2-1

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the alternatives being studied for the approximately 130-

mile-long portion of the Coast Rail Corridor between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

California, as shown in Figure 2-1. This Program EIS/EIR evaluates two alternatives: 

a Build Alternative and a No Build Alternative. The Draft Program EIS/EIR evaluated

two alternatives: a Build Alternative and a No Build Alternative. This Final Program 

EIS/EIR identifies a Preferred Alternative, which is a version of the Build Alternative

modified to reduce impacts in response to public comments. The Build Alternative 

and the Preferred Alternative includes a list of potential physical components 

improvements to the railway and expanded passenger rail service (Coast Daylight). 

Some, all, or none of these improvements may eventually be constructed in order to

facilitate the addition of up to 2 round trip Coast Daylight trains per day (4 train trips 

in all) between San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

The No Build Alternative assumes the continuation of existing passenger and freight

operations in the corridor with no new physical components improvements.

SLOCOG, TAMC, Caltrans DOR, and the Coast Rail Coordinating Committee (CRCC),

along with FRA developed alternatives through an iterative process that 

incorporated design and analysis completed by other government agencies, 

independent planning and feasibility studies, and the scoping process. This chapter 

describes all alternatives considered by the above agencies, including those rejected 

from further consideration in the Program EIS/EIR and the basis for rejection. 

The Chapter is organized into the following sections:

 Section 2.1 describes the background and planning context.

 Section 2.2 includes a description of the alternatives that were considered but 

later eliminated and a description of the alternatives that were carried forward 

and included in this Program EIS/EIS analysis. The section also identifies the 

Preferred Alternative.
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-2

2.1 BACKGROUND AND PLANNING

2.1.1 CALIFORNIA PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM 20-YEAR 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN

In March 2001, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) completed 

the California Passenger Rail System 20-Year Improvement Plan (Amtrak 20-Year 

Plan). The Amtrak 20-Year Plan identifies and prioritizes rail improvements within 

the statewide rail network intended to achieve the greatest return on investment in 

terms of improving capacity and reliability. The Amtrak 20-year plan lists specific 

improvements for each intercity rail corridor in California (i.e., Capitol Corridor, 

Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Coast Corridor). The Amtrak 20-Year Plan serves 

as a statewide rail blueprint that assists in guiding future planning and investment 

decisions in the near- and long-term by outlining the 20-year vision of each corridor,

including service expansion, increased speeds, trip time, operational reliability, 

capacity, and ridership.1 

Amtrak developed the improvements in close consultation with a Corridor-specific 

task force. The Corridor-specific task force provided recommendations that took a 

number of factors into account, including consideration of state-wide rail system 

objectives, benefits and trade-offs between economic and environmental factors, 

and key sensitivities of the entities that manage/operate corridor services.

The Amtrak 20-Year Plan identifies a number of potential improvement 

opportunities in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the Coast Corridor. 

Although the Amtrak 20 Year-Plan was finalized in 2001, Caltrans considers the 

recommended improvement opportunities for the Coast Corridor to be valid 

because activity levels on this portion of the Coast Corridor have generally remained 

stable since 2001. 

The May 2013 Coast Corridor SDP lists a number of potential infrastructure 

improvements for the Coast Corridor, aggregated from the Amtrak 20-Year Plan and 

from UPRR’s recommendations, and is discussed in greater detail below.

 

1

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 2001, pp. 1-4
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-3

2.1.2 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

The UPRR owns the railroad infrastructure and operates most freight rail services 

along the Coast Corridor.2 These services include long-haul and local freight trains. 

Long-haul freight trains are those that travel across the entire Corridor or a 

significant portion of it. Local freight trains operate over short segments of the 

corridor, usually less than 50 miles. 

In a 2011 presentation to Caltrans and SLOCOG (included as Appendix B), UPRR

identified several additional physical improvements it deemed necessary in order to 

accommodate the proposed Coast Daylight service, in addition to the proposed 

improvements identified in the Amtrak 20-Year Plan. UPRR has identified 

improvements for the entirety of the Coast Corridor, but this Program EIS/EIR 

addresses only those physical improvements that would be located between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo were considered for inclusion in the Program EIS/EIR. 

2.1.3 COAST CORRIDOR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The May 2013 Coast Corridor SDP is an element of the California State Rail Plan 

(CSRP), which sets priorities and implementation strategies for improved intercity 

passenger rail service in the Coast Corridor. The SDP was originally published May 

2013.3The SDP is included as Appendix C. The SDP proposes improved and 

expanded rail services and rail infrastructure investments needed to support

accommodate projected growth and future capacity constraints to mainline 

operations. Accordingly, the SDP considers rail capacity capital improvements, 

operational and maintenance costs, and ridership revenue. 

Caltrans DOR prepared the SDP in coordination with key stakeholders including FRA, 

Amtrak, CHSRA, UPRR, SLOCOG, and TAMC.

 

2

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 1-1

3

Caltrans plans to update the SDP to be consistent with the Preferred Alternative identified in this 

Final Program EIS/EIR subsequent to publication of this document. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-4

2.2 ALTERNATIVES 

The slate of physical and service components improvements comprising the Build

and Preferred Alternatives (hereinafter referred to as the action alternatives) was 

developed from previous planning efforts, most notably the Amtrak 20-Year Plan 

and the SDP. In addition to the components improvements identified in these 

documents, the action alternatives Build Alternative include additional components 

improvements recommended by UPRR.

Thus, the action alternatives consist Build Alternative consists of a comprehensive 

list of desired near, medium, and long-term improvements to rail service along the 

Coast Corridor in order to understand the potential environmental effects of the 

entire program of components improvements that have been contemplated in the 

Coast Corridor from more than 15 years of planning efforts. At this time, there is 

disagreement as to the extent of physical components improvements needed in 

order to accommodate increased passenger service (the reinstitution of the Coast 

Daylight) without unduly affecting freight rail services. Because this document is a 

program-level evaluation, the Build Alternative includes all action alternatives were 

intended to be generally exhaustive in incorporating the potential physical 

components improvements that were considered earlier in the previous planning 

documents and studies. SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR assume that further 

discussion, separate from this environmental document and the NEPA/CEQA 

processes in general, will be required with the railroad owner, UPRR, to ultimately 

determine which, if any, components improvements that make up the Build 

Alternative must be in place before passenger service is expanded. 

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER ANALYSIS

The list of proposed physical components improvements comprising the Build 

Alternative action alternatives originated from several previous planning efforts, 

discussed above in Section 2.1. These earlier efforts, including the Amtrak 20-Year 

Plan and the SDP, took into account factors of overall feasibility and constructability, 

but were intended to yield a comprehensive list of near, medium, and long-term 

improvements to rail service along the Coast Corridor. These earlier studies 

excluded alternative modes of transportation along the Coast Corridor, such as 

express buses or increased air travel. Such alternative modes would be inconsistent 

with the purpose and need for the proposed action (improving intercity rail through 

the Salinas to San Luis Obispo area, ultimately providing improved passenger rail 

service between San Francisco and Los Angeles) and are accordingly not given 

further consideration in this document. These earlier planning efforts also 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives 

2-5 

suggested maintaining conventional rail systems and discounted major changes in 

locomotive technology, such as electrification or conversion of the Coast Corridor to 

a high-speed rail corridor. Earlier efforts also screened out the potential inclusion of 

additional passenger rail stations beyond those proposed for Soledad and King City. 

Soledad and King City are the two largest cities in population along the corridor not 

currently served by passenger rail. The SDP summarized that adequate population 

levels, complementary surrounding land uses, and links to other transportation 

modes are all necessary features for any proposed station to function properly. 

Communities along the corridor not meeting these criteria would not be considered 

for new passenger stations. Other communities along the corridor were assumed to 

have insufficient population to support a passenger station or were in relatively 

close proximity to existing or proposed rail stations. For instance, Atascadero has a 

population close to that of Paso Robles (about 29,000 people as of 2013). However, 

Atascadero is roughly equidistant (about 15 miles) from existing stations in Paso 

Robles and San Luis Obispo. 

Many of the proposed components improvements are conceptual in nature. For 

instance, no design or engineering data is available for the proposed curve 

realignments and second mainline elements of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives other than the limits of these components improvements based on 

mileposts. Exact locations on the ground for these and similar Build Alternative 

action alternatives’ components improvements have not been determined at this 

time. However, in order to evaluate the general environmental effects of these 

elements of the action alternatives, certain assumptions regarding the potential 

physical footprint of various proposed components improvements was necessary. 

For example, assumptions made for the purposes of this environmental document 

included that no new curve realignment, siding extension, or new siding would 

result in a new crossing of the Salinas River or US 101. 

2.2.2 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The No Build Alternative offers a basis for comparison with the Build Alternative 

action alternatives and is included per CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. 

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing passenger and 

freight rail operations upon the existing physical components of the railroad system. 

Existing passenger operations consist of one daily roundtrip of the Coast Starlight 

passenger train through the Salinas to San Luis Obispo area. Existing freight 

operations consist of two daily long-haul trains (80 cars or more) traveling all or the 

vast majority of the distance between Salinas and San Luis Obispo to points beyond. 

Local trains are assumed to travel 50 miles or less of the distance between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo with origins or destinations within the corridor. The SDP 

estimates that an average of two long-haul freight trains traverse the corridor daily 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR 

2-6 

(year 2012) and estimates this number to increase to four daily trains by 2020. The 

SDP does not estimate the number of local trains. 

For the purposes of this Program EIS/EIR whose purpose and need is limited to 

potential physical rail system improvements and expansion of passenger rail service, 

the No Build Alternative would include known (funded) rail improvement projects 

set to take place between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

Only two such rail improvements projects are slated for the Salinas to San Luis 

Obispo corridor. TAMC is proposing a series of rail capital improvements, including 

station, platform, rail yard, and parking improvements between San José and Salinas 

so that commuter rail service can be extended to Salinas. TAMC has also designated 

funding for the operating costs of this commuter rail extension. 

The No Build Alternative also assumes the future installation of a PTC along the 

Coast Corridor in compliance with requirements of the Rail Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008. According to FRA, PTC systems are integrated command, control, 

communications, and information systems that allow for control of train movement 

in order to improve safety, security, precision, and efficiency.4

 PTC sends up-to-date 

visual and audible information to train crew members about areas where the train 

needs to be slowed or stopped. This information includes the status of approaching 

signals, the position of approaching switches, speed limits at approaching curves 

and other reduced-speed locations, speed restrictions at approaching crossings and 

speed restrictions at areas where work is being performed on or near the tracks. 

PTC communicates with the train’s onboard computer, allowing it to audibly warn 

the engineer and display the train’s safe braking distance based on the train’s speed, 

length, width, weight, and the grade and curvature of the track. If the engineer 

does not respond to the ample audible warning and screen display, the onboard 

computer will activate the brakes and safely stop the train.5

 

PTC systems vary widely in complexity and sophistication based on the level of 

automation and functionality being implemented. Most components of a PTC 

system are internal to a train, including communications equipment and 

connections to a train’s braking system. Some PTC systems, however, also include 

external elements, such as antennas and modifications to signaling equipment. 

Since PTC is a requirement for existing operations, this document assumes funding 

of PTC would be borne by the owner of the railroad, with potential cost-sharing by 

Amtrak. 

 

4

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0152, accessed August 8, 2014. 

5

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/agency/page/title/ptc, accessed August 8, 2014. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-7

2.2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative consists of a program of potential physical components

improvements, signal upgrades, equipment purchases, and operational changes 

intended to meet the identified purpose and need. 

Trains cannot operate at maximum allowable speeds in mixed-use settings 

(passenger and freight) if the underlying infrastructure is substandard. UPRR has 

made and continues to make infrastructure upgrades consistent with FRA standards. 

However, the existing Coast Corridor is characterized by single-track operations, 

short sidings (or no sidings), manually-thrown switches, and an inefficient 

(automatic block system or ABS) signaling system, each of which individually and all 

of which collectively result in lower travel speeds and substandard operating 

conditions.

Various components of the Build Alternative are intended to remedy these 

conditions and otherwise better enable both existing and proposed future 

passenger and freight rail services to utilize the corridor. 

Table 2-2 identifies the several corridor-wide proposed components improvements. 

Table 2-3 lists specific components improvements by location. Both corridor-wide 

and specific area components improvements are described below. 

 Corridor-wide Track Upgrades: Track improvements intended to improve 

performance are proposed along the entire rail alignment between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo. Proposed corridor-wide track upgrades include replacement of 

existing rail with continuous welded rail (CWR), track structure realignment, 

track resurfacing, tie replacement, replacing or upgrading ballasting, 

rehabilitation of existing sidings, and replacement of existing turnouts. CWR 

reduces the number of joints and thus enables trains to move more quickly and 

with less friction and noise. 

Figure 2-2 illustrates a typical rail section. Rail ties lay perpendicular to the 

railroad tracks to keep tracks upright and in place. The rail ties sit on top of 

ballast, composed of coarse gravel or rock to provide stability to the railway and 

balance the weight load of the train. Most rail ties currently used in North 

America are made of timber materials that degrade over time and decrease the 

maximum potential speed of trains. Proposed rail tie improvements would 

replace warped timber rail ties with continuously welded metal rail ties. 

Subgrade stabilization and ballasting is also proposed along the corridor to

improve strength and integrity. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-8

Both track upgrades and curve realignments (further described below) have the 

potential to increase maximum allowable train speeds. Table 2-4, at the end of 

this section, identifies existing maximum and potential future maximum speeds 

along existing sections of the rail alignment and in proposed curve realignment 

areas. (No other physical components improvements within the Build 

Alternative have the potential to result in an increase in maximum speed).

 Signal System Upgrades: Rail signal systems communicate vital safety 

information to train conductors. Conductors rely on clear signals regarding 

maximum allowable speeds, when to slow down or stop, track obstructions, and 

the like. The existing signal scheme is a mix of older and newer systems. 

The remainder of the corridor is under an ABS that uses train warrant control 

(TWC). This requires a dispatcher to communicate directly with each train crew 

before the train can obtain authority to proceed through “blocks.” At the end of 

each block, the train must wait for permission to go forward once again.

CTC is also managed centrally, but uses remotely controlled signals and 

switches. CTC reduces the amount of time trains must spend waiting for 

dispatching instructions. Caltrans estimates that about 40 percent of all delays 

experienced in the Coast Corridor are to the result of signaling issues.

6

 

The Build Alternative proposes that CTC be introduced in two locations: 1) from 

Salinas to Soledad, via the extension of an existing CTC system to the north and 

2) an “island” CTC over 27 miles of the railroad between San Lucas and Bradley 

(both unincorporated communities in southern Monterey County). 

Equipment associated with train control systems is largely on-board trains and 

at dispatching stations. Related physical equipment that would have a footprint 

on the ground include signals that would be placed at yet undefined control 

points along the railroad. These signals can be mounted on poles approximately 

10 to 12 feet in height or on overhead structures. Figure 2-3 shows some 

typical signaling equipment associated with CTC. 

CTC also requires direct wired connections to train switches. Such connections 

are usually underground and trenched. (The Build Alternative includes a 

number of new powered switches; see below for details). 

 

6

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 9-7
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-9

 New powered switches: Powered switches are mechanical devices within a 

railroad track that guide trains from one track to another - such as a siding, or a 

second mainline. Switching mechanisms include sensors placed on rails/ties and 

control boxes placed immediately alongside the railroad within the railroad 

ROW. Powered switches are generally considered an upgrade over manually 

thrown switches insofar as they facilitate the speed of transition from one track 

to another. Figure 2-4 shows a photo of a typical powered switch. 

 Siding extensions/new siding: A siding is a short section of track adjacent to a 

main track used for passing and dwelling purposes in single track systems. At 

present, the sidings in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the corridor are 

generally one mile in length or shorter. Freight trains often exceed one mile in 

length and, thus, sometimes cannot be accommodated in the existing sidings. 

The proposed siding extensions are generally located within the railroad ROW 

and would lengthen existing sidings so that each would be at least 10,000 feet in 

length. Figure 2-5 shows a diagram of a typical siding extension. 

While the SDP identifies the sidings to be extended, no entity (neither SLOCOG, 

Caltrans, or UPRR) has to date prepared any precise layout plans. Given the 

general north-to-south orientation of the existing railroad alignment and the 

parallel sidings, sidings could potentially be extended on either their northern or 

southern ends. Therefore, for the purposes of this environmental review, 

extensions to existing sidings are contemplated on both their northern and 

southern ends. The extension lengths are such that either the northern or 

southern extension area would provide sufficient space to increase the siding to 

the requisite 10,000 feet in length. (To this end, impacts on siding 

length/acreage reported in this document are likely overstated). 

In addition to several siding extensions, the Build Alternative includes entirely 

new sidings at Chalone Creek near Soledad (MP 147 to MP 149), San Lucas (MP 

167.2 to MP 190.4), and Wellsona (MP 205 to MP 207.6).

 New second mainline: A second main track is contemplated from South Santa 

Margarita toward the Cuesta Grade (MP 233 to MP 235), terminating just north 

of the first tunnel between Cuesta Grade and San Luis Obispo. At present, train 

speeds through this portion are some of the slowest for the entire alignment -

ranging between 25 and 35 mph. Slow speeds here are owing to considered to 

be related to track curvature and deficient train control systems. A second 

mainline here would significantly expand mobility. For the purposes of this 

environmental review, it is assumed that the second mainline would consist of a 

standard track running within a new 60 foot ROW immediately adjacent to the 

existing rail alignment. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-10

 Curve or other track realignments: The existing Coast Corridor alignment 

includes some sharp curves that require trains to slow down to reduce the risk 

of derailment. The Build Alternative contemplates several curve realignments 

intended to reduce track curvature. If constructed, curve realignments would

allow for increased speeds, enhance safety, and reduce trip times. Such 

realignments typically result in less wear and tear to tracks, reducing the 

frequency of repair or maintenance. 

Most of the curve realignments were initially identified as part of the Amtrak 

20-Year Plan. These descriptions identified milepost-to-milepost starts and 

stops of curve realignment areas and further contemplated the potential for 

each curve realignment to reduce track curvature. For the purposes of this 

programmatic evaluation, highly generalized and spatially generous curve 

realignment areas have been identified to enable a better understanding of the 

type and magnitude of any environmental effects that may result from their

construction. This provides a conservative basis for this environmental analysis. 

Curve realignments would in effect relocate the entire railroad ROW some 

distance from the existing ROW. The average width of the railroad ROW is 

about 60 feet. For the purposes of this evaluation, a curve realignment area 

width of 100 feet has been assumed along with surrounding buffer areas of 200 

feet on each side. Given the relative narrowness of the existing ROW, every 

curve realignment would require the acquisition of land not currently in the 

railroad ROW or in transportation use. In many cases, a single named curve 

realignment would consist of multiple, discontinuous sections of realigned track,

but are collectively considered part of the same curve realignment. 

It might also be possible to convert currently existing tracks into sidings or to 

formally abandon existing tracks. This analysis takes a conservative approach 

and assumes new curve realignments requiring new infrastructure and 

potentially, new ROW. Figure 2-6 shows a diagram of a typical curve 

realignment.

 New passenger stations: There are currently three passenger train stations 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo: 1) Salinas, 2) Paso Robles, and 3) San Luis 

Obispo. The Salinas Redevelopment Agency acquired the Salinas Station in 

1998, the City of Paso Robles owns the Paso Robles Station, and UPRR owns the 

San Luis Obispo Station. However, Amtrak is the sole passenger rail user at all of 

these stations. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-11

The Build Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in Soledad and 

King City. The existing Coast Corridor alignment passes through the downtowns 

of each city. Currently, Coast Starlight passenger trains travel through the 

downtown areas of each city but do not stop. The proposed Coast Daylight train 

service may include stops in one or both of these cities. 

As detailed below, in anticipation of the possible future Coast Daylight service,

both Soledad and King City have set forth conceptual station area plans as 

elements of larger plans for the revitalization of their downtown areas. 

In the event one or both stations are selected for construction, it is anticipated 

that each city would be responsible for land acquisition and station planning. 

 Soledad Station: The City of Soledad’s proposed Downtown Specific 

Plan includes a conceptual diagram for a station area along Front and 

Main Streets. The station area comprises approximately 1.9 acres of the 

full 200-acre Specific Plan area. The station would consist of a 

passenger boarding platform, ticket depot, bus pull outs, and pedestrian 

and bike connections. The station is distinct and independent from the 

proposed development of Soledad’s so-called “Railroad Parcels,” a 12-

acre area on the west or opposite side of the tracks from the majority of 

the city. The Downtown Specific Plan contemplates the possible future

buildout of these parcels, as well as one or more new crossings of the 

railroad to improve access. However, construction and operation of a 

Soledad passenger rail station is not contingent on the development of 

or construction on the “Railroad Parcels.”

 King City Station: The City of King has developed a conceptual plan for 

a new passenger station near the intersection of First Street and 

Broadway in downtown King City. The city included a conceptual plan 

for a multi-modal transportation center in two recent plans: the First 

Street Corridor Master Plan and the Historic Corridor Revitalization Plan. 

The city’s conceptual plans call for a 1,200-foot train platform alongside 

the existing tracks, a station building for ticket sales and restrooms, onstreet bus pullout areas, and an off-street parking lot. 

In the longer term, the City of King may implement a third plan, the 

“Downtown Addition Plan” which would extend Broadway from its 

current terminus at First Street across both the street and the railroad 

tracks, effectively creating a new at-grade crossing area. This extension 

would require the demolition of an existing warehouse building. 

However, the development of a King City station and the 

implementation of the Downtown Addition Plan are separate projects 

with independent utility. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-12

 Grade Crossing and Mobility Improvements: Table 2-1 identifies all existing atgrade railroad crossings of public, paved roads between Salinas and San Luis 

Obispo. In addition to these crossings of public, paved roads, the 130-mile 

stretch of the existing railroad crosses scores of mainly private dirt 

roads/driveways. Safety provisions at existing crossings of public, paved roads 

range from passive warning devices (static wood/metal signage) to more active 

warning devices (e.g., flashing lights and gates).

Table 2-1 Existing At-Grade Crossings of Public, Paved Roads between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo Stations

Monterey County San Luis Obispo County

John Street, Salinas 14th Street, San Miguel

Harkins Road, Salinas 11th Street, San Miguel

Somavia Road, between Salinas and Chualar Wellsona Road, Paso Robles

Main Street, Chualar 21st Street, Paso Robles

Foletta Road, Gonzales 16th Street, Paso Robles

Katherine Street, Gonzales 13th Street, Paso Robles

Gonzales River Road, Gonzales 12th Street, Paso Robles

Lanini Road, Gonzales 10th Street, Paso Robles

Elm Avenue/G16, Greenfield Marquita Avenue, Templeton

Spreckels Road, north of King City Phillips Road, Templeton

East San Antonio Drive, King City Chico Road, Atascadero

Lyons Street Bitterwater Road, King City Curbaril Avenue, Atascadero

East Pearl Street, King City Halcon Road, Atascadero

Lonoak Road, King City Santa Clara Road, Atascadero

Wildhorse Road, south of King City Asuncion Road, Atascadero

Hare Canyon Road, south of Bradley State Route 58/Estrada Avenue, Santa Margarita

Encina Avenue, Santa Margarita

Wilhelmina Avenue, Santa Margarita

Foothill Boulevard, San Luis Obispo

Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo

Source: Circlepoint 2015
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-13

The MP 172 curve realignments has the potential to create a single new atgrade crossing of an existing public, paved road at Cattlemen Road, about 10 

miles south of King City. 

The Build Alternative would install as-yet undefined signal, signage, and other 

similar improvements at as-yet unspecified existing at-grade crossings

(potentially public and private). 

 Coast Daylight Service and new rolling stock: The SDP contemplates the 

reinstitution of Coast Daylight passenger rail service, which was discontinued in 

1971. The SDP proposes initial service of 1 daily southbound and 1 daily 

northbound train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, requiring 2 full 

trainsets for 2020 service and 2 additional trainsets for 2040 service. 

Preliminary proposed schedules indicate trains leaving San Francisco and Los 

Angeles in the early morning (approximately 7 a.m.), and arriving at their 

respective destinations between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Future expanded service 

would see the addition of 1 additional daily southbound and northbound 

departure. This expanded service would be overnight, leaving San Francisco or 

Los Angeles in the early evening and arriving at the respective destination early 

the following morning. 

Coast Daylight trains would stop at existing Amtrak stations in the Coast 

Corridor and potentially also at proposed new stations identified in the SDP

(Soledad and King City). The proposed Coast Daylight service would require the 

acquisition of locomotives and passenger railcars. 

The Build Alternative components improvements are analyzed at the existing level 

of conceptual design appropriate for a program-level review. Detailed designs for 

curve realignments, new sidings/siding extensions, or a proposed segment of a 

second mainline have not yet been developed. The SDP identified milepost areas in 

which such components improvements would occur but no further specific area of 

disturbance. 

In order to meaningfully analyze such features in this Program EIS/EIR, analysts 

identified appropriate buffer areas for review where such components 

improvements would be developed within the noted mileposts. In doing so, this 

analysis avoided creating any new curve realignments or siding extensions that 

would have either resulted in the need for a new crossing of the Salinas River or 

substantial excavation or tunneling. Creating new river crossings or new tunnels 

would represent infeasible development costs and additional environmental 

impacts. Therefore, the areas identified for curve realignments and sidings 

discussed in this analysis omit any river crossing/tunneling/major excavation 

scenarios given likely constraints related to technical feasibility, environmental 

impact, and cost.
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-14

Table 2-2 Summary of Build Alternative Proposed Components Improvements

– Corridor-Wide

Location Component Improvement Type

Corridor-Wide

Extend Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) from Salinas to Soledad; install island CTC 

from San Lucas to Bradley

Corridor-Wide Grade crossing safety and mobility enhancements

Corridor-Wide

Tie replacement, installation of continuous welded rail (CWR), ballasting, track 

surfacing, track structure realignment, rehab existing Salinas and Soledad sidings; 

replace turnouts.

Corridor-Wide Rolling stock purchases 

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b

Table 2-3 Summary of Build Alternative Proposed Components Improvements

– Site Specific

Mile Post (MP) Location

Component 

Improvement Type

Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Component 

Improvement 1

Monterey County

114.9 Existing Salinas siding New powered switch NA

121 - 123.4 Spence New siding 1.89 miles; 19.3 acres

130

Existing Gonzales

siding New powered switch

NA

140 Existing Soledad siding New powered switch NA

140 Soledad New station 1.9 acres

143.9 -151.3 Harlem to Metz Curve/track realignment 3.43 miles; 41.6 acres

147 – 149 Chalone Creek New siding 1.89 miles 14.9 acres

154.3 - 154.7 Coburn Curve/track realignment 2.27 miles; 27.5 acres

160

Existing King City

siding Siding extension

2.41 miles; 25.1 acres

160.3 King City New station 3.4 acres

160.3

Existing King City

siding New powered switch

NA

165 South of King City Curve/track realignment 1.06 miles; 12.8 acres
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-15

Mile Post (MP) Location

Component 

Improvement Type

Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Component 

Improvement 1

167.2 -190.74 San Lucas New siding 1.89 miles; 22.9 acres

172 South of San Lucas Curve/track realignment 2.07 miles; 25.1 acres

177 -179

Existing San Ardo

siding New powered switch

NA

181.5 – 191 Getty to Bradley Curve/track realignment 1.50 miles; 18.2 acres

190 -192 Existing Bradley siding Siding extension 2.68 miles; 50.2 acres

190 -192 Bradley New powered switch NA

San Luis Obispo County

200 – 207 McKay to Wellsona Curve/track realignment 2.06 miles; 24.9 acres

200 -203 Existing McKay Siding New powered switch NA

205 - 207.6 Wellsona New siding 1.89 miles; 22.8 acres

208.3 - 216.7

Wellsona to Paso 

Robles Curve/track realignment

0.43 miles; 5.2 acres

217 - 218.59 Templeton Siding extensions 2.78 miles; 46.8 acres

218-223 Templeton to Henry Curve/track realignment 0.47 miles; 5.7 acres

229-232

Henry to Santa 

Margarita Curve/track realignment

2.19 miles; 26.5 acres

226 - 228

Existing Santa 

Margarita siding New powered switch

NA

233 - 235.62 Cuesta New second mainline 1.89 miles; 25.8 acres

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b

1

Reported acreages and lengths of proposed siding extensions take a conservative approach and likely overstate 

actual values. As described in Subsection 2.2.2 above, no specific siding extension plans have been developed to 

date. All existing sidings could potentially be extended to 10,000 feet by adding track at either their north or south 

ends. For a more conservative basis of analysis, siding extensions areas developed for this EIS/EIR contemplate 

extensions on both north and south ends. For example, an existing 5,000 foot long siding could be extended to 

10,000 feet with a 5,000 foot addition on either end. The siding extensions examined here include both 

extensions. Therefore, generally speaking, likely siding extension lengths and acreages could be computed by 

dividing in half the numbers reported in the table above.
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-16

Table 2-4 Potential Maximum Speed Increases for Build Alternative 

Components

Build Alternative Components Current Maximum Speed 

Range (mph)

Future Maximum Speed 

Range (mph)

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #1 60-70 90

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #2 35-40 and 60-70 60 and 90

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #3 35-40 and 60-70 60 and 60-70 (no change to 

latter zone)

Coburn Curve Realignments 35-40 60

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #4 60-70 90

MP 165 Curve Realignment 60-70 90

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #5 40-55 and 60-70 70 and 90

MP 172 Track Realignment 60-70 90

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #6 40-55 70

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #7 40-55 70

McKay/ Wellsona Curve Realignments 40-55 70

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #8 40-55 70

Wellsona/ Paso Robles Curve Realignments 40-55 70

Templeton/ Henry Curve Realignments 40-55 70

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #9 35 and 40-55 70

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignments 35 and 40-55 No Change

Cuesta Second Main Track 20-30 No Change

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section 

#10

20-30 No Change

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-17

Phasing Potential

The SDP provides rough cost estimates for all of the proposed physical 

improvements. The full list of improvements and equipment purchases are 

estimated to cost several hundred millions of dollars to design and implement. 

The SDP notes that the project partners have approximately $26 million available 

from State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) programming and funds 

received through Proposition 1B. Additionally, there is $25 million in Proposition 1B 

funding dedicated to the Coast Daylight, totaling $51 million in funding. As full 

funding for all improvements is not available at present, the most likely scenario is 

that proposed improvements would be constructed in phases. Exact phasing is 

contingent on what improvements are prioritized for further design and 

development, funding availability, and as warranted, any further environmental 

review. 

2.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Based upon the analysis in this Program EIS/EIR and public comments on the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR, FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR have identified the Build 

Alternative (with modifications) as the Preferred Alternative for potential future 

implementation on the Coast Corridor between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The 

Preferred Alternative would result in safety and transportation capacity components

that would not be accomplished under the No Build Alternative. In addition to 

better meeting the purpose and need, the Preferred Alternative would also provide 

environmental benefits in the form of improved travel conditions, including 

mobility, safety, reliability, travel times, and connectivity and accessibility; and 

reduced air pollutant emissions along the existing rail corridor. 

The Preferred Alternative modifies the Build Alternative as follows: 

 Modifications requested by the City of King to siding extension and station area

 Exclusion of four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County

 Inclusion of “island” CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita

This Final Program EIS/EIR includes analysis of the potential environmental effects of 

the action alternatives and the No Build Alternative. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-18

2.2.4.1 Modifications Requested by City of King

The City of King provided extensive written comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR, 

advising that the City had updated its draft plans for the City of King siding extension 

and passenger station. These updates were not known to FRA, SLOCOG, Caltrans, or 

TAMC until the City of King provided its comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

Siding Extension

Precise plans for new sidings or siding extensions were not available prior to 

publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Accordingly, the analysis in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR made reasonable assumptions regarding the extension of the

existing sidings. It was assumed that the sidings extensions would result in sidings 

of about 10,000 feet in length (generally, enough to accommodate a freight train)

and that this length could potentially be achieved by adding all additional track to 

either the northern or southern end of each siding. As a result, the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR examined a larger total area for the sidings than would have been necessary 

to achieve the desired 10,000 foot length. 

The existing City of King siding extends from MP 159.19 to MP 160.64 and is about 

1.45 miles in length (7,650 feet). The Draft Program EIS/EIR analyzed two siding 

extensions (between MP 158.5 and 159.19 to the north and MP 160.64 and 161.19 

to the south). Either the northern or southern extension would have been sufficient 

to provide a 10,000 foot long siding. 

Since publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR and as noted in the City’s comments, 

the City of King engaged a railroad engineer (RailPros) to consider modifications to 

rail facilities in the area. The RailPros study (prepared for and endorsed by the City 

of King in its comment letter) proposed that the siding extension be greater than 

10,000 feet in length and that the extension would most feasibly be achieved by 

extending the siding on the north side exclusively. The RailPros study considered 

extending the siding from MP 156.38 to 159.19, resulting in a siding 2.81 miles or 

about 14,800 feet in length. According to the Railpros study, the updated siding 

extension design is intended to allow passenger rail and freight rail trains to pass 

each other along the King City siding without limiting or disrupting the service 

operations for either party. The larger proposed siding length outside of the 

downtown area is anticipated to better accommodate freight rail size.

After review, FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR concur that the City’s 

proposed revision to the siding extension would avoid or reduce the intensity of 

several potential environmental effects of the previously identified siding extension 

discussed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The revised siding extension would avoid 

the need for a new creek crossing and would also avoid including any portion of the 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-19

siding extension within a 100-year flood plain. The revised siding would also be 

located outside of populated areas, so would have reduced potential for any 

community effects compared to the previously identified siding extension. Because 

the City’s proposed modification to the siding extension is reasonable and is likely to 

reduce the impacts of the project, FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR agree 

that it should be included and analyzed in the Final Program EIS/EIR. 

Passenger Station

The analysis in the Draft Program EIS/EIR used conceptual plans from adopted City 

documents that proposed a station site near the intersection of First Street and 

Broadway. Operating details were assumed to include a station building, parking, 

and bus pullout areas. 

However, as noted in the City’s comments, the RailPros plan shows a slightly smaller

passenger station in generally the same part of downtown, with similar features, 

plus an area set aside for military personnel transfers. The RailPros plan also calls 

for the relocation of an existing at-grade crossing (at Pearl Street) to move about 

one block northwest to Broadway Street.

7

 Such plans reflect the most detailed 

layout and design of the station and are included in this Program EIS/EIR as the best 

available data. 

2.2.4.2 Exclusion of Curve Realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County

During the public hearing on the Coast Corridor Draft Program EIS/EIR at SLOCOG’s 

board meeting on January 7, 2015, many of the comments from members of the 

public focused on several of curve realignments proposed for various locations in 

San Luis Obispo County. Commenters stated that the curve realignments had the 

potential to result in property acquisitions, split of parcels, and have other adverse 

environmental and socioeconomic effects. 

In response to the public comments, the SLOCOG Board adopted a motion 

requesting SLOCOG staff drop from further consideration the following curve 

realignments in San Luis Obispo County:

1. McKay/Wellsona

2. Wellsona/Paso Robles 

3. Templeton/Henry 

4. Henry/Santa Margarita 

 

7

Such a relocation would be subject to an approval by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-20

Excluding these curve realignments would not substantially compromise future ontime performance of passenger and freight trains and would reduce the potential 

impacts identified by the public. As documented in the SDP, an acceptably high rate 

of on-time performance in near and long-term horizon years was shown to be 

achievable with the inclusion of island CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita --

which corresponds roughly to the same area in which the excluded curve 

realignments were contemplated. 

Excluding the curve realignments would also eliminate or substantially reduce 

several potential adverse environmental effects, including: 

 Land Use: Without these curve realignments, the Preferred Alternative would 

require fewer property acquisitions than the Build Alternative. 

 Agricultural Lands: Without the curve realignments, the Preferred Alternative 

would require substantially less conversion of agricultural lands than the Build 

Alternative. 

 Air Quality: By foregoing the construction of these curve realignments, 

construction-related emissions (fugitive dust, diesel equipment) would be lower 

in the Preferred Alternative than in the Build Alternative. 

 Noise and Vibration: By foregoing the construction of these curve 

realignments, the Preferred Alternative would generally retain the existing 

railroad alignment through San Luis Obispo County. In the Build Alternative, the 

curve realignments would have altered the railroad alignment relative to the 

location of sensitive receptors. 

2.2.4.3 Inclusion of “Island” CTC between McKay and Santa 

Margarita 

In the Draft Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative components were carried forward 

from the SDP. As noted above, the Build Alternative specified the extension of CTC 

from Salinas to Soledad, as well as installation of an “island” of CTC from San Lucas 

to Bradley in southern Monterey County. Analysis in the SDP contemplated an 

additional “island” of CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita (between MP 202.3 

and MP 229.6). The SDP noted that this 27-mile section of the corridor currently 

uses TWC, a non-automated signaling system. The four sidings in this section of the 

corridor using TWC were presumed to contribute substantially to delays that impair 

overall on time performance of both passenger and freight trains. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives

2-21

However, this particular island CTC was not explicitly referenced in the SDP’s list of 

Build Alternative components. Notwithstanding, SLOCOG and Caltrans DOR have 

clarified that it was each agency’s intent that this island CTC area be included in the 

Build Alternative. Since the Draft Program EIS/EIR did not specifically include this 

improvement, this Final Program EIS/EIR incorporates the island CTC as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. 
2-1

Figure Project Location Map

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

Monterey County

San Benito County

Monterey C

Obispo C Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas River

(!

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

§ ̈¦5

£[101

£[101

UV1

UV58

UV146

UV46

UV146

UV1

UV198

UV68

UV46

UV25

Legend

#I

#I

#I

#I

± 0 5 10

Miles

Coast Corridor Improvements 

>ŽĐĂƟŽŶDĂƉ

Salinas River

Existing Station

Existing Rail Line

Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

San Luis Obispo

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

San Luis Obispo
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

2-2

Figure Typical Section of Rail

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Subsoil or Natural Ground

Subgrade

Blanket (optional)

Ballast & sub-ballast

Ties

Rails

Ballast

Shoulder

Track

(Structure)
2-3

Figure Typical Signal Tower

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

2-4

Figure Typical Powered Switch

Source: Circlepoint, 2013
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

2-5

Figure Siding Extension Diagram

Source: Coast Corridor Service Development Plan, May 2013
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

2-6

Figure Curve Realignment Diagram

Source: Coast Corridor Service Development Plan, May 2013

Acquire Additional ROW to 

reduce Track Curvature

FRA Class 5

(90 MPH)

IMPROVED

ALIGNMENT

EXISTING

ALIGNMENT
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Final Program EIS/EIR

2-28

Page Intentionally Left Blank