The Race to save the Surfliner Route from the Pacific.

[PRR 60]

From the Wall Street Journal, 4/6/2024

The Pacific Surfliner train runs along some of the most spectacular coastline in America, traversing Southern California bluffs and beaches while ocean waves crash on the golden sand nearby. Soon, some fear it might fall into the ocean.

Rising sea levels and powerful storms are eating away at the ground holding up the tracks on the second most popular Amtrak rail corridor in the U.S. The route runs 351 miles from San Diego through Los Angeles to California’s Central Coast and is also used by freight and commuter trains. The erosion has caused landslides that shut down the Surfliner at least a dozen times in the past six years.

A (hopefully) free link to the article:

Wall Street Journal

 

[George Harris]

Slope protection is neither mystery science nor magic. Use it, posthaste. And while you are at it, make the railroad roadbed wide enough for two tracks and catenary. If my opinion was requested, I would say put the tracks on 22 to 24 feet centers so you could have one row of poles down the middle to hang wires over both tracks. And...by the way, while you are at it, raise the profile where it needs it. I would think a top of rail in the range of 10 to 15 feet above sea level should be about sufficient.

 

[GDRRiley]

Slope protection is neither mystery science nor magic. Use it, posthaste. And while you are at it, make the railroad roadbed wide enough for two tracks and catenary. If my opinion was requested, I would say put the tracks on 22 to 24 feet centers so you could have one row of poles down the middle to hang wires over both tracks. And...by the way, while you are at it, raise the profile where it needs it. I would think a top of rail in the range of 10 to 15 feet above sea level should be about sufficient.

That is not an option for a large amount of reasons.
The only option is move the line inland of San Clemente and Del mar. North of LA there are some spots where we will need similar bypasses to get off the coastal bluffs.

 

[George Harris]

That is not an option for a large amount of reasons.
The only option is move the line inland of San Clemente and Del mar. North of LA there are some spots where we will need similar bypasses to get off the coastal bluffs.

What are some of the reasons? What I have seen so far are mostly NIMBY'isms or somewhat dubious environmental issues. Think some variation of these same things won't happen for any of the relocation plans? If anything they will likely be stronger. There may be some areas where some shifts in alignment would be needed or desirable, particularly where these would improve curvature, but to say realignment or nothing is not realistic, and will most likely result in nothing.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

NIMBY and Money. That the two biggest issues. The other issue is rich people house and yards. Although if the government rebuilt the railway it would provide a barrier from the ocean and their house at some miles. Anyway it’s a very complicated situation mile by mile with multiple factors. I am just glad that I am not involved in the decision process.

 

[GDRRiley]

What are some of the reasons? What I have seen so far are mostly NIMBY'isms or somewhat dubious environmental issues. Think some variation of these same things won't happen for any of the relocation plans? If anything they will likely be stronger. There may be some areas where some shifts in alignment would be needed or desirable, particularly where these would improve curvature, but to say realignment or nothing is not realistic, and will most likely result in nothing.

California Coastal Commission won't allow it, they don't want hard barriers anywhere along the coast line
The route is extremely slow in both Del mar and San Clemente
getting the required 40ft width for 2 tracks with wires in between would mean removing large parts of the cliff side in San Clemente and the existing trail
In del mar there are sections where you'd need to shift the existing track further towards the ocean
NIMBYs and some cities want the rail line gone and you'd need to fight them to get approval to construct it even if you can use a CEQA exemption

 

[allanorn]

SANDAG has come back with 14 options - 11 are new:

https://timesofsandiego.com/politic...rerouting-trains-from-eroding-del-mar-bluffs/

The report from SANDAG is linked.

I didn't read through all of it as it's 279 pages - but they offer an I-5 alignment alternative ($30-45B if technically feasible). One interesting alternative they put in the document is a new line specifically for freight along the I-15 corridor to free up design constraints for a passenger-only solution for Del Mar. Unfortunately that would cost $80-115 billion and wouldn't solve the problem on its own.

 

[GDRRiley]

SANDAG had no reason to go back and redo this study as it delayed the del mar bypass for several years but at least its another nail in the coffin for anything other than Crest Canyon 110mph with just some minor tweaks to the routing.

 

[George Harris]

What are some of the reasons? What I have seen so far are mostly NIMBY'isms or somewhat dubious environmental issues. Think some variation of these same things won't happen for any of the relocation plans? If anything they will likely be stronger. There may be some areas where some shifts in alignment would be needed or desirable, particularly where these would improve curvature, but to say realignment or nothing is not realistic, and will most likely result in nothing.

OK, so I am quoting myself, but I stand by this. Also, as I said earlier, slope protection is neither mystery nor magic. If these people are letting everything fall into the ocean, it is no one's fault but their own.

SANDAG has come back with 14 options - 11 are new:

https://timesofsandiego.com/politic...rerouting-trains-from-eroding-del-mar-bluffs/

269 pages, 100mb. Did a quick skim, but do not see myself reading the whole thing unless the only alternative reading material is some Victorian era romance novel. It seems to blow right by the major issues with tunnels in that you do not build tunnels without buying the right to do so from all the surface landowners. This will be a major cost. Also, thanks to the need for ventilation, provision of emergency access and constrained work areas, maintenance of track and all else in tunnels is far more expensive than surface alignments. There were a few 90 mph curves shown in these tunnels that seemed irrational, in that it appeared they could be made to be for 110 mph or faster. By the way, jsut because the current anticipated speed limit is 110 mph, do not design so you are stuck with that maximum forever.

I do understand how these sorts of documents are put together. First and foremost is look pretty to impress the politicians who would not know a good engineering document if it introduced itself and handed out name cards. It is common and frequently required to do a "do nothing" analysis which means minimal work and upgrades within the existing alignment. This does not seem to be the case with this one. Then dream up a bunch of possibilities from the reasonable to the downright silly. Expound upon them at length. This was done here.

Do major slope protections, which will benefit everybody, increase radii on a couple of curves, raise the low areas to be above waves and potential sea level rise, double track everything with provision for ultimate electrification, deal with all other drainage and access issues, including providing undercrossings or overcrossings in a few places for beach access, and call it done.

 

[MARC Rider]

OK, so I am quoting myself, but I stand by this. Also, as I said earlier, slope protection is neither mystery nor magic. If these people are letting everything fall into the ocean, it is no one's fault but their own.

. . . .

Do major slope protections, which will benefit everybody, increase radii on a couple of curves, raise the low areas to be above waves and potential sea level rise, double track everything with provision for ultimate electrification, deal with all other drainage and access issues, including providing undercrossings or overcrossings in a few places for beach access, and call it done.

This from GDRReily:

"California Coastal Commission won't allow it, they don't want hard barriers anywhere along the coastline"

Apparently, the state is fine with stuff falling into the ocean, as that is nature's way of dealing with unstable bluffs, and if a rail line is going to exist in the future, it will need to be rerouted away from the ocean.

Maybe they could install a "Living Shoreline" to stabilize the coast and then do what you suggest, but that might cost as much rerouting the line and building a tunnel. How many miles of coastline does this involve?

 

[allanorn]

SANDAG had no reason to go back and redo this study as it delayed the del mar bypass for several years but at least its another nail in the coffin for anything other than Crest Canyon 110mph with just some minor tweaks to the routing.

Pretty much, except to appease the residents of Del Mar by throwing them a couple of outs in a very unworkable I-5 proposal and foregoing tunnels and double-tracking the current setup on the bluff in another.

 

[allanorn]

This from GDRReily:

"California Coastal Commission won't allow it, they don't want hard barriers anywhere along the coastline"

Apparently, the state is fine with stuff falling into the ocean, as that is nature's way of dealing with unstable bluffs, and if a rail line is going to exist in the future, it will need to be rerouted away from the ocean.

Maybe they could install a "Living Shoreline" to stabilize the coast and then do what you suggest, but that might cost as much rerouting the line and building a tunnel. How many miles of coastline does this involve?

This involves a handful of miles at most. Orange County has the far bigger problem of this line.

 

[allanorn]

269 pages, 100mb. Did a quick skim, but do not see myself reading the whole thing unless the only alternative reading material is some Victorian era romance novel. It seems to blow right by the major issues with tunnels in that you do not build tunnels without buying the right to do so from all the surface landowners. This will be a major cost. Also, thanks to the need for ventilation, provision of emergency access and constrained work areas, maintenance of track and all else in tunnels is far more expensive than surface alignments. There were a few 90 mph curves shown in these tunnels that seemed irrational, in that it appeared they could be made to be for 110 mph or faster. By the way, jsut because the current anticipated speed limit is 110 mph, do not design so you are stuck with that maximum forever.

SANDAG wants 110mph but they need to throw a bone for 90mph so that they can look reasonable, either on cost or some other impact. I don't know if the cost figures include easements and/or property acquisition but they've definitely been talking about it. They put in an I-5 alternative and a double-tracking of the current bluffs as alternatives but everyone knows a tunnel is required for future-proofing at a reasonable cost; Del Mar is on a bluff surrounded by the ocean and two marshes.

110mph is about the best you can do on this entire line without scrapping it and starting over. There are too many sharp turns on the line and lots of at-grade crossings in too many towns; the required protections for 125mph at-grade crossings are cost-prohibitive. Also not far down the line to San Diego is Rose Canyon (25mph limit) and on the north side is Solana Beach station (where all passenger trains stop). CAHSR Phase 2/3 is the future high-speed method of traveling between San Diego and Los Angeles, if it ever gets that far.

 

[George Harris]

SANDAG wants 110mph but they need to throw a bone for 90mph so that they can look reasonable, either on cost or some other impact. I don't know if the cost figures include easements and/or property acquisition but they've definitely been talking about it. They put in an I-5 alternative and a double-tracking of the current bluffs as alternatives but everyone knows a tunnel is required for future-proofing at a reasonable cost; Del Mar is on a bluff surrounded by the ocean and two marshes.

110mph is about the best you can do on this entire line without scrapping it and starting over. There are too many sharp turns on the line and lots of at-grade crossings in too many towns; the required protections for 125mph at-grade crossings are cost-prohibitive. Also not far down the line to San Diego is Rose Canyon (25mph limit) and on the north side is Solana Beach station (where all passenger trains stop). CAHSR Phase 2/3 is the future high-speed method of traveling between San Diego and Los Angeles, if it ever gets that far.

Sorrento Valley station vicinity to the south along I-5 for a few miles should be done to get rid of the low speed dogleg up that valley. For some of these multiple crossing urban areas the track should be moved about 25 feet straight up. Solid walls along the outsides to about or somewhat above car floor height will make the trains less noisy than being at grade.

 

[GDRRiley]

Sorrento Valley station vicinity to the south along I-5 for a few miles should be done to get rid of the low speed dogleg up that valley. For some of these multiple crossing urban areas the track should be moved about 25 feet straight up. Solid walls along the outsides to about or somewhat above car floor height will make the trains less noisy than being at grade.

The plan to address it is just a base tunnel 2-3 miles long. Elevated rail at this point is incredibly hard to get public acceptance for especially anywhere near the coast. If I remember right there is also protected species in the canyon so just putting a bunch of pillars in to elevate the whole way would run into issues.

 

[cirdan]

Apparently, the state is fine with stuff falling into the ocean, as that is nature's way of dealing with unstable bluffs, and if a rail line is going to exist in the future, it will need to be rerouted away from the ocean.

I understand why they desire to leave nature to do its thing and that naturally eroding coastlines are valuable ecosystems. But surely exceptions are OK when we are talking about valuable infrastructure falling into the ocean?

 

[allanorn]

The plan to address it is just a base tunnel 2-3 miles long. Elevated rail at this point is incredibly hard to get public acceptance for especially anywhere near the coast. If I remember right there is also protected species in the canyon so just putting a bunch of pillars in to elevate the whole way would run into issues.

Del Mar has laws around protecting the view of the ocean, even if the Coastal Commission would allow it. Those homes are worth millions and its owners usually have a lot of influence over government. I remember there being a string in the air where a new building (think it was a library or a government building) was going to be sited, so homeowners could see how their ocean view was going to be impacted.

 

[Cal]

While not surprising, it's crazy

Del Mar has laws around protecting the view of the ocean, even if the Coastal Commission would allow it. Those homes are worth millions and its owners usually have a lot of influence over government. I remember there being a string in the air where a new building (think it was a library or a government building) was going to be sited, so homeowners could see how their ocean view was going to be impacted.

NIMBYism at its finest. I find it funny that they care so much about their ocean view, but don't want something that is extremely sustainable and will help protect the ocean they love to look at.

 

[MARC Rider]

While not surprising, it's crazy

NIMBYism at its finest. I find it funny that they care so much about their ocean view, but don't want something that is extremely sustainable and will help protect the ocean they love to look at.

What makes you think that NIMBYs care about sustainability, or even ocean views, except that they think it increases the value of their oceanfront properties? It's all about "property values," nothing else.

 

[Cal]

What makes you think that NIMBYs care about sustainability, or even ocean views, except that they think it increases the value of their oceanfront properties? It's all about "property values," nothing else.

Oh totally. Doesn't make it less ironic though.

 

[Brian Battuello]

And as goes the Pacific coast, so goes the Metro North lines along the Hudson. Hurricane Sandy actually put a boat from our yacht club firmly on the tracks. The rails can't be more than about 24" off the high tide....



p.s. Some server farm in Nebraska only took .2 seconds to find that 13 year old picture...