SAN DIEGO — The effort to determine a new rail route through Del Mar, Calif., will repeat a step — and has a new twist, as well.
At a Friday, Feb. 28, meeting, the San Diego Association of Governments restarted the run-up to developing an environmental assessment of the project, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. A SANDAG meeting chose a new set of four possible routes to move rail service off the Surf Line route along the Del Mar Bluffs, meaning the agency will once again issue a notice of preparation to invite comments on the plans. It did that last year with a set of three possible options [see “Planning agency narrows potential routes …,” Trains News Wire ] — all of which ran into opposition from homeowners or other interested parties in Del Mar and neighboring Solana Beach.
But for the first time, SANDAG was also told that even if a new rail line was built, the existing route along the bluffs — which has required extensive reinforcement to address erosion — will need to be kept in place because of long-term agreements with the Defense Department, Amtrak, and freight operator BNSF. “That line would have to continue to be maintained as an active rail line,” North County Transit District Executive Director Shawn Donaghy said. NCTD owns the line in San Diego County.
Based on the opposition to the three routes previously presented, SANDAG conducted a new study, released last month, that looked at 16 possible routes, including an extensive, and expensive, realignment along the Interstate 5 right-of-way [see “New study multiplies possible routes …,” News Wire, Feb. 10, 2025]. Friday’s meeting narrowed the possibilities to three routes involving potential tunnels under Del Mar, and another that would double-track the existing route along the Bluffs. The Union-Tribune reports the California Coastal Commission has already gone on record with its opposition to the double-tracking option because of the stabilization work, seawalls, and retaining walls it would require.
Publication of a new notice of preparation for the revised set of potential routes will trigger another 45-day comment period. The comment period for the earlier notice drew more than 1,500 responses [see “Comment period on Del Mar tunnel project …,” News Wire, Dec. 16, 2024].
Alternative C should have been chosen a long time ago as it utilizes most of the existing right of way, least amount of tunnelling, by far the most cost effective long term solution and i think to Eric’s points can be made into 110-120 mph, double track right of way which should be a must for this corridor.
…
Their is no political gumption to tell the fairgrounds to go pound sand and a willingness to residents that we as a nation have been tunnelling for centuries and your fricking house will be fine.
….
After being a Cali resident for 15 years I love the outdoors, mountains, and weather, and yes the diversity of people this place has to offer. But also see how things are sideways when it comes to building anything whether it be this project or say my friend trying to replace a garage that fell down years ago. From the state level to the local as litigation is never ending because the state lets it be that way and from the locals which everyone, I mean for which literally everyone has to be appeased before anything gets built. The lawyers make a fortune in this state while the planners in the city permitting offices, to architects who site on local planning commissions, & engineers all go along w the gig keep it going and ride the gravy train of another discussion, study, design. permit application.
This is another CHSR joke. Get it done already. They keep bickering and bickering, then go to court. In the meantime nothing gets done and they still have landsides.
At the rate they are going, it’ll be another 20-25 years till they turn a shovel and the price will be 10 times as much. In the end a lot of people will still be PO’ed.
DoD has dimensional loads that use the ROW it seems. Either extra wide, or exceptionally tall. I wonder if it also has to be used for the movement of pressure vessels for nuclear plants seeing that there is a large Navy presence in San Diego. Certain munitions may require a non-tunneled route.
A clarification. In the third paragraph it is stated that the existing rail line will be kept in place. That is incorrect. The statement about the SANDAG’s contractual obligations to BNSF, Amtrak, DOD, etc. is in response to groups in Del Mar spreading the false narrative that if enough political pressure and delaying tactics are undertaken, SANDAG will be forced to unilaterally abandon the rail line allowing its conversion to a horse trail (which is what the opponents advocate). The statement by the Executive Director was that the existing rail line cannot be abandoned. Essentially Del Mar has two choices, a tunnel or continuation of the rail line along the bluffs accompanied with continuous rounds of strengthening that will result in the reduction of beach access and most likely the beach being replaced by rip rap and concrete walls.
Steve Roberts
I would go for the under Camino Del Mar if it preserves the 110MPH capability. Double-tracking the bluffs may be the only affordable option – the current administration may be more willing to challenge the Coastal Commission than the previous administration.
The Del Martians asking for the Surf line to be made into a hiking/horse trail apparently are living on another planet. The fact that the mayor thought relocating to I-5 was a viable option makes me wonder if he has any business deciding on major civil engineering projects.
I still say that either Under Crest Canyon or Under Camino Del Mar would be the best option. The latter looks like it would have less of an impact. Option 1 is better than what was proposed before (going through/under the fairgrounds) but that sharp turn by the lagoon would seriously slow trains down. And double tracking the crumbling bluffs, even with stabilization, sounds like a recipe for trouble.
Interesting that the line along the bluffs would need to remain anyway. Maybe the tunnels would be too small for DoD loads?