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 Build Alternative includes a list of 

potential physical 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 two round trip Coast Daylight 

trains per day (four 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 improvements. 

The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), the Transportation Agency 

for Monterey County (TAMC), the California Department of Transportation Division 

of Rail and Mass Transportation (Caltrans DOR), and the Coast Rail Coordinating 

Council (CRCC), along with the Federal Railroad Administration (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. 

 Section 2.3 includes a description of the alternatives that were carried forward 

and included in this Program EIS/EIR analysis. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Draft 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 

in terms of 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 in terms of 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 to 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 still be valid 

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

stable since 2001. 

The May 2013 Coast Corridor Service Development Plan (SDP) lists a number of 

potential infrastructure improvements for the Coast Corridor, aggregated from the 

Amtrak 20-Year Plan and from the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR) 

recommendations, and is discussed in greater detail below. 

 

1

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

Draft 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. 

2.1.3 COAST CORRIDOR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

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

(CSRP) that sets priorities and implementation strategies for improved intercity 

passenger rail service in the Coast Corridor. The SDP is included as Appendix C. The 

SDP proposes improved and expanded rail services and rail infrastructure 

investments needed to support projected growth and future capacity constraints to 

mainline operations. Accordingly, the SDP considers rail capacity capital 

improvements, operational and maintenance costs, and ridership revenue. 

The Caltrans Division of Rail prepared the SDP in coordination with key stakeholders 

including the FRA, Amtrak, California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), UPRR,

SLOCOG, and TAMC. 

 

2

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

2.0 Alternatives Draft Program EIS/EIR 

2-4 

2.2 ALTERNATIVES 

The slate of physical and service improvements comprising the Build Alternative was 

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

and the SDP for the Coast Corridor. In addition to the improvements identified in 

these documents, the Build Alternative also includes additional improvements 

recommended by the UPRR. 

Thus the 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 

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 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 potential physical improvements that have been considered in the 

previous planning documents and studies. SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR 

assume that further discussion, separate from this environmental document, will be 

required with the railroad owner, UPRR, to ultimately determine which if any 

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 improvements comprising the Build Alternative 

originated from several previous planning efforts, discussed above in Subsection 

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 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. 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives 

2-5 

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. 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 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 other than the limits of these 

improvements based on mileposts. Exact locations on the ground for these and 

similar Build Alternative improvements have not been determined at this time. 

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

of the Build Alternative, certain assumptions regarding the potential physical 

footprint of various proposed 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 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 

(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, 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Draft Program EIS/EIR 

2-6 

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 Jose 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 positive train 

control system (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.3

 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.4

 

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. 

 

3

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

4

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

Draft Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives 

2-7 

2.2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The Build Alternative is comprised of a program of potential physical 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. The 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 improvements. Table 2-3

lists specific improvements by location. Both corridor-wide and specific area 

improvements are further discussed 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 overtime 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 Draft 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 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 also 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 related to signaling issues.5

 

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 includes signals that would be placed at yet undefined control 

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

10-12 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). 

 

5

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

Draft 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 right 

of way. 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 the UPRR) has to date promulgated 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. 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 relative to siding length/acreage 

reported in this document are likely overstated). 

In addition to several siding extensions, the Build Alternative also 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 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 60 foot new right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing 

rail alignment. 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Draft 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 right of way 

some distance from the existing right of way. The average width of the railroad 

right of way 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 right of way, every curve realignment considered here would require 

the acquisition of land not currently in the railroad right-of-way or in 

transportation use. In many cases, a single named curve realignment will 

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 right-of-way. 

 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 the UPRR owns 

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

all of these stations. 

The Build Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in Soledad and 

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

Draft Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives 

2-11

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 related to 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 Draft 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, King City Phillips Road, Templeton

East San Antonio Drive, King City Chico Road, Atascadero

Lyons Street, 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 2013
Coast Corridor

Draft 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 

related 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 one daily southbound and one daily 

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

trainsets for 2020 service and two 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 one 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 Service 

Development Plan (Soledad and King City). The proposed Coast Daylight service 

would require the acquisition of locomotives and passenger railcars. 

The Build Alternative 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 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 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 Draft Program EIS/EIR 

2-14

Table 2-2 Summary of Build Alternative Proposed Improvements – 

Corridor-Wide 

Location 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 Improvements – Site 

Specific 

Mile Post (MP) Location

Improvement Type Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Improvement6

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

 

6

 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 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 2.0 Alternatives 

2-15

Mile Post (MP) Location

Improvement Type Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Improvement6

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

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 
Coast Corridor 

2.0 Alternatives Draft 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 

Draft 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 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. 
2-1

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 Draft Program EIS/EIR 

2-24

Page Intentionally Left Blank