburban and coastal communities that have close interaction with coastal 

resources. Communities that represent this area are Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, 

Solana Beach, and Del Mar. 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Land use and local communities will change between today and 2020 as a result of 

population growth and changes of economic activity in the LOSSAN region. The NoProject Alternative is based on existing conditions and the funded and programmed 

transportation improvements that will be developed and in operation by 2020. Although 

it is expected that the No-Project Alternative would result in some changes related to 

land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, property acquisitions and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

relocations, and environmental justice, it was assumed that projects included in the NoProject Alternative would include typical design and construction practices to avoid or 

minimize potential impacts, and would be subject to a project-level environmental review 

process to identify potentially significant impacts and to include feasible mitigation 

measures to avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts. Although some changes 

would be likely, attempting to estimate such changes would be speculative. Therefore, 

no additional potentially significant impacts were quantified for the No-Project 

Alternative. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

Potential land use impacts and key differences among alignment options are described 

below. During construction, direct land use impacts could include road closures and 

traffic detours, disruption of access to public facilities and emergency services, and 

physical barriers to communities and business districts. Barriers or access disruptions 

could require alteration or temporary relocation of public facilities or emergency service 

providers. Construction generally would be shorter in duration for at-grade 

improvements, especially within the existing LOSSAN corridor. For new alignments and 

tunnel options, construction would generally last substantially longer, but (in the case of 

tunneling) may not impact area roadways and access to the same extent as at-grade 

construction. Trench and tunnel options would require larger construction staging areas 

and involve increased truck and/or rail traffic used for spoils hauling (see Section 2.7.1). 

For options that include tunneling and grade separations (e.g., options in the Del Mar 

area), or tunneling and new station construction (e.g., Miramar Hill option), the 

combination of infrastructure construction would result in long construction durations and 

could have substantial impacts on local traffic and land uses during construction, 

including detours, access barriers, noise, and increased truck traffic on local roads. 

Potential long-term, operational impacts include the creation of new or exacerbation of 

existing physical barriers to neighborhoods and business districts; property acquisition 

and residential or commercial relocation, and the introduction of new transportation 

corridors in residential areas. Improvements in access or removal of existing barriers 

would be long-term, beneficial impacts. For example, access to public lands and parks 

may be enhanced by rail corridor improvements. 

All of the alignments would be compatible with existing local land use plans identified at 

the program level. Some alignment options would require property acquisition, and 

some would exacerbate an existing barrier effect of the rail corridor on communities. 

Other options would reduce the existing land use impacts of the LOSSAN rail corridor by 

removing existing rail service into trenches or tunnels, or providing grade separations or 

pedestrian crossings where none currently exist. 

Land Use Compatibility and Property Impacts

Overall, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would be highly compatible with 

local and regional plans that support rail systems and transit-oriented development. 

Because nearly all alignment options are within or adjacent to existing transportation 

rights-of-way, the Rail Improvements Alternative generally would have a low potential for 

new land use-related impacts. Some of the alignment options would have a beneficial 

effect, compared to the No-Project Alternative, by reducing or eliminating existing land 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

use impacts along the LOSSAN rail corridor. The Rail Improvements Alternative would 

also provide improved inter-modal connectivity with existing local and commuter transit 

systems. 

Potential property impacts would be relatively low for much of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative because most alignment options would either be accommodated within the 

existing right-of-way of the LOSSAN rail corridor, or would involve deep tunnels that 

would avoid property impacts. In most areas, commercial and industrial uses are 

located along the rail corridor, and these uses buffer residential development from the 

railroad. However, potentially high impacts would occur in the few areas where new 

right-of-way would be needed or the existing right-of-way would be widened (described 

below). It is estimated that a total of 50 or fewer residential units could be affected by 

the Rail Improvements Alternative, and between 25 and 45 ac (10 and 18 ha) of nonresidential property could be affected, depending on the alignment option. 

The specific locations of public facilities and emergency services (such as schools, 

parks, fire and police stations, hospitals and medical clinics) were not identified for this 

program-level assessment. However, construction of various alignment options under 

the Rail Improvements Alternative would be expected to create some temporary access 

disruptions and create some barriers to access to and from public facilities, and cause 

an impediment to emergency response times in the vicinity of construction. It is also 

expected that the Rail Improvements Alternative would have some long-term, beneficial 

effects on access to public facilities and on emergency response times, particularly in 

areas where the rail corridor would be grade separated. These potential impacts would 

be examined in detail at the project level. 

Long-term land use compatibility and potential property impacts are described below by 

corridor segment. 

Union Station to Irvine: Between Union Station and Fullerton, the proposed fourth main 

track would be accommodated within the LOSSAN rail right-of-way for the majority of 

this alignment and, therefore, would be compatible with existing and planned land uses. 

However, there are segments that may require property acquisition due to limited rightof-way width, particularly between the Rio Hondo River and San Gabriel River. 

Residential and commercial uses adjacent to the corridor would likely be impacted. 

Based on program-level evaluation, it is estimated that property impacts could affect 

approximately 25 to 30 multi-family residential units (apartments) and up to 1 ac (0.4 ha) 

of commercial and industrial property. 

Rail improvements proposed between Fullerton and Irvine include a covered trench 

option or an at-grade option between Walnut Avenue, in the City of Orange, and 

17th Street, in the City of Santa Ana, and a curve realignment between Batavia Street 

and Walnut Ave. Up to 1 ac (0.4 ha) of commercial property acquisition could be 

required along the curve realignment. The covered trench and at-grade options would 

occur within the existing rail corridor right-of-way, and would be compatible with existing 

and planned land uses. The trench option would reduce existing impacts of the at-grade 

LOSSAN rail alignment to residential land uses that have developed adjacent to the rail 

corridor. The at-grade double-tracking option would exacerbate the existing rail impacts 

to these residential areas; however, this option would include grade separations at street 

intersections which would improve existing pedestrian and vehicular access to 

businesses and residences in the area. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Proposed improvements at existing rail stations between Union Station and Irvine would 

consist of additional parking at the Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine stations. 

These improvements would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in these 

existing station areas. 

San Juan Capistrano: The existing LOSSAN rail corridor runs through downtown of San 

Juan Capistrano through the historic Los Rios neighborhood. The existing rail station is 

listed in the City’s Inventory of Historical and Cultural Landmarks (IHCL). There is an 

ordinance in place that provides special protection to this and other cultural resources 

identified in the IHCL. Based on high potential land use impacts and input from the 

public and City officials, double-tracking through the downtown area within the existing 

rail alignment was eliminated from further consideration during the LOSSAN screening 

process (refer to Chapter 2, Alternatives). Two alternative alignments are being 

evaluated in addition to the No-Project Alternative. 

One alignment option through the City of San Juan Capistrano runs along the east side 

of Trabuco Creek. This alignment would leave the existing LOSSAN corridor south of 

Del Obisbo and continue at-grade along the east side of Trabuco Creek, then transition 

into a cut-and-cover and open trench to a new, below-grade station site located south of 

Ramos Street. This site is currently being used as recreational vehicle storage, and 

would require up to 2 ac (0.8 ha) of non-residential property acquisition. The alignment 

would transition back to at-grade north of the station and rejoin the existing rail corridor 

at the Trabuco Creek crossing. The bridge structure over Trabuco Creek would be 

rebuilt to accommodate the alignment. Strategically placed pedestrian crossings over 

Trabuco Creek would help connect the activities on either side. 

This alignment would introduce rail into a new corridor. Residential uses exist along the 

western boundary of Trabuco Creek, and office/commercial development and a private 

high school are located along the eastern boundary of the creek. This alignment would 

have noise, visual, and possibly vibration impacts on the existing land uses west and 

east of the proposed alignment, particularly on residential areas to the west. Up to 11 ac 

(4.4 ha) of non-residential property acquisition would be required, probably involving the 

high school property at the northern end of the alignment and some commercial property 

at the southern end. A benefit of this alignment is that it would remove the existing rail 

impacts on the historic neighborhood of Los Rios and downtown historic structures. It 

would also remove the major pedestrian barrier created by the existing rail tracks 

between the downtown area and the historic residential area. 

Another routing option evaluated in San Juan Capistrano is a tunnel alignment along 

Interstate 5 that would run the length of the city. While most of the tunnel would be 

under Interstate 5, there would be transition areas at either end of the tunnel that would 

likely require up to 6 ac (2.4 ha) of non-residential property and/or easement acquisition. 

While this option would be compatible with existing and planned land uses, it would 

eliminate a rail station in the City of San Juan Capistrano. 

Dana Point/San Clemente: The existing LOSSAN rail corridor is located along the coast 

in Dana Point and San Clemente, and runs adjacent to residences in the northern part of 

San Clemente along North El Camino Real. Two tunnel alignments are being evaluated 

in the Dana Point and San Clemente area, a short tunnel and a long tunnel option. 

Either option would follow Interstate 5 and have a southern endpoint at San Onofre State 

Beach, north of the power plant. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The short tunnel would leave the Interstate 5 corridor at Avenida Palizada, turn toward 

the coast and run underneath residential, industrial and vacant land uses, connecting 

with the existing rail corridor just south of Camino Capistrano. A new station would be 

located at Avenida Pico. The new station location is consistent with the future land use 

plan, which promotes the development of a major mixed-use development, Rancho San 

Clemente Town Center, in the vicinity. The station site would require up to 2 ac (0.8 ha) 

of non-residential property acquisition. 

The tunnel portion of this option would be compatible with existing and future land uses, 

due to the depth of the tunnel. However, this option would also involve straightening the 

existing at-grade Dana Point curve alignment. The curve realignment would begin just 

north of Stonehill Drive and would cut through a 31-ac (12.5 ha) site owned by the South 

Coast Water District (SCWD). This site contains a number of major water and sewer 

transmission lines, a well, a wastewater lift station and maintenance area, a variety of 

leasehold tenants including contractor storage yards and landscape nurseries, and 

unimproved land. The site is largely surrounded by urban industrial development. An 

EIR certified by the SCWD in November of 2002 identifies three land use alternatives for 

the site, any of which would be impacted by the rail realignment. The proposed rail realignment would be compatible with the City of Dana Point General Plan but would be 

incompatible with planned land uses on the SCWD site and inconsistent with the 

certified EIR. The Short Tunnel option would impact the overall development potential of 

the SCWD parcel, and could preclude the construction of a proposed desalination plant 

at the southern end of the parcel between San Juan Creek and the existing rail corridor. 

Up to 13 ac (5.3 ha) of non-residential property acquisition could be required for the atgrade and tunnel portal areas of the short-tunnel option. The alignment could also 

require water and sewer infrastructure relocation on the SCWD property. In addition, 

this alignment would compound existing barrier and pedestrian access and safety issues 

along approximately 2.5 m (4 km) of beachfront rail corridor in Dana Point. The 

realignment of the existing curve would allow for increased train speeds, potentially 

increasing safety issues with unauthorized pedestrian crossings of the tracks along the 

beach. 

The other alignment option being evaluated is a long tunnel that would follow Interstate 5 

from San Onofre State Beach to Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano. This 

option would preclude the need for realigning the Dana Point Curve. Under this option, 

the tunnel would be divided into two segments, with the rail daylighting at Avenida Pico 

where a new station would be located. The station site would be consistent with the 

future land use plan, which advocates a major regional commercial center at the 

southwest corner of Interstate 5 and Avenida Pico. Acquisition of up to 6 ac (2.4 ha) of 

industrial business property would likely be required at the tunnel portal area south of 

Avenida Aeropuerto. The long tunnel option would be compatible with existing and 

planned land uses, and would provide an opportunity to remove the existing rail service 

along the coastline, thereby eliminating existing impacts to residential development and 

removing the barrier to recreational use of the coastline. 

Camp Pendleton: The Rail Improvements Alternative would involve at-grade doubletracking within the existing LOSSAN corridor from the San Onofre Power Plant to north 

of Oceanside, across Camp Pendleton. All but approximately 5.5 mi (8.9 km) of this 16-

mi (26-km) rail segment are double-tracked under the No-Project Alternative. The 

section that remains to be double tracked in the Rail Improvements Alternative includes 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

the corridor from Stationing Point 315+00.00 to Stationing Point 505+00.00. The 

completion of double-tracking in this segment would be compatible with existing and 

planned land uses, and would remain within the existing rail right-of-way. 

Oceanside/Carlsbad: An at-grade and a trench option within the LOSSAN rail right-ofway are being evaluated for double tracking through Carlsbad. Existing land uses 

abutting the LOSSAN corridor include residential, commercial and industrial. Although 

the at-grade option would be compatible with existing and planned land uses, it would 

compound the barrier effect of the existing rail corridor. The trench option would reduce 

some of the rail impacts on adjacent land uses, and would provide for grade separations 

at key intersections through downtown, resulting in improved pedestrian and vehicular 

circulation. 

Proposed improvements to the existing Oceanside Station would include by-pass tracks 

and expanded parking. The surrounding land use is a mix of commercial and 

residential. The improvements would be compatible with existing and planned land use. 

Any parking expansion would likely involve up to 1 ac (0.4 ha) of commercial property 

acquisition. 

Encinitas: Two double-tracking options were evaluated for the LOSSAN corridor through 

the City of Encinitas – at-grade, and a short trench. Residential, commercial, and 

industrial land uses are adjacent to the rail corridor and the corridor acts as a barrier to 

pedestrian and vehicular movement between residential and commercial areas on 

opposite sides of the LOSSAN right-of-way. 

The at-grade option would reconfigure the street intersection at Birmingham Drive and 

San Elijo Avenue, and close Chesterfield Drive at San Elijo Avenue. This proposal 

would involve a short trench segment for the rail corridor, on either side of Birmingham 

Drive, providing improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation across the existing rail 

corridor via Birmingham Drive. The Coast Highway 101 would need to be elevated 

about 20 ft (6 m) in this area to intercept Birmingham Drive. This would impact adjacent 

commercial and residential land uses. Another grade separation would occur at 

Leucadia Boulevard. The rail tracks would be depressed with Leucadia Boulevard going 

over the tracks and Coast Highway 101. This would require acquisition of some 

businesses along the highway. Pedestrian undercrossings would be strategically placed 

along the entire route to reduce the physical barrier created by the existing rail corridor. 

The short trench alternative would be similar to the at-grade alternative, except for a 

covered trench under Encinitas Boulevard and a transitional open trench about 1,500 ft 

(457 m) either side of Encinitas Boulevard. This trench would improve pedestrian and 

vehicular circulation through the downtown area. 

Both options would be compatible with existing and planned land uses along the existing 

rail corridor. A total of up to about 2 ac (0.8 ha) of non-residential property would likely 

be acquired for implementation of either the at-grade or short-trench option through 

Encinitas. 

Proposed improvements at the Solana Beach Station would include platform 

modifications and parking expansion. These improvements would be compatible with 

the existing and future land use for this area. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Del Mar: Two alignment options for double-tracking are being evaluated through the 

City of Del Mar, between the Solana Beach Station and the I-5/805 split. Land uses 

along the existing rail corridor include the Del Mar Fairgrounds and San Dieguito Lagoon 

on the north, Los Penasquitos Lagoon on the south, and residential and commercial 

development through most of Del Mar. 

One option is a tunnel underneath Camino Del Mar. The tunnel would begin at Jimmy 

Durante Boulevard, and improvements would involve a grade separation of the rail and 

road system in this area. Either Jimmy Durante Boulevard or Camino Del Mar would be 

redesigned to cross over the tracks and “T” into the other. This would require up to 2 ac 

(0.8 ha) of non-residential property acquisition. The tunnel would daylight at Carmel 

Valley Road and connect with the existing LOSSAN corridor across Los Penasquitos 

Lagoon. This option would remove the existing rail service from the coastal bluffs and 

separate the rail from low-density residential land use. This alternative would be 

compatible with existing and planned land use. The other option is a tunnel that would 

run under I-5. This option would diverge from the LOSSAN corridor near the Del Mar 

Fairgrounds, cross along the south boundary of San Dieguito Lagoon on an elevated 

structure, and then proceed in a tunnel under I-5 to a point approximately midway along 

the existing alignment through Penasquitos Lagoon where it would rejoin the existing rail 

corridor. Like the other tunnel option, this alignment would provide the benefit of 

removing rail service from the bluffs. The I-5 tunnel option would be incompatible with 

existing single-family residential development at the tunnel portals and along the 

southern edge of San Dieguito Lagoon where the rail structure would be elevated. The I5 tunnel option would require acquisition of approximately 15 to 20 residential units, and 

up to 8 ac (3.2 ha) of non-residential property. 

I-5/805 Split to Highway 52: In this section of the LOSSAN Corridor, two tunnel 

alignments are being evaluated. One tunnel would run under Interstate 5 and the other 

would cut through Miramar Hill. The Miramar Hill tunnel option would run under mixed 

land uses and include a new underground station at University Towne Centre. Either 

tunnel would be at a depth where impacts to residential and commercial development 

would be avoided except at tunnel portals. The I-5 tunnel could require up to 1 ac (0.4 

ha) of non-residential property acquisition at portal areas. Both tunnel options would be 

compatible with existing and planned land use. The Miramar Hill tunnel would have the 

added benefit of providing a rail station near a highly populated employment center. 

Highway 52 to San Diego Santa Fe Depot: Proposed improvements for the LOSSAN 

Corridor between Highway 52 and the Santa Fe Depot include a curve realignment just 

south of Highway 52, new bridges over Tecolote Creek and San Diego River, a trench 

between Sassafras Street and Cedar Street, and double tracking for the length of the 

section. The curve realignment would involve two new bridge structures over wetlands 

in San Clemente Canyon and potential property acquisition of a business. Existing land 

uses along the route are a mix of industrial and commercial. The improvements would 

enhance vehicular circulation and reduce impacts to businesses adjacent to the trench 

segment, by depressing the existing rail corridor. These improvements would be 

compatible with existing and planned land use. 

At the Santa Fe Depot, parking would be expanded at the northwest corner of Broadway 

and Pacific Coast Highway. The surrounding land uses are commercial and industrial. 

The proposed expansion would be compatible with existing and planned land use. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Communities and Neighborhoods

Potential impacts to communities and neighborhoods were assessed on the basis of 

whether or not an alignment option would divide an existing residential neighborhood 

where no division exists under current conditions. Nearly all alignment options evaluated 

under the Rail Improvements Alternative are within or adjacent to existing transportation 

corridors (rail or roadway) and many involve deep tunnels, reducing the potential for 

creating new divisions of existing communities. 

There are locations where the existing rail tracks divide residential communities that 

have developed around the rail corridor, as described above under Land Use 

Compatibility. Some improvement options would add a second track within the rail rightof-way in these areas (e.g., the at-grade options between Fullerton and Irvine, and in 

Carlsbad). Double-tracking may exacerbate the existing barrier effect in these areas, 

but no new barrier would be created and, therefore, no substantive impact to 

communities or neighborhoods would occur beyond those that exist under the NoProject Alternative. 

In other areas, some alignment options would reduce the existing barrier effect of the 

LOSSAN rail corridor. For example, in Encinitas, the at-grade improvement option 

would add pedestrian crossings to alleviate existing impacts of the rail corridor. Other 

options would involve tunnels or covered trenches where existing tracks would be 

removed and placed underground, either within the LOSSAN corridor alignment (e.g., 

trench option in Encinitas) or within another transportation corridor (e.g., the Camino del 

Mar tunnel option through Del Mar). In these cases, any existing barrier effect of the rail 

would also be reduced or eliminated entirely, resulting in an improvement compared to 

the No-Project Alternative. 

There are two areas where alignment options would introduce an above-ground rail 

corridor into residential areas where there currently is no rail corridor. The Trabuco 

Creek at-grade and trench option in San Juan Capistrano would add rail in a new area; 

however, the creek itself creates a barrier in this area, so the rail would not add a new 

barrier. Similarly, the northern end of the I-5 tunnel in the Del Mar area would add rail 

infrastructure near residences at the south end of the San Dieguito Lagoon. In this area, 

however, the rail structure would be elevated along the edge of a residential area and so 

would not divide an existing community. 

Environmental Justice

Nearly all of the alignment options evaluated under the Rail Improvements Alternative 

would be located within or adjacent to existing transportation corridors, which would 

serve to reduce the potential for significant adverse impacts generally. Considering the 

Rail Improvements Alternative overall, it is not expected that the alternative would result 

in disproportionate impacts on minority populations or low-income populations. 

Project-level reviews would include more detailed analysis, including additional 

consideration of the potential for disproportionate localized impacts on Environmental 

Justice communities, as well as potential community enhancements and benefits. 

Based on program-level data, areas of potential localized concern occur between Union 

Station and Irvine, and in the San Juan Capistrano area. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.6.4 Design Practices 

The Preferred Rail Improvements Alternative utilizes existing rail and transportation corridors to 

minimize the need for additional rights-of-way and the associated potential property impacts. 

Nearly 90 percent of the rail improvement alignments carried forward are either within existing 

rail or transportation corridors, or in deep tunnels. To a large extent, the existing transportation 

corridors already present barriers and impose other impacts on existing communities. Although 

double tracking the existing corridor may increase the barrier effect, especially for options that 

require that the right-of-way be fenced, the HST existing access conditions would be 

maintained. In cases where the rail corridor would be grade separated, access conditions 

would improve. Options that include tunnels and aerial structures would allow for vehicular or 

pedestrian access across the alignment. 

3.6.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for land use and planning, the Rail Improvements Alternative would have a potentially significant 

impact on land use compatibility. While every effort has been made to develop alignment and 

station options that are compatible with existing local land use plans and ordinances to the 

extent feasible, in some cases local plans and ordinances do not address transportation options 

such as passenger and freight rail service. While the existing LOSSAN rail corridor is 

incorporated into local and regional use plans, other alignment options may not be addressed or 

may be incompatible with local or neighborhood plans. In some areas, local land use plans and 

ordinances have not been updated for several years, and may be updated over time to 

acknowledge and support rail improvement projects. The potential for land use incompatibility is 

considered significant at this programmatic level due to the uncertainties involved; however, 

such impacts may not be realized over the 20-year time horizon for implementing the rail 

improvements. Regardless, mitigation strategies will be applied to reduce this impact, and the 

lead agencies will work closely with local government agencies in implementing these 

strategies. 

The analysis in this Program EIR/EIS compares potential impacts from the alternatives and the 

Rail Improvements Alternative alignments and station options. Potential impacts have been 

considered on a broad scale and on a corridor-wide basis. Project-level review of the rail 

improvement options will include detailed analysis of the potential for localized impacts. 

A. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 

Local land use plans and ordinances will be further considered in the selection of 

alignment options. Project-level reviews will evaluate consistency with existing and 

planned land use, neighborhood access needs, and multi-modal connectivity 

opportunities. Potential mitigation measures to alleviate or minimize impacts to land uses 

may include, but would not be limited, to the following: 

• Coordinate with cities and counties along the corridor to ensure that project 

facilities are consistent with land use planning processes and zoning ordinances. 

• Establish requirements for station-area planning and opportunities for transitoriented development where existing stations are expanded or new stations are 

developed. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

B. COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative alignments will be refined during project-level 

evaluations in consultation with local governments and planning agencies, with 

consideration given to minimizing barrier effects to maintain or improve existing 

neighborhood integrity. Potential mitigation strategies to reduce the effects of any 

existing or exacerbated barrier effects will be evaluated at the project-level 

environmental review and could include additional grade separation of rail lines and 

streets, new pedestrian crossings, new cross-connection points, improved visual quality 

of project facilities, and traffic management plans to maintain access during and after 

construction. 

In addition, site-specific mitigation measures will be developed for temporary 

construction-related impacts on neighborhoods and communities. Potential strategies to 

alleviate or minimize community disruption during construction may include, but would 

not be limited to, the following: 

• Provide opportunities for community involvement early in project-level studies. 

• Conduct design workshops within each affected neighborhood to develop an 

understanding of key linkages (automobile, bicycle, pedestrian) across the rail 

corridor so that those linkages can be preserved, including the use of gradeseparated crossings. 

• Develop facility, landscape, and public art design standards for project facilities 

and corridors that reflect the character of adjacent affected neighborhoods. 

• Ensure that connectivity (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular crossings) across the 

rail corridor is maintained where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity. 

• Develop traffic management plans to reduce barrier effects during construction. 

• To the extent feasible, maintain connectivity during construction. 

• Maintain high level of visual quality of project facilities in neighborhood areas by 

implementing such measures as visual buffers, trees and other landscaping, 

architectural design and public artwork. 

• Develop procurement specifications and incentives for construction contractors 

for reducing the duration and disruption of infrastructure construction. 

Requirements may include restrictions on construction vehicle traffic and routes, 

haul routes, hours of construction activity, and advance public notification of all 

closures or expected travel delays. 

C. PROPERTY 

Potential land use displacement and property acquisition (temporary use and/or 

permanent, residential and non-residential property) are expected to be avoided to the 

extent feasible by considering further alignment adjustments and design changes in the 

future at the project level. In addition, analysis at the project level would consider 

relocation assistance in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Design strategies would be developed for 

application at the project level to avoid or minimize the temporary or permanent 

acquisition of residential and non-residential property. Access modifications, including 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

over- or under-crossings, may be required to mitigate impacts arising from temporary or 

permanent property acquisitions where land uses are divided or otherwise disrupted. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

On a corridor basis, it is not expected that the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

would result in disproportionate adverse effects to minority or low-income populations. 

Additional consideration of environmental justice issues would occur during project-level 

review, and include evaluation of potential disproportionate localized impacts and 

potential benefits to and enhancements for communities along potential rail alignments. 

Project-level review would include evaluation of detailed mitigation measures, including 

mitigation for temporary construction-related impacts. Project-level review would also 

include outreach to potentially affected communities as part of the public review process. 

Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or minimize land use impacts associated with 

the Rail Improvements Alternative could include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure effective public participation and 

access to information. Consequently, a key component of compliance with EO 

12898 is outreach to the potentially affected minority and/or low-income 

population to discover issues of importance that otherwise may not be apparent. 

Outreach to affected communities would be conducted as part of the decisionmaking process, and this outreach would be documented. 

• DOT Order 5610.2 requires DOT agencies to develop procedures to provide 

meaningful opportunities for public involvement by members of minority 

populations during activities including identification of mitigation measures. 

Minority and low income populations would be provided access to information 

about health and environmental impacts, measures to avoid, minimize and/or to 

mitigate any disproportionately high and adverse effects and offsetting benefits 

and opportunities to enhance affected communities, neighborhoods, or 

individuals during an outreach program conducted as part of the decision-making 

process. 

• In addition to examining all impacts, specific attention would be given to the 

permanent impact categories that are commonly of concern for this type of 

project and to those that previously have been identified as being of concern. 

These include: 

− Air quality 

− Noise and vibration 

− Public health 

− Visual resource/aesthetics 

− Parklands 

− Relocation 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce land use compatibility impacts to 

a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental assessment and engineering 

refinement of alignment options during project-level reviews will allow a more precise 

evaluation of site-specific impacts and mitigation effectiveness. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.6-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The subsequent environmental evaluations and project-level reviews of proposed alignment 

options and new or expanded stations would address the need for the following studies. 

• Land use studies for specific alignment and station areas potentially impacted, including 

evaluation of potential land use conversion, potential growth, and potential community 

benefits. 

• Review of localized potential environmental justice issues. 

• Relocation impact analysis for potentially displaced housing and businesses. 

• Pedestrian and vehicular circulation studies. 

• Construction logistics analysis to estimate durations, impacts and localized mitigation 

measures to reduce disruption to communities, activities, traffic and circulation. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.7 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual resources are the natural and human-made features of a landscape that characterize its 

form, line, texture, and color. This section describes the existing landscape in the LOSSAN 

region and identifies potential impacts on visual resources related to the proposed addition of 

infrastructure in, or removal of infrastructure from, the existing landscape. Infrastructure may 

include rail tracks, tunnels, fences, noise walls, elevated rail structures, and stations. This 

assessment evaluates the potential changes to existing scenic landscapes for each alignment 

and station option during construction (addition of construction staging areas, site work, 

construction equipment, temporary barriers, fences, and temporary power poles) and operation. 

3.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY PROVISIONS 

There are no specific regulatory requirements or federal or state standards for aesthetics 

and visual resources. However, there is a requirement in both federal and state 

environmental guidelines to address topics related to the visual environment. The most 

explicit guidance is in the CEQA environmental checklist, which requires that a project 

proponent identify whether a project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 

vista; substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and 

historic buildings within a state scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual 

character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or create a new source of 

substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area 

(CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, 2001). The FRA Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA Docket No EP-1, Notice 5, May 26, 1999), 

under the topic of aesthetic environmental and scenic resources, states: “The EIS 

should identify any significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the 

developed environment. The EIS should also discuss the consideration given to design 

quality, art, and architecture in project planning and development as required by DOT 

Order 5610.4.” Consideration of local community design guidelines would be part of a 

subsequent phase of analysis for project-specific environmental review when more 

detailed engineering and architectural information would be developed if the Rail 

Improvements Alternative is carried forward. California Department of Transportation 

design standards would apply to state highway improvements under the No-Project 

Alternative. 

B. METHOD FOR EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The analysis of aesthetic and visual resources for this Program EIR/EIS focuses on a 

broad comparison of potential impacts on visual resources (particularly scenic 

resources, areas of historic interest, and natural open space areas and significant 

ecological areas) along proposed Rail Improvements Alternative alignment options and 

around stations. The potential impacts for each of these alternatives are evaluated 

against the existing conditions, as described in Section 3.7.2, Affected Environment. 

Based on conceptual design, the facilities associated with the Rail Improvements 

Alternative were evaluated for a set of typologies (or general descriptions) representative 

of highly scenic landscapes most subject to potential significant visual impacts. The 

evaluation focused on how the distinguishable (dominant) visual features (color, line, 

texture, form) that characterize the existing landscape would change if the alignment 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

option were implemented. Of particular interest are locations where options would 

involve elevated structures (bridges or overpasses) or tunnel portals. Also addressed in 

the evaluation is the potential shadow effect of elevated structures and the light and 

glare effects of the proposed improvements. 

Potential changes to the dominant landscape features, or potential visual impacts, are 

described and ranked as high, medium, or low according to the potential extent of 

change to existing visual resources. Visual contrast rankings, or impact rankings, are 

defined as follows. 

• High visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alternative were obvious 

and began to dominate the landscape and detract from the existing landscape 

characteristics or scenic qualities. 

• Medium visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alternative were 

readily discernable but did not dominate the landscape or detract from existing 

dominant features. 

• Low visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alternative were 

consistent with the existing line, form, texture, and color of other elements in the 

landscape and did not stand out. 

• High shadow impacts would occur if a new (not existing) elevated structure were 

within 75 ft (23 m) of residential or open space, natural areas, or parkland. 

• Beneficial visual impact would result if the alternative eliminated a dominant 

feature in the landscape that currently detracts from scenic qualities or blocks 

vistas. 

3.7.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for aesthetics and visual resources is defined as 0.25 mi (0.40 km) from 

the centerline of proposed alignment options and around stations. However, where 

there are scenic viewing points or overlooks within 1 mi (2 km) of the alignment option, 

these scenic viewing points have been included in the study area. The distance range of 

up to 0.25 mi (0.40 km) from proposed alignments and stations and up to 1 mi (2 km) for 

scenic viewing points is considered the area where a change in landscape features 

would be most noticeable to viewers, and where newly introduced features could begin 

to dominate the visual character of the landscape. 

B. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA 

The existing local visual setting in the LOSSAN region ranges from highly urbanized 

landscapes to undeveloped areas. Much of the existing rail and highway system in the 

southern part of the region parallels the coastline of the Pacific Ocean. The existing 

LOSSAN rail corridor provides passengers with scenic views of the ocean and open 

spaces along portions of its route. 

There are no local- or state-designated scenic corridors in the study area for visual 

resources in this region, though some highways (e.g., SR-1 along the coast) are 

considered eligible for designation as California State Scenic Routes and are located 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

near the existing rail corridor. These routes do not offer continuous views of the ocean 

within the study area. 

The LOSSAN region includes a number of distinct types of landscapes spread over a 

large geographic area. A typology of typical landscapes is used to describe the aesthetic 

and visual resources in the study area. The typologies provide the baseline or existing 

conditions against which the analysis of potential change or visual impact for each of the 

rail improvement option is evaluated. Photographs of highly scenic and typical 

landscapes within the LOSSAN region are provided to illustrate the dominant line, form, 

color, and texture for that landscape typology. 

The landscape typologies discussed below are urban mixed use, suburban and coastal 

communities, and parks and natural open space. 

Urban Mixed Use

The majority of the existing rail corridor traverses through dense development that 

includes warehouses, commercial and industrial buildings, and residential housing 

(areas in Los Angeles County and northern/central Orange County, for example). The 

industrial uses often are located along the railroad right-of-way, so the rail corridor is 

visible only from the streets that intersect it and parallel it as a frontage road. Limited 

landscaping and native vegetation exist in these industrial areas that are dominated by 

the typically large, box buildings. There are areas of high-density housing (multi-family 

and single-family dwelling units) in the foreground along the railroad right-of-way, most 

of which are typical, rectangular building shapes and regular lot patterns. Residential, 

commercial and industrial building structures blend with the surrounding environment 

with neutral colors, tones and textures. Rooftops and some mountains can be seen in 

the background along the rail corridor. Historic structures such as Mission San Juan 

Capistrano and the Los Rios District (also in San Juan Capistrano), and more modern 

developments such as downtown Los Angeles or San Diego are examples of various 

urban settings. The historic areas typically include older structures, often with 

architectural importance that varies in texture, size, and color. 

Urban areas include a number of potential redevelopment sites. Underused areas 

subject to redevelopment often consist of abandoned buildings, pavement, industrial 

infrastructure, and junkyards. While these areas often served important military or 

industrial activities in the past, they are usually not visually compatible with the 

surrounding area. Reuse plans for such locations typically are prepared by local 

jurisdictions, and may improve the visual quality of the area. Parts of the downtown 

areas in Los Angeles and San Diego are examples of redevelopment areas in the urban 

setting. 

Suburban and Costal Communities

There are a number of suburban communities in the region that are located close to 

commuter and transportation hubs, and surrounded by retail, business and residential 

land uses. The neighborhoods are moderately dense with more vegetation and 

landscaping than the residential areas found in the urban environment. Business 

locations and building structures are smaller and less dense with softer textures, color 

and tones than the urban environment. The city center and neighborhoods in these 

communities are separated by transportation corridors and/or undeveloped land. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Examples include Santa Ana, Carlsbad, and Encinitas. Figure 3.7-1 shows the existing 

at-grade LOSSAN corridor within the City of Carlsbad. 

In the area from Dana Point south to San Diego, many of the suburbs are coastal 

communities where the ocean and local beaches influence (and often dominate) the 

visual setting of the area. Ocean views in these areas are open and highly scenic. The 

topography varies from flat shorelines to vertical cliffs. Views from many homes and 

businesses are dramatic, and the buildings are situated to take full advantage of these 

views. Residences and small businesses in coastal communities are typically 

landscaped to blend in with the surrounding environment. Areas within the coastal 

communities may include small pockets of open space. Examples of coastal 

communities include San Clemente, Cardiff, Del Mar, and Solana Beach. 

Figure 3.7-2 shows the beachfront alignment of the existing LOSSAN rail tracks at the 

base of the coastal bluffs in San Clemente. The view shown is to the north from an 

existing pedestrian footbridge located just south of the pier. The strong horizontal line of 

the rail corridor interlocks and contrasts with the strong vertical line of the bluffs. 

Residences along the bluff tops provide highly scenic, distant views of the shoreline and 

ocean. In Del Mar, the rail corridor is on top of a narrow portion of the coastal bluffs. As 

shown in Figure 3.7-3, the existing tracks are set between the shoreline below and the 

residences above. 

Parks and Natural Open Space 

Parks and open space in the region typically are high points with a dramatic backdrop to 

various settings such as urban areas, historical districts, parks, and wildlife preserves. 

Calafia Park (in San Clemente), Camp Pendleton, area beaches, and a number of 

lagoons are examples of parks and open space areas along the existing LOSSAN rail 

corridor. The Camp Pendleton area is undeveloped land with some large overhead 

transmission lines, some industrial facilities (e.g., San Onofre Power Plant), and the I-5 

corridor. The beach areas and lagoons include residential and some small commercial 

buildings. These are usually landscaped to blend with the surrounding environment and 

are often found in small clusters. Figure 3.7-4 illustrates an example of open space in 

the region and shows the existing railroad bridge across the San Elijo Lagoon. 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions, or existing landscapes, are used as the baseline and are 

considered to be representative for the analysis of potential visual impacts for the Rail 

Improvements Alternative. Though it is likely that the existing landscape character will 

change in the region by the year 2020 due to development and urban growth, it is not 

possible to characterize these changes at this time with precision. To base comparisons 

of alternatives on current conditions is to take a conservative approach. The extent of 

change to some of the landscapes (particularly the open space landscapes) reported in 

this section may not be as pronounced as they appear in this impact evaluation. 
FIGURE 3.7-1

Existing LOSSAN Corridor - Carlsbad

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.7-5
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FIGURE 3.7-2

Existing LOSSAN Corridor - San Clemente

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.7-7
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FIGURE 3.7-3

Existing LOSSAN Corridor - Del Mar Bluffs

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.7-9
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FIGURE 3.7-4

Existing LOSSAN - Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

3.7-11
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-13 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The highway projects approved and funded for construction by 2020 and included in the 

No-Project Alternative are described in Chapter 2, Alternatives. In the LOSSAN region, 

these improvements or changes to the existing highways are generally expansions or 

reconfigurations of existing facilities that would not result in substantial visual contrasts 

or changes to the dominant line, form, color, or texture characterizing the existing 

landscape condition. No significant visual impacts, shadow, or glare impacts have been 

identified for the changes between the existing conditions and No-Project Alternative for 

this program-level analysis. As these projects advance, the project sponsors may 

identify and address some localized visual impacts in separate environmental 

documentation. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

The comparison of potential aesthetic and visual resource impacts for the Rail 

Improvements Alternative is a broad overview of potential differences among alignment 

options for the construction (short-term) and operation (long-term), direct and indirect, 

and cumulative impacts. During construction, visual impacts would include the presence 

of construction equipment, the dismantling of old structures and erection of new 

structures, light and glare impacts from nighttime construction work, and contrast 

impacts from newly disturbed soils along the rail corridor. These impacts would be 

temporary, most occurring only during active construction periods along the corridor. 

Soil contrast impacts would last longer, but weathering of disturbed soils and 

revegetation would minimize the duration of these potential impacts. 

Operational impacts would be long term visual effects of new, permanent structures, 

including track and stations or station additions such as parking area or increased 

parking structure height. Table 3.7-1 summarizes the potential long-term visual contrast 

impacts and shadow impacts of the alignment options and station areas. These impacts 

are further described for each corridor segment in the following sections. 

Table 3.7-1 

Potential Visual Impacts 

Rail Improvements 

Options 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L/B) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Union Station To Fullerton 

Station – 4th Main Track 

Low 

Area is highly urbanized and the 

proposed improvements would be 

consistent with existing environment 

No impact 

Fullerton Station To Irvine 

Station--Double Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa Ana 

Low 

Area is highly urbanized and the 

proposed improvements would be 

consistent with existing environment 

Low 

Grade separations at street 

intersections would create some 

shadow effects in urban areas 

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa Ana 

Beneficial Impact 

Covered trench would remove atgrade rail infrastructure from view 

No Impact 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-14 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.7-1 

Potential Visual Impacts (continued)

Rail Improvements 

Options 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L/B) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Stations 

Fullerton 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Anaheim 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Santa Ana 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Irvine 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

San Juan Capistrano 

Double Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between Hwy 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

Beneficial Impact 

Existing rail service would be removed 

into tunnel; new impacts would occur at 

tunnel portals but would be relatively 

minor 

No impact 

AT-GRADE and TRENCH 

along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

Medium 

New impacts to residential and 

commercial areas on west side of creek 

Low 

Proposed structure widening 

over San Juan creek would 

increase shadow impacts but 

would be consistent with 

existing environment 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

Low 

Proposed improvements to existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No impact 

Dana Point/San Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL

Beneficial Impact 

Tunnel would remove existing rail 

service along the coast and improve 

existing beach aesthetics at San 

Clemente but not at Dana Point, where 

impacts would be Low 

No impact 

San Clemente - LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Beneficial Impact 

Tunnel would remove existing rail 

service along the coast and improve 

beach aesthetics in both San Clemente 

and Dana Point 

No Impact 

Stations 

San Clemente 

Low 

New station would add visual mass, 

parking and new light sources but 

station would be below-grade, 

minimizing its visibility 

No Impact 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-15 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.7-1 

Potential Visual Impacts (continued)

Rail Improvements 

Options 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L/B) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade Double Tracking 

Low 

Proposed improvements would not alter 

existing viewshed; additional 

infrastructure would not be discernable 

from distant viewing point 

No Impact 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE; 

double tracking 

Low 

Proposed improvements would be 

consistent with existing environment; 

additional infrastructure would not be 

discernable from distant viewing point 

Low 

Proposed structure widening 

over lagoons would increase 

shadow impacts but would be 

consistent with existing 

environment 

Carlsbad -TRENCH; doubletracking 

Low 

Would remove existing at-grade tracks 

into trench through Carlsbad, but opentrench sections would require fencing; 

additional infrastructure would not be 

discernable from distant viewing point 

Low 

Proposed structure widening 

over lagoons would increase 

shadow impacts but would be 

consistent with existing 

environment 

Stations 

Oceanside 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; 

Low 

Proposed improvements would be 

consistent with existing environment 

Low 

Proposed grade separations 

and structure widening over 

lagoons would increase shadow 

impacts but would be consistent 

with existing environment 

Encinitas - SHORT 

TRENCH 

Beneficial Impact 

Covered trench would place existing 

tracks underground in part of the 

existing rail corridor 

Low 

Proposed grade separations 

and structure widening over 

lagoons would increase shadow 

impacts but would be consistent 

with existing environment 

Stations 

Solana Beach 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino Del 

Mar 

Beneficial Impact 

Tunnel option would remove existing 

rail service from bluffs and place it 

underground 

Low 

Proposed structure widening 

over lagoons would increase 

shadow impacts but would be 

consistent with existing 

environment 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-16 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.7-1 

Potential Visual Impacts (continued)

Rail Improvements 

Options 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L/B) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

TUNNEL along I-5 

Medium 

Tunnel would remove existing rail 

service and place underground, but 

new visual impacts to residential views 

would result from elevated rail structure 

south of San Dieguito Lagoon, and from 

tunnel portal/transition located between 

two residential areas 

Low 

Tunnel would remove existing 

rail structure across 

Penasquitos Lagoon but 

structure over San Dieguito 

Lagoon would be widened, and 

elevated structure across south 

end of lagoon would add new 

shadow impacts 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL No Impact 

Proposed tunnel improvement 

No Impact 

Proposed tunnel improvement 

I-5 TUNNEL No Impact 

Proposed tunnel improvement 

No Impact 

Proposed tunnel improvement 

Stations 

UTC (Only applies to 

Miramar Hill Tunnel) 

No Impact 

Proposed station would be 

underground 

No Impact 

Proposed station would be 

underground 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot Curve realignment 

and Double Tracking 

Low 

Proposed improvements would be 

consistent with existing environment 

Low 

New bridge structures over 

wetlands and creeks would 

increase shadow effects in 

these areas 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 

Low 

Proposed improvements at existing 

station would be consistent with 

existing environment 

No Impact 

Union Station to Irvine

Proposed rail improvements between Union Station and Fullerton Station would consist 

of a fourth main track within the existing rail corridor. The majority of this segment 

traverses through a heavily developed area of existing residential, business, and 

industrial/commercial uses adjacent to the existing corridor. Low visual impacts are 

anticipated for this segment because the improvements would be consistent with the 

existing environment and existing rail corridor. 

The LOSSAN corridor between Fullerton Station and Irvine Station traverses through an 

urbanized and heavily developed area that includes residential, business, and industrial 

structures. The at-grade option for corridor improvements would be consistent with the 

existing environment and rail corridor. The covered trench option would have a beneficial 

impact on the existing visual environment by moving the at-grade tracks into a covered 

trench and eliminating the view of operating trains. 

San Juan Capistrano

The tunnel option in San Juan Capistrano would follow the I-5 corridor, located east of 

the existing rail corridor. The tunnel would remove the tracks from the viewshed of 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-17 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

surrounding areas and uses adjacent to the existing corridor, thus improving the existing 

visual environment. There would be new visual impacts created at the tunnel portals but 

these impacts would be low, and the removal of the existing at-grade tracks would result 

in an overall benefit to area aesthetics. 

The other option through San Juan Capistrano would consist of a cut-and-cover and 

open trench and at-grade alignment west of the existing rail corridor, along the east side 

of Trabuco Creek. Although portions of this alignment would be below grade, the atgrade sections would create a new rail corridor and operating trains along the creek. 

This would cause impacts to the viewshed of residences along the west side of Trabuco 

Creek, and office/commercial uses and a private school located east of the creek. A 

pedestrian overpass may be needed at one or more locations across the trench, which 

would also create a new visual mass and shadow effects in the area. Because this 

option introduces new visual impacts to the residential and commercial uses in the 

vicinity, this option was evaluated as having a Medium visual impact. 

Dana Point/San Clemente

The potential Dana Point curve realignment is located in a heavy industrial area. The 

realignment would cross underneath Pacific Coast Highway 1 (PCH) and the tracks 

would be located southwest of the existing tracks and a hotel. The realignment is 

consistent with the existing environment, and would not introduce a new visual impact to 

the area or the hotel. Low visual impacts are anticipated for the realignment. 

Rail improvements proposed through the City of San Clemente and portions of southern 

Dana Point include double tracking with tunnel options. Both tunnel options follow the 

I-5 corridor. The existing rail corridor through San Clemente and southern Dana Point is 

along the coastline on the beach/shore. The tunnel options through south Dana Point 

and San Clemente would reduce existing visual impacts to the residential areas, 

beaches, and PCH traffic because the tracks would be underground in an alignment that 

follows I-5. The tunnel options would improve the viewshed from homes, beaches, and 

roadways. In the Dana Point area, the Short Tunnel option would not remove the 

existing rail service from the beach, but the Long Tunnel option would. Therefore, the 

Short Tunnel would result in more visual impact to Dana Point than the Long Tunnel. 

The existing rail corridor is constructed along the toe slope of the bluffs in San Clemente, 

which creates visual impacts to the area beachfronts and shoreline residences. The Rail 

Improvements Alternative would potentially result in a beneficial visual impact to these 

bluff areas by precluding further rail construction along the bluffs and removing the 

existing rail service from the bluff areas. 

Camp Pendleton

Camp Pendleton is primarily undeveloped land aside from the I-5 corridor and the San 

Onofre power plant. The existing rail corridor traverses through Camp Pendleton and 

the proposed improvements would not alter the viewshed from I-5, the rest stops and 

viewing points from I-5, or San Onofre State Beach. Low, largely indiscernible impacts 

would occur through Camp Pendleton. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-18 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Carlsbad

Proposed rail improvements through Carlsbad include double tracking in either an atgrade or a trench alignment. Both options would be consistent with the existing 

environment at Buena Vista Lagoon, north of Carlsbad, but the bridge would be widened 

so shadow impacts would increase somewhat. The existing tracks traverse through 

residential and commercial/business districts. The at-grade option would be consistent 

with the existing environment and existing tracks. The trench option would reduce visual 

impacts because the existing tracks would be set behind businesses and below grade. 

Open trench sections would have to be fenced for security, so at-grade visual impacts 

would occur. Both options would be consistent with the current environment at Agua 

Hedionda Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon, but the widening of bridge structures would 

increase the visual mass and shadow impacts in these crossing areas. Both lagoons 

are located east of Coast Highway 101 (101) and west of I-5 with residential areas 

located to the north and south of the lagoons. The two options would be generally 

consistent with the current environment and existing tracks. Low impacts are anticipated 

for the improvements through Carlsbad and the lagoons. 

Encinitas

Alignment options through the City of Encinitas include at-grade or trenching. Grade 

separations would be provided at major intersections. A mixture of land uses can be 

found along the existing rail corridor in the area, including residential and business/ 

commercial areas. The at-grade option would reconfigure the intersection of Birmingham 

Drive and San Elijo Avenue, close Chesterfield Drive at San Elijo Avenue, and modify 

Leucadia Boulevard. A short trench section would be located at Birmingham Drive to 

improve vehicle and pedestrian traffic across the existing tracks. The 101 would be 

elevated to accommodate Birmingham Drive. The closure of Chesterfield Drive would 

eliminate the crossing with the existing tracks. In addition, the tracks would be 

depressed and Leucadia Boulevard would run above the tracks and the 101. San Elijo 

Lagoon is located north of Solana Beach, east of 101 and west of I-5 with residential 

areas located to the north and south of the lagoon and a few businesses and restaurants 

along the 101 adjacent to the lagoon. The grade separations and structure widening 

over the San Elijo Lagoon would increase shadow impacts in these areas, but would be 

consistent with the existing visual environment. Impacts of the at-grade option are 

evaluated as Low. 

The trenching option would improve the existing visual characteristics of the area and 

would have a beneficial impact. The tracks would be depressed, thus removing the 

existing rail infrastructure from views along the corridor from residential and business 

areas. Grade separations would create new visual mass and some shadow impacts in 

the urban environment. Structure widening over the lagoon would increase shadow 

effects but would be consistent with the existing aesthetics. Visual impacts are rated as 

Low for the trench option through Encinitas and across San Elijo Lagoon. 

Del Mar

Proposed rail improvements through the City of Del Mar include double tracking with two 

tunnel options. Predominant land uses along the existing rail corridor in this area include 

residential areas, the San Dieguito Lagoon, a restaurant and the Del Mar Fairgrounds 

and Racetrack at the north end near the San Dieguito Lagoon; residential development 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-19 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

through most of Del Mar; and the Los Penasquitos Lagoon on the south end. The 

Camino del Mar tunnel option would remove the existing rail service from the bluffs and 

place them in a tunnel under the street through Del Mar, resulting in a beneficial impact 

on area aesthetics and the coastal viewshed. While the two tunnel portals would have 

some visual impact, the impact would be within the urban environment along 

transportation corridors (roadway and rail), and would not substantially alter existing 

aesthetics. 

The I-5 tunnel option would also remove the existing tracks from the bluffs and remove 

the existing rail structure crossing the Penasquitos Lagoon, improving the views from 

some residences, the beaches/bluffs and the lagoon. This results in a low impact for this 

portion of the segment. This tunnel option, however, would create new visual impacts 

and shadow impacts for residents along the south edge of the San Dieguito Lagoon 

where an elevated rail structure would be located. The existing San Dieguito Lagoon 

Bridge would be rebuilt to accommodate the double tracking, increasing the existing 

shadow effects somewhat. The southern tunnel portal would be located at the edge of 

the Los Penasquitos Lagoon. The northern portal and tunnel-transition area would be 

located between two clustered residential areas, creating a new visual impact in the 

near-views from these homes. These features of the project would result in high visual 

impacts for this portion of the segment. Therefore, despite the beneficial aesthetic effect 

of removal of rail service from the bluffs, the impacts of the elevated structure, portals 

and tunnel-transition areas would result in an overall Medium level of visual impact for 

the entire I-5 tunnel option. 

I-5/805 Split to Highway 52

Proposed rail improvements between the I-5/805 split and Highway 52 consist of two 

tunnel options. One option would traverse through Miramar Hill and into La Jolla and the 

University Towne Centre (UTC) area. The other tunnel option would follow the I-5 

corridor. Either tunnel would connect to the existing rail corridor in Sorrento Valley near 

the intersection of I-5 and Highway 52. The tunnel options would avoid visual impacts to 

the homes, beaches, roadways, businesses, and schools. 

Highway 52 to Santa Fe Depot

Proposed rail improvements between Highway 52 and the Santa Fe Depot include the 

Elvira curve realignment and double tracking. The curve realignment would be located 

at-grade within the San Clemente Canyon area near Highway 52 and south through an 

urbanized and developed area with business and industrial buildings to just south of 

Balboa Avenue. Potential minor visual impacts to the public recreational uses and two 

bridge structures at San Clemente Canyon may occur with the realignment. Low visual 

impacts are anticipated in the area of the Elvira Curve, specifically through the San 

Clemente Canyon. 

In the area just south of the Elvira Curve realignment towards Taylor Street, double 

tracking would be done in the existing rail right-of-way through a heavily urbanized 

(business/industrial with light residential) area parallel to I-5. The bridge crossing design 

at the San Diego River would be consistent with the current environment and existing rail 

corridor and thus would not alter the viewshed. Double tracking would be done within 

the existing rail right-of-way as it enters downtown San Diego and the Santa Fe Depot 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-20 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

through an existing urbanized area parallel to I-5. Double tracking within the existing rail 

corridor would not create any new visual impacts on the existing viewshed. 

Rail Stations

Except where otherwise noted below, proposed station improvements along the 

LOSSAN corridor would involve adding bypass tracks and/or additional parking at 

existing stations. These impacts would all be Low and nearly unnoticeable. New stations 

are proposed as part of three alignment options. As described below, two of those 

proposed stations would be below-grade in a trench, and one would be underground. 

Existing visual settings at the stations are briefly summarized below. 

• Fullerton Station is located in a heavily developed area of existing residential, 

business, and industrial/commercial uses. 

• Anaheim Station is located within the parking lot of Edison Field and an adjacent 

business park. 

• Santa Ana Station is located in an urbanized area with industrial and residential 

uses. 

• Irvine Station is located in a developed area that includes industrial uses and the 

old El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. 

• In San Juan Capistrano, the Trabuco Creek at-grade and trenching option would 

involve construction of a new station, which would be located below-grade in an 

open trench. This station would result in Low impacts on the surrounding area, 

due to the introduction of (below-grade) visual mass of the structure, new parking 

area, and new light sources. 

• In San Clemente, a new below-grade station would be constructed along the 

long, two-segment tunnel alignment where the tunnel would transition to a trench 

just south of Avenida Pico on the east side of I-5. Similarly, for the short tunnel 

option, a new station would be located at Avenida Pico near Calle De Los 

Molinos. Either of these stations would create Low visual impacts due to the 

addition of (below-grade) visual mass of the structure, parking areas, and new 

light sources. 

• The Oceanside Station is located within an urbanized area with commercial and 

residential uses. 

• The Solana Beach Station is located adjacent to the Cedros Design District 

(businesses and commercial shops) and some scattered residences. 

• For the Miramar Hill Tunnel option, a new underground station is proposed in the 

La Jolla/University Towne Centre area, which is primarily developed with a mix of 

residential and commercial uses. The underground station would not create any 

visual contrast, shadow or light and glare impacts. 

• The Santa Fe Depot is located in downtown San Diego in an urbanized and 

redeveloped area with mixed uses of residential and commercial. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-21 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.7.4 Design Practices 

It would be speculative to address specific aesthetic treatments at the conceptual level of design 

of this Program-level study. The Project level would involve working with local agencies and 

communities to develop context-sensitive aesthetic designs and treatments for rail infrastructure 

(bridges, tunnel portals, stations, etc.). 

3.7.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for aesthetics, the Rail Improvements Alternative would have a potentially significant effect on 

aesthetics in some areas. Construction would create temporary visual changes, and the 

improvements would introduce new visual elements in some areas, particularly where elevated 

structures and tunnel portals would be located in lagoon environments or residential areas. 

Significance is dependent on the sensitivity of the landscape and compatibility with existing 

visual features, but at least some changes would occur in highly scenic areas along the corridor 

and are expected to be significant. Mitigation strategies will be applied to reduce this impact. 

General mitigation strategies would include the design of proposed facilities that are attractive in 

their own right and that would integrate well into landscape contexts, so as to reduce potential 

view blockage, contrast with existing landscape settings, light and shadow effects, and other 

potential visual impacts. Further consultation with local and regional agencies and with the 

public will help the Department refine these general mitigation strategies during project-level 

environmental review. The measures described below will be considered during subsequent 

review and design development to enhance project appearance and reduce potential project 

visual impacts. 

In the development of the final design for the Rail Improvement projects, there is a need to 

generate design solutions will help to integrate new rail infrastructure into existing landscapes. 

Potential mitigation measures that could enhance project appearance and minimize visual 

impacts include: 

• Bridges and other elevated rail infrastructure could be designed with graceful lines and 

with minimal apparent bulk and potential shading effects. Features that could be 

considered include use of contoured, rounded edges for columns and other structural 

elements. 

• In the LOSSAN corridor, the existing rail line crosses six lagoons. The existing structures 

across the lagoons have been in place for many years, and are relatively dense, opaque 

structures. The proposed double tracking in these areas presents a potential for opening 

up the views in some of the lagoon areas, if new structures are constructed across the 

lagoons. The potential for removing existing structures and building new structures in 

lagoon areas needs to be evaluated during project-level review as a means of mitigating 

potential impacts visual impacts, as well as impacts to hydrologic and biological 

resources associated with the lagoons. (See Section 3.12, Hydrology and Water 

Resources, and Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands.) 

As an illustration of how structure replacement could open up lagoon views, Figure 3.7-5 shows 

the existing structure across San Elijo Lagoon, and a photo-simulation of a new structure type 

that represents one possible means of replacing the existing structure. As shown in the figure, 

the views across the lagoon would be opened up and expanded with a more open-cell structure 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-22 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

with widely spaced support columns. Causeway structures may also be considered for some 

lagoon crossings in project-level reviews. The photo-simulation illustrates only the potential for 

opening up views across the lagoon, and does not represent the level of design effort that would 

be done at a project-level assessment. Context-sensitive designs will be developed for any 

replacement structures, taking into account the localized aesthetic environment and public input. 

• Where at-grade or depressed route segments pass through or along the edge of 

residential areas or heavily traveled roadways, landscape treatments could be installed 

along the edge of the right-of-way such as trees, shrubs, and groundcover to provide 

partial screening and to visually integrate the right-of-way into the residential context. 

• Night lighting at stations will be the minimum required for operations and safety. All lights 

should be hooded and directed to the area where the lighting is required to minimize 

excess shedding of waste light. For lights that are not required to be on all the time, 

sensors and timers should be specified. 

• In the project-level review of new stations, the potential shadow impacts on adjacent 

pedestrian areas, parks, and residential areas will be taken into account. 

• Areas outside of the operating rail trackbed that are disturbed by cut, fill or grading will 

be seeded or planted, as feasible, such that these areas will blend with the surrounding 

vegetated areas. Native vegetation will be placed in appropriate locations and densities 

to fit adjacent natural settings. Appropriate native or ornamental species will be used 

adjacent to developed and landscaped areas. Steep areas of cut in rock may not be able 

to support plants. 

• In areas where elevated structures are close to residential areas, parks, and public open 

spaces, use of strategic plantings of fast-growing trees to provide partial or full screening 

of the structures will be evaluated. 

These measures are expected to reduce visual impacts in many cases, but design options will 

need to be reviewed at the project level with local jurisdictions, resource agencies and the public 

to determine site-specific effectiveness and acceptability of aesthetic treatments and structure 

designs. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to 

aesthetics in many circumstances. Sufficient information is not available at this Program level, 

however, to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation strategies will reduce impacts to 

aesthetics to a less than significant level in all circumstances. This document therefore 

concludes that impacts to aesthetics could remain significant, even with the application of 

mitigation strategies. Additional environmental assessment will allow a more precise evaluation 

in the project-level environmental analyses. 

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Specific analyses that would be appropriate for project-specific environmental evaluation are 

discussed below. 

• Detailed analyses of potential visual effects will be performed, particularly in areas with 

elevated structures, to identify potential visual intrusions into residential and park and 

open space areas. These analyses should focus on identifying the potential for 

obstruction of valued views; the areas where shadows would be cast on residential and 
Existing LOSSAN Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon

Photo-Simulation -New Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal

Railroad

Administration

FIGURE 3.7-5

Photo-Simulation

New Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

Source : Company 39, 2003

3.7-23
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-24 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-25 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

open space lands; and the areas where the scale, form, line, and color of project 

facilities would substantially alter the existing character and quality of the setting. In 

addition to producing a detailed inventory of area-specific impacts, this analysis would 

serve as the basis for identifying areas where project siting adjustments and design 

modifications, landscaping, and other design measures may be incorporated to avoid 

potentially significant impacts.

• Review of local urban design plans and policies will be conducted to take into account 

local design objectives. The analyses would provide a basis for considering specific 

design measures that would modify the impacts of the project in ways that would make 

the project design more consistent with local urban design goals. 

• For each of the proposed below-grade station sites, further analyses would be 

conducted in consultation with local agencies to develop an understanding of the 

relationship of the proposed station architecture, parking lots, lighting systems, and other 

features to the surrounding natural and built setting and historic context of the 

surrounding landscape setting. The analyses should identify areas where the scale, 

form, line, and color of project facilities could be designed to blend with the surrounding 

landscape. The analyses would be used to provide a basis for considering specific 

measures that could be integrated into the final station designs to reduce the visual 

impacts of the stations on their surroundings. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.7-26 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES 

This section describes the existing public utilities within the project area and identifies the 

potential for impacts on utility systems for the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives. 

The public utilities evaluated in this section include electrical transmission lines, natural gas 

facilities, and wastewater treatment facilities. A potential utility impact is any potential conflict 

between an alignment or station and a utility, including crossings regardless of depth or height. 

3.8.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

California Public Utilities Commission

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) primarily regulates the provision of 

privately owned utilities in California. These utilities include privately owned 

telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger 

transportation companies. The CPUC is responsible for assuring that California utility 

customers have safe, reliable utility services at reasonable rates; protecting utility 

customers from fraud; and promoting the health of California’s economy. The CPUC 

does not issue permits for proposed projects that would cross utility lines. The CPUC 

does, however, regulate at-grade rail crossings and, therefore, the Rail Improvement 

Alternative would require CPUC approval. 

Office of the State Fire Marshall

The Office of the State Fire Marshall, Pipeline Safety Division, regulates the safety of 

approximately 5,500 mi (8,851 km) of intrastate hazardous liquid (e.g., oil, gas) 

transportation pipelines and acts as an agent of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety 

concerning the inspection of more than 2,000 mi (3,219 km) of interstate pipelines. 

Pipeline safety staff inspects, tests, and investigates to ensure compliance with all 

federal and state pipeline safety laws and regulations. All spills, ruptures, fires, or similar 

incidents are responded to immediately; all such accidents are investigated for cause. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation

The Office of Pipeline Safety, which is part of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA), is responsible for carrying out the duties regarding 

pipeline safety set forth in 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R. §190. The 

regulations apply to the owners and operators of the facilities and cover the design, 

installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, 

extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities transporting oil, 

gas and hazardous liquid. The regulations require operators of gas pipelines to 

participate in a public safety program, such as a one-call system that would notify the 

operator of any proposed demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction that would 

take place near or affect the facility. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Wastewater Regulatory Setting

Many regulatory agencies are involved in wastewater treatment oversight. These 

agencies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Water 

Resources Control Board (CWRCB), and nine California Regional Water Quality Control 

Boards (RWQCBs). Primary wastewater regulation occurs via the issuance of 

wastewater discharge standards that are implemented through National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements 

issued by the various RWQCBs. 

Wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities in the study area are owned and/or 

operated by different agencies and entities. Any potential conflict with such facilities 

would be addressed in consultation with the respective agency. If a proposed rail 

improvement alignment option would require use of wastewater facility properties, the 

need for easements, agreements, or other arrangements with the agency and/or local 

jurisdiction would be considered and addressed. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Various methods, including the following, were used to gather the appropriate 

information for the study area: 

• Review of the project Geographical Information System (GIS) to identify cities 

and counties in the study area. 

• Review of the general plans for potentially affected communities in which 

proposed alignment options are being studied, as well as maps from the Thomas 

Bros. California Atlas and from the California State Automobile Association. 

• Review of project alignments/proposed improvements against GIS information of 

electrical transmission lines, and gas and oil pipelines compiled by Pennwell 

MAPSearch (2003). 

• Exploration of Web sites of the GIS-identified cities and counties in the study 

area, to gather appropriate setting information. 

• Examination of applicable utility system maps and Web sites to gain a better 

understanding of facility distribution. 

• Contact with public utility providers via telephone to obtain or confirm the 

locations of their current and planned services and facilities in the study area. 

Public utilities can generally include a range of services such as water, power, sewage, 

communications, and other systems. For the purposes of this analysis, three of the most 

common major facilities that may pose construction challenges were identified to best 

represent potential utility impacts. These facilities not only provide critical services, they 

are likely to create a hazard if damaged during construction operations. 

• Electrical facilities are defined as major transmission lines and substations that 

meet or exceed a power rating of 230 kilovolts (kV). 

• Natural gas facilities are defined as high-pressure gas pipelines and facilities of 

various sizes. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• Wastewater treatment facilities are defined as wastewater pipelines with a 

minimum 36-in (91-cm) diameter, and any treatment facilities located an 

alignment option corridor. 

The methodology used to assess potential conflicts (any crossing or longitudinal 

encroachment of an existing utility by the defined improvement) included overlaying the 

available utility maps with the alignment options and identifying the facilities within 100 ft 

(30 m) of the centerline and the proposed alignment options. Because public utilities are 

so prevalent throughout the study area, it was not practical to assess each potential 

conflict. Rather, the relative impact between alignment options was determined by 

quantifying the number and type of potential conflicts for each option. In addition, a 

qualitative ranking of high, medium, or low was assigned to describe the potential 

severity of the conflict, as described below and summarized in Table 3.8-1. 

Linear facilities, such as electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and 

wastewater pipelines, would be less likely to be affected by an alignment option 

because, with relatively minimal disruption or construction impacts, they could be 

avoided, or conflicts could be minimized or mitigated by routing either the public utility or 

the rail improvement around, over, or under the facility. Where unavoidable, relocations 

of the utilities would not pose adverse environmental risks, based on current 

construction practices. However, they do represent additional project-related costs. 

Fixed facilities, such as electrical substations or power stations and wastewater 

treatment plants, would be more likely to be affected by a rail alignment option because 

they could require more significant engineering, design, and construction to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate potential conflicts. These types of fixed facilities have more 

significant constraints regarding any potential conflict such as routing the transportation 

improvement around, over, or under the facility, or relocating the fixed facility to another 

location. 

Table 3.8-1 

Rankings for Potential Public Utilities Impacts/Conflicts 

Potential 

Impact 

Ranking 

Electrical Facilities Natural Gas Lines Waste Treatment Facilities 

Low No 230kV or greater 

facility within study area 

1 to 15 gas lines within 

study area 

No wastewater pipelines of 36-in 

(91-cm) diameter or greater or 

treatment facilities within study 

area. 

Medium N/A* 16 to 30 gas lines 

within study area 

N/A* 

High One or more 230kV or 

greater facility, substation, 

or power station within 

study area 

31 or more gas lines 

within study area 

Wastewater pipelines of 36-in (91-

cm) diameter or greater or 

treatment facilities within study 

area. 

* There is no medium rating for this category; impacts are either low (no facilities in the segment) or high 

(one facility or more in the segment). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.8.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for public utilities encompasses the area within 100 ft (30 m) of the 

centerline of each alignment and 100 ft (30 m) around stations. The study area is 

generally located within developed and urbanized areas. These areas typically include 

various underground, at-grade, and elevated utilities that provide water, power, 

communications, and sewage service to residential, business and manufacturing, and 

agricultural practices. 

B. PUBLIC UTILITIES IN STUDY AREA 

Figure 3.8-1 illustrates the major utilities that are present in the LOSSAN study area. 

The key service providers and resources in the LOSSAN study area are summarized 

below. 

• Electrical Facilities—Providers include Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power (LADWP); Southern California Edison (SCE); and Sempra Energy/San 

Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). 

• Natural Gas Facilities—Provided by Southern California Gas (SCG) and two 

wholesale utility customers -- SDG&E and Southwest Gas Corporation. 

• Wastewater Treatment—Provided primarily by San Diego Metropolitan 

Wastewater District, Encina Wastewater Authority, San Elijo Joint Powers 

Authority, United States Marine Corps, and South Orange Wastewater Authority. 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions assume the continued operation of the transportation and public 

utilities infrastructure described above. The No-Project Alternative assumes that, in 

addition to existing conditions, additional transportation and utility improvements will be 

developed and operational by 2020. The transportation improvements include projects 

that are programmed or funded to 2020 (as described in Chapter 2, Alternatives). 

It was not possible as part of this study to identify or quantify the utility improvements 

expected to occur by 2020. Rather, it is assumed that utility development will occur to 

meet projected demand and growth characteristics near the alignment options of the 

proposed Rail Improvement Alternative. For existing transportation facilities, conflicts 

with electrical transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, wastewater and 

water utilities, and other utilities have previously been addressed and few additional or 

increased impacts are expected from the future transportation improvements included in 

the No-Project Alternative. In addition, it is assumed that measures would be taken to 

avoid these potential conflicts to the extent feasible and practical, as well as to greatly 

limit any potential additional costs or disruption of service. It is common practice to 

coordinate onsite with utility representatives during construction in the vicinity of critical 

infrastructure such as high-voltage overhead/underground transmission lines, highpressure gas pipelines, or aqueduct canals. Also, future transportation or utility 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

5

15

10

405 215

110

710

105

805

8

!(74

!(72

CAMP PENDLETON

UTC 

Irvine 

Anaheim 

Norwalk 

Oceanside 

Fullerton 

San Clemente 

Solana Beach 

Union Station 

Santa Fe Depot 

San Juan Capistrano 

Carlsbad 

San Diego 

Encinitas 

Santa Ana 

Del Mar 

Dana Point 

San Onofre Power Plant 

Source : EIAGIS, 2001 FIGURE 3.8-1

Major Utilities jor Utilities

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

LOSSAN

Rail Corridor Improvements

Stations

!( Proposed

!( Existing

Rail Improvements Alternative

Alignment Options

Gas Pipeline

230kv Transmission Line

! Ocean Outfall

1:500,000

0 5 10 15 30 Kilometers

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

0 5 10 20 Miles

SAN

DIEGO

ORANGE

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS

ANGELES

$

3.8-5
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

improvements would be expected to be analyzed in a project-level environmental 

document, which would incorporate feasible measures to mitigate potentially significant 

adverse environmental impacts. 

Based on the above assumptions, the existing conditions of the No-Project Alternative 

are used to provide the baseline for analysis of potential conflicts with utilities. 

B. NO-PROJECT COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

Existing conditions from the No-Project Alternative provide the baseline condition. 

Improvements associated with the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would result 

in potential impacts in addition to those resulting from the No-Project Alternative. With 

respect to public utilities, the analysis did not show significant differences when 

comparing the No-Project Alternative to the Rail Improvements Alternative, or comparing 

the various alignment options. As described above, the number of potential utility 

conflicts under the No-Project Alternative was not identified, and existing conditions were 

used as the baseline for analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, the existing 

conditions are treated as representative of the No-Project Alternative, and the analysis 

summarizes the relative differences between the existing conditions and the Rail 

Improvement Alternative. 

Table 3.8-2 summarizes the potential impacts of the alignment options on the various 

public utilities examined as part of this document. 

Table 3.8-2 

Potential Utility Conflicts 

Rail Improvement 

Design Options 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Lines 

Electrical 

Substations 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

Wastewater Treatment 

Pipelines & Sewer 

Outfalls 

Union Station To 

Fullerton Station 4th Main 

Track 

15 0 24 0 

Fullerton Station To 

Irvine Station Double 

Tracking 

AT-GRADE between 

Orange and Santa Ana 4 1 6 0 

TRENCH between 

Orange and Santa Ana 4 1 6 0 

Stations 

Fullerton 0 0 0 0 

Anaheim 0 0 0 0 

Santa Ana 0 0 2 0 

Irvine 0 0 0 0 

San Juan Capistrano 

Double Tracking 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between Hwy 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

0 0 0 0 

AT-GRADE and 

Cut/Cover TRENCH 

along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

0 0 0 0 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.8-2 

Potential Utility Conflicts (continued) 

Rail Improvement 

Design Options 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Lines 

Electrical 

Substations 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

Wastewater Treatment 

Pipelines & Sewer 

Outfalls 

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente 

Double Tracking 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL

0 0 1 1 

San Clemente - LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT 

TUNNEL 

0 0 1 1 

Stations 

San Clemente 0 0 0 0 

Camp Pendleton 

At-grade Double 

Tracking 

0 0 0 2 

Oceanside/Carlsbad 

Double Tracking 

Carlsbad - AT-GRADE 2 0 0 0 

Carlsbad -TRENCH 2 0 0 0 

Stations 

Oceanside 0 0 0 0 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Double Tracking 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE 0 0 0 1 

Encinitas - SHORT 

TRENCH 0 0 0 1 

Stations 

Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 

Del Mar Double Tracking 

TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar 0 0 0 0 

TUNNEL along I-5 0 0 0 0 

I-5/805 Split To Hwy 52 

Double Tracking 

Miramar Hill TUNNEL 0 0 9 1 

I-5 TUNNEL 0 0 9 1 

Stations 

UTC (Miramar Hill 

Tunnel only) 

0 0 0 0 

Hwy 52 To Santa Fe 

Depot Curve realignment 

and 

Double Tracking 

0 0 4 1 

Stations 

Santa Fe Depot 0 1 0 0 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Overall, the analysis indicated that, with regard to potential conflicts with utilities, there 

was little difference between and among the proposed alignment options. This is 

because utilities generally do not present significant potential impacts that cannot be 

avoided, minimized, or mitigated through conventional design and construction 

processes. For instance, most potential conflicts typically would be identified during the 

design or construction stage of a project and standard measures would be taken to 

minimize costs and disruption of service. 

Twenty-one 230kV transmission lines are crossed by proposed alignment options 

between Los Angeles and San Diego. Nineteen of these transmission lines are located 

in the Union Station to Irvine Station segment, leaving the rest of the corridor relatively 

free of higher voltage electrical facilities. Two substations were identified in the study 

area, one located in the Fullerton to Irvine segment, and one near the Santa Fe Depot in 

San Diego. Actual impacts in the existing LOSSAN rail corridor are likely to be low 

because the rail pre-dates the electrical infrastructure that has been developed around 

the existing and operating LOSSAN rail corridor. 

High-pressure natural gas pipelines, ranging in diameter from 4 inches to 30 inches, are 

crossed by the proposed rail alignment options in 44 locations, and 2 locations within the 

Santa Ana Station study area. In all but one area, these gas lines are distributed such 

that construction activities would result in low or no impacts. Only in the Union Station to 

Fullerton Station segment are impacts considered to be higher, where the alignment 

options cross 24 gas lines. It is assumed that any construction in this corridor would 

require gas lines to be exposed through excavation and then re-cased for protection. 

Additional impacts to gas pipelines could result in areas where tunneling and trenching 

require minor or major pipeline relocations, or where utilities are excluded from the 

corridor. Tunneling and trenching may occur in the Union Station to Fullerton segment 

(24 pipelines), Fullerton to Irvine Station segment (6 pipelines), Dana Point/San 

Clemente segment (1 pipeline), I-5/805 Split to Highway 52 segment (9 pipelines), and 

the Highway 52 to Santa Fe Depot segment (4 pipelines). In most cases, potential 

impacts relate to construction cost and time, and should not result in disruption of 

service. 

Wastewater treatment facilities intersecting the various alignment options include five 

treated wastewater ocean outfalls and two major sewer lines. No wastewater treatment 

plants were identified within the study area. The ocean outfalls are located in the Dana 

Point/San Clemente segment (1), Camp Pendleton segment (2), Oceanside/Carlsbad 

segment (1), and the Encinitas/Solana Beach segment (1). Major sewer lines include a 

60-inch-diameter line that enters the rail corridor in the I-5/805 Split to Highway 52 

segment and parallels it to the Airport pump station and a 96-inch trunk line in the 

Highway 52 to Santa Fe Depot segment. Impacts to ocean outfalls and sewer trunk 

lines are rated as high due to high relocation impacts because of their large diameter, 

high construction costs and time, and potential for service interruption. 

3.8.4 Design Practices 

The public utilities impact analysis is programmatic and addresses only representative utilities; it 

does not address all utilities and does not address local details. Project-level analysis would 

address all utilities and local issues once the alignments are more defined. Potential conflicts 

with utilities will be avoided to the extent feasible and practical which will greatly limit any 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

potential additional costs or service disruption. It is common practice to coordinate onsite with 

utility representatives during construction in the vicinity of critical infrastructure such as highvoltage overhead/underground transmission lines, high-pressure gas pipelines, or aqueduct 

canals. Also, future transportation or utility improvements would be analyzed at the project-level 

environmental review along with feasible measures to mitigate potentially significant adverse 

environmental impacts. 

3.8.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Potential general mitigation strategies for potential utility conflicts will first focus on avoidance of 

the potential conflicts. If such conflicts are unavoidable, the next strategy will focus on reducing 

and minimizing the potential impact. The mitigation strategies would be refined during 

subsequent project-specific review. 

For large utilities, such as wastewater treatment facilities, electrical substations, and pipelines, 

the strategy will be first to avoid crossing or using any of the utility right-of-way or facility 

footprint as the project-specific review proceeds and as engineering designs are refined. 

Avoidance opportunities will include consideration of modifying both the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of the proposed rail improvements. 

If avoidance is not feasible, and adjustment of alignments has not eliminated potential conflict, 

then in close coordination with the utility owner, relocation/reconstruction/restoration of the utility 

will be evaluated as a second mitigation strategy. This type of mitigation could include 

combining several utilities into a single utility corridor, or relocation or reconstruction. Where 

feasible and cost-effective, consolidating several utilities, primarily underground electrical and 

communications utilities, into one conduit will be considered during utility relocation planning. 

In areas where rail improvements would occur within the existing rail corridor, utility conflicts are 

expected to be low because utilities have generally been sited to avoid the active rail corridor. 

New or realigned rail corridors may encounter more conflicts, and below-grade options such as 

trenching or tunneling may have the highest potential conflicts due to the presence of buried 

utilities. Measures to avoid and/or mitigate potential utility conflicts associated with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Adjust rail alignments and profiles to avoid major utility lines or facilities. 

• Relocate transmission lines or substations. 

• During final design, consult with each utility provider/owner to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on existing and planned utilities through design refinements. Where impacts are 

unavoidable, all affected facilities would be relocated or protected in place prior to, 

during and after construction, as appropriate, and in accordance with methods and 

designs approved by the affected utility provider/owner. 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance 

for public utilities and service systems, the Rail Improvements Alternative would not be 

expected to result in a significant effect on utilities and utility services. The proposed location of 

the proposed improvements within existing rail and other transportation corridors reduces the 

corridor-wide potential to affect utility operations. In locations where a rail alignment would 

intersect or be in close proximity to existing utility pipelines or facilities, design modifications and 

avoidance strategies would be applied to avoid and to limit impacts to utilities. Opportunities for 

utility relocation and coordination would also help avoid utility impacts. Design practices and 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

mitigation strategies would be applied also to avoid even temporary curtailment of services 

during construction. The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce impacts of the Rail 

Improvements Alternative to utilities to a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental 

assessment will allow a more precise evaluation in the project-level environmental analyses. 

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis 

As previously mentioned the public utilities impact analysis is programmatic and addresses only 

representative utilities; it does not address all utilities and does not address local details. 

Project-level analysis would address all utilities and local issues once the alignments are 

defined. Project-level environmental documentation and subsequent planning documents 

should include more detailed information on the following utilities. 

• Water supply lines. 

• Wastewater conveyance lines. 

• Wastewater and water pump stations. 

• Storm drains. 

• Fiber optic lines. 

• Telecommunication lines. 

• Other utilities, and pipelines likely to be crossed or conflict with the various alignment 

options, including liquid petroleum, crude oil, etc. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.8-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

PUBLIC UTILITIES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

This section identifies the potential for impacts on areas that may be contaminated with 

hazardous materials and/or wastes for the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives. 

According to Title 22, Section 66261 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), waste is 

considered hazardous if it exhibits at least one of the four characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or if it is a “listed waste.” Waste can be liquid, semi-solid, or 

gaseous. A potential hazardous waste impact is any potential conflict between an alignment, 

station, or airport facility and a known contaminated site, including crossings of a known 

contaminated site regardless of depth or height. The section focuses on contamination at sites 

on the National Priorities List (NPL)/Superfund, California’s high-priority Annual Work Plan 

(AWP) sites, and solid waste landfill (SWLF) sites. 

3.9.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Hazardous materials and waste sites, including their use and remediation, are regulated 

by a number of federal laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

California’s hazardous materials regulations for the discovery of hazardous substances 

in the subsurface during construction, and the disposal of hazardous materials and 

cleanup of the hazards area incorporate most federal hazardous materials regulations. 

California’s statutes and regulations on hazardous materials are contained in Health and 

Safety Code (HSC) 25130 et seq. and CCR Title 22, which contains regulations adopted 

and administered by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 

California regulations require that hazardous waste be managed according to applicable 

regulations that include worker operational safety procedures as identified in Title 8 

CCR; handling, storage, and exposure requirements; transportation and disposal 

requirements under a uniform hazardous waste manifest; and documentation 

procedures. In California, waste disposal facilities are classified in three categories: 

Class I, Class II, and Class III. A Class I disposal facility may accept federal and 

California hazardous waste. Class II and Class III facilities are only permitted to accept 

non-hazardous waste at facility-specific acceptance threshold levels established by the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the permitting agency. 

Additional federal and state regulations address worker exposure to safety and health 

hazards. The federal regulations are identified in Title 29 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and the state regulations are in CCR Title 8. The federal and California 

Occupational Safety and Health Administrations are the primary agencies responsible 

for enforcing these regulations. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Identification of Hazardous Sites

Impacts on hazardous waste and/or material sites are an important consideration in the 

development of any major transportation improvement project. Remediation of such 

sites can dramatically increase the overall cost of a project. It is important to know early 

in the environmental analysis process where potential conflicts with these sites may 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

occur, so that proper planning can be done to avoid these locations where possible. At 

this program level of analysis, available databases and information regarding the extent 

and nature of known hazardous materials/hazardous waste sites were reviewed. The 

following databases were consulted for information on potential hazardous materials 

risks. 

• Federal National Priorities List/Superfund: This U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency-developed database lists sites that pose an immediate public 

health hazard, and where an immediate response to the hazard is necessary. 

These listings are also found in the CERCLA database, also known as CERCLIS 

(Title 42 U.S.C. Chapter 103). 

• State Priority List: Sites listed in this DTSC and RWQCB database are priority 

sites that were compiled from AWP and CAL-SITE databases, and sites where 

Preliminary Endangerment Assessments were conducted by the California 

Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA). The AWP database lists 

contaminated sites authorized for cleanup under the Bond Expenditure Plan 

developed by the California Department of Health Services as a site-specific 

expenditure plan to support appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup 

Bond Act funds. 

• State of California Solid Waste Landfills: The landfill sites listed in this 

database generally have been identified by the state as accepting solid wastes. 

This database includes open, closed, and inactive solid waste disposal facilities 

and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource 

Recovery Act of 1972 and is maintained by the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board. The locations of the disposal facilities are primarily 

identified through permit applications and local enforcement agencies. 

Methods of Analysis

The hazardous materials and wastes analysis for this Program EIR/EIS entailed a 

qualitative comparison of potential impacts on humans and the natural environment from 

exposure to hazardous materials or wastes that could result from proximity to or 

potential disturbance of sites containing these materials due to the No-Project 

Alternative or the proposed Rail Improvement Alternative. As described above, the 

analysis was based on the results of a database search (Environmental Data Resources 

2003) for a study area that included the potential Rail Improvements Alternative 

alignment options as well as proposed station locations and existing stations where 

expansion is proposed, as described below in Section 3.12.2. For this program-level 

broad analysis of potential impacts related to known priority hazards sites, the analysis 

was limited to hazardous materials sites and hazardous waste sites listed on the NPL, 

SPL, and SWLF databases. Other types of sites, such as sites with leaking 

underground storage tanks (LUSTs), would be considered in a subsequent phase of 

analysis, when site-specific analysis could be tied to more detailed alignment plans and 

profiles. No site-specific investigations were conducted for this analysis. Because of the 

large area covered, such analyses would not be cost-effective at this program-level 

analysis. 

Potential impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative were compared to conditions 

under the No-Project Alternative. This assessment assumed that impacts related to 

hazardous materials or hazardous waste exposure could occur both during project 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

construction and during project operation. It was based on the anticipated difference 

between No-Project conditions and conditions under the Rail Improvements Alternative, 

in terms of the estimated area of the proposed improvements described in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, which guided the identification of study area boundaries. This analysis 

focused on the number of identified NPL, SPL, and SWLF sites within the study area. 

The program-level comparison of alternatives in this section assesses the relative 

degree to which known hazardous material and waste sites could constrain the 

alignment options by requiring costly disposal conditions and site cleanup and 

remediation. In this comparative analysis, each type of listing (NPL, SPL, and SWLF) 

was given equal weight. The program-level analysis does not include a detailed 

assessment of the nature or extent of any hazardous materials or wastes that may be 

present at identified sites, or the degree or specific nature of potential impacts under the 

various alignment options. The analysis and identification of potential hazards within the 

study area of alignment options is useful in comparing the options and in identifying 

areas where avoidance may be possible in subsequent project-level review. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would result in substantial improvements to existing 

rail infrastructure, within or adjacent to existing rights of way, in addition to the NoProject transportation improvements. Therefore, the study area for the presence of 

hazardous materials and wastes includes existing transportation corridors, new rail 

corridors, and the areas where passenger stations are being considered or expanded. 

The study area consisted of a 500 ft-wide (152 m-wide) (250 ft [76 m] on either side of 

the centerline) corridor along each alignment option identified for the Rail Improvement 

Alternative, and a 250-ft (76-m) radius around each station facility. The study area 

boundaries were based on the distance within which a hazardous material or waste site 

could impact the possible location of a rail improvement. 

B. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE SITES 

Two hazardous materials/hazardous waste sites were identified within the study area 

through the database search. One NPL/Superfund site, the El Toro Marine Corps Air 

Station, was identified in the northern limits of the City of Irvine, within the study area of 

the Fullerton Station to Irvine Station rail segment and within the study area of the Irvine 

Station. One solid waste landfill was identified south of Highway 52 in the Rose Canyon 

area, within the study area of the Highway 52 to Santa Fe Depot rail segment. These 

two sites are relatively minor in extent and could be effectively mitigated through typical 

design and construction practices. 

Additional information on the results of the database search is provided in the hazardous 

materials and wastes technical evaluation (HDR, 2003). 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives 

The potential severity of impacts from hazardous material or waste releases on the 

construction, operations, and maintenance of the proposed alignment options would 

depend on two factors: the nature and severity of contamination, and the construction 

and operations/maintenance activities that are likely to occur near the sites. The sites 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

that pose the greatest concern are those with soil or groundwater contamination within 

or adjacent to the right-of-way, and those with groundwater contamination near areas 

where excavation down to groundwater would be necessary. For example, dewatering 

during excavation, trenching, or tunneling could alter local subsurface hydraulic 

gradients and draw existing groundwater contamination into excavated areas, trenches, 

or tunnels. In addition, fuel or chemical vapors could move through the vadose zone1 to 

excavated areas (during construction), or to underground structures associated with the 

rail line such as vaults and manholes (during project operation). 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The description of existing conditions in the study area is based on the known hazardous 

materials sites in the vicinity of the transportation infrastructure that exists in 2003. The 

No-Project Alternative would incorporate local, state, and interstate transportation 

system improvements designated in existing plans and programs. This analysis 

assumed that no additional hazardous material or waste impacts would occur beyond 

those already addressed or those that would be addressed in the environmental 

documents for those improvement projects, and that any such impacts would largely be 

mitigated as part of those projects. 

For the purpose of this analysis, existing hazardous materials sites and hazardous waste 

sites identified in the available databases were treated as the baseline for comparison. 

While the future conditions for the No-Project Alternative may result in some additional 

hazardous materials or waste impacts, they cannot be predicted or estimated for 

purposes of this program-level analysis. Similarly, it can be presumed that between now 

and the year 2020 some of the existing hazardous waste sites would be cleaned up or 

remediated as part of CEPA and RWQCB efforts. 

B. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

As described above, the No-Project Alternative was used as a proxy for the baseline 

2020 condition; the impact from any improvements associated with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative would be in addition to the impacts from the 2020 No-Project 

Alternative. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative study area contains only two hazardous materials/ 

wastes sites, described below. 

• Superfund Sites: One NPL/Superfund site, the El Toro Marine Corps Air 

Station, was identified within the study area. This site is located in the City of 

Irvine between Union Station and Irvine Station via the LOSSAN corridor 

alignment. This site could potentially affect the Fullerton Station to Irvine Station 

double tracking design options, either at-grade double tracking or double tracking 

in a trench. In addition, this NPL site has the potential to affect construction and 

operation at the Irvine Station, where proposed improvements include bypass 

tracks and additional parking. 

• Solid Waste Landfills: One solid waste landfill was identified within the study 

area. The Rose Canyon Landfill is located in San Diego County (Highway 52 to 

Santa Fe Depot segment), south of Highway 52. The curve realignment and 

 

1 The vadose zone comprises the region between the land surface and underlying groundwater aquifers and is the geologic zone 

through which pollutants and contaminants travel prior to entering groundwater (INEEL National Vadose Zone Project, 2002). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

double-tracking option proposed in this segment could be affected. This landfill 

would not affect existing or proposed stations in the study area. 

Due to the complexity of hazardous materials/wastes sites, it was not possible to assign 

levels of severity of impacts of these sites without information addressing nature and 

extent of contamination and precise locations and boundaries of contamination zones. 

However, the presence of identified hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites 

along various alignment options indicates a potential need for cleanup or remediation of 

those sites. The extent of cleanup or remediation would translate into additional costs 

for construction, which could affect the practicality or feasibility of an alignment option. 

As described above, this analysis was limited to searches of standard databases listing 

known sites and did not incorporate information on other smaller sites that could 

contribute to risk on a local basis and would be studied at the project-specific level, if the 

proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is pursued. In addition, because neither sitespecific investigations nor onsite fieldwork was performed, little or no information is 

available about the nature and severity of contamination at the sites identified, or the 

schedule or program for cleanup, if any, so the information in this section represents a 

“site-count” approximation and may not fully divulge potential risk levels. Finally, all of 

the Rail Improvements Alternative alignment options would be within or adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way, and these alignments have a land use history under which 

additional unknown contamination (e.g., spills or accidental releases) would be a 

possibility. Consequently, although no unavoidable hazardous materials and hazardous 

waste impacts are expected for any of the alignment options, hazardous materials and 

hazardous waste information available at the program level is not sufficient to distinguish 

between alignment options. 

3.9.4 Design Practices 

At this Program-level of study it is not possible to identify specific hazardous material impacts, 

determine the nature and severity of contamination, or the construction, operations and 

maintenance activities that are likely to occur near specific sites. However, the lead agencies 

are committed to avoiding and minimizing potential impacts through design refinement at the 

project level as well as the use of best practices to avoid potential impacts during construction. 

(Refer also to Section 2.7.1 for additional best practices.) 

3.9.5 Mitigation Strategies 

Mitigation for impacts related to hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes depends on 

detailed site-specific investigations (environmental site assessments) that would be performed 

at the project level of analysis. Mitigation strategies include realignment of one or more Rail 

Improvements Alternative options or relocation of proposed stations to avoid an identified site, 

or remediation of identified hazardous material/waste contamination. 

In addition, potential mitigation strategies would include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Investigate soils for contamination and prepare environmental site assessments (ESAs) 

when necessary. 

• Prior to demolition of any buildings or existing structures such as bridges for project 

construction, survey for lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. 

• Acquire necessary permits if ground dewatering is required 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 3.9-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

• When indicated by project level ESAs, perform a Phase II ESA (e.g., hydrogeologic 

investigation) to identify specific mitigation measures. Perform Phase II ESAs in 

conformance with the ASTM Standards Related to the Phase II Environmental Site 

Assessment Process (E1903-01) 

• Prepare a Site Management Program/Contingency Plan (SMP/CP) prior to construction 

to address known and potential hazardous material issues SMP/CP including: 

− Measures to address management of contaminated soil and groundwater 

− Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) including measures to protect 

construction workers and general public 

− Procedures to protect workers and the general public in the event that unknown 

contamination or buried hazards are encountered 

Based on the analysis above, and considering CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance for 

hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative would 

have a potentially less than significant effect on hazardous materials and hazardous waste. At 

this programmatic level of review, it is not possible to identify specific hazardous material 

impacts, or the nature and severity of contamination at specific sites. However, the lead 

agencies’ commitment of using design practices to minimize impacts, and the use of best 

practices and mitigation strategies for remediation of hazardous sites, are expected to 

substantially lessen or avoid impacts to hazardous materials and wastes. During project-level 

reviews, specific impacts to sites with hazardous materials will be identified, and mitigation 

measures based on the above mitigation strategies will be applied on a site-specific basis. 

Additional environmental assessment will allow more precise evaluation in the project-level 

environmental analyses. 

3.9.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Specific studies that would be required for project-level environmental documentation include 

environmental site assessments, which would study the identified hazardous materials and 

hazardous waste sites in more detail to evaluate the nature and level of contamination and allow 

thorough analysis of potential impacts in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. 

Tasks to be performed as part of the project-level environmental site assessment would be 

expected to include the following: 

• Environmental database search. This would include additional databases (e.g., Cortese 

list, LUST list, other sites, etc.). 

• Review of historical land use for all alignment options or corridor alternatives carried 

forward for detailed analysis. 

• Site reconnaissance. 

• Review of agency records and agency consultation. 

• Data analysis and report preparation. 
4.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 4 

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

4.0 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter summarizes the estimated Capital, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs, and 

Operational Performance associated with the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements evaluated in 

this Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (Program 

EIR/EIS). The O&M Costs for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements were developed based 

on the operations plan and network simulation model, which represents the physical 

characteristics of the No-Project Alternative and proposed Rail Improvements Alternative and 

the performance characteristics of the conventional train equipment currently in use by the rail 

operators. 

4.0.1 Capital Costs 

The Capital Costs that were calculated for the improvements to the LOSSAN corridor were 

calculated using 2003 dollars. The costs are associated with infrastructure improvements 

defined for each alternative and do not include the costs associated with the No-Project 

Alternative. The programmed and funded improvements included under the No-Project 

Alternative are assumed to have been implemented by 2020. 

A. RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

Capital costs were estimated for all of the proposed improvements along the LOSSAN 

corridor evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS. Because of the variations in the 

improvements being considered in the environmental analysis process, there is 

potentially a wide range of capital costs associated with this corridor. 

The capital costs are representative of all aspects of the implementation of 

improvements to the conventional train system, including construction, potential right-ofway acquisition, environmental mitigation, and design and management services. The 

construction costs include procurement and installation of additional line infrastructure 

(tracks, bridges, tunnels, and grade separations); facilities (passenger stations, 

additional storage and maintenance facilities); systems (communications, train control); 

and removal or relocation of existing infrastructure (utilities, tracks). The right-of-way 

costs include the estimated costs to acquire properties needed for construction of the 

additional infrastructure associated with the conventional rail improvements. The 

environmental mitigation costs include a rough estimate of the proportion of capital costs 

required for mitigating environmental impacts, based on similar completed highway and 

railroad construction projects. However, no specific mitigation costs are identified at this 

program level of review. Infrastructure and facility costs account for the materials 

necessary to accommodate the representative (high-end) ridership forecasts. Other 

implementation costs are estimated in terms of add-on percentages to construction costs 

to account for agency costs associated with administration of the program (design, 

environmental review, and management). 
4.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Unit Cost Estimates

The capital costs have been categorized into discrete cost elements. In general, the 

capital costs were estimated by determining the appropriate unit costs for the identified 

elements and the element quantities from the conceptual corridor improvement plans 

prepared for the LOSSAN corridor. Each cost element is defined in Appendix 4-A, along 

with the methods, assumptions, and unit cost applied in each case. Application of these 

unit costs and assumptions provides sufficient detail for the comparison of alignment and 

station options at this program level. 

Adjustment to Unit Costs

The unit costs were adjusted to account for inflation from 2000 to September 2003, 

based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Report. The revised 

unit costs are based on the unit costs originally developed by the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority to be used in estimating the cost of incremental improvements to the 

conventional rail system along the LOSSAN corridor to allow for the intercity service 

operating along this corridor to perform as a feeder service to the proposed statewide 

High Speed Train (HST) system. 

Adjustments were also made to the tunneling unit costs, based on the Tunneling 

Conference held in December 2001. This technical tunneling conference was held to 

address issues associated with the tunneling proposed for the statewide HST system. 

The conference was attended by seven representatives of major tunneling contractors, 

nine specialized tunneling consulting engineers, two geologists/geotechnical engineers, 

and representatives of the consultant team. The conference reviewed past assumptions 

and requirements, construction methods, and cost estimating. The conference focused 

on gaining insights and input regarding feasibility, construction methods, and cost 

assumptions associated with the proposed tunneling. As a result of the conference and 

subsequent research and analysis, the tunneling-related unit costs were revised to 

reflect changes in design and construction assumptions (e.g., advance rates and tunnel 

lining). 

4.0.2 Operational Performance 

As part of the Operational Analysis, a network computer model was developed for the LOSSAN 

corridor to simulate train operations in order to estimate the travel times and speeds to assist in 

further analyzing the effects between the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives. 

The Berkeley Simulation Software Rail Traffic Controller model was selected as the platform for 

the LOSSAN corridor simulation model (the Model) developed for this analysis. The Model 

provides a range of analysis and reporting capabilities encompassing the range of information 

required for this analysis and can realistically simulate higher-speed train operations in a mixeduse operational environment (Commuter and Freight services). The advantage of the Model is 

that it is designed as a flexible tool that can continue to be modified, refined and upgraded to 

evaluate different operational and infrastructure configurations. The numbers that were input 

into the model were based on the existing and forecasted service numbers provided by the 

operators within the corridor. 
4.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

A. OPERATING SPEEDS 

Operating speeds of 110-125 mph are proposed for areas where the alignment is less 

constrained, and lower operating speeds (less than 90 mph) are proposed in the more 

heavily developed areas. Due to the spacing between stations, service would not 

necessarily reach the maximum speeds on a given segment. Figures 4.0-1 and 4.0-2 

show the operating speed profiles put out by the model. These graphics illustrate the 

speeds that can be attained through implementing the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

The gray regions in both charts represent the proposed maximum allowed speed along a 

given segment of the corridor. The green line represents the actual speed of each train 

and the red the dynamic braking application. As shown in both the Low- and High-Build 

Rail Improvements Alternative, the maximum allowed speed for a given segment of track 

is rarely achieved due to the time it takes to accelerate and decelerate a train. 

B. CONCEPTUAL OPERATING SCHEDULE 

The degree of service to be provided along the corridor formed the basis for the train 

data that was input to the Model. The service levels tested in the system network 

simulation were provided by the operators for forecast year 2020. The level of operation 

projected for intercity travel would allow for hourly service along the corridor. The service 

type and stopping patterns of the corridor operators is summarized below: 

• Intercity (16 trains per day in each direction): Trains stopping at all intermediate 

stops, with potential for skipping stops to improve service depending on demand. 

• Commuter: 

Metrolink (29 trains per day in each direction north of Irvine / 8-18 trains a day 

between Irvine and Oceanside): Trains would stop at all intercity and commuter 

stations with no express service provided. 

Coaster (27 trains per day in each direction): Trains would stop at all intercity and 

commuter stations with no express service provided. 

• Freight (9-12 total trains per day): No stops at stations, freight consists only and 

would provide service to local branch lines and industries along the corridor. 

These service levels represent projections provided by the operators along the corridor 

based on the projected demand for service and were incorporated into the model to 

assist in determining any capacity constraints associated with the scenarios. 

4.0.3 Operations & Maintenance Costs 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs were calculated for the LOSSAN corridor 

improvement alternatives and were assumed to be in addition to the costs of the existing 

system. Therefore, only the incremental (marginal costs) to operate and maintain the improved 

conventional rail system beyond the existing system were estimated. 
4.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Figure 4.0-1 

Low-Build Operating Speed & Travel Time Profile 
4.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Figure 4.0-2 

High-Build Operating Speed & Travel Time Profile 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-6

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

A. METHODOLOGY 

The annual O&M costs of an improved LOSSAN corridor are based on system 

indicators, including operating speed, travel time, station configuration, and operating 

schedule. All of these system indicators were obtained from the output of the 

operational simulation model as documented in the Operations Analysis Report for this 

Program EIR/EIS. 

O&M costs are shown in 2003 dollars and were calculated per-train-hour, using the most 

recently obtained Amtrak billing data for fiscal year 2002-03. Total yearly costs were 

averaged to derive average, per-train-hour costs for the categories shown in Table 4.0-1 

on the following page. It must be noted that the table shows only the variable cost 

elements for Amtrak expenses incurred for O&M by category, to reflect the marginal 

costs associated with the proposed service improvements. 

Table 4.0-1 

Incremental Annual Operating Costs for a 

Conventional Intercity Rail System 

Item1,2,3 Annual Cost 

(millions 2003 $) 

Derived Annual Dollars 

per Train Hour 

(2003 $) 

Wages

 Train and Engine Crews $6.86 $310.85 

 On-Board Svc - Labor $2.45 $111.11 

Daily Operations

 Train Fuel $3.47 $156.94 

 Transportation $11.17 $505.79 

 Maintenance of Equipment $9.41 $426.13 

Total per Year $33.36 $1,510.81 

Source: Amtrak California 2003 

1

 O&M costs were derived using the billing statements from Monthly Expense Detail of 

Amtrak Operations Billing for Pacific Surfliner Route Report - FY 2002-03. 

September 2003 

2

 O&M costs are based on a calendar year - 365 days. 

3 Numbers are subject to rounding. 

B. RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

Operations & Maintenance Annual Costs

The projected annual O&M Costs for an improved intercity rail system along the 

LOSSAN corridor are based on the track miles and train hours resulting from the 

simulation model described above in the Operational Analysis, which was based on 

information obtained from the Department and Amtrak, and the unit costs developed 

initially by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Updated estimates of total train miles 

from the simulation model have provided a cost estimate for both the Low- and HighBuild Rail Improvements Alternative developed for the LOSSAN Corridor Incremental 

Improvements Study. 

In order to determine the O&M Costs associated with the proposed improvements, daily 

train miles and hours were calculated. The number of train miles for the intercity 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-7

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

passenger system along an improved LOSSAN corridor (assuming the Low-Build Rail 

Improvement Alternative) is 4,080 per weekday, or 1,489,200 per year, and the total 

number of train hours per day was determined to be 64, or 23,360 per year. Table 4.0-1 

summarizes annual O&M unit costs for train operations and maintenance assuming the 

Low-Build Rail Improvements Alternative, for all future scenarios of the conventional 

intercity rail system. Included in the O&M costs are only the variable costs that would be 

sensitive to a change in travel time, which includes wages for labor, costs for operating 

and maintaining trains, and train fuel. Cost items including general support, general 

administration, insurance and taxes, depreciation and supplemental expenses were not 

considered in the cost calculations since they would not vary significantly with a change 

in end-to-end travel time. The conventional train fleet O&M costs are shown on a pertrain-hour basis. 

Other costs associated with operating a conventional train system include the costs for 

maintaining the infrastructure (maintenance-of-ways). The costs of operating and 

maintaining infrastructure for a conventional intercity rail system are shown on a pertrack-mile basis in Table 4.0-2. The unit cost per-track-mile for track maintenance 

represents average costs. It must be noted that the unit cost per-track-mile may vary 

significantly, based on track type (at-grade, trench, tunnel, or water crossing). 

Table 4.0-2 

Annual Maintenance of Way Costs for a 

Conventional Rail Infrastructure 

Item1,2,3 Annual Dollars per Track 

Mile (2003 $) 

Maintenance of Way

 Track Maintenance4 $11,616 

 Signal Maintenance $12,076 

 Structure Maintenance $2,329 

 Procurement $2,066 

 Other $8,696 

 Agency $11,616 

Total per Year $48,399

Source: Southern California Regional Rail Association (Metrolink) 2003 

1

 O&M costs were derived using the billing statements from Monthly Expense Detail of 

Amtrak Operations Billing for Pacific Surfliner Route Report - FY 2002-03. September 

2003 

2

 Total existing number of track miles between Los Angeles and San Diego is estimated at 

214 miles. 

3 Numbers are subject to rounding. 

4

 The figure shown represents an average cost, based on available information. 

4.0.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

A. NO-PROJECT VS. RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE 

This section compares the Rail Improvements Alternative with the No-Project Alternative 

to allow for a clear understanding of the cost and performance benefits and impacts of 

the scenarios proposed in this environmental document. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-8

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

Capital Costs

For the improvements along the corridor, comprised of either the Low-Build or High-Build 

Rail Improvements Alternative, or a mixture of both, the capital costs could range from 

$3.8 to $5.5 billion in addition to the improvements already implemented as part of the 

No-Project. The proposed alignment and station configuration options and design 

assumptions will be reviewed in greater depth at the project-level to identify cost savings 

through application of value engineering practices. 

Operational Performance

The train operations and improvements assumed for the LOSSAN corridor in 2020 in the 

No-Project were simulated to estimate the capacity of the corridor between the Los 

Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LA Union Station) and the San Diego Santa Fe 

Depot (San Diego) to determine the feasibility of this system to support more frequent 

and higher speed passenger rail service with only the funded and programmed 

improvements implemented. As illustrated in Table 4.0-3 below, using the operational 

assumptions presented above in Section 4.0.2-C, the average speed and travel time of 

the No-Project Alternative is significantly worse than the Low- and High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternative, taking almost 38 minutes longer from LA Union Station to San 

Diego. These averages represent the actual travel time and speed calculated when 

assuming the full range of operations projected to be occurring along the corridor by 

2020. 

Table 4.0-3 

Operational Intercity Rail Performance Comparison 

No-Project vs. Rail Improvements Alternative 

Existing Rail Improvements Alternative 

Conditions1 No-Project 

Alternative2

Low-Build2

 High-Build3

Projected Travel Time 

(Hours:Minutes) 2:44 2:36 1:58 1:48 

Average Speed (mph) 47 50 63 69 

1

 Assumes 7 intermediate station stops 

2

 Assumes 8 intermediate station stops 

3

 Assumes 9 intermediate station stops 

The existing condition provides a travel time of almost 3 hours for intercity passenger rail 

between LA Union Station and San Diego. This travel time is representative of single 

track operations and demonstrates the delay that results from the interference between 

trains caused by having to wait along a siding for the passing of a train in the opposite 

direction. In the event of incidents, existing segments of single track can account for 

even more unreliability and delay in the travel times along the corridor, providing for an 

even slower travel time. 

With Intercity Passenger Rail ridership along the corridor projected to top 5 million by the 

year 2020 as well as the planned expansion of commuter rail services and freight 

operations, the improvements identified in the No-Project Alternative do little to relieve 

the capacity and reliability constraints. The lack of significant travel time savings 

represented in the No-Project Alternative is largely the result of the remaining segments 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-9

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

of single-track present. As stated previously, single track segments create “chokepoints” 

where trains are delayed in sidings, holding for trains to pass in the opposite direction. 

These delays are eliminated in both the Low- and High-Build Rail Improvements 

Alternative as the corridor would be improved to incorporate double-track along its entire 

length from LA Union Station to San Diego, providing operational benefits for all rail 

services. 

Implementing the projects identified as part of either Rail Improvements Alternative 

would provide for a fully double-tracked rail corridor that offers to the passenger six 

specific advantages over the No-Project Alternative: 

1) Increased Capacity & Average Speed. The proposed corridor improvements will 

produce improved corridor geometrics, straightening the alignment wherever 

possible, but most importantly, will eliminate all single track segments, providing 

greatly increased capacity within the corridor. With these improvements, 

maximum speeds of 90mph will be possible in urban area (e.g. Los Angeles and 

San Diego) and 110 to 125mph in more rural areas (e.g. Camp Pendleton). 

Using the plans and profiles designed for the corridor improvements that 

incorporate the double-tracking and new geometrics, and track charts where 

necessary, an operational model was developed which determined the average 

speed for the Rail Improvements Alternative would increase an average of 16 to 

22 miles per hour (mph) ranging from 63 to 69mph, depending on the 

improvements selected, when compared to existing conditions (47mph), and an 

average improvement of 13 to 19mph when compared to the No-Project 

Alternative (50mph). These speeds are an average that incorporates the 

deceleration and acceleration rates for curves and station areas, and locations 

where speed restrictions have been removed or may still be present. 

2) Reduction in Travel Time. With increased speed there are improved travel times. 

Depending on which Rail Improvements Alternative is selected, passengers 

could save as many as 45 to 60 minutes on their trip between Los Angeles and 

San Diego when compared to existing conditions. This is a 28 to 34-percent 

reduction in travel time. The No-Project Alternative only produces an average of 

an 8-minute (or a 5-percent) savings in travel time. These times assume local 

service, which would stop at all stations. The Rail Improvements Alternative 

would be able to further decrease travel times by also allowing for the potential of 

skip-stopping/express service along the corridor. For example, express service 

which made only 3 intermediate stops could further reduce the overall travel 

times by up to 20 minutes, assuming an average time of 4 minutes per station 

stop. 

3) Increased Safety & Reliability. With the increase in capacity provided by doubletracking the length of the corridor, reliability will be greatly improved. Both safety 

and reliability would further increase in the High-Build Rail Improvements 

Alternative, as this alternative would grade-separate the length of the corridor, 

eliminating all remaining at-grade crossings. 

4) Enhanced Multimodal Opportunities. Slow travel times and restricted reliability 

often deter people from using public transportation alternatives. With the 

improvement in reliability and travel times making it easer to reliably connect to 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-10

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

other transit modes, passengers would be provided with additional transportation 

options. 

5) Operational Flexibility. Two tracks allow for trains to pass each other easily 

along all segments of the corridor, eliminating the delay caused by waiting at 

single-track segments, and allows for operational options such as “skipstopping”, express trains, and other improved service choices for both Intercity 

and Commuter rail services. The Rail Improvements Alternative would also 

provide for rail operational enhancements to be made such as providing for the 

flexibility necessary to accommodate planned future expansions in Intercity and 

Commuter rail service frequencies. 

6) Reduction of Vehicle/Rail Conflicts. The Low-Build Rail Improvements Alternative 

will significantly reduce the number of at-grade crossings along the corridor, 

while the High-Build provides for a fully grade-separated corridor. However, both 

of these improvements provide for significant improvements in: 

a. Safety – Reduces the number of vehicle/rail/pedestrian conflicts at 

crossings 

b. Reliability – Reduces delays associated with vehicle/rail/pedestrian 

conflicts for both train and automobiles. Elimination of at-grade crossings 

reduces the delay of automobile traffic by preventing automobiles from 

stopping for trains at crossings. 

c. Noise – Eliminates the need for horns at crossings 

d. Pollution/Energy – By reducing the amount of delay for automobiles at 

grade crossings, the amount of pollution emitted by idling vehicles is 

significantly reduced. 

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs were calculated for the scenarios that 

represented the three corridor alternatives (No-Project, Low-Build and High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternatives). Total annual O&M costs for operating and maintaining 

trains ranges from $58.1 million for the No-Project Alternative and $47.7 and 45.3 million 

for the Rail Improvement Alternatives. The total annual O&M costs for operating and 

maintaining trains decreases for the Rail Improvements Alternative from the No-Project, 

due to increased operating efficiency (decreased travel times, faster train turn-around 

times and replacement/upgrading of infrastructure). 

B. LOW-BUILD VS. HIGH-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

Though both the Low- and High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative provide the 

capacity improvements necessary to accommodate the levels of service projected for 

the LOSSAN corridor, their associated costs and overall operational performances differ. 

This section provides a clear comparison between the Capital Costs, Operational 

Performances, and O&M Costs of the Low- and High-Build scenarios. 

Capital Costs

Both the Low-Build and High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative include a mix of 

double-, triple-, and quadruple tracked segments. The derived capital cost estimates for 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-11

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

the Low- and High- Build Rail Improvements Alternatives are directly affected by type of 

cost elements and the estimation of quantities for the improvement options. Because 

the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative incorporates the highest level of extensive 

infrastructure investment and/or construction complexity, this option also has the highest 

estimated capital costs associated with the proposed improvements. The range of 

capital costs between the Low- and High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative is $3.8 to 

$5.4 billion (a difference of forty five percent). 

The estimated total capital costs for the Rail Improvements Alternative is summarized in 

Table 4.0-4 below. Further detail regarding the capital costs is provided in Appendix 4-A. 

Operational Performance

Although there are several differences between the Low- and High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternative, these variations provide solutions that improve travel time but 

do not measurably affect capacity (i.e. the number of main tracks to support the train 

volumes assumed for 2020). 

As shown in Table 4.0-5, the overall difference in travel time along the length of the 

corridor from LA Union Station to San Diego between the Low- and High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternative is 10 minutes, assuming the projected corridor traffic for 2020, 

with the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative producing an average travel time of 

1 hour and 48 minutes compared to 1 hour and 58 minutes with the Low-Build. 

Corresponding to the faster travel time shown in Table 4.0-5, and as a result of the 

improved curve geometrics of the High-Build over the Low-Build Rail Improvements 

Alternative, the High-Build has an average operating speed that is 6 mph faster over the 

length of the corridor when compared to the Low-Build, with the High-Build achieving an 

average operating speed of 69 mph and the Low-Build an average speed of 63 mph. 

In addition, both safety and reliability would further be increased in the High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternative, as this alternative would grade-separate the length of the 

corridor, eliminating all remaining at-grade crossings. 

The specific improvements identified under the Low- and High-Build Rail Improvements 

Alternatives would provide varying levels of travel time enhancements to each station 

segment along the corridor. Several of the individual improvements incorporated into the 

Rail Improvements Alternative provide significant travel time and reliability 

enhancements at locations such as San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Del Mar, and 

Miramar Hill (University City). Table 4.0-6 breaks down the travel time savings by station 

segment to help provide a summary of how each of the individual projects contributes to 

the overall improvements along the corridor. The Baseline Condition travel times are 

provided in order to allow of a comparison of travel times between the Rail 

Improvements Alternative and existing conditions. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-12

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

Table 4.0-4 

Capital Cost Summary 

Area / Options Improvements Considered 

Estimated 

Capital Costs 

Downtown San Diego

(Low-Build) Double Tracking and Curve Straightening; San Diego River Bridge $33 million

(High-Build) Double Tracking and Curve Straightening; San Diego River Bridge; 

Trench between Sassafras St and Cedar St (includes partial or full 

grade separation) 

$310 million

University Towne Centre

Interstate-5 Freeway 

Tunnel Option 

(Low-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including tunnel under 

Interstate-5 Freeway) 

$440 million

Miramar Hill Tunnel Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including tunnel under 

University City/Miramar Hill with new station) 

$370 million

Del Mar

Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 

Option 

(Low-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including tunnel under 

Camino Del Mar; crosses San Dieguito and Los Penasquitos 

Lagoons) 

$365 million

Penasquitos Lagoon 

Bypass Tunnel Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including tunnel along 

Interstate-5; Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass Option averts San 

Dieguito and Los Penasquitos Lagoons) 

$560 million

Encinitas

At-Grade with Grade 

Separations Option 

(Low-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including partial grade separation) 

$154 million

Short Trench with Grade 

Separations Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including full grade separation) 

$305 million

Carlsbad to Oceanside

At-Grade Option 

(Low-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including partial grade separation); crosses San Luis Rey, Buena 

Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons 

$270 million

Trench Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including full grade separation); crosses San Luis Rey, Buena 

Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons 

$420 million

Camp Pendleton

(Low- and High-Build) Double Tracking along existing alignment; crosses Santa Margarita 

River 

$39 million 

Dana Point/San Clemente

Short Tunnel Interstate-5 

Freeway Option 

(Low-Build) 

Dana Point Curve Straightening; San Clemente – Short Tunnel; 

Double Tracking (crosses San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks) 

$895 million

Long Split (Two Segment) 

Tunnel with Station Option 

(High-Build) 

San Clemente – Long Slit Two Segment Tunnel with Station 

Construction; Double Tracking (crosses San Mateo and San 

Onofre Creeks) 

$1.2 billion

San Juan Capistrano

Trabuco Creek Cut-AndCover Tunnel (Covered 

Trench) Option 

(Low-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including Covered 

Trench between Trabuco Creek and Avenida Aeropuerto (trench 

goes under San Juan Creek) 

$200 million

Interstate-5 Tunnel Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including Tunnel 

beneath I-5 between Hwy 73 and Avenida Aeropuerto (tunnel goes 

under Trabuco Creek and San Juan Creek) 

$560 million
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-13

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

Table 4.0-4 

Capital Cost Summary (continued) 

Area / Options Improvements Considered 

Estimated 

Capital Costs 

San Juan Capistrano to Irvine 

No Major Improvements Planned $0

Irvine to Fullerton

At-Grade Option 

(Low-Build) 

Curve Straightening (including partial grade separation) $720 million

Covered Trench Option 

(High-Build) 

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including Covered 

Trench in Orange and Santa Ana) (including full grade separation) 

$860 million

LA Union Station to Fullerton Station (4th Main Track) 

 (Low- and High-Build) Addition of Fourth Main Track (including full grade separation) $730 million 

Total Cost for LOSSAN Corridor Improvements

Low-Build Scenario $3.8 billion

High-Build Scenario $5.4 billion

Table 4.0-5 

Operational Performance Comparison 

Low-Build vs. High-Build Alternatives 

Low-Build High-Build 

Projected Travel Time (Hours:Minutes) 1:58 1:48 

Average Speed (mph) 63 69 

Table 4.0-6 

Intercity Rail Station Segment Travel Time Comparison 

(Hours:Minutes) 

Rail Improvements 

Rail Segment Alternative Baseline 

Condition 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Low High 

Los Angeles to Fullerton 0:37 0:34 0:29 0:26 

Fullerton to 

Anaheim 0:09 0:07 0:06 0:06 

Anaheim to Santa Ana 0:10 0:09 0:06 0:06 

Santa Ana to Irvine 0:12 0:11 0:08 0:08 

Irvine to San Juan Capistrano 0:14 0:13 0:11 0:11 

San Juan Capistrano to San Clemente 0:09 0:07 0:05 

San Clemente to Oceanside 

0:33* 

0:24 0:17 0:16 

Oceanside to Solana Beach 0:16 0:15 0:10 0:12 

Solana Beach to San Diego 0:33 0:34 0:24 0:18 

TOTAL 2:44 2:36 1:58 1:48 

Notes: 

* San Clemente station is not included in the Baseline Condition. 

** For the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative, the travel time break is at the UTC station. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-14

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

Operations and Maintenance Costs

Table 4.0-7 summarizes the estimated incremental annual O&M costs for the improved 

LOSSAN corridor. As previously noted, O&M costs were calculated for the scenarios 

that represented the three corridor alternatives (No-Project, Low-Build and High-Build 

Rail Improvements Alternative). 

Due to operating efficiencies, as stated previously, there is an inverse relationship 

between the marginal O&M costs for operating and maintaining the trains and the level 

of improvements. Conversely, in regards to O&M costs for maintenance-of-ways, there 

is a direct relationship between the level of improvements for track alignment options 

and the cost, where the highest Rail Improvements Alternative has the highest cost for 

maintenance-of-ways. 

The incremental O&M cost for the Low-Build Rail Improvements Alternative is 17.9% 

lower than the No-Project, and 5.0% higher than the High-Build Rail Improvements 

Alternative. The incremental O&M cost of the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative 

is 22.0% lower than the No-Project. 

Table 4.0-7 

Annual Costs of Operating and Maintaining an 

Improved Conventional Rail Infrastructure 

Item1,2 No-Project Low-Build High-Build 

Annual Cost for Operating 

and Maintenance of Train 

(millions 2003$) 

$45,880,272.82 $35,292,517.55 $31,763,265.80 

Annual Cost for Maintenance 

of Ways (millions 2003$) 

$12,240,107.10 $12,428,863.20 $13,551,720.00 

Total Annual O&M Costs 

(millions 2003$) 

$58,120,379.92 $47,721,380.75 $45,314,985.80 

4.0.5 Consequences for LOSSAN Corridor without Improvements 

As has been presented throughout this chapter, conventional rail improvements to the 

LOSSAN rail corridor are necessary in order to meet current and future transportation 

demands. 

The data presented in this chapter clearly shows that without these improvements, 

increasing costs and capacity constraints will continue to hamper existing services, as 

well as make problematic the expansion of new service to meet increased travel 

demand. The known and potential cost and operational impacts include: 

• Higher maintenance costs due to deferred replacement of timber bridges, as well as 

bluff stabilization along the corridor. 

• Higher operational costs associated with idling trains and reduced efficiency 

• Increased deaths, injuries, insurance and equipment costs due to at-grade collisions 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-15

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

• Continuing or worsening air quality due to rail traffic delays at road crossings and 

lack of track capacity for goods movement coming from the Ports of LA and Long 

Beach 

• Worsening on-time performance for commuter and intercity passenger trains and the 

inability to expand the number of passenger trains. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 4.0-16

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

This page intentionally left blank. 
5.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Chapter 5 

RAIL IMPROVEMENT ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

5.1.1 Purpose and Content of this Chapter 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and compare the physical and operational 

characteristics and potential environmental consequences associated with the Rail 

Improvements alignment and station options. The comparison focuses on subject areas in 

which there are relative differences among the potential impacts of the various alignment 

options in each segment of the LOSSAN Corridor. This chapter summarizes potential 

environmental consequences for each alignment comparison for the environmental resource 

areas where relative differences were identified. (Refer to Chapter 3, Affected Environment, 

Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies, for a comprehensive presentation of 

potential environmental consequences in each environmental resource area.) 

For many of the environmental topics discussed in this chapter, the quantities presented 

represent areas within which potential impacts might occur. For example, the area of 

floodplains includes all floodplains within 100 ft (30m) of either side of the centerline of the 

alignment considered; whereas the right-of-way necessary for the improvements considered is 

smaller (generally only 25 ft [7.6 m] on either side of the centerline for the Rail Improvements 

Alternative). Therefore the magnitude of potential impacts reported in this document is 

considerably larger than the actual impacts that would be expected from the proposed rail 

improvements. 

5.1.2 Organization of this Chapter 

The alignment option comparisons are presented in tabular form by segment. The station 

options are presented individually and compared where multiple options are considered for the 

same general station area. The alignment and station options are briefly described in the tables 

and illustrated on the associated maps. For each alignment comparison, the following summary 

information is presented and compared where relative differences were identified. 

• Physical/operational characteristics. 

− Alignment. 

− Length. 

− Capital cost. 

− Travel time. 

− Ridership. 

− Constructability. 

− Operational issues. 
5.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• Potential environmental impacts. 

− Transportation and related topics (air quality, noise and vibration, and energy). 

− Human environment (land use and community impacts, aesthetics and visual 

resources, socioeconomics, utilities and public services, hazardous materials and 

wastes). 

− Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historical properties) and 

paleontological resources. 

− Natural environment (geology and seismic hazards, hydrology and water 

resources, and biological resources and wetlands). 

− Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, 

recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historical sites). 

Comparative data in the tables below are organized into the following rail segments. 

• Los Angeles Union Station to Irvine 

• Irvine to Oceanside 

• Oceanside to San Diego Santa Fe Station 

There were numerous alignment and construction options evaluated in the Rail Improvements 

Alternative. To allow a reasonable comparison of alignment options, a range of potential 

impacts is represented in the following tables by two or more of many possible route alignment 

combinations between Union Station and San Diego, using -- the highest level of improvements, 

and the lowest level of improvements that could occur within each rail segment. The highest 

level of improvement is based on combining the alignment/construction options within a rail 

segment that would involve the most extensive infrastructure investment and/or construction 

complexity. For example, where there is an at-grade option and a trenching option in the same 

general alignment, the trenching option was used in the highest-level route and the at-grade 

option was used in the lowest-level route. Where two tunnel options are the only options in one 

sub-segment, the longer tunnel was included in the highest-level route. In this way, a range of 

potential impacts could be bracketed to allow a valid comparison of corridor-wide improvement 

options. 
5.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

5.2 LOS ANGELES UNION STATION TO IRVINE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 

All information presented is for the area from Los Angeles to Irvine. This segment is shown in Figure 5.2-1 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

LOSSAN Corridor 

Highest level of improvement to Irvine 

LOSSAN Corridor 

Lowest level of improvement to Irvine 

Alignment Description This alignment would provide improved service along a fully 

grade-separated system, with bypass tracks at station 

locations. Station options considered in this segment 

include Fullerton Transportation Center, Anaheim 

Transportation Center, Santa Ana Regional Transportation 

Center, and Irvine Transportation Center. 

This alignment would provide improved service along a partially 

grade-separated system. Station options considered in this 

segment include Fullerton Transportation Center, Anaheim 

Transportation Center, Santa Ana Regional Transportation 

Center, and Irvine Transportation Center. 

Length miles (km) 43.9 mi (70.7 km) 43.9 mi (70.7 km) 

Cost (dollars) $1.59 billion $1.45 billion 

Travel Time (min) 38 min 41 min 

Ridership Additional reliability due to full grade-separation will boost 

ridership. 

Constructability Within existing rail right-of-way. Would require additional 

right-of-way and construction of extensive grade separations 

while maintaining existing service. Would require 

construction of trenched segments. 

Within existing rail right-of-way. Would require additional rightof-way and construction of partially grade-separated system 

while maintaining existing service. 

Operational Issues Fourth main track between Los Angeles and Fullerton would 

allow segregation of freight and passenger trains, assuming 

additional track modifications approaching Fullerton and Los 

Angeles Union Station (LAUS). Improvements would benefit 

freight, passenger, and commuter services. 

Fourth track between Los Angeles and Fullerton would allow 

segregation of freight and passenger trains, assuming additional 

track modifications approaching Fullerton and LAUS. 

Remaining at-grade crossings would present a challenge for 

safety and reliability. Improvements would benefit freight, 

passenger, and commuter services. 

Travel Conditions Infrastructure improvements would provide benefits to 

existing rail services. The fully grade-separated LOSSAN 

corridor would improve traffic flow and reduce air pollution at 

existing rail crossings. 

Increased train frequencies at remaining at-grade crossings 

would have some potentially negative traffic impact. 

Infrastructure improvements would provide benefits to rail 

services. 

Noise and Vibration:

1

 High, 

medium, and low potential 

impacts 

Medium potential impacts. There would be an increase in 

noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There 

would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of 

horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result 

of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

High potential impacts. No reduction of noise at grade crossings 

due to the lack of a fully grade-separated corridor. 

 

1 Generally, vibration is not a significant impact. However, sensitive and specific areas, such as historical structures and special habitats, could be affected. 
5.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

LOSSAN Corridor 

Highest level of improvement to Irvine 

LOSSAN Corridor 

Lowest level of improvement to Irvine 

Land Use and Planning, 

Communities and 

Neighborhoods, Property, 

and Environmental Justice 

Compatible. 

Environmental Justice: Minority populations are present at 

points along this alignment option. 

Community: Low potential impacts. 

Property: High potential impacts. 

Compatible. 

Environmental Justice: Minority populations are present at 

points along this alignment option. 

Community: Low potential impacts. 

Property: High potential impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual 

Resources Potential high 

contrast/impact areas 

Low potential impacts. 

Potential low impacts to high contrast/impact areas. 

Low potential impacts. 

 Potential low impacts to high contrast/impact areas. 

Hydrology and Water 

Resources:

2

 Potential 

impacts and associated ac 

(ha) of floodplains, and linear 

ft (m) of streams within 

potential impact study areas 

Floodplains: 75 ac (30 ha) 

Streams: 3,265 linear ft (995 linear m) 

Floodplains: 75 ac (30 ha) 

Streams: 3,265 linear ft (995 linear m) 

Biological Resources, 

Including Wetlands:

3

 Linear 

ft of non-wetland waters 

(waters), number of specialspecies (species) 

Waters: 20,780 linear ft (6,334 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 5 

Trains would travel in existing right-of-way within an urban 

area. 

Waters: 20,780 linear ft (6,334 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 5 

Trains would travel in existing right-of-way within an urban area. 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources:

4

 Number of 

resources rated high 

(potential direct effects) 

Resources rated high: 7 

Potential impacts would be limited due to the use of existing 

rail corridors in which few resources are found. 

Resources rated high: 7 

Potential impacts would be limited due to the use of existing rail 

corridors in which few resources are found. 

 

2 The hydrology and water resources study area is defined as 100 ft (30 m) on each side of the alignment centerline. 

3 The biological resources and wetlands study area is defined as 1,000 ft (305 m) for urban areas, 0.25 mi (0.40 km) for undeveloped areas, and 0.5 mi (0.80 km) for sensitive areas 

on each side of alignment centerline. 

4 The 4(f) and 6(f) resources study area is defined as 900 ft (274m) on each side of the alignment centerline. . Potential high impacts would be those that would occur within 150 ft 

(43 m) of alignment centerline. 
5.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

5.3 IRVINE TO OCEANSIDE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 

All information presented is for the area from Irvine to Oceanside. This segment is shown in Figures 5.3-1a and 5.3-1b. 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level Improvements 

(I-5/LongTunnel/Double-Track) 

Highest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Long Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Lowest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Short Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Physical/Operational Characteristics 

Alignment Description The alignment would bypass San Juan 

Capistrano via an I-5 tunnel, include the 

long I-5 tunnel option with station through 

San Clemente and Dana Point, and 

complete double-tracking through Camp 

Pendleton. Station options considered in 

this segment include San Clemente 

Amtrak, and Oceanside Transit Center. 

The alignment would bypass the existing 

San Juan Capistrano alignment via 

Trabuco Creek, include the long tunnel 

option with station through San Clemente 

and Dana Point, and complete doubletracking through Camp Pendleton. 

Station options considered in this 

segment include San Juan Capistrano 

Trabuco Creek, San Clemente Amtrak, 

and Oceanside Transit Center. 

The alignment would bypass the existing 

San Juan Capistrano alignment via 

Trabuco Creek, include the short tunnel 

option through San Clemente and Dana 

Point (including the at-grade curve 

realignment at Dana Point), and 

complete double-tracking through Camp 

Pendleton. Station options considered 

in this segment include San Juan 

Capistrano Trabuco Creek, San 

Clemente Amtrak, and Oceanside 

Transit Center. 

Length in miles (km) 40.8 mi (65.7 km) 41 mi (66 km) 41.4 mi (66.6 km) 

Cost (dollars) $1.82 billion $1.46 billion $1.13 billion 

Travel Time (min) 26 min 28 min 28 min 

Ridership Alignment would eliminate a station stop at 

San Juan Capistrano for intercity service 

(though Metrolink commuter rail service 

could be retained on this existing line). 

Alignment would provide a new San Juan 

Capistrano station along Trabuco Creek, 

replacing the existing downtown station. 

Alignment would provide a new San 

Juan Capistrano station along Trabuco 

Creek. 

Constructability This alternative would require tunneling 

(approximately 12.7 mi [20.4 km]). 

This alternative would require tunneling 

(approximately 8.8 mi [14.2 km]) and 

could cross some environmentally 

sensitive habitats. 

This alternative would require tunneling 

(approximately 5.6 mi [9.0 km]) and 

cross some environmentally sensitive 

habitats. 

Operational Issues Beneficial. Would provide safer and more reliable operating conditions by providing full 

grade separations and removing tracks from the beach. 

Beneficial. Would provide safer and 

more reliable operating conditions by 

grade separating much of the alignment, 

but could retain Dana Point curve. 
5.0-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level Improvements 

(I-5/LongTunnel/Double-Track) 

Highest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Long Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Lowest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Short Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Travel Conditions This alignment would provide the most 

improvement in travel times, allowing for 

double tracking of the entire segment. 

Consequences of this alignment would be 

the elimination of a station stop in San 

Juan Capistrano and the addition of a new 

station in San Clemente. The fully gradeseparated corridor would improve traffic 

flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail 

crossings. 

This alignment would provide improved 

travel times, allowing for double tracking 

of the entire segment. San Juan 

Capistrano would be served by a new 

station located along Trabuco Creek and 

a new station located in San Clemente. 

The fully grade-separated corridor would 

improve traffic flow and reduce air 

pollution at existing rail crossings. 

This alignment would provide improved 

travel times, allowing for double tracking 

of most of the segment while keeping 

some of the scenic coastal route. San 

Juan Capistrano would be served by a 

new station located along Trabuco 

Creek, and the San Clemente Metrolink 

and Amtrak stations would be located at 

a single station along Avenida Pico. 

There would be ongoing speed 

restrictions through Capistrano Beach 

and potentially the Dana Point curve. 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

Noise and Vibration:

5

 High, 

medium, and low potential 

impacts 

Low potential impacts. 

Minimal potential noise/vibration impacts as a result of extensive tunneling under 

existing transportation corridors. Would eliminate potential impact along coast by 

realigning the right-of-way. Would realign corridor away from historical buildings in San 

Juan Capistrano. 

Low potential impacts. 

Minimal potential noise/vibration impacts 

as a result of extensive tunneling under 

existing transportation corridors, 

removing right-of-way from majority of 

coastal alignment. Some potential 

impact may still occur along the coast in 

Capistrano Beach. Would realign 

corridor away from historical buildings in 

San Juan Capistrano. 

Land Use and Planning, 

Communities and 

Neighborhoods, Property, 

and Environmental Justice 

Compatible. 

Environmental Justice: Minority 

populations are present at points along this 

alignment option. 

Community: Low potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential impacts. 

I-5 would avoid historical resources, and 

tracks would be removed from existing 

beach alignment. 

Some incompatibility, but Trabuco Creek 

avoids historical resources. 

Environmental Justice: Minority 

populations are present at points along 

this alignment option. 

Community: Low potential impacts. 

Property: Medium potential impacts. 

Tracks would be removed from existing 

beach alignment. 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: Minority 

populations are present at points along 

this alignment option. 

Community: Low potential impacts. 

Property: Medium potential impacts. 

Potential impacts from increased 

frequencies of trains along Capistrano 

Beach. 

 

5 Generally, vibration is not a significant impact. However, sensitive and specific areas, such as historical structures and special habitats, could be affected. 
5.0-7

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level Improvements 

(I-5/LongTunnel/Double-Track) 

Highest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Long Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Lowest Level Improvements 

(Trabuco Creek/Short Tunnel/ 

Double-Track) 

Aesthetics and Visual 

Resources: Potential high 

contrast/impact areas 

Low potential impacts. 

Potential beneficial impact for 

communities. Would remove tracks from 

beach alignment. 

Low potential impacts. 

Potential beneficial impact for 

communities. Medium potential impact 

on residential along Trabuco Creek. 

Would remove tracks from beach 

alignment. 

Low potential impacts. 

Potential beneficial impact for 

communities. Medium impact on 

residential along Trabuco Creek and 

Capistrano Beach. Would remove tracks 

from part of beach alignment. 

Hydrology and Water 

Resources:

6

 Potential 

impacts and associated ac (ha) 

of floodplains, and linear ft (m) 

of streams within potential 

impact study areas 

Floodplains: 25 ac (10 ha) 

Streams: 2,475 linear ft (linear 754 m) 

Floodplains: 5 ac (2 ha) 

Streams: 3,625 linear ft (linear 1,105 m) 

Floodplains: 35 ac (14 ha) 

Streams: 4,020 linear ft (linear 1,225) 

Biological Resources, 

Including Wetlands:

7

 Ac (ha) 

of wetlands, linear ft (m) of 

non-wetland waters (waters), 

and number of special-status 

species (species). 

Wetlands: 41 ac (17 ha) 

Waters: 6,105 linear ft (1,861 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 14 

Tunneling would limit the potential impacts. 

Would eliminate potential coastal impacts 

by removing tracks from beach. 

Wetlands: 35 ac (14 ha) 

Waters: 11,425 linear ft (3,483 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 14 

Tunneling would limit the potential 

impacts. Would eliminate potential 

coastal impacts by removing tracks from 

beach. 

Wetlands: 9 ac (4 ha) 

Waters: 17,325 linear ft (5,281 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 14 

Tunneling would limit the potential 

impacts. 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources:

8

 Number of 

resources rated high (potential 

direct effects) 

Resources rated high: 8 Resources rated high: 8 Resources rated high: 9 

Continued operation along Doheny State 

Beach. 

 

6 The hydrology and water resources study area is defined as 100 ft (30 m) on each side of the alignment centerline. 

7 The biological resources and wetlands study area is defined as 1,000 ft (305 m) for urban areas, 0.25 mi (0.40 km) for undeveloped areas, and 0.5 mi (0.80 km) for sensitive areas 

on each side of alignment centerline. 

8 The 4(f) and 6(f) resources study area is defined as 900 ft (274m) on each side of the alignment centerline. Potential high impacts would be those that would occur within 150 ft 

(43 m) of alignment centerline. 
5.0-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

5.4 OCEANSIDE TO SAN DIEGO ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 

All information presented is for the area from Oceanside to San Diego. This segment is shown in Figures 5.4-1a and 5.4-1b. 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Physical/Operational Characteristics 

Alignment Description Would include short 

trench and cover through 

downtown Carlsbad and 

downtown Encinitas, 

bypass Peñasquitos 

Lagoon and Del Mar with 

tunnel under I-5, tunnel 

under I-5 to shorten 

alignment by bypassing 

Miramar Curve, and 

provide full-grade 

separation through San 

Diego. Station options 

considered in this 

segment include Solana 

Beach Transit Center and 

San Diego Downtown 

Santa Fe Depot. 

Would include short 

trench and cover 

through downtown 

Carlsbad and 

downtown Encinitas, 

bypass Peñasquitos 

Lagoon and Del Mar 

with tunnel under I-5, 

tunnel under UTC, and 

provide full grade 

separation through San 

Diego. Station options 

considered in this 

segment include Solana 

Beach Transit Center, 

UTC, and San Diego 

Downtown Santa Fe 

Depot. 

Would include short 

trench and cover through 

Carlsbad and Encinitas, 

tunnel under Camino del 

Mar and UTC, and 

provide full grade 

separation through San 

Diego. Station options 

considered in this 

segment include Solana 

Beach Transit Center, 

UTC, and San Diego 

Downtown Santa Fe 

Depot. 

Would be at grade 

through Carlsbad and 

Encinitas with partialgrade separation, 

tunnel under Camino 

del Mar and UTC, and 

provide full grade 

separation through San 

Diego. Station options 

considered in this 

segment include Solana 

Beach Transit Center, 

UTC, and San Diego 

Downtown Santa Fe 

Depot. 

Would be at grade 

through Carlsbad and 

Encinitas, tunnel under 

Camino del Mar and 

UTC, and be at grade 

through San Diego. 

Station options 

considered in this 

segment include Solana 

Beach Transit Center, 

UTC, and San Diego 

Downtown Santa Fe 

Depot. 

Length in miles (km) 36.4 mi (58.6 km) 37.2 mi (59.9 km) 37.2 mi (59.9 km) 37.2 mi (59.9 km) 37.2 mi (59.9 km) 

Cost (dollars) $2.04 billion $1.96 billion $1.77 billion $1.47 billion $1.19 billion 

Travel Time (min) 25 min 27 min 29 min 29 min 29 min 

Ridership Alignment would 

provide a new potential 

underground UTC 

station. 

Alignment would provide 

a new potential 

underground UTC station. 

Alignment would 

provide a new potential 

underground UTC 

station. 

Alignment would 

provide a new potential 

underground UTC 

station. 
5.0-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Constructability Requires considerable 

earth moving from 

trenching and tunneling 

(approximately 12.2 mi 

[19.6 km]). Avoids 

tunneling under main 

commercial street in Del 

Mar. 

Requires considerable 

earth moving from 

trenching and tunneling 

(approximately 10.5 mi 

[16.9 km]). Avoids 

tunneling under main 

commercial street in 

Del Mar. 

Requires considerable 

earth moving from 

trenching and tunneling 

(approximately 7.7 mi 

[12.4 km]). 

Requires some earth 

moving from trenching 

and tunneling 

(approximately 6.2 mi 

[10.0 km]). 

Requires some earth 

moving from trenching 

and tunneling 

(approximately 6.2 mi 

[10.0 km]). 

Operational Issues Beneficial. Reduces 

operational issues in Del 

Mar by eliminating bluff 

alignment. Overall 

speeds greatly improved 

by bypassing Soledad 

grade through Miramar 

Curve and grade 

separation of crossings. 

Does not provide station 

at UTC. 

Beneficial. Reduces 

operational issues in 

Del Mar by eliminating 

bluff alignment. 

Speeds improved by 

bypassing Soledad 

grade through Miramar 

Curve and grade 

separation of crossings. 

Beneficial. Eliminates 

operational issues in Del 

Mar by eliminating bluff 

alignment and providing 

the straightest, flattest 

alignment through Del 

Mar. Speeds improved by 

bypassing Soledad grade 

through Miramar Curve 

and grade separation of 

crossings. 

Beneficial. Eliminates 

operational issues in 

Del Mar by eliminating 

bluff alignment and 

providing the 

straightest, flattest 

alignment through Del 

Mar. Speeds improved 

by bypassing Soledad 

grade through Miramar 

Curve and grade 

separation of crossings 

in San Diego. At-grade 

issues remain in 

Carlsbad and Encinitas. 

Somewhat beneficial. 

Eliminates operational 

issues in Del Mar by 

eliminating bluff 

alignment and providing 

the straightest, flattest 

alignment through Del 

Mar. Ongoing reliability 

issues due to remaining 

grade crossings. 
5.0-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

Travel Conditions Would improve travel 

times, allowing for double 

tracking of the entire 

segment and grade 

separations through north 

San Diego County and 

San Diego. The fully 

grade-separated corridor 

would improve traffic flow 

and reduce air pollution at 

existing rail crossings. 

Would improve travel times, allowing for double 

tracking of entire segment and grade separations 

through north San Diego County and San Diego. 

This option would also provide for a potential station 

at UTC, serving the businesses and residents of 

UTC/Sorrento Valley and students at UC-San Diego. 

The fully grade-separated corridor would improve 

traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail 

crossings. 

Would considerably 

improve travel times, 

allowing for doubletracking of the entire 

segment and grade 

separations through 

San Diego. This option 

would also provide for a 

potential station at 

UTC, serving the 

businesses and 

residents of 

UTC/Sorrento Valley 

and students at UC 

San Diego. 

Would considerably 

improve travel times, 

allowing for doubletracking of the entire 

segment and partial 

grade separations 

through San Diego. 

This option would also 

provide for a potential 

station at UTC, serving 

the businesses and 

residents of 

UTC/Sorrento Valley 

and students at UC San 

Diego. 

Noise and Vibration:

9

 

High, medium, and low 

potential impacts 

Medium potential impacts. 

Some noise/vibration would potentially continue to 

impact San Dieguito Lagoon and some residential 

areas. Could introduce new potential impacts along 

southern edge of San Dieguito Lagoon. 

Low potential impacts. 

Some noise/vibration 

would potentially continue 

to impact lagoon areas. 

Low potential impacts. 

Some noise/vibration 

would potentially 

continue to impact 

lagoons and some 

residential areas due to 

at-grade segments 

through Encinitas and 

Carlsbad. 

Low potential impacts. 

Noise/vibration would 

potentially continue to 

impact lagoons and 

some residential areas 

due to at-grade 

segments through 

Encinitas, Carlsbad, 

and San Diego. 

 

9 Generally, vibration is not a significant impact. However, sensitive and specific areas, such as historical structures and special habitats, could be affected. 
5.0-11

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Land Use and Planning, 

Communities and 

Neighborhoods, 

Property, and 

Environmental Justice 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: 

Low potential impacts. 

Community: Low 

potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential 

impacts. 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: 

Low potential impacts. 

Community: Low 

potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential 

impacts. 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: 

Low potential impacts. 

Community: Low 

potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential 

impacts. 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: 

Low potential impacts. 

Community: Low 

potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential 

impacts. 

Some incompatibility. 

Environmental Justice: 

Low potential impacts. 

Community: Low 

potential impacts. 

Property: Low potential 

impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual 

Resources: Potential 

high contrast/impact 

areas 

Medium potential impacts. 

Medium potential impacts 

on communities due to 

elevated rail structure 

along southern edge of 

San Dieguito Lagoon. 

Medium potential 

impacts. 

Medium potential 

impacts on 

communities due to 

elevated rail structure 

along southern edge of 

San Dieguito Lagoon. 

Low potential impacts. 

Beneficial potential impact 

on communities. 

Low potential impacts. 

Low potential impact on 

communities. 

Low potential impacts. 

Low potential impact on 

communities. 

Hydrology and Water 

Resources:

10 Potential 

impacts and associated 

ac (ha) of floodplains, and 

linear ft (m) of streams 

within potential impact 

study areas 

Floodplains: 120 ac (49 

ha) 

Streams: 6,230 linear ft 

(1,899 linear m) 

Floodplains: 100 ac (40 

ha) 

Streams: 6,365 linear ft 

(1,940 linear m) 

Floodplains: 140 ac (57 

ha) 

Streams: 6,155 linear ft 

(1,876 linear m) 

Floodplains: 140 ac (57 

ha) 

Streams: 6,155 linear ft 

(1,876 linear m) 

Floodplains: 140 ac (57 

ha) 

Streams: 6,155 linear ft 

(1,876 linear m) 

 

10 The hydrology and water resources study area is defined as 100 ft (30 m) on each side of the alignment centerline. 
5.0-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Biological Resources 

Including Wetlands:

11 

Ac (ha) of wetlands, linear 

ft (m) of non-wetland 

waters (waters), and 

number of special-status 

species (species) 

Wetlands: 881 ac (357 

ha) 

Waters: 56,437 linear ft 

(17,202 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 

37 

Would improve tidal flow 

within coastal lagoons by 

replacing structures 

across lagoons to 

eliminate or reduce fill. 

Would bypass 

Peñasquitos Lagoon and 

remove existing fill along 

it, but could introduce new 

potential impacts along 

southern edge of San 

Dieguito Lagoon because 

would pass edge of 

lagoon. 

Wetlands: 874 ac (354 

ha) 

Waters: 53,962 linear ft 

(16,448 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 

37 

Would improve tidal 

flow within coastal 

lagoons by replacing 

structures across 

lagoons to eliminate or 

reduce fill. Would 

bypass Peñasquitos 

Lagoon and remove 

existing fill along it, but 

could introduce new 

potential impacts along 

southern edge of San 

Dieguito Lagoon 

because would pass 

edge of lagoon. 

Wetlands: 907 ac (367 

ha) 

Waters: 46,750 linear ft 

(14,249 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 

37 

Would improve tidal flow 

within coastal lagoons by 

replacing structures 

across lagoons to 

eliminate or reduce fill. 

Wetlands: 892 ac (361 

ha) 

Waters: 45,990 linear ft 

(14,018 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 

37 

Would improve tidal 

flow within coastal 

lagoons by replacing 

structures across 

lagoons to eliminate or 

reduce fill. 

Wetlands: 892 ac (361 

ha) 

Waters: 45,990 linear ft 

(14,018 linear m) 

Special-Status Species: 

37 

Would improve tidal 

flow within coastal 

lagoons by replacing 

structures across 

lagoons to eliminate or 

reduce fill. 

 

11 The biological resources and wetlands study area is defined as 1,000 ft (305 m) for urban areas, 0.25 mi (0.40 km) for undeveloped areas, and 0.5 mi (0.80 km) for sensitive areas 

on each side of alignment centerline. 
5.0-13

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Proposed Rail Improvements Alternative 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos Bypass/I-5 

Tunnel/Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/ 

Peñasquitos 

Bypass/UTC Tunnel/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Highest Level 

Improvements 

(Short Trench/Camino 

del Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/ Camino del 

Mar & UTC 

Tunnels/Grade Sep.) 

Lowest Level 

Improvements 

(At Grade/Camino del 

Mar & UTC Tunnels/ 

At Grade) 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources:

12 Number of 

resources rated high 

(potential direct effects) 

Resources rated high: 14 

Potential impacts on 

several state beaches 

would be limited due to 

use of existing rail 

corridors. 

Resources rated high: 

14 

Potential impacts on 

several state beaches 

would be limited due to 

use of existing rail 

corridors. 

Resources rated high: 15 

Potential impacts on 

several state beaches 

would be limited due to 

use of existing rail 

corridors. 

Resources rated high: 

15 

Potential impacts on 

several state beaches 

would be limited due to 

use of existing rail 

corridors. 

Resources rated high: 

15 

Potential impacts on 

several state beaches 

would be limited due to 

use of existing rail 

corridors. 

 

12 The 4(f) and 6(f) resources study area is defined as 900 ft (274m) on each side of the alignment centerline. Potential high impacts would be those that would occur within 150 ft (43 

m) of alignment centerline. 
5.0-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

5.5 LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO STATION OPTIONS 

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

North & Central Orange County 

Fullerton Amtrak Station The Fullerton Amtrak Station would continue to serve improved Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and transcontinental trains 

The station in Fullerton is located within a minority population and would have low potential impacts on biological resources, 

visual resources, cultural and paleontological resources, public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands; and high potential

impacts on hydrology and water quality as a result of the high potential for erosion. 

Anaheim Transportation Center The Anaheim Transportation Center is an existing transit hub with high connectivity for central Orange County. The station is a 

bus transit hub and serves existing Amtrak and Metrolink Commuter Rail services. 

The station in Anaheim would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources, cultural and paleontological

resource, public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands; and moderate potential impacts on hydrology and water quality 

(affecting 15 ac [6 ha] of floodplain. The site is located within a minority population. 

Santa Ana Amtrak Station The Santa Ana Amtrak Station would provide service to an improved Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink Commuter, and proposed 

CenterLine LRT system currently under design. 

The station in Santa Ana would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources, cultural (specifically 

historical structures) and paleontological resources, hydrology and water quality, public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands. 

The site is located within a minority population. 

Southern Orange County 

Irvine Transportation Center The master site plan for the Irvine Transportation Center indicates that this station area will develop into a transit-oriented

environment serving as a station stop for improved Pacific Surfliner service and Metrolink Commuter service. The Irvine 

Transportation Center is an existing transit hub for bus routes with high connectivity for southern Orange County. 

The station in Irvine would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources, cultural and paleontological 

resources, public utilities, hydrology and water quality (affecting 5 ac [2 ha] of floodplain), and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands at the 

former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The site is located within a minority population. 

San Juan Capistrano Depending on the alignment chosen through San Juan Capistrano, the San Juan Capistrano station would either continue to 

serve improved Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink Commuter trains or would be eliminated as San Juan Capistrano would 

be bypassed. 

The station in San Juan Capistrano would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources, hydrology and 

water quality, public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands. It is located within a minority population. It would have high 

potential impacts on paleontological resources (formations with high fossil sensitivity) and on cultural resources (six known 

archeological sites). 

Trabuco Creek Depending on the alignment chosen through San Juan Capistrano, a new station may be constructed along the Trabuco Creek 

alignment. This station would be located in a trench adjacent to Trabuco Creek, west of the existing Amtrak station. 

Due to its proximity to the existing downtown San Juan Capistrano Amtrak station, many of the potential environmental impacts 

would be similar. Potential biological and hydrological impacts may result due to the location of the station adjacent to Trabuco 

Creek. 
5.0-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

San Clemente Amtrak Two potential station locations are being considered along the alignment options for the LOSSAN corridor options. Along the 

short tunnel option, a station is being considered adjacent to Avenida Pico, just north of the existing Metrolink station. The

second station location would be along the I-5 tunnel option, where the proposed alignment crosses Avenida Pico, just north of 

I-5. These stations would replace the existing Amtrak and Metrolink stations, allowing for both the Surfliner and Metrolink to

continue to serve San Clemente along the potential new railroad alignments. 

Station sites in San Clemente would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources (trenched stations), 

public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands and moderate potential impacts on geology (difficulty in excavations), hydrology 

and water quality (affecting 5 ac [2 ha] of floodplain), and cultural resources (specifically historical structures). 

San Diego County 

Oceanside Transit Center The Oceanside Transit Center is an existing transit hub with high connectivity for northern San Diego County. The station is a

bus transit hub and serves existing Amtrak service and both Coaster and Metrolink Commuter Rail services. 

The station in Oceanside would have low potential impacts on public utilities, Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands, and visual resources; 

and moderate potential impacts on biological resources (affecting wildlife movement corridors, threatened and endangered 

species, and species of special concern), wetlands and non-wetland waters, hydrology and water quality (potential for erosion),

and cultural resources (specifically historical structures). 

Solana Beach Amtrak Station Solana Beach Amtrak station is an existing transit hub with high connectivity for northern and central San Diego County. The 

station is a bus transit hub and serves existing Amtrak and Coaster Commuter Rail services.. 

The station in Solana Beach would have low potential impacts on visual resources, public utilities, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

lands; and moderate potential impacts on biological resources (threatened and endangered species and species of special 

concern), wetlands and non-wetland waters, hydrology and water quality (potential for erosion), and cultural resources 

(specifically historical structures). 

University Towne Centre The University Towne Centre (UTC) station site would be a deep-bore station, and the location would depend on the design 

option to tunnel under UTC to bypass the majority of the existing Sorrento Valley and Rose Canyon rail alignment. UTC is a 

densely developed portion of San Diego. The station would also be served by the Coaster commuter rail service and could 

have a direct connection to the regional LRT service. 

The station would have low potential impacts on biological resources, visual resources, public utilities, and cultural resources; 

and moderate potential impacts on geology (seismic hazards and difficult excavations), hydrology and water quality (erosion 

potential), and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands at Mandell Weiss Eastgate Park. 

San Diego Downtown–Santa Fe 

Depot 

The Santa Fe Depot is an existing transit hub in the heart of downtown San Diego with high connectivity for coastal San Diego 

County. The station is a bus transit hub for several transit services and serves existing Amtrak and Coaster Commuter Rail 

operations. It is a major transfer station for San Diego’s trolley network. 

The station would have low potential impacts on visual resources, hydrology and water quality, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) lands;

and moderate potential impacts on biological resources (threatened and endangered species, species of special concern, and 

non-wetland waters), geology (seismic hazards and difficulty in excavations), public utilities (electrical facilities), and cultural 

resources (specifically historic structures). 
5.0-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

RAIL IMP. ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 6 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This chapter of the Program EIR/EIS describes any potentially significant environmental effects 

that may not be avoidable if the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is selected for 

implementation, as required by CEQA, and any unavoidable adverse impacts of the 

alternatives, as required by NEPA. This chapter also describes any significant irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources or foreclosures of future options that would result from 

implementation of the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative or the No-Project Alternative1. 

This Program EIR/EIS represents the first conceptual planning stage of a tiered environmental 

evaluation that analyzes a broad range of alternatives and alignment options. Most potentially 

significant impacts that have been described in previous sections of this document can be 

avoided or minimized by selecting an alignment option that avoids or minimizes impacts on 

environmental resources through refinement to the design or specific location of the alignment 

or station improvements or through incorporation of mitigation measures. For example, some 

potentially significant impacts on sensitive habitat or wetlands would occur in areas where 

alignment options are available that would avoid or minimize the impact, such as tunneling or 

designing the alignment to avoid the sensitive area. In addition, potential noise impacts would 

occur in residential areas along the alignment corridors where significant noise levels could be 

reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures such as noise walls 

between the train track and the residential receptors. However, there are some unavoidable 

potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of the alternatives 

under consideration. Those impacts are discussed below. 

6.1 UNAVOIDABLE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 

6.1.1 Air Quality and Energy Use 

Based on current locomotive and fuel standards, the Rail Improvements Alternative has the 

potential to exceed significance thresholds in the study area for NOx and possibly other 

pollutants, and to violate or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. Continued improvements in 

air pollution controls for locomotives, along with the anticipated Tier 3 standards (potentially 

finalized by 2008 and implemented thereafter), will result in continued reductions of pollutant 

emissions per mile of locomotive travel. In addition, as older locomotives are replaced with new 

ones, additional reductions will occur. Mitigation measures, along with new technologies and 

locomotive emission standards, are expected to substantially reduce potential air quality 

impacts of the Rail Improvements Alternative in the future. However, until project-level impact 

assessments and conformity determinations are completed, it cannot be said with certainty that 

impacts would less than significant. 

The projected 60% increase in train traffic between now and 2020 in the LOSSAN corridor 

under the No-Project Alternative would increase the emission burdens in the study area 

substantially (15% for NOx; 21% for PM, and as much as 64% for CO and CO2). These 

increases are projected as part of programmed and conforming transportation plans. 

 

1 As described in Chapter 3, potential impacts of the No-Project Alternative in this document are those impacts beyond those 

identified in separate environmental documents prepared for specific, programmed highway and rail projects included in the NoProject Alternative (defined in Chapter 2). 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Energy consumption from the number of locomotives traveling in the LOSSAN corridor would be 

approximately 17% higher under the Rail Improvements Alternative than under the No-Project 

Alternative by 2020. This would result in an annual operational (direct) energy use in 2020 of 

371,929 barrels of oil, or nearly 55,000 barrels per year above No-Project conditions. 

Construction of rail improvements would consume on the order of 14,066 billion Btus. This, 

along with energy consumed by secondary facilities supporting project construction, would 

potentially represent a significant, unavoidable use of nonrenewable resources. The No-Project 

Alternative would not result in any construction-related energy consumption. 

6.1.2 Biological and Wetlands Resources, Hydrology and Water 

Resources, Land Use, Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources, 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Visual Resources, 

Noise, and Geology and Soils 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would commit the use of land and natural resources to an 

expanded or relocated rail right-of-way. Some potentially significant unavoidable impacts on 

biological resources (habitat for threatened and endangered species, and wetlands) may occur 

where the land required for right-of-way for rail expansion contains wetlands or wildlife habitat 

for special-status species. Temporary impacts during construction could also be potentially 

significant, especially in areas of sensitive lagoon habitat. Similarly, potential unavoidable 

impacts on hydrology and water resources in the lagoon areas, although there is also the 

potential for improvements and beneficial impacts on lagoon hydrology if existing fill is reduced 

and new structures are designed to allow tidal flushing. 

Potential, unavoidable impacts on land use and communities, Section 4(f) resources, cultural, 

and visual (scenic landscapes) resources could occur where alignment options that could avoid 

resources (tunnels or elevated alignments or right-of-way adjustments) would not be feasible or 

practicable. Proposed rail alignments would require relatively straight, flat, long linear features; 

moving or curving the alignment to avoid resources might not always be feasible, and may 

result in additional impacts to other resources. However, the majority of proposed rail 

improvements would be within the existing LOSSAN rail corridor or in tunnels. Therefore 

permanent impacts outside the existing rail right-of-way would be reduced or avoided along 

much of the corridor’s length. Tunnel portals may pose unavoidable impacts to communities 

and neighborhoods in some locations where residential and/or small commercial development 

surrounds portal areas. There may be new, unavoidable noise impacts to neighborhoods near 

portals, as well as communities between Los Angeles and Fullerton that have been built up 

adjacent to the LOSSAN rail corridor. 

Only general statements of potential impacts can be made at this program level of review, since 

field studies were not conducted and the study area used for the analysis was in most instances 

many times larger than the actual right-of-way for the alignments under consideration. Such 

impacts would need to be further studied and clarified in the next stage of project design and 

environmental review, when more specific information would be available on the right-of-way 

needed for proposed alignments and station improvements and on the specific properties 

potentially affected. The objective at the project-specific stage of analysis would be to identify 

design options (plans and profiles) that would avoid these sensitive resources, to the extent 

feasible. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-3 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The No-Project Alternative would not result in any additional unavoidable, adverse impacts to 

biological resources and wetlands, Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties, cultural and paleontological 

resources, or aesthetic resources. The No-Project Alternative may result in potentially significant 

impacts to geology and soils in the coastal bluff areas of Del Mar and San Clemente. In these 

areas, the existing rail service along the bluffs would continue to operate with more frequency in 

the future, and may require increased and on-going stabilization measures due to on-going 

erosional processes. Both the natural erosion processes and the construction of stabilizing 

structures could have potentially significant effects. 

6.1.3 Construction Impacts 

Construction of the Rail Improvements Alternative would result in the irreversible commitment of 

resources. Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials would be expended in the construction 

of the rail improvements. Further, labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication 

and preparation of construction materials. Once used or expended, these materials are 

generally not retrievable. However, these materials are not in short supply and their use would 

not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of resources. 

Any construction of the Rail Improvements Alternative would also require the expenditure and 

allocation of local, state, and federal funds, which are not retrievable. Once used, these funds 

could not be used for other projects. 

Temporary construction impacts related to earthwork (cut and fill and grading) that would result 

in dust (PM10) and localized emissions and noise from construction equipment and haul-truck 

traffic would occur under the Rail Improvements Alternative. These impacts would be in 

addition to the construction impacts associated with already planned projects included in the 

No-Project Alternative. Any required in-water work in the lagoon areas would have impacts to 

water quality from increased turbidity and sedimentation, and may have impacts on wildlife and 

fish from noise and vibration of activities such as pile driving. Temporary disturbance from 

construction staging areas, access roads, and equipment yards would have potential impacts on 

natural resources, communities and neighborhoods. Traffic circulation would be impacted by 

detours and delays, particularly in urban and suburban areas that have high visitor traffic as well 

as local traffic. In tunnel staging and portal areas, and areas where grade separations are 

constructed, potential construction impacts are likely to last longer than in areas where at-grade 

double-tracking can be accomplished in a relatively short timeframe. The potential impacts of 

construction activity would be addressed in more detail during project-level analysis when 

additional design information is available. 

The No-Project Alternative would not involve any additional construction-related impacts. 

6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Implementation of the proposed rail improvements would result in some relocations associated 

with potential property acquisitions and potential relocation of wildlife from habitat disturbance 

during construction and operation. These factors would be considered in more detail during 

project-level review. While some relocations associated with property acquisition are likely if a 

decision is made to proceed with the proposed rail improvements, long term benefits would also 

result, including enhanced long-term productivity related to increased mobility and safety, and 

the reduced travel time that an improved intercity rail system would provide. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-4 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Short-term benefits of the Rail Improvements Alternative include employment opportunities 

during construction (spread over a number of years) and locally purchased materials and 

services. 

As indicated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need and Objectives, the existing and programmed 

transportation improvements in southern California will not keep up with the currently projected 

rate of future population growth and the increased intercity travel demand projected for the 

region. The proposed rail improvements would provide user benefits (travel time savings, cost 

reductions, accident reductions) and accessibility improvements for southern California’s 

citizens. 

6.3 CEQA Significance 

This section describes those environmental effects identified in Chapter 3 that would be 

considered significant under the CEQA. The potential for the proposed project to stimulate 

unplanned growth is considered in Section 3.15, Growth Inducement. Cumulative impacts are 

discussed in Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts Evaluation. 

Use of the term “significant” differs under NEPA and CEQA. While CEQA requires that the 

significance of impacts be discussed in an EIR, the NEPA does not require such discussion in 

an EIS. Under NEPA, significance is used to determine whether an EIS or some other level of 

documentation is required, and once a decision to prepare an EIS is made, the EIS reports all 

impacts and discusses feasible mitigation. Under CEQA, significance is used to determine 

whether to prepare an EIR and then to evaluate the severity of potential adverse environmental 

impacts in the EIR. The EIR must also discuss feasible mitigation measures that could reduce 

potentially significant effects to below the level of significance. For this reason, CEQA 

significance criteria and the determination of significant impacts under CEQA have been 

addressed separately in this section. 

NEPA anticipates that mitigation will be considered for the potential impacts of a project where it 

would be feasible. For this reason, while consideration of some mitigation strategies described 

in this EIR/EIS and in this section is appropriate under NEPA, the potential impacts they 

address may not be considered significant under CEQA. 

6.3.1 CEQA Significance Thresholds 

CEQA requires that an EIR identify the potentially significant environmental effects of the project 

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126), but does not promulgate specific thresholds for significance. 

Instead, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that “the determination . . . calls for careful 

judgment on the part of the public agency involved...” and that “an ironclad definition of 

significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the 

setting.” The fundamental definition of significant effect under CEQA is “a substantial adverse 

change in physical conditions.” This criterion underlies the evaluation of environmental impacts 

for most of the impact issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form (Guidelines 

Appendix G). CEQA encourages lead agencies to develop and publish their own thresholds of 

significance for the purpose of determining the significant effects of their projects. Given the 

planning-level impact analysis considered in this Program EIR/EIS the Department has not 

developed project-specific significance thresholds. 

Some impact categories lend themselves to scientific or mathematical analysis, and therefore to 

quantification. Some categories have significance thresholds established by regulatory 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-5 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

agencies, such as noise criteria or regional air pollutant criteria. For other impact categories 

that are more qualitative or are entirely dependent on the immediate setting, a hard-and-fast 

threshold is not generally feasible, and the "substantial adverse change in physical conditions" 

is applied as the significance criterion. In the current analysis, the Department has determined 

to apply the CEQA checklist thresholds to evaluate the significance of effects of the Rail 

Improvements and No-Project alternatives. 

CEQA states that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as 

significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, 15064(e)). Economic or social 

changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change should be regarded as a 

significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social 

effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same 

manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. If the physical change causes 

adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in 

determining whether the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. Because 

many of the potential rail improvements would be done within the existing LOSSAN corridor or 

involve widening of the existing right-of-way, the potential for adverse environmental impacts in 

these areas, and for potential economic or social effects, is reduced since the transportation 

corridor and its associated impacts are already well established. 

6.3.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Effects Under CEQA 

This section identifies those environmental categories that, given their potential for impact, 

would be those most likely to experience potentially significant, unavoidable adverse effects at 

some locations along the alignments being considered for the proposed rail improvements. The 

planning level of environmental review presented in this Program EIR/EIS does not seek to 

quantify impacts as would typically be done at a project level. Instead, this Program EIR/EIS 

evaluates the potential for significant effects for each alternative, based on the density of 

resources and/or sensitive receptors within the project vicinity and thus ranks the potential for 

impact as high, medium, or low. This is an appropriate assessment of potential impacts at this 

stage of such a large, regional undertaking. The Program EIR/EIS considers alternatives and 

options, identifies the lesser impacting approaches in each rail segment, and provides a basis 

for identifying mitigation strategies that is relevant to the decisions at hand. 

Based on this planning level of analysis, therefore, potentially significant unavoidable impacts 

are only identified generally. With the three-county scope of the project and the size of the 

geographic area traversed by the potential rail alignment and station options, it is likely not 

feasible to avoid or reduce all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed 

improvements at every location under consideration through project modifications, or to mitigate 

all these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Table 6.3-1 provides a summary list 

of the environmental categories, general mitigation strategies, potentially significant impacts and 

potential levels of significance after mitigation. Depending upon the alignment options that may 

ultimately be selected, potentially significant unavoidable effects can be expected at some 

locations along the rail corridor in the general environmental categories of wetlands and 

biological resources, hydrology and water resources, and cultural resources, as described on 

Table 6.3-1. However, neither the extent of such potential impacts, nor the potential locations 

for such impacts, can be determined at this level of analysis. 

For several of the environmental categories listed in the table below (including wetlands, 

hydrology, and cultural resources) the quantities presented represent areas within which 

potential impacts might occur by including all the potentially affected resources or acreage in the 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6.0-6 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

study area for the resource topic listed. For example, the area of floodplains includes all 

floodplains within 100 feet of either side of the centerline of the alignment being considered; 

whereas the right-of-way needed for the improvements considered and the area which would be 

used for the improvements being considered (e.g., the footprint for the proposed rail 

improvement) would be much less, so the potential for impacts would likewise be less. 

Therefore, the determination of significance is ”potential” rather than absolute. The 

determination of a ”potentially” significant or unavoidable impact would be used to focus 

attention at the next phase of planning and environmental review (project-specific, detailed 

analysis). 

The No-Project Alternative may result in potentially significant unavoidable impacts to geology 

and soils in the areas where the existing rail corridor operates along the coastal bluff slopes in 

Del Mar and San Clemente. It may also have potentially significant impacts on traffic and 

circulation due to increasing congestion on area roadways without the additional capacity of an 

improved LOSSAN intercity rail service. 

6.3.3 CEQA Environmentally Superior Alternative 

The CEQA Guidelines state that, where the No-Project Alternative is the environmentally 

superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative from 

among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(2)). Based on the evaluations 

documented in Chapter 3 of this EIR/EIS, the Rail Improvements Alternative has been identified 

as the environmentally superior alternative. 

The Rail Improvements Alternative would increase the efficiency, capacity, and safety of rail 

service in the LOSSAN corridor, and decrease passenger costs. Grade separation of the 

corridor would decrease existing barriers in urban areas, and decrease the impact on roadway 

travel at intersections with the rail corridor, as compared with the No-Project Alternative. Grade 

separation would also substantially decrease noise from train horns and warning bells along the 

corridor. In the coastal areas, the Rail Improvements Alternative would have beneficial impacts 

from removing the existing rail service into tunnels, thereby improving aesthetics and reducing 

the on-going erosional problems along the coastal bluffs areas. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-7 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 6.3-1 

Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts For System Alternatives 

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative1 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Traffic and 

Circulation 

Capacity is insufficient to 

accommodate the projected 

growth. All but one of the 8 

intercity highway segments 

considered would operate at 

unacceptable levels of service 

with increased congestion, travel 

delays, and accidents over 

existing conditions. Congestion 

would increase considerably from 

existing conditions. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Congestion reduction on intercity 

highways as compared to the NoProject Alternative. However, the 

analyses could not take into account 

potential use of the excess capacity by 

non-intercity (commuter, and shortdistance) trips. Has the potential to help 

reduce the number of intercity 

automobile trips. Localized traffic 

conditions around stations impacted. 

Encourage use of 

transit to stations. 

Work with transit 

providers to improve 

station connections. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less than 

Significant 

Travel 

Conditions 

(Travel Time, 

Reliability, 

Safety, 

Connectivity, 

Sustainable 

Capacity, 

Passenger Cost) 

Longer travel times, more delay. 

Lower reliability due to increased 

dependence on the automobile. 

Increase in injuries and fatalities 

due to increase in highway travel. 

No net improvement to 

connectivity options. 

No significant increase in 

capacity for highway 

infrastructure, and significant 

worsening of congestion due to 

increased demand. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Travel time reduction as compared to 

the No-Project Alternative. Greatest 

improvement in reliability due to higher 

reliability of the rail mode; additional 

modal option improves reliability for 

overall transportation system. 

Decrease in injuries and fatalities due 

to improvements to rail infrastructure 

Highest level of connectivity. Provide 

additional connections to existing 

modes, additional frequencies, and 

greater flexibility. 

Improved rail system would provide 

sufficient capacity to meet the 

representative demand and would 

provide additional capacity with minimal 

additional infrastructure. 

Overall savings in passenger costs of 

39% on average compared to NoProject. Intercity rail passenger costs 

are competitive with the automobile 

travel. 

Not Applicable Beneficial Not 

Applicable 

 

1 Quantities are listed as ranges to represent the variation in potential impacts depending on the alignment options selected. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-8 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 6.3-1 

Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Air Quality 

(tons of 

pollutants; 

potential 

violation of 

NAAQS) 

NOx and CO emissions from 

locomotives in LOSSAN corridor 

are predicted to increase by 2020 

approximately 645% over 2005 

levels. Estimated CO 386 

tons/year, NOx 2,000 tons/year, 

TOG 108 tons/year; PM 70 

tons/year; CO2 147,790 

tons/year. 

Not Applicable 17% increase in locomotive miles and 

emissions due to proposed project. 

Potential violation of NOx or other 

pollutant thresholds or standards with 

current technology. Air quality benefits 

from reduced locomotive delays and 

idling time, vehicular idling at grade 

crossings. Construction impacts from 

PM emissions in nonattainment air 

basins. 

Control of 

construction related 

emissions. 

Diesel filters, 

automatic anti-idling 

devices, newer 

technologies and 

locomotive standards 

by 2020 expected to 

cut NOx and PM by 

up to 90% of current 

standards. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Energy Use Energy consumption is estimated 

to increase by 2020 to 36,969 

barrels of oil annual consumption 

for operation of locomotives in 

LOSSAN corridor. 

No Significant 

Impact 

17% increase in locomotive miles over 

No-Project levels; annual consumption 

of 54,960 additional barrel of oil. 

Some energy consumption reduction 

would occur due to reduced congestion 

and grade separation of rail corridor. 

Construction energy consumption 

would be potentially significant use of 

nonrenewable energy. 

Minimize grade 

changes in steep 

terrain areas to 

reduce the use of 

diesel fuel. 

Maximize intermodal 

transit connections to 

reduce automobile 

VMT related to the 

rail system. 

Develop and 

implement a 

construction energy 

conservation plan. 

Develop potential 

measures to reduce 

energy consumption 

during operation and 

maintenance 

activities. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

 

2 Quantities are listed as ranges to represent the variation in potential impacts depending on the alignment options selected. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-9 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 6.3-1 

Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Land Use 

(Compatibility 

and Property 

Impacts) 

Expansion of urban sprawl as 

population grows and congestion 

increases; development on open 

space. Existing barriers resulting 

from existing LOSSAN rail 

corridor in some communities 

and coastal areas would remain. 

No Impact Most alignments highly compatible with 

land uses because of existing rail 

corridor or tunnel proposals. 

Small amount of property acquisition 

along existing rail corridor, some 

acquisition along new rights of way with 

one alignment option; between 5 and 7 

mi. of improvements could affect high 

impact land uses. 

Continued 

coordination with 

local agencies. 

Relocation assistance 

during future projectlevel review. 

Design refinements to 

avoid tunnel portals 

and other 

infrastructure in 

residential 

neighborhoods. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Visual Quality No predictable change to existing 

landscape. Existing visual 

impacts of rail corridor on 

beaches and coastal views would 

remain. 

No Significant 

Impact 

High sensitivity in scenic open space 

and residential coastal views. Some 

beneficial impacts would occur by 

removing existing service from beaches 

and coastal bluffs. Potentially significant 

impacts in lagoon areas where new 

elevated structures may be built. 

Design strategies to 

minimize bulk and 

shading of bridges. 

Use of neutral colors 

and materials to 

blend with 

surrounding 

landscape features. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Noise More vehicular traffic, rail and air 

operations from growth in the 

intercity demand generates more 

noise. Existing high impacts to 

noise-sensitive land 

use/populations would continue 

or worsen. Noise from train 

horns and warning bells at grade 

crossings would worsen due to 

projected 60% increase in rail 

traffic by 2020. More freight 

service would likely run at night 

to accommodate increased 

volumes. 

Potentially 

significant 

noise impacts 

between Union 

Station and 

Fullerton during 

nighttime hours 

from increased 

freight traffic. 

20 miles of alignment length in region 

would have high impacts to noise 

sensitive land use/populations (most of 

which are already impacted by existing 

rail corridor). Noise increase due to 

increased speeds of trains and 10% 

increase in train volume in the LOSSAN 

corridor, compared with No-Project 

Alternative. Substantial noise reduction 

from existing and 2020 No-Project 

conditions due to elimination of horn 

warning bell noise at grade crossings 

resulting from grade separation of 

existing rail line in most alignment 

options. 

Consider sound 

barriers or berms in 

some areas along 

noise sensitive 

corridors; good track 

maintenance for 

vibration. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-10 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 6.3-1 

Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Biology / 

Wetlands 

(Includes area 

within 100 feet 

on either side of 

centerline of 

alignment 

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact Up to 28 acres of sensitive vegetation, 

12,564-15,541 linear feet of nonwetland jurisdictional waters, 20-27 

acres of wetlands, and 36-46 specialstatus species could be affected directly 

or indirectly. 

Work with resource 

agencies to develop 

site specific mitigation 

and impact avoidance 

strategies for project 

level review. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Hydrologic 

Resources and 

Water Quality 

(Includes area 

within 100 feet 

on each side of 

alignment 

centerline 200 

feet total).)

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact Between 205 and 315 acres of 

floodplains, 11,760 and 13650 linear 

feet of streams, and up to 12 acres of 

lagoons within 100 feet of proposed 

alignment options, plus some areas 

crossing the California Coastal Basin 

Aquifer. 

Avoid or minimize 

footprint in 

floodplains; conduct 

project-level analysis 

of surface hydrology 

and coastal lagoons; 

Best Management 

Practices for 

construction as part 

of SWPPP. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant/ 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Section 4 (f) 6 

(f) 

(Parks, Wildlife 

Refuges) 

(Includes area 

within 900 feet 

on each side of 

alignment 

centerline (1,800 

feet total).)

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact From 29 to 33 Section 4 (f) or 6(f) 

properties could be affected. Most 

along existing rail corridor so impacts 

may be minimized. Some opportunity 

for new parklands to be created where 

rail would be removed from beaches. 

Evaluate site-specific 

design refinements to 

avoid parklands; 

identify potential site 

specific measures to 

minimize harm. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant / 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Cultural 

Resources 

(Including 

Section 4(f) 

Historic 

Resources) 

Low ranking for impacts to 

archaeological resources and 

historic property. 

No Significant 

Impact 

Medium to High ranking for potential 

impacts to archaeological resources 

and historic properties (Many 

improvements would use existing rail 

corridor and stations; nearby resources 

developed in historic period). Tunnel 

options would avoid most impacts. 

Develop procedures 

for field work, 

identification, 

evaluation and 

determination of 

effects for cultural 

resources in 

consultation with 

SHPO and Native 

American Tribes 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-11 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

Table 6.3-1 

Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Growth 

Inducement 

Not Applicable Not Applicable Rail improvements would not induce 

growth because improvements would 

accommodate projected rail service 

increases between now and 2020. May 

change rate of some development 

around new station (potentially at 

University Towne Centre 

Work with local 

communities to 

design station access 

and facilities to blend 

with area and provide 

appropriate mixeduse development that 

complies with land 

use plans and codes 

No Significant 

Impact 

Not 

Applicable 

Public Utilities No Impact No Impact Potential conflicts with 22 transmission 

lines, 44 gas lines, 5 ocean outfalls, 

and 2 major sewer lines. depending on 

alignments 

Relocate or 

reconstruct or restore 

utility, consolidate 

several utilities 

underground into one 

conduit during 

relocation 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Geology Potentially 

susceptible to 

seismic hazards; coastal bluffs in 

Del Mar and San Clemente 

would continue to require 

stabilization for reliable operation 

of existing rail service. 

Potentially 

Significant 

(could be 

mitigated to 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant) 

Potential seismic 

hazards, slope 

stability in cut 

sections. Would remove rail service 

from coastal bluffs in Del Mar and San 

Clemente, reducing stability problems. 

Use of ground 

motion data and 

instruments. 

Routine maintenance 

of track, slope 

reinforcement. 

Project-level design 

to minimize cut-andfill ; Best 

Management 

Practices to prevent 

tunnel subsidence. 

Potentially 

Significant; 

Beneficial in 

coastal bluff 

areas. 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Hazardous 

Materials 

No Impact No Impact Disposal, clean-up or remediation of 

exposure to hazardous materials during 

construction. Two Superfund, SPL or 

SWLF sites potentially affected by 

construction. 

Detailed Initial Site 

Assessment, avoid 

sites where 

practicable, subsurface investigation 

where needed to 

characterize sites and 

identify remediation 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 6-12 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

This page intentionally left blank. 
7.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Chapter 7 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

7.0 INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as the Department’s commitment to proactive public 

participation, a comprehensive program of public and agency involvement was conducted as 

part of the environmental document preparation process. Public and agency involvement was 

accomplished through a variety of means including a formal scoping process that included a 

series of public and agency scoping meetings, extensive one-on-one and small group agency 

consultation, and presentations and public workshops held as part of the development of the 

LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. 

The following subsections describe the various forms of public and agency involvement effort 

undertaken during this study. 

Pre-Scoping Period: Prior to the inception of the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor 

Improvements Study, the California High-Speed Rail Authority conducted its own Scoping 

Process in conjunction with its Program-Level EIR/EIS for the Statewide HSR system, which 

extended from April 8, 2001 through May 31, 2001. 

Six officially noticed formal scoping meetings were conducted in the Los Angeles-Orange 

County-San Diego Region 4 between May 2, 2001 and May 23, 2001. Two meetings were held 

in each county. All these meetings were open to the general public, but public agencies were 

encouraged to attend the meetings scheduled during business hours, leaving the evening 

meetings to focus on the general public. 

Scoping activities also included interviews or meetings with more than 50 government officials, 

business, environmental and ethnic community leaders, four workshops or presentations to 

major stakeholder groups in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and an assessment of 

interviews and meetings about high-speed rail train options with San Diego leaders that 

occurred in the year preceding the NOP on this project. 

The following major themes came out of the Authority’s scoping process with regard to the 

LOSSAN Corridor, were considered by the Department, and led to the initiation of the LOSSAN 

Corridor Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Study: 

• Seeing a long-term plan put in place for the LOSSAN Corridor. Those participating in 

the scoping meetings were familiar with Amtrak and other upgrading efforts and 

supported a comprehensive improvement strategy that would accommodate short and 

long-term upgrades. In this context they supported moving forward with known 

technologies that could be implemented soon, rather than extending the implementation 

timeframe to achieve a newer technology. 

• In south Orange County and north San Diego County, agencies and community leaders 

were greatly interested in preserving or enhancing access to the beaches and 

recreational-oriented communities. They saw a high-speed train as both a potential 

opportunity to eliminate existing obstructions and/or to become another obstruction, 

depending on how the high-speed train project was designed and implemented. 
7.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• In Orange County most of the input focused on the potential impact to San Clemente. 

There were strong concerns voiced about the need to protect the sensitive bluffs and 

reduce noise and visual impacts in the areas adjacent to the city’s primary public beach. 

Participants supported studying alternatives that would improve beach access. 

• Secondary concerns in Orange County revolved around requests that the environmental 

documents include extensive information about the parking required (i.e., more than the 

norm in a program EIR/EIS), connectivity to other transit options, and noise impacts. 

• Strong concerns were expressed in San Diego to coordinate efforts between this and the 

Amtrak upgrade efforts. In particular, participants wanted to ensure that any alignment 

options considered for future study avoid creating separately dedicated rail rights-of-way 

or tracks or expanding the right of way devoted to rail. A second major theme here was 

the need to protect environmental resources in the northern communities of San Diego. 

Reducing negative existing visual impacts in these communities was also a significant 

issue. Residents were proud of recent redevelopment efforts and initiatives that were 

creating pedestrian-friendly community centers in these communities and stressed that 

the high speed train should support the creation of community focal points—or at a 

minimum, not do anything to disrupt ongoing improvements. Alternatives that did not 

reinforce clear vistas and localized community business centers will generate opposition. 

This extends to the visual impact of overhead catenaries associated with an electrified 

system. 

Scoping Period: During the scoping phase, while the technical team was working to define 

evaluation methodologies and the scope of studies, the public and interested agencies were 

encouraged to provide comments relative to alternatives to evaluate, and issues to address. 

Scoping activities for the LOSSAN Proposal Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS 

were conducted within the period between April 2, 2002 and April 23, 2002, with an additional 

meeting held August 13, 2002. 

The formal process was initiated with the publishing of the Federal Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2002 and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) released on March 11, 

2002. 

Strategic Plan: For the LOSSAN Proposal Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS 

the Department determined that the creation of a LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan would be an 

important and beneficial adjunct and serve as a screening report to further focus the alternatives 

under study. This complementary planning document looked at the proposed rail improvements 

from a corridor-wide perspective. In supporting the PEIR/PEIS work underway, the Strategic 

Plan’s objectives were: 

• To provide an additional opportunity for public outreach, beyond that provided as part of 

the PEIR/PEIS process 

• To foster better communication and understanding among stakeholders at all levels 

• To provide an opportunity to screen out design options at key locations, so as to focus 

future work on the most promising alternatives 

• To develop short- and long-term visions for the corridor, contemplating a program of 

projects over the next twenty years. 
7.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Strategic Plan met these objectives through a series of public workshops held in cities 

along the corridor. Five public workshops were held: 

Table 7.1 

Strategic Plan Public Workshop Locations and Times 

City Date Time Location 

Encinitas March 25, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Community & Senior Center, 1140 

Oakcrest Park Dr. 

San Diego March 26, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Caltrans District 11, 2829 Juan Street 

Anaheim March 27, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. City Hall West, 201 South Anaheim 

Boulevard 

San Clemente April 2, 2003 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Community Center, 100 North Calle Seville 

Norwalk April 3, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Norwalk Marriott, 13111 Sycamore Drive 

The workshops helped to educate and inform the public, and provided an overview of the 

corridor and the rail improvements under study, including information on: 

• The purpose and goals of the Strategic Plan 

• The need for improvements to the corridor 

• Current and projected weekday train volumes 

• Corridor facts, including rail owners and operators and details on Freight Services 

• Types of services provided (Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight) 

• The Strategic Plan timetable 

• Ranges of costs, rail performance issues, and community/environmental issues of 

projects throughout the corridor 

• Design options and alternatives at four key locations along the corridor where the range 

of options was sufficiently broad to allow the screening out of some options, the 

recommendations for screening, and the rationale and criteria used to reach the 

recommended screening decisions 

• The Planning Process, including timelines for the completion of the Strategic Plan, and 

the Department’s Draft Program-level Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Numerous consultations were conducted during this phase throughout the LOSSAN corridor. 

These included briefings and consultations with: individual corridor cities; state and federal 

environmental and resources agencies, as well as through rail working groups in Orange and 

San Diego County. These rail working groups were comprised of representatives from cities, 

the Department, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) such as Orange County 

Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as 

well as rail owners and operators (including Amtrak, Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(Metrolink), and North County Transit District (Coaster), transit providers, and other 

stakeholders, and provided continuing communication and interaction throughout this phase. 

Technical Studies/Preparation of the Department’s Draft Program EIR/EIS: During this period, 

ongoing and extensive one-on-one and small group consultation occurred with federal, state, 
7.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

and local agencies. In addition, the Department and FRA (as the lead CEQA and NEPA 

agencies responsible for the preparation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS) formed a working group 

of representatives of eight key federal and state resources agencies to assist in the 

environmental review process. The interagency group met at key milestones in the 

environmental process to discuss the purpose and need for the project, screening of 

alternatives, the methods to be used for technical evaluation of impacts, including definition of 

study area, data sources, and models used for analysis, and the key findings. 

Public Comment/Hearing Period: This phase was initiated with the announcement and release 

of the LOSSAN Proposal Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS for formal public 

and agency review. During the comment period, a comprehensive program to provide the 

public and interested agencies an opportunity to review the results of evaluations on project 

alternatives and proposed mitigation measures will be conducted. The comment period 

included a series of public hearings as well additional informational meetings on the 

Environmental Document’s contents to groups and organizations throughout the corridor. A 

comment period of 90 days was provided to allow adequate time for the review of the document 

and for the preparation and submission of comments. All comments received during the formal 

comment period were responded to in the LOSSAN Proposal Rail Corridor Improvements 

Program Final EIR/EIS. 

7.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH PROGRAM 

The Department’s Public Involvement and Outreach Program include activities to ensure that 

public input is sought at key milestones throughout the study process and preparation of the 

technical documents and LOSSAN Proposal Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program 

EIR/EIS. In addition, ongoing briefings and updates are provided to interested stakeholders and 

policymaking entities to maintain open communication on the status of the evaluations and the 

direction of the study. Public involvement objectives include: 

• Respond to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) /National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requirements for public involvement. 

• Disseminate information about the project to interested parties and to directly-affected 

communities. 

• Obtain full and continuous public involvement through the entire project. 

• Enable public to assist in the development and verification of findings. 

• Ensure outreach to all potentially affected minority and low income populations. 

• Insure that the public involvement process has been open and easily accessible through 

all forms of media (printed materials, electronic media, and meetings). 

• Ensure that public and private concerns on issues such as environmental quality and 

safety are heard and incorporated into environmental documents. 

7.1.1 Public Information 

The following section details those efforts made to inform and involve the public during the 

LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements study process. 
7.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

A. DATABASE LIST 

A project database (or mailing list) ensures that project information and announcements 

are widely disseminated in a timely fashion. The database for the LOSSAN Proposed 

Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS, built from an existing Department 

contact list, includes more that 1,500 entries of federal, state and local agency 

representatives, elected officials, property owners, special interest stakeholders, 

interested parties and others. It has been updated regularly to include public meeting 

participants and those who have asked to be added to the database. While this list is 

used for notification of project updates, it does not represent the distribution list for the 

Program EIR/EIS. The distribution list, as presented in Chapter 10, is a subset of this 

comprehensive notification list. 

B. STRATEGIC PLAN 

As mentioned, the Department’s LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan provided a process by 

which the public, corridor cities, state and federal agencies, rail operators and 

transportation agencies could review and comment on the screening recommendations 

contained in the Strategic Plan. 

During the many meetings held to discuss LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor 

Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS issues with various audiences other materials 

were used as well. Targeted PowerPoint presentations were developed to inform 

stakeholders about the proposed project and issues particularly germane to their 

interests and constituencies. Exhibit boards highlighted key information about the 

project and incorporated graphics which helped to more effectively present alignment 

and station options as well as other issues. 

C. PUBLIC MEETINGS 

The Department has held both informal and formal public meetings throughout the 

course of the studies. These meetings presented the proposed project alternatives, 

described project issues, and solicited input and feedback from the public. Various 

meeting formats (e.g. open houses, formal presentations, and question and comment 

sessions) have been used to ensure effective presentation of the information and useful 

feedback from participants. A more formal series of meetings were conducted around 

key technical and decision making milestones as described below. Ongoing briefings, 

presentations and small group discussions occurred throughout the process (see 

Chapter 8, Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach, for a comprehensive listing of 

these meetings). 

Public and Agency Scoping Meetings

The Authority’s HSR Scoping meetings within the LOSSAN Corridor, which lead to the 

LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Study were held in Los Angeles (May 2, 

2001), La Jolla, (May 10, 2001), San Diego (May 10, 2001), and Irvine (May 23, 2001). 

The Department held six formally noticed Public and Agency Scoping Meetings, 

between April 2, 2002 and April 23, 2002 (scoping period), as shown in Table 7-2 
7.0-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

below1. A minimum of one Scoping Meeting was held within each of the three counties 

through which the rail corridor travels. These meetings, part of the formal environmental 

document scoping process, served to further present the proposed project and 

alternatives to the public and solicit input on alternatives to consider, and issues to 

address, in the environmental evaluations. Depending on the location, meetings were 

conducted either during the day or during the evening to accommodate the largest 

number of agency representatives and the general public. Meetings generally began 

with an informal open house and exhibit display followed by a PowerPoint presentation 

and comment session. 

Comments were fully documented and are summarized in the Public Scoping Report, 

June 24, 2002. Agendas, Facts Sheets (as described previously) and Scoping Period 

Comment Sheets were provided at each meeting. Scoping meetings were noticed 

through a variety of means including placement of the Federal Notice of Intent in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2002, distribution of the Notice of Preparation to the State 

Office of Planning and Research and all applicable state and regional agencies on 

March 11, 2002, media outreach including press releases, and postings on the 

Department’s Division of Rail Web site (http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com). Meetings were 

held as follows: 

Table 7.2 

LOSSAN Corridor Scoping Meeting Locations and Times 

City Date Time Location 

Los Angeles April 2, 2002 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority, Union Station Room 

San Clemente April 2, 2002 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. San Clemente Inn, 2600 Avenida De 

Presidente 

Anaheim April 3, 2002 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. City Hall West, 201 South Anaheim 

Boulevard 

Carlsbad April 3, 2002 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Carlsbad Senior Center, 799 Pine 

Street 

Santa Ana April 9, 2002 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Santa Ana Regional Transportation 

Center, Logan Room, 1000 Santa 

Ana Boulevard 

San Clemente April 23, 2002 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Heritage Christian Fellowship, 190 

Avenida La Pata 

San Juan Capistrano August 13, 2002 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Community Center, 25925 Camino 

del Avion 

Approximately 1,750 people participated in the formal scoping meetings noted above. 

In addition to the formal scoping meetings, presentations, briefings and workshops were 

also held to solicit input before, and during, the scoping process. Meetings and 

presentations were primarily focused toward public agency and other local organization 

 

1 A seventh meeting was held at the request of the cities of San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and San Clemente, based on 

continuing concerns about improvement alternatives within the existing alignment in South Orange County, and requests to study an 

alternative that would bypass the highly-sensitive segments of these communities. 
7.0-7

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

representatives. Noticing was conducted by a combination of direct phone calls and 

faxes to local/regional agency representatives, with follow-up faxes/emails with more 

detailed information about the meetings (as needed). Presentations at conferences, 

forums, local and regional governments, special interest groups and other interested 

parties, as well as agency meetings and other briefings were also conducted to increase 

the number of interested stakeholders informed about the studies. Chapter 8, 

Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach, includes a comprehensive list of the 

workshops and the statewide, regional and local groups who participated in this aspect 

of the Authority’s outreach effort. Comments from these workshops and meetings are 

further summarized in the Public Scoping Report. 

Comments were considered in the scoping process and summarized in meeting 

minutes. 

Small Group Presentations, Briefings and Outreach

Throughout the environmental review process, presentations to local and regional 

governments, special interest groups and other interested parties, as well as agency 

meetings and other briefings have been conducted to ensure that key interested 

stakeholders and their broader constituencies are informed about the LOSSAN corridor 

studies, and have provided an additional opportunity to comment. Community planning 

organizations (e.g. Torrey Pines Community Association), and public agency meetings 

(e.g. SANDAG Board Meeting) are examples of the types of groups with whom these 

presentations and discussions have occurred. These activities have enhanced public 

awareness about the proposed project and alternatives and have encouraged broadbased discussion of key issues and impacts to be evaluated in the environmental 

document. Chapter 8, Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach, includes a 

comprehensive list of the regional and local groups participating in this aspect of the 

Department’s outreach effort. 

D. DIVISION OF RAIL WEB SITE 

Throughout the course of the environmental review process, project information and 

announcements have been posted on the Department’s Division of Rail Web site at 

www.amtrakcalifornia.com. The site includes information on the cooperative rail 

passenger program operated by Amtrak and funded by the Federal Government and the 

State of California, through the Department of Transportation, (Caltrans), which includes 

the Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger rail service that operates on the LOSSAN 

corridor. The Division of Rail also uses the Web site to make public documents readily 

available, including technical reports, screening reports, and planning documents 

relating to the Department-supported rail services. The Web site has provided an 

important mechanism through which people who choose not to attend public workshops 

can learn about important project milestones and provide input. The Web site is updated 

at least monthly. 

E. NOTIFICATION AND CIRCULATION OF THE LOSSAN PROPOSED RAIL 

CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS DRAFT PROGRAM EIR/EIS 

The formal process of notification regarding availability and circulation of the LOSSAN 

Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Program EIR/EIS was conducted pursuant to 

CEQA and NEPA requirements. As such, newspaper advertisements announcing the 

availability of the draft document and comment period were posted in newspapers of 
7.0-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

general circulation within the project area, direct mail announcement were mailed to 

those on the database, a formal Notice of Availability of the LOSSAN Proposed Rail 

Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS and a Notice of Completion was filed with 

the state clearinghouse and sent to state agencies. EPA issued a Notice of Availability 

for the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS and it 

appeared in the Federal Register August 27, 2004. General notices were sent to the 

project mailing list including county clerks, transit agencies, and local cities/communities 

along the corridor. 

The LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS was 

distributed to cooperating federal agencies. The Executive Summary of the LOSSAN 

Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS and a CD-ROM version of 

the entire document were also produced for distribution to State and local agencies, and 

for regional transportation agencies. The LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor 

Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS document was made available on the 

Department’s AmtrakCalifornia Web site. A public and agency comment period of 

approximately 60 days included a series of formal and informal public hearings held 

throughout the project area. These were noticed and conducted similarly to the Scoping 

Meetings described above. 

Public Hearings Summary

The Department and FRA held three public hearings to present the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS and to receive public comments. Each of the public hearings was conducted in 

an “Open House” format. Exhibit boards were available for viewing, and project staff 

was present to answer questions and to discuss issues. Although no public testimony or 

prepared presentations were made, a court reporter was present at each of the public 

hearings to record oral comments, and comment sheets were available for providing 

written comments. The project staff at all meetings included Patrick Merrill, representing 

the Department, and David Valenstein, representing FRA, as well as members of the 

consultant team. At select meetings (in San Diego County), the Department’s Project 

Manager, Arturo Jacobo, was also present. Copies of the draft document were available 

for reference, as well as printed copies of the Summary, and complete copies of the draft 

document on CD-ROM. 

Table 7.3 

LOSSAN Public Hearing Locations and Times 

City Date Time Location 

San Diego September 27, 2004 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. Caltrans District 11, 2829 Juan Street 

Los Angeles September 28, 2004 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

1 Gateway Center 

Anaheim September 29, 2004 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. City Hall West, 201 South Anaheim 

Boulevard 

Three additional informal informational meetings were offered as well. At these 

meetings the same staff and materials were present, but no court reporter was available 

to record oral comments. Comment sheets were available for providing written 

comments. 
7.0-9

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 7.4 

Additional LOSSAN Draft Program EIR/EIS 

Public Information Meetings Locations and Times 

City Date Time Location 

Santa Fe Springs September 13, 2004 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. City Hall, 11710 Telegraph Road 

Encinitas September 14, 2004 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Recreational Center, 1140 Oakcrest Park 

Drive 

Dana Point September 16, 2004 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Community Center, 34052 Del Obispo 

Road 

The distribution list for the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Program 

EIR/EIS (both Draft and Final versions) is provided in Chapter 10, Program EIR/EIS 

Distribution List, of this document. 

Written Comments Summary

Written comments were collected throughout the comment period, and responses to 

comments provided. Where appropriate, the Final Program EIR/EIS was revised to 

reflect suggested changes from comment letters. Copies of the comment letters 

received and their responses can be found in Volume 2: Response to Comments and 

Appendices. 

7.1.2 Agency Consultation and Coordination 

A. AGENCY SCOPING 

To initiate the formal scoping process, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the 

Federal Register on March 2, 2002 and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed 

to state, regional and local agencies on April (see Scoping Report, June 24, 2002 for a 

distribution list). The formal scoping period was conducted from April 2, 2002 through 

April 23, 2002, with an additional meeting held August 13, 2002. Additional meetings 

and informal roundtable/workshop meetings were conducted with public agencies. Many 

of the agency contacts made during the scoping process led to subsequent one-on-one 

and small group consultation meetings that occurred throughout the preparation of the 

LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

B. INTER-AGENCY WORKING GROUP 

The Department and FRA (as lead CEQA and NEPA agencies responsible for 

preparation of the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program 

EIR/EIS) formed a Resources Agencies Working Group, comprised of representatives 

from eight key federal and state resources agencies, to assist in the environmental 

review process. The group’s purpose is to ensure that agency issues are proactively 

raised and discussed during the environmental review process and that appropriate 

environmental streamlining can occur. 

The Resources Agencies Working Group met seven times, on the following dates: 

• June 27, 2002 

• September 10, 2002 
7.0-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• November 26, 2002 

• March 13, 2003 

• April 24, 2003 

• June 4, 2003 

• July 30, 2003 

Topics discussed at the agency meetings included: Purpose and Need for the project; 

screening of alternatives; alternatives to be analyzed in the LOSSAN Proposed Rail 

Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS; study methods to be used in the 

evaluation of impacts; level of detail appropriate for a Program-level environmental 

document; and key findings. The Resources Agencies concurred with the Purpose and 

Need Statement, Strategic Plan screening recommendations, alternatives to be 

analyzed and methods used to evaluate impacts. Chapter 8, Organization, Agency and 

Business Outreach, includes a comprehensive list of the statewide and federal groups 

who participated in this aspect of the Department’s outreach effort. 

C. RAIL WORKING GROUP CONSULTATION 

In Orange and San Diego Counties, Rail Working Groups were formed, comprised of 

representatives from the rail owners/operators, regional transportation agencies, 

metropolitan planning organizations, and other. 

The Orange County/Orange County Transportation Authority Rail Working Group met 

eight times, on the following dates: 

• August 14, 2002 

• October 22, 2002 

• January 30, 2003 

• March 04, 2003 

• May 06, 2003 

• June 10, 2003 

• July 31, 2003 

• February 19, 2004 

The San Diego County Coastal Rail Working Group met ten times, on the following 

dates: 

• June 13, 2002 

• July 31, 2002 

• September 09, 2002 

• October 22, 2002 

• December 3, 2002 

• February 18, 2003 
7.0-11

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• May 07, 2003 

• June 09, 2003 

• July 31, 2003 

• February 20, 2004 

Topics discussed at the Rail Working Group meetings included: Purpose and Need for 

the project; screening of alternatives; alternatives to be analyzed in the LOSSAN 

Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Draft Program EIR/EIS; study methods to be used 

in the evaluation of impacts; level of detail appropriate for a Program-level environmental 

document; issues related to rail operations, program/projects updates by organization, 

and other LOSSAN-related issues. The Rail Working Groups concurred with the 

Purpose and Need Statement, Strategic Plan screening recommendations, alternatives 

to be analyzed and methods used to evaluate impacts. Chapter 8, Organization, 

Agency, and Business Outreach, includes a comprehensive list of the statewide and 

federal groups who participated in this aspect of the Department’s outreach effort. 

D. INFORMAL AGENCY CONSULTATION 

In addition to the formal scoping process and interagency working group meetings, 

significant and ongoing informal consultation has occurred at the local, regional, and 

state levels. Chapter 8, Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach, includes a 

comprehensive list of agencies, organizations and businesses contacted during the 

study process and the dates when these contacts occurred. The Department and 

project team have proactively sought direction and input from agency representatives 

throughout this process and through a variety of mechanisms as mentioned. This 

consultation will also lay the groundwork for any future project-specific level 

environmental review process. 

E. NEPA 404, WETLANDS, AND SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

The Department and its consultants met with both the EPA and USACE as part of the 

NEPA 404 process on November 26, 2002, to discuss the screening of alternatives in 

terms of Waters of the United States. As part of Section 106, the Department’s cultural 

resources technical consultant met with the State Historic Preservation Office on 

October 23, 2002, to define the Area of Potential Effect for the archaeology and historic 

property evaluation and to discuss the method of analysis proposed for this Programlevel environmental document. 
7.0-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

This page intentionally left blank. 
8.0-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Chapter 8 

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, AND BUSINESS OUTREACH 

The following table contains a listing of the organizations, agencies, and businesses contacted 

formally and informally throughout the development of the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor 

Improvements Program EIR/EIS. 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Meetings 

22nd District 

Agricultural 

Association 

Larry Baumann January 29, 2003 Program update 

AMTRAK David Carol July 24, 2003 Program Updates 

Darrell Johnson 

Ron Scolaro 

Ongoing 

communication 

Program updates and 

LOSSAN issues 

Anaheim (City of) John Lower March 30, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Gary Johnson 

John Lower 

Ongoing 

communications 

Program update and 

Anaheim Station 

ASCE, Aviation 

Technical Group/WTS 

Presentation 

Charles Adams, LAX April 18, 2002 Program update 

CA Business, 

Transportation & 

Housing 

Secretary Contreras-Sweet October 12, 2001 Program update 

CA Assemblyman Tom 

Calderon 

Representatives of 

Assemblyman Calderon 

April 11, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

CA Assemblyman Lou 

Correa 

Representatives of 

Assemblyman Correa 

June 29, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

CA Senator Marta 

Esutia 

Staff of Senator Escutia April 6, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Robert T. Johnson February 14, 2002 

June 18, 2002 

Alternatives and San Diego 

Coastal Rail Trail 

City of Carlsbad 

Julie Nygard, 

Councilmember 

Ongoing 

communications 

Program update and 

LOSSAN corridor alignment 

options 

David Scherer November 20, 2001 

December 5, 2001 

May 20, 2002 

June 17, 2002 

June 9, 2003 

Program updates, alignment 

and station issues, technical 

studies updates 

City of Del Mar 

David Druker, Mayor 

Lauraine Brekke-Esparza, 

City Manager 

Linda Niles 

Ongoing 

communications 

Del Mar alignment options 
8.0-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Richard Phillips November 20, 2001 

April 9, 2002 

September 9, 2002 

Discuss/refine alternatives 

and review proposed 

LOSSAN improvements 

City of Encinitas 

Kristi Guerin, Mayor 

Richard Phillips 

Ongoing 

communication 

LOSSAN Corridor Status and 

alignment options 

Douglas C. Chotkevys August 8, 2002 

April 25, 2003 

Program update and 

screening recommendations 

Douglas Chotkevys and 

other officials from 

surrounding cities 

June 24, 2003 South Orange County 

alignment issues 

Dana Point (City of) 

Douglas Chotkevys Ongoing 

communication 

Alignment issues 

Del Mar Rail 

Committee 

N/A January 6, 2003 Presentation 

Del Mar Residents Jim Eckmann 

Hershell Price 

Ongoing 

communication 

Del Mar alignment options 

N/A August 14, 2001 Briefed on emerging 

recommendations 

Disney Corporation 

Lisa Pitney, Government 

Relations 

February 26, 2003 

March 18, 2003 

Program update 

Don Breazeale & 

Associates 

Don Breazeale 

Jeff Amos 

Ongoing 

communication 

LOSSAN corridor alignment 

options 

El Toro Planning 

Authority 

Bruce Nestande October 1, 2001 Update of HSR Study 

Foothill Toll Corridor 

Agency 

James Brown April 25, 2001 

October 29, 2002 

Caltrans potential joint study, 

Foothill toll road alignment 

Gateway Cities COG Richard Powers April 5, 2001 

May 7, 2001 

March 20, 2003 

Presentations, alignment 

alternatives and station 

issues 

Huntington Beach (City 

of) 

Ralph Bauer, 

Councilmember 

Ongoing 

communication 

Program updates 

I-5 Coalition Ralph Webb May 18, 2001 

July 16, 2001 

Alternatives and issues 

Irvine (City of) William Jacobs April 2, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Farideh Lyons 

Paul Glaab 

Ongoing 

communication 

LOSSAN Corridor Status and 

alignment options 

James R. Mills (former 

CA Senator) 

James R. Mills November 28, 2001 Corridor Tour 

Korve Engineering Bill Farquhar Ongoing 

communication 

South Orange County Cities 

alignment alternatives issues 

Lee Andrews Group Donna Lee Andrews 

(representing Marblehead) 

June 10, 2003 Potential impacts to 

Marblehead Development 
8.0-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Los Angeles (City of) Ruth Galanter, 

Councilmember 

Niki Tennant 

August 2, 2001 

August 15, 2001 

February 6, 2003 

Program updates and status 

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan 

Transportation 

Authority (LACMTA) 

James de la Loza March 15, 2001 

May 2, 2001 

Alternatives and issues 

Los Angeles World 

Airports 

Patrick Tomcheck April 19, 2001 

May 24, 2001 

August 22, 2002 

Alternatives and issues, LAX 

Coalition meeting, and LAWA 

presentation on proposed 

LAX master plan changes 

LOSSAN Board of 

Directors 

Linda Culp, SANDAG June 29, 2001 

October 5, 2001 

February 15, 2002 

May 17, 2002 

HSR status report and draft 

staff recommendations for 

alignments 

LOSSAN 

Environmental 

Resource Agencies 

Regular Attendees: 

Teresa Henry & James 

Ravies, Coast. Comm. 

Jack Fancher & John 

DiGregoria, FWS 

Liz Varnhagen, EPA 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

Pam Beare, CFG 

Susan DeSaddi, USACOE 

June 27, 2002 

September 10, 2002 

November 26, 2002 

March 13, 2003 

April 24, 2003 

June 4, 2003 

July 30, 2003 

Program updates, 

environmental 

methodologies, purpose and 

need, alignment and station 

locations design options, 

screening recommendations, 

NEPA 404 issues, and 

preliminary environmental 

findings. 

August 7, 2001 Briefed on emerging 

recommendations 

January 29, 2002 Advise of project progress 

LOSSAN Technical 

Advisory Committee 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

August 12, 2002 Program update 

LUSK Jim Johnson June 10, 2003 Marblehead Development, 

San Clemente alignment 

options 

Deadra Knox March 5, 2001 

December 17, 2001 

February 5, 2002 

July 10, 2002 

Program update, alternatives 

and issues, and LOSSAN 

Corridor Status. 

Metrolink 

Deadra Knox Ongoing 

communication 

Program updates 

Brian Sheehan November 1, 2001 

Ongoing 

communications 

Metropolitan Transit Board Presentation 

Development Board 

(MTDB) 

Brian Sheehan Ongoing 

communication 

program updates, alignments 

and station issues 
8.0-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Leslie Blanda Ongoing 

communication 

Program updates, alignment 

and station issues, technical 

studies updates 

North County Transit 

District (NCTD) 

Leslie Blanda August 22, 2002 

September 18, 2003 

Board Presentations 

North Orange County 

Cities 

Kurt Brotcke October 3, 2001 Draft staff recommendations 

for alignments 

Norwalk (City of) Ernie Garcia April 20, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Nossaman Sara Katz Ongoing 

communication 

South Orange County 

alignment options 

Oceanside (City of) Frank Watanabe July 5, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Frank Wantanbe July 17, 2001 Presentation to 

Transportation Committee 

Orange County 

Transportation 

Authority (OCTA) 

Kurt Brotcke 

Michelle Bitner-Smith 

Richard Marcus 

Ongoing 

communication 

LOSSAN Corridor updates 

and Orange County 

alignment options 

OCTA Orange County 

HSR Agency Working 

Group meetings 

Kurt Brotcke, OCTA 

Representatives From: 

OCTA 

San Juan Capistrano 

Irvine 

Santa Ana 

TCA 

Buena Park 

Orange 

Anaheim 

San Clemente 

Laguna Niguel 

Cypress 

Tustin 

Fullerton 

Mission Viejo 

Huntington Beach 

April 3, 2001 

June 7, 2001 

July 18, 2001 

August 22, 2001 

October 24, 2001 

December 5, 2001 

February 26, 2002 

June 19, 2002 

August 14, 2002 

October 22, 2002 

January 30, 2003 

March 4, 2003 

June 10, 2003 

July 31, 2003 

Alternatives, emerging 

recommendations, draft and 

approved staff alignment 

recommendations, upcoming 

outreach meetings and 

conceptual sketches, 

Scoping Meetings and Draft 

No-Build, program update 

and Environmental findings 

Orange County 

Business Council 

N/A March 11, 2003 Briefing on HSR and 

Program update 

SANDAG Linda Culp Ongoing 

communications 

Program Updates, alignment 

and station options 
8.0-5

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

SANDAG HSR Task 

Force Presentations 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

Task Force Members 

Invited: 

Chair Lori Holt Pfeiler, 

Mayor of Escondido 

Bob Emery, Poway 

Art Madrid, La Mesa 

Joe Kellejian, Solana Beach 

Pam Slater, San Diego Co. 

Mickey Cafagna, Poway 

Ron Morrison, National City 

Julianne Nygaard, LOSSAN 

Joint Powers Board 

John Fowler 

Richard Earnest, Del Mar 

Christy Guerin, Encinitas 

Hal Sadler, CCDC 

Tom Golish, NCTD 

Brian Maienschein, MTDB 

Cmdr. Roger Natsuhara, 

Department of Defense 

Ed Gallo, NCTD 

Nick Inzunza, MTDB 

Ramona Finnila, Carlsbad 

March 8, 2001 

May 10, 2001 

November 1, 2001 

February 20, 2002 

June 13, 2002 

October 10, 2002 

March 14, 2003 

May 9, 2003 

Alternatives and issues, draft 

staff recommendations for 

alignments, and I-15 Corridor 

alignment options 

South Coast Air 

Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) 

Barry Wallerstein 

Kathryn Higgins 

October 17, 2001 Program Update 

James Holloway March 27, 2001 

May 16, 2001 

October 2, 2001 

November 19, 2001 

June 10, 2003 

Alternatives and issues, draft 

staff recommendations for 

alignments, alternatives with 

Marblehead developers and 

local businesses and 

communities 

San Clemente (City of) 

Jim Holloway 

Stephanie Dorey, Mayor 

Susan Ritschel, 

Councilmember 

Ongoing 

communications 

South Orange County 

Alignment options 

Keith Greer May 30, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

Keith Greer 

Gary Hallburg 

August 6, 2002 Program update and review 

P&P 

San Diego (City of) 

Council member Scott 

Peters 

June 25, 2003 Program update and 

alternatives 

San Diego (Port of) Genene Lehotsky Ongoing 

communications 

Program update and 

alignment options 

San Diego Airport 

Working Group 

N/A February 12, 2002 Kick-off Meeting 
8.0-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

San Diego Association 

of Governments 

(SANDAG) Agency 

“Summit” meetings 

Gary Gallegos, SANDAG 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

May 31, 2001 

September 10, 2002 

October 10, 2002 

December 18, 2002 

March 12, 2003 

Alternatives and issues, 

LOSSAN study and strategic 

plan to discuss EIR/EIS 

issues and clarify positions 

SANDAG Coastal Rail 

Agency Working Group 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

Leslie Blanda, NCTD 

Brian Sheehan, MTDB 

Darrell Johnson, Amtrak 

Elizabeth O’Donoghue, 

Amtrak 

Deadra Knox, Metrolink 

February 27, 2001 

March 22, 2001 

May 21, 2001 

July 5, 2001 

August 28, 2001 

October 23, 2001 

December 5, 2001 

February 5, 2002 

June 13, 2002 

July 30, 2002 

September 9, 2002 

October 22, 2002 

December 3, 2002 

February 18, 2003 

June 9, 2003 

Alternatives, preliminary 

evaluation of alternatives and 

emerging recommendations, 

draft staff alignment 

recommendations, upcoming 

outreach meetings and 

conceptual sketches, draft 

no-build, and initial 

environmental findings 

SANDAG San Diego 

Regional High Speed 

Rail Task Force 

Linda Culp, SANDAG 

Task Force Members 

Invited: 

Chair Lori Holt Pfeiler, 

Mayor of Escondido 

Bob Emery, Poway 

Art Madrid, La Mesa 

Joe Kellejian, Solana Beach 

Pam Slater, San Diego Co. 

Mickey Cafagna, Poway 

Ron Morrison, National City 

Julianne Nygaard, LOSSAN 

Joint Powers Board 

John Fowler 

Richard Earnest, Del Mar 

Christy Guerin, Encinitas 

Hal Sadler, CCDC 

Tom Golish, NCTD 

Brian Maienschein, MTDB 

Cmdr. Roger Natsuhara, 

Department of Defense 

Ed Gallo, NCTD 

Nick Inzunza, MTDB 

Ramona Finnila, Carlsbad 

March 8, 2001 

May 10, 2001 

November 1, 2001 

February 20, 2002 

June 13, 2002 

October 10, 2002 

March 14, 2003 

May 9, 2003 

Alternatives and issues, draft 

staff recommendations for 

alignments, and LOSSAN 

Corridor alignment options 

San Diego Audubon 

Society 

Mel Hensen Phone call Program background 

information 
8.0-7

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

San Diego County Pam Slater, Supervisor 

Sachiko Kohatsu 

Ongoing 

communications 

LOSSAN Corridor update 

and Del Mar alignment 

options 

San Diego League of 

Cities 

N/A June 11, 2001 Presentation 

San Dieguito River 

Park Joint Powers 

Authority 

N/A January 29, 2003 Program update 

John Gelff, Mayor 

George Scarborough 

Ongoing 

communications 

San Juan Capistrano 

alignment options 

San Juan Capistrano 

(City of) 

William Huber December 17, 2001 

July 21, 2002 

March 4, 2003 

March 21, 2003 

Discuss/refine alternatives, 

review P&N and P&P 

Shinanksen – Japan 

Railway Technical 

Services 

Yoshihiro Akiyama September 19, 2002 Corridor Tour and 

opportunities and constraints 

Sierra Club, Angeles 

Chapter 

N/A February 12, 2002 Presentation 

Society of Military 

Engineers, San Diego 

March 14, 2002 Presentation 

Joe Kellijian 

Councilmember 

Ongoing 

communication 

Solana Beach (City of) LOSSAN Corridor 

N/A February 13, 2001 Coastal Rail Forum 

South Bay Cities COG N/A June 28, 2001 Alternatives and issues 

South Orange County 

Rail Working Group 

Norm Emerson Ongoing 

communication 

South Orange County 

alignment options 

Deng Bang Lee January 2003 Existing & Forecast Volumes 

Barry Samsten February 6, 2003 Transportation Committee 

Presentation 

Barry Samsten Ongoing 

communications 

Program Updates 

Southern California 

Association of 

Governments (SCAG) 

N/A February 15, 2001 

March 15, 2001 

Coordination with SCAG 

Projects 

Torrey Pines 

Community 

Association 

Donald F. Billings February 13, 2003 Program updates 

Lou Bone, Councilmember October 7, 2002 Program update and 

LOSSAN improvements 

Tustin (City of) 

Lou Bone October 21, 2002 City Council Presentation 

U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers 

Susan DeSaddi Ongoing 

communication 

Environmental 

methodologies and 

alternatives analysis 

U.S. Congressmember 

Lucille Roybal-Allard 

Congresswoman Lucille 

Roybal-Allard 

February 22, 2002 Program update 
8.0-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, BUSINESS OUTREACH 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table 8-1 

Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses Contacted (continued) 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

U.S. DOT Federal 

Secretary Director of 

LAX 

David M. Stone August 19, 2002 Alignment issues 

Nova Blazej July 16, 2002 Program update, tour corridor 

and review plans and profiles 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Liz Varnhagen Ongoing 

communication 

Program updates, screening 

of alternatives, environmental 

issues 

U.S. Marine Corp Lt. Col. Craig Meyers February 27, 2001 Camp Pendleton 

Nova Blazej 

Kathleen Dadey 

May 23, 2002 

October 21, 2002 

Alignment options, system 

alternatives 

Nova Blazej, Federal 

Activities Office 

Kathy Dadey, Wetlands and 

Sediment 

Nancy Levin, NEPA Review 

July 9, 2002 Review of purpose and need, 

system alternatives and 

environmental analysis 

methodologies 

Nova Blazej 

Kathleen Dadey 

Erin Foresman 

Susan DeSaddi, ACE 

Mark Sudol, ACE 

September 12, 2002 Screening process and 

documentation for corridor 

alternatives 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Nova Blazej Ongoing 

communication 

Alignment options, 

environmental methodologies 

U.S. Senator Barbara N/A March 18, 2002 Program update 

Boxer Michael Weise March 20, 2002 

June 7, 2002 

March 11, 2003 

April 28, 2003 

Program updates 

Senator Dianne Feinstein October 31, 2001 Program update 

N/A February 20, 2002 Program update 

U.S. Senator Dianne 

Feinstein 

Jim Molinari February 21, 2002 Program update 

U.S. DOT Secretary 

Norman Mineta 

Secretary Norman Mineta November 1, 2002 Alignment issues 

U.S. Senator Barbara 

Boxer 

Senator Boxer December 13, 2002 Alignment issues 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 9.0-1 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LIST OF PREPARERS

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 9 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Division of Rail 

Patrick Merrill, Chief, Office of Rail Capital Project Development, Operations, and Marketing 

Lea Simpson, Manager, Capital Projects South 

Debbie Bell, Rail Transportation Associate 

District 11 

Arturo Jacobo, Project Manager, I-5 North Coast Corridor Project 

Jason A. Reynolds, Chief, Environmental Analysis, Branch A 

Chris Schmidt, AICP, Chief, Public Transportation & Grants Administration 

District 12 

Charles Larwood, Senior Transportation Planner 

Mary Nguyen, Associate Transportation Planner 

District 7 

James McCarthy, Chief, Regional Planning, Public Transportation and Rail 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

David Valenstein, Environmental Program Manager 

William Fashouer, Assistant Chief Counsel 

LIST OF CONSULTANTS 

Name Title Responsibility 

Steve Schibuola, 

IBI Group 

Director Team Project Manager 

Richard Dial, AICP 

IBI Group 

Planner Project Planner, Summary 

James Campbell, 

IBI Group 

Transportation Planner Traffic, Parking and Circulation 

Roy Choi, 

IBI Group 

Transit Planner Transit, Costs & Operations 

Jeanette Kwok, 

IBI Group 

Graphics Designer Graphics 

Lucy Bowen, 

HDR 

Environmental Program 

Manager 

Environmental Manager; Air Quality; Land 

Use; Energy; Visual Resources 

Walter Odening, 

HDR 

Biological Resources 

Manager 

Biological Resources 

Wendy Worthey, 

HDR 

Environmental Specialist Biological Resources, 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 9.0-2 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

LIST OF PREPARERS

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Name Title Responsibility 

Jeroen Olthof, 

HDR 

Civil Engineer Lagoon Hydrology 

Donna Eto, 

HDR 

Project Manager Hydrology, Visual Resources 

Caroline Evans, AICP 

HDR 

GIS Specialist, Urban 

Planner 

Land Use; Socioeconomics; Environmental 

Justice; GIS Analysis 

Daniel Miller, 

HDR 

Senior Project Manager Geology, Soils, Seismicity; Hazardous 

Wastes/Materials; Public Utilities 

Carl Moczydlowsky, 

HDR 

GIS Specialist GIS Analysis, Graphics 

David Dettloff, 

HDR 

GIS Specialist GIS Analysis, Graphics 

Virginia Cole, 

HDR 

Document Production 

Manager 

Document Production 

Richard Carmen, 

Wilson, Ihrig and 

Associates, Inc. 

Noise and Vibration 

Specialist 

Noise and Vibration 

Roy F. Cook, Ph.D., G.E. 

Haley and Aldrich 

Vice President Tunneling 

Mike Stewart 

Leighton and Associates 

Vice President, Principal 

Geologist 

Geotechnical 

Susan Goldberg, 

Applied Earthworks 

Senior Archaeologist Lead Analyst, Cultural Resources 

Mark Robinson, 

Applied Earthworks 

Senior Archaeologist Analyst, Cultural Resources 

Nina Harris, 

Applied Earthworks 

Staff Archaeologist Analyst, Cultural Resources 

David Livingstone, 

Applied Earthworks 

Architectural Historian Analyst, Historic Resources 

Kathleen Springer, 

San Bernardino County Museum 

Curator of Paleontology Paleontological Resources Analyst 

Eric Scott, 

San Bernardino County Museum 

Collections Assistant Paleontological Resources Analyst 

Stephanie Fluitt, 

San Bernardino County Museum 

Project Assistant Paleontological Resources Analyst 


S-1

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

SUMMARY 

S.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The Los Angeles to San Diego travel corridor links California’s three most populous counties - 

Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego. Travel along this corridor is served largely by Interstate 5 

(I-5) and the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor1. The rail corridor is used by 

Amtrak intercity passenger rail service, Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services, and 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) freight service, and loosely parallels I-5 from 

Los Angeles Union Station through Orange County to San Diego's Santa Fe Depot. 

For the purposes of this document, intercity rail service refers to the passenger rail service, 

operated by Amtrak and jointly funded by Amtrak and the California Department of 

Transportation (Department) and known as the Pacific Surfliner. This service provides daily 

passenger service between San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo (and 

intermediate communities between these cities). Commuter rail refers to the services provided 

by Metrolink in Los Angeles, Orange and north San Diego Counties, and Coaster in San Diego 

County. Since three services regularly utilize the corridor, the expansion plans of each service, 

and those of BNSF (the freight operator), must be taken into account when considering 

improvements along the rail corridor. 

Southern California’s existing transportation network is currently operating at or near its design 

capacity, which results in congestion. Building additional capacity is both expensive and 

increasingly problematic. This condition results in highway and railroad travel delays, has a 

negative impact on the region’s economy, and can result in environmental impacts and the 

reduction of the quality of life for all. Improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor would help meet 

the Southern California region’s transportation demands of today, as well as help to address the 

expected increase in intercity travel demand rising out of the growth in population over the next 

20 years and beyond. This document describes the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts 

of improving the LOSSAN rail corridor. 

The Department commenced this environmental review process to comply with federal and 

state laws, in particular the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. P.R.C. § 21000 et 

seq.). NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for 

proposed actions that have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Because 

of possible funding and regulatory action, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead 

federal agency, working with the Department as the lead state agency, for the environmental 

review required by NEPA and related statutes. The FRA has further determined that the 

preparation of a Tier 1 program-level EIS for the proposed Rail Improvements is the appropriate 

NEPA document because of the comprehensive nature and scope of the corridor improvements 

proposed by the Department and the conceptual stage of planning and decision-making. The 

decisions related to advancing and ultimately constructing the proposed rail improvements 

would constitute major federal actions requiring environmental review under NEPA for several 

federal agencies in addition to the FRA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

 

1 While the LOSSAN corridor is officially the “Los Angeles - San Diego – San Luis Obispo” Rail Corridor, the area of the corridor 

studied and described in this document is that portion between Los Angeles Union Station and San Diego Santa Fe Depot, and 

within this document, use of the term “LOSSAN” will refer to that segment only. 
S-2

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

among others, have been active participants throughout project planning and the preparation of 

this Program EIS. 

The proposed Rail Improvements are subject to environmental review under CEQA, and the 

Department is both the project sponsor and the lead agency for purposes of CEQA compliance. 

The Department has determined that a program environmental impact report (EIR) is the 

appropriate CEQA document for the project at this conceptual stage of planning and decisionmaking, which includes selecting a preferred rail alignment option in some locations and 

identifying options for phasing the future development of the Rail Improvements. No permits will 

be sought in this phase of environmental review. If the Rail Improvements Alternative is 

selected at the conclusion of the Program EIR/EIS, project development will continue with 

project-specific environmental documentation to assess in more detail the impacts of 

reasonable and feasible alignment and station options in segments of the system that are 

proposed for implementation. 

S.2 STUDIES LEADING TO THE PROGRAM EIR/EIS 

Since 1998, four planning and feasibility studies have been completed that are relevant to the 

LOSSAN corridor. The first of these was in conducted in 1998-1999 by the California HighSpeed Rail Authority (Authority), building on previous work done in 1996 by the past California 

Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. This study determined that dedicated2 high-speed rail 

service in the LOSSAN rail corridor south of central Orange County was problematic and costly 

to construct. The 1999 study also concluded that conventional (non-electric) rail improvements 

in the LOSSAN corridor should be further evaluated. 

The Department and others prepared the second and third planning studies, addressing 

proposed capital improvements and service goals for the state rail system, including the 

LOSSAN corridor. These rail plans, Amtrak’s California Passenger Rail System 20-Year 

Improvement Plan (2001) and the Department’s California State Rail Plan (2002) (State Rail 

Plan), helped form the basis for the Department’s alternatives development, and led to the 

initiation of this program-level environmental review process. 

The Department’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Program EIR/EIS was released 

March 11, 2002, and the Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on 

March 20, 2002. Scoping activities for the LOSSAN corridor were conducted between April 2 

and April 30, 2002 (scoping period). The scoping process identified areas of potential concern 

related to the proposed LOSSAN corridor improvements. Throughout the corridor, comments 

consistently indicated the need for an improved transportation system focusing on safety and 

new alignments located away from environmentally sensitive areas. 

Finally, the Department’s LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) (2003) provided a 

corridor-wide review of all alternatives. This planning document served as a means to consider 

and refine alternatives in the ongoing PEIR/PEIS process. A series of public workshops 

provided an additional opportunity for public outreach, beyond that provided during the Scoping 

Process, and fostered better communication and understanding among stakeholders. In 

addition to the public workshops, meetings with elected representatives were held, as well as 

with working groups comprised of transportation agencies and other stakeholders, including 

state and federal resource agencies, FRA, and the Authority. 

 

2 “Dedicated” service would not share tracks with existing passenger and freight rail services. 
S-3

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Strategic Plan served as the Department’s alternative evaluation document, allowing for the 

elimination of certain design options at key locations within the corridor (San Juan Capistrano, 

Dana Point/San Clemente, Encinitas, Del Mar), so as to focus on a range of feasible 

alternatives. As well, through the Strategic Plan’s consultative process, new alignments were 

presented by local working groups, leading to consideration of additional design options in San 

Juan Capistrano and Del Mar. 

S.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR IMPROVED INTERCITY 

TRANSPORTATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

The purpose of the proposed Rail Improvements in the LOSSAN corridor is to develop a faster, 

safer, and more reliable passenger rail system that provides added capacity in response to 

increased travel demand through the year 2020 between Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego 

Counties (between Los Angeles Union Station and San Diego Santa Fe Depot). 

As stated in the current State Rail Plan and the Strategic Plan, the Department has described its 

overall objectives and policies for intercity rail improvements. These objectives and policies 

include the following: 

• Increase the cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity passenger rail systems. 

• Increase capacity on existing routes. 

• Reduce travel times to attract additional riders and to provide a more attractive service. 

• Improve the safety of State-supported intercity rail service. 

In addition to the policies set forth in the State Rail Plan, minimizing impacts to natural 

resources (e.g. wetlands, wildlife habitat) and human communities are also important objectives 

of the Department regarding any improvement within the rail corridor. 

The capacity of Southern California’s intercity transportation system (shown in Figure S.3-1) is 

insufficient to meet existing and future demand, and the current and projected future congestion 

of the system will continue to result in deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased 

travel times. The intercity rail system has not kept pace with the tremendous increase in 

population and tourism in the state. The interstate highway system and passenger rail system 

serving the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity and will require 

large public investments for maintenance and expansion in order to meet existing demand and 

future growth over the next 20 years and beyond. Simply stated, the need for improvements to 

the corridor relates to the following issues. 

• Future growth in travel demand for passenger trips between Los Angeles, Orange and 

San Diego Counties, as population increases from 16.6 million (2003) to 19.3 million by 

2020, and trips rise from 36 million in 1997 to approximately 47 million by 20203. 

• Rail capacity constraints that will result in congestion and travel delays. Roughly 

41 percent of the corridor is currently single-tracked, causing delays for passenger and 

commuter rail services as well as freight movements. 

 

3 Charles River Associates Incorporated, Independent Ridership and Passenger Revenue Projections for High Speed Rail 

Alternatives in California, January 2000. 
S-4

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

• Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, 

accidents and other factors that affect the quality of life and economic well-being of 

residents, businesses, and tourism in Southern California. The improvements proposed 

in this document would increase on-time performance for rail services and reduce delay 

for both automobiles and trains. 

• Increasing frequency of accidents on intercity highways and passenger rail lines in 

congested travel corridors, and the potential for accidents at at-grade crossings as 

highway and rail traffic volumes increase. While rail is already one of the safest modes 

of transportation, improvements such as new grade separations and pedestrian 

crossings will reduce auto-train accidents and improve safety. 

• Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of 

expanded highway construction, motor vehicle use and congestion. Moving passengers 

by rail produces significantly less pollution per passenger mile than by automobile and 

can help reduce air pollution. As well, mitigating and reducing the impacts of rail service 

and protection of important coastal and environmental resources has been a 

consideration when selecting and evaluation improvements. 

S.4 ALTERNATIVES 

The Draft Program EIR/EIS compares two alternatives: a No-Project/No Action (No-Project) 

Alternative and a Rail Improvements Alternative. Each alternative is described in the following 

paragraphs. 

S.4.1 No-Project Alternative 

The No-Project Alternative (No-Project) is the baseline for comparison of the Rail Improvements 

Alternative, and represents the LOSSAN region’s transportation system (highway and 

conventional rail) as it would be after implementation of programs or projects that are currently 

programmed in Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and that are funded for implementation 

and expected to be in place by 2020. This financially constrained level of infrastructure 

improvement (which includes federal, state, regional, and local funding) is analyzed together 

with the significant growth in population and transportation demand that is projected to occur by 

2020. 

Additional modeling conducted after the release of the Draft document identified that the rail 

network will not be capable of supporting the rail service volumes proposed in the No-Project 

Alternative. Further analysis identified the “Maximum Threshold” of train volumes that could 

operate under the No-Project Alternative at an acceptable level of performance, which 

represents a reduction of 10% across intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and freight rail 

services from the originally planned volumes. As well, additional minor improvement projects 

were identified to support the service levels, all of which can be accomplished within the existing 

rail right-of-way. All the intercity passenger rail system improvements identified in the State 

Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and in the Department’s California Intercity Rail 

Capital Program for implementation in the LOSSAN corridor prior to 2020 are included in the 

No-Project Alternative and are identified in Table S.4.3-1. 

Some No-Project Rail Improvements have already been addressed in project NEPA and/or 

CEQA documentation, while others are in the project environmental review process. For 

example, the Run-Through Tracks project at Los Angeles Union Station is being addressed in a 

project-specific EIR/EIS. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal 

Railroad 

Administration 

FIGURE S.3-1

Los Angeles to San Diego Intercity Travel Routes

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

S-5
S-6

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
S-7

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Currently, 41 percent of the 127.5 mile portion of the LOSSAN Corridor under study consists of 

single track. Following the completion of all projects listed under the No-Project Alternative in 

Table 2.4.3-1, 25 percent of the corridor will remain single-tracked. State-of-the-art, nonelectric, clean air, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology will continue be used along the corridor, 

similar to the technology being operated by passenger services along the corridor today. As 

track and signaling permits, train speeds will rise (though existing equipment is capable of 

achieving speeds of 110 to 125 miles per hour (mph) today). 

By 2020, rail service along the corridor is projected to consist of 32 intercity trains, between 

19 and 66 commuter trains, and between 12 and 98 freight trains each day1, as is shown in 

Figure S.4-1. Service quality at this volume of trains is uncertain, with increased risk of delay 

risks associated with train operations, breakdowns or rail maintenance activities. 

S.4.2 Rail Improvements Alternative 

The Rail Improvements Alternative represents the proposed action, and was developed by 

studying a comprehensive range of alignment and station options. Screening of these options 

was accomplished with public input during the scoping period and with preparation of the 

LOSSAN Strategic Plan (2003). The Department reviewed and concurred with decisions 

regarding the LOSSAN region made by the Authority in its studies related to a statewide highspeed train system. For more information on this process, see Chapter 2 of the Program 

EIR/EIS Report. The Authority’s work led to the elimination of some initial design options, train 

technologies, and several new potential rail corridors within the LOSSAN region. The 

Department agreed with the decisions of the Authority in the Strategic Plan and, therefore, 

eliminated the same options from further evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS. 

As in the No-Project Alternative, state-of-the-art, non-electric, clean air, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail 

technology will be used along the corridor, similar to the technology being operated by 

passenger services along the corridor today. While the No-Project Alternative would reduce the 

percentage of single track, the Rail Improvements Alternative would eliminate the remaining 

single-tracked segments (which represent key bottlenecks), resulting in a double-tracked rail 

corridor, with four tracks between Los Angeles Union Station and Fullerton. Trains will be able 

to achieve their maximum operational speeds of up to 110 to 125 miles per hour (mph), 

reducing trip times. Elimination of at-grade crossings in many locations and state-of-the-art 

safety and signaling systems throughout the corridor will also be incorporated. 

As shown in Figure S.4-1, 2020 rail service volumes along the corridor are projected to 

increase, and commuter rail service (Metrolink and Coaster) to double by 2020. As stated 

previously rail volume would consist of 32 intercity trains, between 19 and 66 commuter trains 

(depending on the segment of the corridor), and between 12 and 98 freight trains each day2. 

The improved system as a result of the Rail Improvements Alternative will be better able to 

accommodate the projected train volume, allowing for reduced trip time and more reliable 

service, as well as create the flexibility to respond to train breakdowns or maintenance needs. 

To accommodate the existing and projected growth in the ridership along the corridor and 

provide a reliable and competitive alternative to the automobile, a series of operational and 

safety improvement options has been developed for the LOSSAN corridor. In certain areas 

along the corridor, multiple options are considered to meet the goals and purpose and need of 

the project. In such cases, these options in the Rail Improvements Alternative are categorized 

 

1 These forecast volumes vary depending on the corridor segment, and include the total number of trains in both directions. 

2 These forecast volumes range depending on the corridor segment, and include the total number of trains in both directions.
S-8

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

into “High” and “Low” level ranges. The highest level of improvement is based on combining the 

alignment/construction options within a rail segment that would involve the most extensive 

infrastructure investment and/or construction complexity. For example, where there is an atgrade option and a trenching option in the same general alignment, the trenching option was 

used in the highest-level route and the at-grade option was used in the lowest-level route. 

Where two tunnel options are the only options in one sub-segment, the longer tunnel was 

included in the highest-level route. In this way, a range of potential corridor-wide impacts is 

presented for combinations of improvement options. 

The cost to implement the proposed Rail Improvements Alternative is estimated to range 

between $3.8 billion and $5.4 billion (2003 dollars), depending on whether the Low- or HighBuild Rail Improvements Alternative is implemented or a combination of either. The cost 

estimate includes right-of-way, additional track, tunneling, trenching, stations and mitigation. 

The process used to define and assess alternatives has been extensive and thorough, and 

included a series of public scoping meetings and the formation of an interagency group 

comprised of representatives from eight key federal and state agencies: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) 

• California Coastal Commission 

• California State Parks 

• California Department of Fish and Game 

• State Water Resources Control Board (California) 

The interagency group has met periodically during the Draft Program EIS/EIR development to 

discuss major issues from the perspective of each of their agencies and to provide input to the 

lead agencies and consultant team to help focus the analysis and streamline the review 

process, and have assisted in: 

• Defining the scope of the Program EIR/EIS 

• Reviewing and providing input to the Purpose and Need Statement 

• Reviewing and providing input to the technical methods of analysis and study area 

definition 

• Identifying substantive issues of particular concern 

• Suggesting sources of information and data relevant to their agency 

• Defining avoidance, minimization and mitigation strategies 

• Reviewing and providing input to the screening process and definition of alternatives to 

be analyzed in this EIR/EIS 

• Reviewing and providing input on preliminary findings pertinent to agency expertise 

• Identifying procedural requirements and permits or approvals necessary for subsequent 

phases of environmental review. 
LAGUNA NIGUEL

22

UNION STATION

NORWALK

ANAHEIM

IRVINE

DANA POINT

SAN ONOFRE

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE BASE

UNIVERSITY

TOWNE CENTRE

DEL MAR

SOLANA BEACH

ENCINITAS

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

SANTA ANA

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO

SANTA FE DEPOT

FULLERTON

INTERMODAL

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

SAN CLEMENTE

ALAMEDA CORRI R

15

56

52

5

8

5

805

5

133

73

55

405

39 1

57 91

142

90

60

605

91

405

110

105

19

10

5

78

15

TO INLAND EMPIRE

REDONDO JUNCTION

ORANGE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

FULLERT FULLERTON

110

8 0 8 Miles

Legend

Amtrak

Metrolink

Coaster

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)

Intercity Station

Proposed Station for Further Study

California

Los Angeles – Fullerton

Fullerton – Orange

Orange – Irvine

Laguna Niguel – San Clemente

San Clemente – Oceanside

Oceanside – San Diego

45 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

7 BNSF

98 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

12 BNSF

2005 ESISTING VOLUMES* 2020 FORECAST VOLUMES*

* Train volumes as used in forecast modeling. Volumes represent total number of trains in both directions

FIGURE S.4-1

Existing and Forecast Future Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor

LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements

Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

S-9
S-10

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 
S-11

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The Department, together with FRA and the Authority, also invited input from regional and local 

agencies within the project area. Regional transportation agency Board meetings and workinggroup meetings have provided forums for discussion of the environmental process and the 

development of alternatives that could meet travel needs in the LOSSAN region. These 

meetings have been held in San Diego, Oceanside, Orange County and Los Angeles to provide 

convenient on-going opportunities for regional and local participation and input. As a result of 

early public involvement, the following additional alternatives were developed: 

• Trabuco Creek (San Juan Capistrano) 

• Long Tunnel (Dana Point/San Clemente) 

• South Orange County Inland Bypass 

• Peñasquitos Lagoon Bypass 

Opportunities for public involvement and input in the environmental review process have also 

been thorough and on-going, through the Public Scoping meetings, through meetings with 

individual corridor cities and stakeholders, and through the five workshops conducted in cities 

along the corridor during the development of the LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. The 

workshops provided the public with an overview of the corridor and the rail improvements under 

study, including information on the following topics. 

• Purpose, Goals and Need for Improvements in the corridor. 

• Corridor facts, including rail owners and operators and details on freight services, and 

current and projected weekday train volumes of each. 

• Types of services provided (Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight). 

• Ranges of costs, rail performance issues, and community/environmental issues of 

projects throughout the corridor. 

• Design options and alternatives at four key locations along the corridor where the range 

of options was sufficiently broad to allow the screening out of some options, the 

recommendations for screening, and the rationale and criteria used to reach the 

recommended screening decisions. 

• The Planning Process, including timelines for the completion of the Strategic Plan and 

the Department’s Program EIR/EIS. 

S.4.3 Summary of Corridor Improvement Alternatives 

This document provides a corridor-wide comparison of the physical and operational 

characteristics and potential environmental consequences associated with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative’s alignment and station options. 

As previously mentioned, options in the Rail Improvements Alternative are further categorized 

into “High Build” and “Low Build” scenarios. There are numerous possible combinations of 

alignment and construction options evaluated in the Rail Improvements Alternative. The 

document describes corridor-wide potential impacts by grouping the many possible route 

alignment combinations between Union Station and San Diego, using combinations of the 

highest and lowest level of improvements that could occur within each rail segment. 
S-12

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The following table provides a summary of all LOSSAN rail corridor projects contained in the 

No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternative (and High/Low ranges). 

The table shows corridor Improvement Alternatives by area: 

• Los Angeles Union Station to Irvine 

• Irvine to San Clemente 

• Camp Pendleton/Oceanside to San Diego Santa Fe Station 

Table S.4.3-1 

Corridor Improvement Alternatives 

Segment/Alternative 

Considered 

No-Project 

Alternative* 

“Low-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

“High-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

LA Union Station to Irvine (Central Orange County)

Existing Rail Corridor Partially-grade separated 

system 

Fully grade-separated 

system 

L.A. Union Station Run-through 

tracks 

X

(All projects shown are 

programmed and assumed 

built by 2020) 

 

Continuous third main track from 

Union Station to Fullerton X 

Double tracking along Lincoln 

Avenue in Santa Ana X 

Addition of Fourth Main Track 

(including full grade separation) X X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including Covered 

Trench in Orange and Santa 

Ana) (including full grade 

separation) 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including partial 

grade separation) 

X 

Irvine to San Clemente (Central Orange County to Northern San Diego County) 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including Tunnel 

beneath I-5 between Hwy 73 

and Avenida Aeropuerto) 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including Covered 

Trench along Trabuco Creek 

and Avenida Aeropuerto) 

X 

Dana Point Curve Straightening; 

San Clemente – Short Tunnel; 

Double Tracking 

X 

San Clemente – Long Split Two 

Segment Tunnel with Station; 

Double Tracking 

X 
S-13

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.4.3-1 

Corridor Improvement Alternatives (continued) 

Segment/Alternative 

Considered 

No-Project 

Alternative* 

“Low-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

“High-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

Camp Pendleton/Oceanside (Northern San Diego County) to San Diego

Extension of double track at San 

Onofre X 

Extension of double track in 

Oceanside X 

Sorrento-Miramar doubletracking and curve realignment X 

O’Neill to Flores double-tracking X 

Santa Margarita River Bridge 

Replacement and doubletracking 

X 

Del Mar Bluffs stabilization X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening along existing 

alignment (including full grade 

separation) – 

Carlsbad/Oceanside 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening along existing 

alignment (including partial 

grade separation) – 

Carlsbad/Oceanside 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening along existing 

alignment (including full grade 

separation) – Encinitas 

X 

At-Grade Double Tracking and 

Curve Straightening along 

existing alignment (including 

partial grade separation) - 

Encinitas 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including tunnel 

along Interstate-5) – Del Mar 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including tunnel 

under Camino Del Mar) – Del 

Mar 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including tunnel 

under Interstate-5 Freeway) – 

University Towne Centre 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening (including tunnel 

under University City/Miramar 

Hill with new station) – 

University Towne Centre 

X 
S-14

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.4.3-1 

Corridor Improvement Alternatives (continued) 

Segment/Alternative 

Considered 

No-Project 

Alternative* 

“Low-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

“High-Build” 

Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening; San Diego River 

Bridge 

X 

Double Tracking and Curve 

Straightening; San Diego River 

Bridge; Trench between 

Sassafras St and Cedar St 

(includes partial or full grade 

separation) 

X 

S.5 OPERATIONS SUMMARY 

The Rail Improvements Alternative will reduce train travel times and increase the capacity of the 

corridor, meeting the need for a safe and reliable mode of travel that would attract additional 

passengers to the rail services. Both the Low- and High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative 

would provide for competitive point-to-point travel times between Southern California’s major 

intercity markets. Table S.5-1 below summarizes the point-to-point scheduled travel times 

between Los Angeles and San Diego, comparing the existing automobile and rail travel times 

with the No-Project, Low and High Build Rail Improvements Alternative. In addition to providing 

faster train travel, the improvements provided in both the Low- and High-Build Rail 

Improvements Alternative would enhance the connectivity and accessibility to the other transit 

modes and services when compared to the No-Project Alternative. 

Table S.5-1 

Estimated Point-to-Point Scheduled Travel Times 

(Hours: Minutes) 

2020 

Existing Condition No-Project Alternative Rail Improvements 

Alternative 

Auto Rail Auto1 Rail Low High 

Los Angeles to 

San Diego 2:35 2:44 3:15 2:36 1:58 1:48 

The automobile and rail travel times presented in Table S.5-1 represent the expected travel 

times between Los Angeles and San Diego. These are the projected travel times that attainable 

by intercity traffic if every automobile experienced only the average level of congestion along I-5 

(e.g. with no additional delays due to accidents, bad weather etc.) and every passenger and 

freight train ran according to schedule. The rail travel times can vary dramatically based on 

several variables, such as unexpected train delays, train priorities, daily variations in train 

volumes specifically related to the freight operators, and maintenance-of-way windows. The 

existing condition and No-Project Alternative are most susceptible to these variations, as they 

 

1 2020 Estimated automobile travel times are expected to be the same in both the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternatives. 
S-15

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

provide fewer tracks than the Rail Improvements Alternative and thereby provide fewer 

opportunities for trains to use alternative tracks to bypass problem areas. 

Under existing conditions intercity passenger rail travel between Los Angeles Union Station and 

San Diego takes almost 3 hours. This travel time is representative of single-track operations and 

demonstrates the delay that results from the interference between trains caused by having to 

wait along a siding for the passing of a train in the opposite direction. In the event of incidents, 

existing segments of single track can account for even more unreliability and delay in the travel 

times along the corridor, providing for an even slower travel time. 

As shown in Table S.5-1, the No-Project Alternative shows a slight improvement in travel time 

for intercity passenger trains over the existing condition, mostly due to the provision of a third 

track between Hobart Yard in the City of Commerce and Fullerton. The model run performed 

for the No-Project Alternative, assumed that intercity passenger trains would continue to be 

given priority over freight. By following this operating practice, there was an increase in the 

proportion of freight trains operating outside of peak passenger hours, which are usually during 

the morning and early-evening periods. Without this assumption, the corridor between Hobart 

Yard and Fullerton would not be able to provide the capacity required to accommodate the 

projected 2020 passenger train volumes under the No-Project condition. 

With the ridership along the corridor projected to surpass 5 million riders by the year 2020, the 

improvements currently identified and programmed for this corridor that are part of the NoProject Alternative would do little to relieve the corridor-wide capacity and reliability constraints, 

though reliability will improve for some train movements, including commuter rail services. As 

shown in Table S.5-1, without the proposed improvements included in either the Low- or HighBuild Rail Improvements Alternative, little to no travel time savings for rail travel between Los 

Angeles and San Diego would occur along the corridor. 

This lack of travel time savings is a direct result of the remaining segments of single track that 

will still exist in Southern Orange and Central San Diego Counties. The existence of single track 

segments creates a considerable barrier to achieving faster travel times and improved reliability 

and connectivity because it causes significant delays in service as a result of trains having to 

wait at either end of a single tracked segment to allow for trains to pass in the opposite 

direction. This problem is further aggravated when certain situations (e.g. mechanical failures, 

track improvements) occur. These types of problems can halt all operations along the corridor 

because the operational flexibility of a second track is not available, that would otherwise be 

utilized to bypass the problem. The amount of delay associated with the presence of single track 

will only increase in the future with the introduction of more and more service onto the corridor. 

Implementing the Rail Improvements Alternative provides a fully double-tracked rail corridor that 

offers passengers six specific advantages over the existing and No-Project Conditions, which 

maintain large segments of single track sections. 

1. Increased capacity and average speed. The proposed corridor improvements would 

produce improved corridor geometrics, straightening the alignment wherever possible, 

but most importantly, would eliminate all single track segments, providing greatly 

increased capacity within the corridor. With these improvements, maximum speeds of 

90mph would be possible in urban area (e.g. Los Angeles and San Diego) and 110 to 

125mph in more rural areas (e.g. Camp Pendleton). Using the plans and profiles 

designed for the corridor improvements that incorporate the double-tracking and new 

geometrics, and track charts where necessary, an operational model was developed 
S-16

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

which determined the average speed for the Rail Improvements Alternative would 

increase an average of 16 to 22 miles per hour (mph) ranging from 63 to 69mph, 

depending on the improvements selected, when compared to existing conditions 

(47mph), and an average improvement of only 13 to 19mph when compared to the NoProject Alternative (50mph). These speeds are an average that incorporates the 

deceleration and acceleration rates for curves and station areas, and locations where 

speed restrictions may still be present. 

2. A significant reduction in travel time. With increased speed there are improved travel 

times. Depending on which Rail Improvements Alternative are selected, passengers 

could save as many as 45 to 60 minutes on their trip between Los Angeles and San 

Diego when compared to the existing conditions. This is a 28 to 34-percent reduction in 

travel time. The No-Project Alternative only produces an average of an 8-minute (or 5-

percent) savings in travel time. These times assume local service, which would stop at 

all scheduled stations. The Rail Improvements Alternative would be able to further 

decrease travel times by also allowing for the potential of skip-stopping/express service 

along the corridor. 

3. Increased reliability. With the increase in capacity provided by double-tracking the length 

of the corridor, reliability would be significantly improved. Both safety and reliability 

would further increase in the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative, as this 

alternative would grade-separate the length of the corridor, eliminating all remaining atgrade crossings. 

4. Enhanced Multimodal Opportunities. Slow travel times and restricted reliability often 

deter people from using public transportation alternatives. With the improvement in 

reliability and travel times making it easer to reliably connect to other transit modes, 

passengers would be provided with additional transportation options. 

5. Operational Flexibility. Two tracks allow for trains to pass each other easily along all 

segments of the corridor, eliminating the delay caused by waiting at single-track 

segments, resulting in shorter travel times and more service reliability. Service options 

such as express trains (that would skip some stops), and other improved choices for rail 

passengers would also be possible. The Rail Improvements Alternative would also allow 

for provide a platform for growth in train operations to accommodate as-yet-unplanned 

and unforeseeable future rail service expansions. 

6. Reduction of Vehicle/Rail Conflicts. The Low-Build Rail Improvements Alternative will 

significantly reduce the number of at-grade crossings along the corridor, while the HighBuild provides for a fully grade-separated corridor. Both of these improvements provide 

for a significant improvement in: 

a. Safety – Reduces the number of vehicle/rail/pedestrian conflicts at crossings 

b. Reliability – Reduces delays associated with vehicle/rail/pedestrian conflicts for both 

train and automobiles. Elimination of at-grade crossings reduces the delay of 

automobile traffic by preventing automobiles from stopping for trains at crossings. 

c. Noise – Eliminates the need for horns at crossings 
S-17

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

d. Pollution/Energy – By reducing the amount of delay for automobiles at grade 

crossings, the amount of pollution emitted by idling vehicles is significantly reduced. 

7. Benefits to all Corridor Traffic. The LOSSAN corridor is shared by intercity trains 

(Amtrak), two commuter rail services (Metrolink and Coaster) and freight (Burlington 

Northern and Santa Fe). This document focuses on improving intercity travel; however, 

the Rail Improvements Alternative would provide the above benefits to all corridor users. 

In summary, implementing the Rail Improvements Alternative would provide the LOSSAN 

corridor with the capacity, speed and reliability necessary to make it rail services a true 

attractive alternative to I-5 for intercity travelers, commuters and freight traffic from between Los 

Angeles, to Orange County and to San Diego. 

The individual projects along the corridor identified as part of the Rail Improvements Alternative 

would provide varying levels of improvement to the corridor wide travel times. Several of the 

projects would provide significant travel time and reliability enhancements at locations such as 

those at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Del Mar and Miramar Hill (University City). 

Table S.5-2 details travel time savings by station segment to summarize how each of the 

projects within those segments contribute to the overall improvement of the corridor. 

Table S.5-2 

Station Segment Travel Time Comparison 

(Hours: Minutes) 

Existing Rail Improvements Alternatives 

Condition 

No-Project 

Alternative Low High 

Los Angeles to Fullerton 0:37 0:34 0:29 0:26 

Fullerton to 

Anaheim 0:09 0:07 0:06 0:06 

Anaheim to Santa Ana 0:10 0:09 0:06 0:06 

Santa Ana to 

Irvine 0:12 0:11 0:08 0:08 

Irvine to San Juan Capistrano 0:14 0:13 0:11 0:11 

San Juan Capistrano to San Clemente 0:09 0:07 0:05 

San Clemente to Oceanside 

0:33* 

0:24 0:17 0:16 

Oceanside to Solana Beach 0:16 0:15 0:10 0:12** 

Solana Beach to San Diego 0:33 0:34 0:24 0:18** 

TOTAL 2:44 2:36 1:58 1:48 

* San Clemente station not included in Baseline Condition. 

** For the High-Build Rail Improvements Alternative, the travel time break is at the UTC station. 

S.6 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The Program EIR/EIS describes the existing conditions for a number of areas of environmental 

concern and assesses the potential impacts to these areas from both the No-Project and 

Rail Improvements Alternatives. The following table summarizes by issue the Program EIR/EIS 

key environmental impact findings for the No-Project Alternative and Rail Improvements 

Alternative: 
 S-18

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives 

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative1

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Traffic and 

Circulation 

Capacity is insufficient to 

accommodate the projected 

growth. All but one of the 8 

intercity highway segments 

considered would operate at 

unacceptable levels of service 

with increased congestion, travel 

delays, and accidents over 

existing conditions. Congestion 

would increase considerably from 

existing conditions. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Congestion reduction on intercity 

highways as compared to the NoProject Alternative. However, the 

analyses could not take into account 

potential use of the excess capacity by 

non-intercity (commuter, and shortdistance) trips. Has the potential to help 

reduce the number of intercity 

automobile trips. Localized traffic 

conditions around stations impacted. 

Encourage use of 

transit to stations. 

Work with transit 

providers to improve 

station connections. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less than 

Significant 

Travel 

Conditions 

(Travel Time, 

Reliability, 

Safety, 

Connectivity, 

Sustainable 

Capacity, 

Passenger Cost) 

Longer travel times, more delay. 

Lower reliability due to increased 

dependence on the automobile. 

Increase in injuries and fatalities 

due to increase in highway travel. 

No net improvement to 

connectivity options. 

No significant increase in 

capacity for highway 

infrastructure, and significant 

worsening of congestion due to 

increased demand. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Travel time reduction as compared to 

the No-Project Alternative. Greatest 

improvement in reliability due to higher 

reliability of the rail mode; additional 

modal option improves reliability for 

overall transportation system. 

Decrease in injuries and fatalities due 

to improvements to rail infrastructure 

Highest level of connectivity. Provide 

additional connections to existing 

modes, additional frequencies, and 

greater flexibility. 

Improved rail system would provide 

sufficient capacity to meet the 

representative demand and would 

provide additional capacity with minimal 

additional infrastructure. 

Overall savings in passenger costs of 

39% on average compared to NoProject. Intercity rail passenger costs 

are competitive with the automobile 

travel. 

Not Applicable Beneficial Not 

Applicable 

 

1 Quantities are listed as ranges to represent the variation in potential impacts depending on the alignment options selected. 
 S-19

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Air Quality 

(tons of 

pollutants; 

potential 

violation of 

NAAQS) 

NOx and CO emissions from 

locomotives in LOSSAN corridor 

are predicted to increase by 2020 

approximately 645% over 2005 

levels. Estimated CO 386 

tons/year, NOx 2,000 tons/year, 

TOG 108 tons/year; PM 70 

tons/year; CO2 147,790 

tons/year. 

Not Applicable 17% increase in locomotive miles and 

emissions due to proposed project. 

Potential violation of NOx or other 

pollutant thresholds or standards with 

current technology. Air quality benefits 

from reduced locomotive delays and 

idling time, vehicular idling at grade 

crossings. Construction impacts from 

PM emissions in nonattainment air 

basins. 

Control of 

construction related 

emissions. 

Diesel filters, 

automatic anti-idling 

devices, newer 

technologies and 

locomotive standards 

by 2020 expected to 

cut NOx and PM by 

up to 90% of current 

standards. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Energy Use Energy consumption is estimated 

to increase by 2020 to 36,969 

barrels of oil annual consumption 

for operation of locomotives in 

LOSSAN corridor. 

No Significant 

Impact 

17% increase in locomotive miles over 

No-Project levels; annual consumption 

of 54,960 additional barrel of oil. 

Some energy consumption reduction 

would occur due to reduced congestion 

and grade separation of rail corridor. 

Construction energy consumption 

would be potentially significant use of 

nonrenewable energy. 

Minimize grade 

changes in steep 

terrain areas to 

reduce the use of 

diesel fuel. 

Maximize intermodal 

transit connections to 

reduce automobile 

VMT related to the 

rail system. 

Develop and 

implement a 

construction energy 

conservation plan. 

Develop potential 

measures to reduce 

energy consumption 

during operation and 

maintenance 

activities. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

 

2 Quantities are listed as ranges to represent the variation in potential impacts depending on the alignment options selected. 
 S-20

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Land Use 

(Compatibility 

and Property 

Impacts) 

Expansion of urban sprawl as 

population grows and congestion 

increases; development on open 

space. Existing barriers resulting 

from existing LOSSAN rail 

corridor in some communities 

and coastal areas would remain. 

No Impact Most alignments highly compatible with 

land uses because of existing rail 

corridor or tunnel proposals. 

Small amount of property acquisition 

along existing rail corridor, some 

acquisition along new rights of way with 

one alignment option; between 5 and 7 

mi. of improvements could affect high 

impact land uses. 

Continued 

coordination with 

local agencies, 

including 

opportunities for joint 

and mixed-use 

development at 

stations. 

Relocation assistance 

during future projectlevel review. 

Design refinements to 

avoid tunnel portals 

and other 

infrastructure in 

residential 

neighborhoods. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Visual Quality No predictable change to existing 

landscape. Existing visual 

impacts of rail corridor on 

beaches and coastal views would 

remain. 

No Significant 

Impact 

High sensitivity in scenic open space 

and residential coastal views. Some 

beneficial impacts would occur by 

removing existing service from beaches 

and coastal bluffs. Potentially significant 

impacts in lagoon areas where new 

elevated structures may be built. 

Design strategies to 

minimize bulk and 

shading of bridges. 

Use of neutral colors 

and materials to 

blend with 

surrounding 

landscape features. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Noise More vehicular traffic, rail and air 

operations from growth in the 

intercity demand generates more 

noise. Existing high impacts to 

noise-sensitive land 

use/populations would continue 

or worsen. Noise from train 

horns and warning bells at grade 

crossings would worsen due to 

projected 60% increase in rail 

traffic by 2020. More freight 

service would likely run at night 

Potentially 

significant 

noise impacts 

between Union 

Station and 

Fullerton during 

nighttime hours 

from increased 

freight traffic. 

20 miles of alignment length in region 

would have high impacts to noise 

sensitive land use/populations (most of 

which are already impacted by existing 

rail corridor). Noise increase due to 

increased speeds of trains and 10% 

increase in train volume in the LOSSAN 

corridor, compared with No-Project 

Alternative. Substantial noise reduction 

from existing and 2020 No-Project 

conditions due to elimination of horn 

warning bell noise at grade crossings 

Consider sound 

barriers or berms in 

some areas along 

noise sensitive 

corridors, possibly 

building insulation; 

good track 

maintenance for 

vibration. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 
 S-21

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

to accommodate increased 

volumes. 

resulting from grade separation of 

existing rail line in most alignment 

options. 

Biology / 

Wetlands 

(Includes area 

within 100 feet 

on either side of 

centerline of 

alignment 

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact Up to 28 acres of sensitive vegetation, 

12,564-15,541 linear feet of nonwetland jurisdictional waters, 20-27 

acres of wetlands, and 36-46 specialstatus species could be affected directly 

or indirectly. 

Work with resource 

agencies to develop 

site specific mitigation 

and impact avoidance 

strategies for project 

level review. Projectlevel reviews will 

include coordination 

on local and regional 

habitat conservation 

plans. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Hydrologic 

Resources and 

Water Quality 

(Includes area 

within 100 feet 

on each side of 

alignment 

centerline 200 

feet total).)

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact Between 205 and 315 acres of 

floodplains, 11,760 and 13650 linear 

feet of streams, and up to 12 acres of 

lagoons within 100 feet of proposed 

alignment options, plus some areas 

crossing the California Coastal Basin 

Aquifer. 

Avoid or minimize 

footprint in 

floodplains; conduct 

project-level analysis 

of surface hydrology 

and coastal lagoons; 

Best Management 

Practices for 

construction as part 

of SWPPP. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant/ 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Section 4 (f) 6 

(f) 

(Parks, Wildlife 

Refuges) 

(Includes area 

within 900 feet 

on each side of 

alignment 

centerline (1,800 

feet total).)

No predictable change from 

existing conditions. 

No Impact From 29 to 33 Section 4 (f) or 6(f) 

properties could be affected. Most 

along existing rail corridor so impacts 

may be minimized. Some opportunity 

for new parklands to be created where 

rail would be removed from beaches. 

Evaluate site-specific 

design refinements to 

avoid parklands; 

identify potential site 

specific measures to 

minimize harm. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant / 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 
 S-22

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Cultural 

Resources 

(Including 

Section 4(f) 

Historic 

Resources) 

Low ranking for impacts to 

archaeological resources and 

historic property. 

No Significant 

Impact 

Medium to High ranking for potential 

impacts to archaeological resources 

and historic properties (Many 

improvements would use existing rail 

corridor and stations; nearby resources 

developed in historic period). Tunnel 

options would avoid most impacts. 

Develop procedures 

for field work, 

identification, 

evaluation and 

determination of 

effects for cultural 

resources in 

consultation with 

SHPO and Native 

American Tribes 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unavoidable 

Growth 

Inducement 

Not Applicable Not Applicable Rail improvements would not induce 

growth because improvements would 

accommodate projected rail service 

increases between now and 2020. May 

change rate of some development 

around new station (potentially at 

University Towne Centre 

Work with local 

communities to 

design station access 

and facilities to blend 

with area and provide 

appropriate mixeduse development that 

complies with land 

use plans and codes; 

also work with 

communities to 

develop higher 

density developments 

around stations as 

appropriate. 

No Significant 

Impact 

Not 

Applicable 

Public Utilities No Impact No Impact Potential conflicts with 22 transmission 

lines, 44 gas lines, 5 ocean outfalls, 

and 2 major sewer lines. depending on 

alignments 

Relocate or 

reconstruct or restore 

utility, consolidate 

several utilities 

underground into one 

conduit during 

relocation 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 
 S-23

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

Table S.6-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impacts/Benefits For System Alternatives (continued)

Potential Significance for Rail 

Improvements Alternative Key 

Environmental 

Issues 

No-Project 

Alternative 

Potential 

Significance 

for No-Project 

Alternative 

Rail 

Improvements 

Alternative2

 

Mitigation Strategy 

for Rail Alternative Before 

Mitigation 

After 

Mitigation 

Geology Potentially susceptible to seismic 

hazards; coastal bluffs in Del Mar 

and San Clemente would 

continue to require stabilization 

for reliable operation of existing 

rail service. 

Potentially 

Significant 

(could be 

mitigated to 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant) 

Potential seismic 

hazards, slope 

stability in cut sections. Would remove 

rail service from coastal bluffs in Del 

Mar and San Clemente, reducing 

stability problems. 

Use of ground motion 

data and instruments. 

Routine maintenance 

of track, slope 

reinforcement. 

Project-level design 

to minimize cut-andfill; Best Management 

Practices to prevent 

tunnel subsidence. 

Potentially 

Significant; 

Beneficial in 

coastal bluff 

areas. 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 

Hazardous 

Materials 

No Impact No Impact Disposal, clean-up or remediation of 

exposure to hazardous materials during 

construction. Two Superfund, SPL or 

SWLF sites potentially affected by 

construction. 

Detailed Initial Site 

Assessment, avoid 

sites where 

practicable, subsurface investigation 

where needed to 

characterize sites and 

identify remediation 

Potentially 

Significant 

Potentially 

Less Than 

Significant 
S-24

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

S.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 

The LOSSAN Corridor passes through three of the most densely populated counties in 

California, as well as through areas of sensitive environmental and community concern. 

Consequently, many of the projects identified in this Program EIR/EIS may be controversial. 

Specific issues, such as which of the proposed alignment and station options would be most 

appropriate in a given location would be decided following a project-level environmental review 

process for each proposed project, assuming a decision is made following completion of the 

Program EIR/EIS process to advance the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

The following paragraphs highlight controversial project areas along the corridor and potential 

impacts and mitigations. 

Los Angeles Union Station to Fullerton (North Orange County) 

• Gateway Cities – Fourth main track – Right-of-Way to accommodate the provision of a 

fourth track would require the acquisition of some properties (largely industrial) in certain 

areas. 

Fullerton to Irvine (North-Central Orange County) 

• Orange, Santa Ana – Provision of grade separations (including possible trenches) in 

these communities would increase the quality of life along the rail corridor, with improved 

traffic circulation, vehicular/pedestrian safety, and greatly reduced noise impacts due to 

the elimination of the need to sound the train’s horn as it approaches frequent existing 

at-grade crossings. However, there would likely be construction impacts and concerns 

about preservation of historic structures adjacent to the corridor. 

Irvine to San Clemente (Central – South Orange County) 

• San Juan Capistrano – Trabuco Creek alignment, Spur track to existing station (if I-5 

alignment selected). There are potential resource concerns associated with a Trabuco 

Creek alignment, as well as how Commuter Rail service might be maintained to the 

existing San Juan Capistrano station if the I-5 alignment option is selected. 

• Dana Point/San Clemente – Short Tunnel – There are continuing concerns regarding the 

Short Tunnel and its potential impacts to the Marblehead development in San Clemente, 

a planned desalination plant in Dana Point, as well as continuing issues with regard to 

beach access, stability of local bluffs, and noise issues. 

Oceanside to San Diego (San Diego County) 

• Lagoons throughout Coastal San Diego County. Any construction at these sensitive 

locations requires attention to best management practices to minimize environmental 

impacts. Design options for crossing these lagoons could have a net environmental 

benefit, allowing increased tidal flushing and the removal of existing creosote pilings. 

• Coastal Rail Trail (Oceanside to San Diego). The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT), a project 

under development in San Diego County, is being located along a parallel alignment 

either within or adjacent to the existing railroad right-of-way. The CRT is currently in 

various stages of implementation with some segments already complete and in use. 

Depending on the projects and options selected, the Rail Improvements Alternative may 

require the CRT’s temporary or permanent relocation. The CRT is mainly used for 

transportation purposes, with incidental use for public recreational activities, including, 
S-25

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

but not limited to, landscaping, cycling, jogging, and walking. Since transportation in the 

primary use definition and recreational activities are incidental, Section 4(f) resource 

protections would not apply to the CRT. 

• Carlsbad and Encinitas – Grade separations in Downtown areas include possible trench 

options, and both communities are sensitive to how these grade separations and their 

construction would impact pedestrian and vehicle movements in those areas. 

• Del Mar/Torrey Pines – Camino del Mar and Peñasquitos Bypass tunnels under 

consideration in this area would have lagoon impacts in case, as well as potential visual, 

construction and noise impacts, the former along the existing corridor, and the latter 

introducing impacts along a new alignment. Potential benefits include removal of the 

track from the Del Mar bluffs, and design options that could reduce the environmental 

impacts within the lagoons by reducing fill and increasing tidal flow. 

S.8 CONSEQUENCES FOR LOSSAN CORRIDOR WITHOUT 

IMPROVEMENTS 

As shown in the Purpose and Need Statement and evidenced throughout the remaining 

sections of this document, conventional improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor are needed 

to meet current and future transportation demands. 

Without these improvements, increasing costs and capacity constraints will continue to hamper 

existing rail services, as well as hinder the expansion of new rail service to meet projected 

increases in travel demand. Known and potential Impacts include: 

• Higher maintenance costs due to deferred replacement of timber bridges, as well as 

bluff stabilization along the corridor. 

• Increased deaths, injuries, insurance and equipment costs due to at-grade collisions 

• Continuing or worsening air quality due to rail traffic delays at road crossings and lack of 

track capacity for goods movement between the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and 

San Diego. 

• Worsening on-time performance for commuter and intercity passenger trains and the 

inability to expand the number of passenger trains 

Proposed improvements identified in this document could address and mitigate a number of 

community and environmental issues, including: 

• Continuing noise impacts along corridor from the need to sound train horns when 

approaching at-grade crossings, especially in densely populated urban areas with 

closely spaced crossings. 

• Inability to provide improvements in the lagoons of coastal San Diego County, including 

design options which could provide a net environmental benefit over the existing 

conditions. 

S.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Based upon an analysis of the information provided in this document, the Department and FRA 

have identified the Rail Improvements Alternative (Build alternative) as the preferred alternative 

for the future development of the Los Angeles to San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor. 
S-26

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

The lead agencies have determined that all the projects and alignment options listed in Table 

S.4.3-1 should be carried forward for project-level analysis prior to making alignment option 

decisions. 

S.10 NEXT STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 

This Final Program EIR/EIS includes responses to comments received on the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS, and identifies the preferred alternative (the Rail Improvements Alternative). However, 

no specific alignment and station location options have been selected at the Program-level 

analysis stage, and all options analyzed in this document (Table S.4.3-1) will be carried forward 

for project-level analysis prior to implementation. It is important to note that the alignments and 

station options identified in this Program EIR/EIS are not intended or presented as a one-time 

construction effort, but as individual projects proposed for implementation over the course of the 

next 15 to 20 years, with each individual project providing an independent benefit as well as 

contributing to the overall improvement of the LOSSAN rail corridor. 

At the completion of this program environmental process, the Department expects to certify the 

Program EIR/EIS and make findings for compliance with CEQA requirements. The FRA 

expects to issue a Record of Decision for compliance with NEPA requirements. The 

Department, metropolitan planning organizations, rail operators, individual corridor cities, or any 

combination thereof may sponsor future consideration of component Rail Improvements 

projects. 

This Program EIR/EIS considers the No-Project and Rail Improvements Alternative at a 

corridor-wide, program level of environmental analysis. Project-level environmental review 

would focus on individual projects, a portion or portions of the LOSSAN rail corridor, and would 

provide full analysis of potential impacts and issues at an appropriate level of detail in order to 

obtain the necessary approvals, permits and the ability to proceed with construction. 

For additional information on this project the following persons may be contacted: 

Lea Simpson David Valenstein 

Manager, Capitol Projects, South Environmental Program Manager 

Division of Rail Office of Railroad Development 

California Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 

1120 N Street 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., MS 20 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington D.C. 20590 

Phone 916-654-7184 Phone 202-493-6368 

Visit the Department’s Rail Web Site at 

www.amtrakcalifornia.com

to view/download a copy of the Final Program EIR/EIS, or for a listing of libraries carrying a 

hard copy of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS i 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

SUMMARY 

S.1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................. S-1 

S.2 Studies Leading to the Program EIR/EIS ............................................................... S-2 

S.3 Purpose of and Need for Improved Intercity Transportation in Southern 

California................................................................................................................... S-3 

S.4 Alternatives............................................................................................................... S-4 

S.4.1 No Project/No Action Alternative ................................................................. S-4 

S.4.2 Rail Improvements Alternative..................................................................... S-7 

S.4.3 Summary of Corridor Improvement Alternatives ....................................... S-11 

S.5 Operations Summary ............................................................................................. S-14 

S.6 Key Environmental Impacts .................................................................................. S-17 

S.7 Areas of Controversy............................................................................................. S-24 

S.8 Consequences for LOSSAN Corridor without Improvements ........................... S-25 

S.9 Preferred Alternative.............................................................................................. S-25 

S.10 Next Steps in the Environmental Process ........................................................... S-26 

Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES ............................................. 1.0-1 

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1.0-1 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Improved Intercity 

Transportation In Southern California .................................................................1.0-4 

1.2.1 Purpose OF Rail Improvements ................................................................1.0-4 

1.2.2 Need For Rail Improvements in the LOSSAN Corridor .............................1.0-6 

Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................ 2.0-1 

2.1 Development of Initial Alternatives ......................................................................2.0-1 

2.1.1 Background ...............................................................................................2.0-2 

2.1.2 Formulation of Initial Alternatives ..............................................................2.0-4 

2.2 Summary of Alternatives Considered ................................................................2.0-12 

2.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated ...........................................................2.0-15 

2.3.1 Alternatives Eliminated in LOSSAN Region Based on Previous 

Studies ....................................................................................................2.0-15 

2.3.2 LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvements Considered and Eliminated.........2.0-24 

2.4 No Project/No Action Alternative........................................................................2.0-40 

2.4.1 Highway Element.....................................................................................2.0-41 

2.4.2 Conventional Passenger Rail Element ....................................................2.0-42 

2.5 Rail Improvements Alternative............................................................................2.0-49 

2.5.1 LOSSAN Rail Improvements Alternative Carried Forward ......................2.0-62 

2.6 Summary of Alternatives Carried Forward ........................................................2.0-69 

2.6.1 No Project/No Action Alternative .............................................................2.0-69 

2.6.2 Rail Improvements Alternative.................................................................2.0-69 

2.6.3 Preferred Alternative................................................................................2.0-70 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS ii 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

2.7 Construction and Maintenance Activities Associated with the Rail 

Improvements Alternative ...................................................................................2.0-72 

2.7.1 Construction Activities .............................................................................2.0-72 

2.6.2 Maintenance Activities.............................................................................2.0-78 

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 

AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ............................................................. 3.0-1 

3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................3.0-1 

3.0.1 Purpose and Content of this Chapter ........................................................3.0-1 

3.0.2 How this Chapter is Organized..................................................................3.0-1 

3.1 Traffic and Circulation ...........................................................................................3.1-1 

3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.1-1 

3.1.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.1-5 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.1-6 

3.1.4 Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................3.1-14 

3.1.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.1-17 

3.1.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.1-17 

3.2 Travel Conditions ...................................................................................................3.2-1 

3.2.1 Methods of Evaluation...............................................................................3.2-1 

3.2.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.2-4 

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.2-5 

3.2.4 Alignment Option Comparison.................................................................3.2-23 

3.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................3.3-1 

3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.3-1 

3.3.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.3-6 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................3.3-15 

3.3.4 Design Practices......................................................................................3.3-20 

3.3.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.3-20 

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.3-21 

3.4 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................3.4-1 

3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.4-1 

3.4.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.4-8 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................3.4-21 

3.4.4 Design Practices......................................................................................3.4-26 

3.4.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.4-26 

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.4-29 

3.5 Energy .....................................................................................................................3.5-1 

3.5.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.5-1 

3.5.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.5-4 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.5-5 

3.5.4 Mitigation Strategies..................................................................................3.5-9 

3.5.5 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.5-10 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS iii 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.6 Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, 

Property and Environmental Justice....................................................................3.6-1 

3.6.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.6-1 

3.6.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.6-5 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.6-9 

3.6.4 Design Practices......................................................................................3.6-17 

3.6.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.6-17 

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.6-20 

3.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources.........................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.7-1 

3.7.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.7-2 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.7-4 

3.7.4 Design Practices......................................................................................3.7-21 

3.7.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.7-21 

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.7-22 

3.8 Public Utilities.........................................................................................................3.8-1 

3.8.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.8-1 

3.8.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.8-4 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences...................................................................3.8-4 

3.8.4 Design Practices........................................................................................3.8-9 

3.8.5 Mitigation Strategies................................................................................3.8-10 

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.8-11 

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes .........................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ..............................3.9-1 

3.9.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3.9-3 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Alternatives ...............3.9-3 

3.9.4 Design Practices........................................................................................3.9-5 

3.9.5 Mitigation Strategies..................................................................................3.9-5 

3.9.6 Subsequent Analysis.................................................................................3.9-6 

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...........................................................3.10-1 

3.10.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.10-1 

3.10.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3.10-6 

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences...............................................................3.10-12 

3.10.4 Design Practices....................................................................................3.10-20 

3.10.5 Mitigation Strategies..............................................................................3.10-20 

3.10.6 Subsequent Analysis.............................................................................3.10-25 

3.11 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.11-1 

3.11.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3.11-5 

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences...............................................................3.11-19 

3.11.4 Design Practices....................................................................................3.11-22 

3.11.5 Mitigation Strategies..............................................................................3.11-23 

3.11.6 Subsequent Analysis.............................................................................3.11-26 

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources........................................................................3.12-1 

3.12.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.12-1 

3.12.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3.12-3 

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences...............................................................3.12-15 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS iv 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

3.12.4 Design Practices....................................................................................3.12-23 

3.12.5 Mitigation Strategies..............................................................................3.12-23 

3.12.6 Subsequent Analysis.............................................................................3.12-27 

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands ..................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.13-1 

3.13.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3.13-4 

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences...............................................................3.13-18 

3.13.4 Design Practices....................................................................................3.13-41 

3.13.5 Mitigation Strategies..............................................................................3.13-42 

3.13.6 Subsequent Analysis.............................................................................3.13-47 

3.14 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation).......................3.14-1 

3.14.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.14-1 

3.14.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3.14-4 

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................3.14-6 

3.14.4 Impact Avoidance Strategies, Including Alternatives Screened from 

Further Consideration..............................................................................3.14-7 

3.14.5 Avoidance Alternatives or Reasons for No Prudent or Feasible 

Alternative for Use of Section 4(f) or 6(f) Resource ................................3.14-7 

3.14.6 Design Practices......................................................................................3.14-9 

3.14.7 Mitigation Strategies..............................................................................3.14-10 

3.14.8 Subsequent Analysis.............................................................................3.14-11 

3.15 Growth Inducement..............................................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.1 No-Project Alternative..............................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.2 Rail Improvements Alternative.................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.3 Mitigation .................................................................................................3.15-2 

3.15.4 Subsequent Analysis...............................................................................3.15-3 

3.16 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation ..........................................................................3.16-1 

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ............................3.16-1 

3.16.2 Summary of Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions.............................3.16-3 

 Introduction to Cumulative Impacts .........................................................3.16-1 

3.16.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis.................................................................3.16-13 

3.17 Next Steps in Project Development....................................................................3.17-1 

3.17.1 Project Definition .....................................................................................3.17-1 

3.17.2 Project-Level Analysis .............................................................................3.17-5 

Chapter 4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS .................................................................... 4.0-1 

4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................4.0-1 

4.0.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................4.0-1 

4.0.2 Operational Performance ..........................................................................4.0-2 

4.0.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs ..........................................................4.0-3 

4.0.4 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................4.0-7 

4.0.5 Consequences for LOSSAN Corridor without Improvements..................4.0-14 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS v 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 5 RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON........... 5.0-1 

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................5.0-1 

5.1.1 Purpose and Content of this Chapter ........................................................5.0-1 

5.1.2 Organization of this Chapter......................................................................5.0-1 

5.2 Los Angeles Union Station to Irvine Alignment Options....................................5.0-3 

5.3 Irvine to Oceanside Alignment Options ...............................................................5.0-5 

5.4 Oceanside to San Diego Alignment Options .......................................................5.0-8 

5.5 Los Angeles to San Diego Station Options .......................................................5.0-14 

Chapter 6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................ 6-1 

6.1 Unavoidable Potentially Significant Impacts..........................................................6-1 

6.1.1 Fuel Consumption and Energy Use..............................................................6-1 

6.1.2 Biological and Wetlands Resources, Hydrology and Water Resources, 

Land Use, Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources, Cultural and 

Paleontological Resources, Visual Resources, Noise, and Geology 

and Soils.......................................................................................................6-2 

6.1.3 Construction Impacts....................................................................................6-3 

6.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Environment and Enhancement 

of Long-Term Productivity .......................................................................................6-3 

6.3 CEQA Significance....................................................................................................6-4 

6.3.1 CEQA Significance Thresholds ....................................................................6-4 

6.3.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Effects Under CEQA................................6-5 

6.3.3 CEQA Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................6-6 

Chapter 7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ................................................. 7.0-1 

7.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................7.0-1 

7.1 Public Involvement and Outreach Program.........................................................7.0-4 

7.1.1 Public Information......................................................................................7.0-4 

7.1.2 Agency Consultation and Coordination .....................................................7.0-9 

Chapter 8 ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, AND BUSINESS OUTREACH ................... 8.0-1 

Chapter 9 LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................. 9.0-1 

California Department of Transportation.........................................................................9.01 

Federal Railroad Administration .....................................................................................9.0-1 

List of Consultants ...........................................................................................................9.0-1 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS vi 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Chapter 10 DRAFT PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST................................ 10.0-1 

10.1 Repository Library Locations .............................................................................10.0-1 

10.2 Federal Agencies..................................................................................................10.0-2 

10.3 State Agencies......................................................................................................10.0-2

10.4 Elected Officials ...................................................................................................10.0-2

10.5 Regional/Local Agencies ....................................................................................10.0-5 

10.6 Organizations and Businesses ...........................................................................10.0-5 

Chapter 11 REFERENCES......................................................................................... 11.0-1 

Chapter 12 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ............................................................. 12.0-1 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 2.3-A Letters from Rail Operators on Feasibility of Inland Bypass Route

Appendix 3.3-A Air Quality Emissions Calculations 

Appendix 3.4-A Noise and Vibration Screening Distances 

Appendix 3.4-B Noise and Vibration Rating Method 

Appendix 3.4-C Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria 

Appendix 3.10-A Letter to State Historic Preservation Office 

Appendix 3.12-A Detailed Description of Hydrology Regulatory Requirements 

Appendix 3.13-A General Description of Biological Resource Topics 

Appendix 3.13-B Detailed Description of Biology and Wetlands Regulatory Requirements 

Appendix 3.13-C Data Collection for Natural Resources 

Appendix 3.13-D Description of Lagoons in Study Area 

Appendix 3.13-E Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species in Study Area 

Appendix 3.14-A 4(f) and 6(f) Properties 

Appendix 3.16-A List of Projects for Cumulative Analysis 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS vii 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table S.4.3-1 Corridor Emprovement Alternatives ................................................................ S-12 

Table S.5-1 Estimated Point-to-Point Scheduled Travel Times.......................................... S-14 

Table S.5-2 Station Segment Travel Time Comparison...................................................... S-17 

Table S.6-1 Summary of Key Environmental Impact/Benefits for System 

Alteratives........................................................................................................ S-18 

Table 1.2-1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Between Los Angeles and San Diego............1.0-8 

Table 1.2-2 Present and Future Travel Times Between Los Angeles and 

San Diego During Peak Period .....................................................................1.0-10 

Table 2.2-1 Summary of All Alternatives Considered.......................................................2.0-13 

Table 2.3-1 High-Speed Rail Corridor/Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria...........2.0-17 

Table 2.3-2 Alternative HST Corridor Alignments and Station Options Considered 

but Eliminated for the LOSSAN Region.........................................................2.0-18 

Table 2.3.2-1 LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Alternatives Eliminated .......................2.0-25 

Table 2.4.1-1 Programmed Intercity Highway Improvements Included in the NoProject Alternative .........................................................................................2.0-42 

Table 2.4.2-1 Programmed Conventional Rail Improvements Included in the NoProject Alternative .........................................................................................2.0-49 

Table 2.5-1 Conventional Rail Improvements Alternative Evaluated for the 

LOSSAN Corridor..........................................................................................2.0-50 

Table 2.5-2 List of Existing Grade Crossings and Proposed Grade Separations.............2.0-59 

Table 2.6-1 Summary of Final Rail Improvements Alternative .........................................2.0-70 

Table 3.1-1 Level of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Definition..............................3.1-2 

Table 3.1-2 Change in Traffic Congestion of Intercity Highway Segments Existing 

Conditions Compared to the No-Project Alternatives......................................3.1-9 

Table 3.1-3 Change in Traffic Congestion or Intercity Highway Segments NoProject Conditions Compared to the Rail Improvements Alternative.............3.1-13 

Table 3.2-1 Relation of Travel Factors and Purpose and Need/Objectives........................3.2-3 

Table 3.2-2 Transportation Factors ....................................................................................3.2-3 

Table 3.2-3 Comparison of Existing Conditions to No-Project Alternative..........................3.2-6 

Table 3.2-4 Total Point-to-Point Travel Times....................................................................3.2-9 

Table 3.2-5 Model Reliability ............................................................................................3.2-12

Table 3.2-6 Safety Performance by Mode........................................................................3.2-17 

Table 3.2-7 Safety Performance by Alternatives ..............................................................3.2-17 

Table 3.2-8 1997 Intercity Trip Table Summary ...............................................................3.2-18 

Table 3.2-9 2020 Intercity Trip Table Summary ...............................................................3.2-19 

Table 3.2-10 Auto Ownership and Operating Costs by Category.......................................3.2-22 

Table 3.2-11 One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Automobile Costs.............................................3.2-22 

Table 3.2-12 Intercity Rail One-Way Trip Passenger Costs...............................................3.2-23 

Table 3.2-13 Alignment Option Comparisons.....................................................................3.2-24 

Table 3.3-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................................3.3-3 

Table 3.3-2 Attainment Status of Affected Air Basins.......................................................3.3-13 

Table 3.3-3 Estimated Locomotive Emissions in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor – 

Year 2003 and 2020 No Project Alternative ..................................................3.3-15 

Table 3.3-4 Estimated Locomotive Emissions in the LOSSAN Corridor by Air 

Basin – Year 2003 and 2020 No Project Alternative .....................................3.3-16 

Table 3.3-5 Estimated Locomotive Emissions – Year 2005, 2020 No-Project 

Alternative, and 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative....................................3.3-18 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS viii 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 3.3-6 Estimated Locomotive Emissions by Air Basin Year 2005, 2020 NoProject Alternative, and 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative .......................3.3-18 

Table 3.5-1 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors for Rail 

Improvements..................................................................................................3.5-3 

Table 3.5-2 Annual Locomotive Operational Energy Consumption in the LOSSAN 

Corridor ...........................................................................................................3.5-6 

Table 3.5-3 Annual Locomotive Operational Energy Consumption in the LOSSAN 

Corridor – No-Project Compared with Rail Improvements ..............................3.5-7 

Table 3.5-4 Non-Recoverable Construction-Related Energy Consumption .......................3.5-9 

Table 3.6 1 Compatibility of Land Use Types.....................................................................3.6-3 

Table 3.6 2 Rankings of Potential Property Impacts ..........................................................3.6-4 

Table 3.6-3 LOSSAN Existing Land Uses ..........................................................................3.6-6 

Table 3.7-1 Potential Visual Impacts ................................................................................3.7-13 

Table 3.8-1 Rankings for Potential Public Utilities Impacts/Conflicts..................................3.8-3 

Table 3.8-2 Potential Utility Conflicts..................................................................................3.8-7 

Table 3.10-1 Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural and Paleontologial 

Resources ...................................................................................................3.10-14 

Table 3.11-1 Ranking System for Comparing Impacts Related to 

Geology/Soils/Seismicity ...............................................................................3.11-2 

Table 3.11-2 Types of Potential Impacts from Geologic Conditions.................................3.11-20 

Table 3.11-3 Summary of Potential Impact Rankings and Geological Constraints ..........3.11-20 

Table 3.12-1 Summary of Hydrologic Resources Potentially Impacted............................3.12-18 

Table 3.13-1 Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area ......................3.13-10 

Table 3.13-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area...................3.13-11 

Table 3.13-3 Rivers, Creeks and Bays in the Study Area ................................................3.13-12 

Table 3.13-4 Biological Resources and Wetlands in the Study Area ...............................3.13-25 

Table 3.13.5 Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 200-foot (61 m) Impact 

Analysis Zone (Impact Zone A) ...................................................................3.13-30 

Table 3.13.6 Biological Resources and Wetlands in the 50-foot (15 m) Impact 

Analysis Zone (Impact Zone B) ...................................................................3.13-32 

Table 3.13.7 Lagoon Restoration and Management Entities ...........................................3.13-43 

Table 3.14-1 Rankings for Potential Direct and Proximity Impacts on 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources.....................................................................3.14-4 

Table 3.14-2 Summary of 4(f)/6(f) Resources Potentially Affected in Study Area..............3.14-8 

Table 3.16-1 Rail Corridor Segments .................................................................................3.16-3 

Table 3.16-2 Proximity of Interstate 5 and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Across 

Lagoons.........................................................................................................3.16-4 

Table 3.16-3 Major Projects Identified for Consideration in Cumulative Impact 

Analysis .........................................................................................................3.16-8 

Table 3.17-1 Summary of Alignment and Design Options Carried Forward for 

Project-Level Review.....................................................................................3.17-2 

Table 4.0-1 Incremental Annual Operating Costs for a Conventional Intercity Rail 

System ............................................................................................................4.0-6 

Table 4.0-2 Annual Maintenance of Way Costs for a Conventional Rail 

Infrastructure ...................................................................................................4.0-7 

Table 4.0-3 Operational Intercity Rail Performance Comparison No-Project vs. 

Rail Improvement Alternative ..........................................................................4.0-8 

Table 4.0-4 Captial Cost Summary ..................................................................................4.0-12 

Table 4.0-5 Operational Performance Comparison Lo-Build vs. High-Build 

Alternatives....................................................................................................4.0-13 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS ix 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Table 4.0-6 Intercity Rail Station Segment Travel Time Comparison...............................4.0-13 

Table 4.0-7 Annual Costs of Operating and Maintaining an Improved 

Conventional Rail Infrastructure ....................................................................4.0-14 

Table 6.3-1 Potentially Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for System Alternatives ....................6-7 

Table 7.1 Strategic Plan Public Workshop Locations and Times....................................7.0-3 

Table 7.2 LOSSAN Corridor Scoping Meeting Locations and Times..............................7.0-6 

Table 7.3 LOSSAN Public Hearing Locations and Times ...............................................7.0-8 

Table 7.4 Additional LOSSAN Draft Program EIR/EIS Public Information 

Meetings Locations and Times........................................................................7.0-9 

Table 8-1 Organizations, Agencies and Business Contacted..........................................8.0-1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure S.3-1 Los Angeles to San Diego Intercity Travel Routes......................................... S-5 

Figure S.4-1 Existing and Forecast Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor .................... S-9 

Figure 1.2-1 Projected Population Growth for Southern California..................................1.0-7 

Figure 1.2-2 Los Angeles to San Diego Intercity Travel Routes ...................................1.0-11 

Figure 1.2-3 Existing and Future Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor....................1.0-13 

Figure 1.2-4 2001 State Area Designation – Ozone.......................................................1.0-17 

Figure 2.1.2-1 LOSSAN Alignment Alternatives Evaluated in HST Screening Report ........2.0-7 

Figure 2.3.1-1 Alternative HST Corridor Alignments and Station Options Considered 

but Eliminated for the LOSSAN Region......................................................2.0-19 

Figure 2.3.2-1 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in San Juan Capistrano ...2.0-27 

Figure 2.3.2-2 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Dana Point/ San 

Clemente ....................................................................................................2.0-28 

Figure 2.3.2-3 Existing Rail Corridor at Mariposa Point.....................................................2.0-30 

Figure 2.3.2-4 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Encinitas ......................2.0-36 

Figure 2.3.2-5 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration in Del Mar ........................2.0-38 

Figure 2.3.2-6 Train Passing Along Del Mar Bluffs............................................................2.0-39 

Figure 2.4-1 Existing Intercity Transportation Infrastructure in LOSSAN Corridor..........2.0-43 

Figure 2.4-2 LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Projects Included in No-Project 

Alternative...................................................................................................2.0-45 

Figure 2.4-3 Future Train Volumes on the LOSSAN Corridor – Maximum Threshold 

Modeling Results........................................................................................2.0-47 

Figure 2.5-1 LOSSAN Corridor Rail Improvement Projects Carried Forward.................2.0-51 

Figure 2.5-2 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative (1 of 3)..........................2.0-53 

Figure 2.5-3 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative (2 of 3)..........................2.0-55 

Figure 2.5-4 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements Alternative (3 of 3)..........................2.0-57 

Figure 2.5.1-1 Options to be Retained for Further Study in San Juan Capistrano ............2.0-63 

Figure 2.5.1-2 Options to be Retained for Further Study in Dana Point/San Clemente ....2.0-65 

Figure 2.5.1-3 Options to be Retained for Further Study in Encinitas ...............................2.0-67 

Figure 2.5.1-4 Options to be Retained for Further Study in Del Mar .................................2.0-68 

Figure 3.1-1 Year 2020 No-Project Alternative.................................................................3.1-7 

Figure 3.1-2 Year 2020 Rail Improvements Alternative..................................................3.1-11 

Figure 3.2-1 Nationwide Highway Congestion Comparison .............................................3.2-4 

Figure 3.2-2 Southern California Area Highway Congestion (Year 2025) ........................3.2-7 
FINAL PROGRAM EIR / EIS x 

SEPTEMBER 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENTS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Figure 3.3-1 Air Basins Potentially Affected by Project Alternatives.................................3.3-7 

Figure 3.3-2 CO, PM, NOx, TOG Source Distribution – Year 2020................................3.3-11 

Figure 3.4-1 Noise and Vibration Land Use Typologies LOSSAN Region .......................3.4-5 

Figure 3.4-2 Typical Day-Night Sound Level Environments ...........................................3.4-11 

Figure 3.4-3 Typical Lmax Values ....................................................................................3.4-15 

Figure 3.4-4 Example of Noise Exposure vs. Distance with Typical Frequencies ..........3.4-17 

Figure 3.4-5 Example of Noise Exposure vs. Distance with Normalized Frequency ......3.4-19 

Figure 3.4-6 Rail Alternative Potential Noise Impacts.....................................................3.4-23 

Figure 3.6-1 Generalized Existing Land Uses ..................................................................3.6-7 

Figure 3.7-1 Existing LOSSAN Corridor – Carlsbad.........................................................3.7-5 

Figure 3.7-2 Existing LOSSAN Corridor – San Clemente.................................................3.7-7 

Figure 3.7-3 Existing LOSSAN Corridor – Del Mar Bluffs.................................................3.7-9 

Figure 3.7-4 Existing LOSSAN Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon ....................3.7-11 

Figure 3.7-5 Photo-Simulation – New Bridge Structure Across San Elijo Lagoon..........3.7-23 

Figure 3.8.1 Major Utilities................................................................................................3.8-5 

Figure 3.11-1 Faults..........................................................................................................3.11-9 

Figure 3.11-2 Quarternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones ...............3.11-11 

Figure 3.11-3 Potential Liquefaction Zones ....................................................................3.11-13 

Figure 3.11-4 Potentially Unstable Slopes......................................................................3.11-17 

Figure 3.12-1 Special Flood Hazard Areas.......................................................................3.12-5 

Figure 3.12-2 Surface Waters and Wetlands....................................................................3.12-7 

Figure 3.12-3 Groundwater.............................................................................................3.12-11 

Figure 3.12-4 Areas Susceptible to Erosion ...................................................................3.12-13 

Figure 3.13-1 Distribution of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ................................................3.13-7 

Figure 3.13-2 Wetlands...................................................................................................3.13-13 

Figure 3.13-3 North San Diego County Lagoons............................................................3.13-15 

Figure 3.13-4 Habitat Conservation Program Areas (Part 1)..........................................3.13-19 

Figure 3.13-5 Habitat Conservation Program Areas (Part 2)..........................................3.13-21 

Figure 3.13-6 Habitat Conservation Program Areas (Part 3)..........................................3.13-23 

Figure 3.13-7 Del Mar Area Lagoons and Alignment Options ........................................3.13-39 

Figure 3.16-1 Existing Conditions of Interstate 5 and LOSSAN Rail Corridor ..................3.16-5 

Figure 4.0-1 Low-Build Operating Speed & Travel Time Profile.......................................4.0-4 

Figure 4.0-2 High-Build Operating Speed & Travel Time Profile ......................................4.0-5