Years of bluff failures along the LOSSAN corridor in Del Mar and repeated attempts to stabilize the bluffs for heavy freight and passenger safety motivated the Coastal Commission to act in June 2022. It required SANDAG to relocate the tracks off the bluffs by 2035.
This railroad track realignment project is central to two California priorities: maintaining the LOSSAN corridor for rail transport and preserving the coastal environment and the health of its communities.
While rail transport is secure as the tracks will be relocated, environmental and community interests in coastal cities like Del Mar face severe risks. Del Mar is particularly impacted by potential double-track train tunnels under its homes and businesses.
Tunnel portals near residential areas would concentrate pollution and noise, posing health hazards, especially as California now intends to relax diesel train emission standards.
Additionally, forced eminent domain will displace families, disrupt schools, accelerate taxes, and destroy generational property ownership. The construction phase would bring years of disruption and pollution to Del Mar and neighboring Solana Beach.
SANDAG’s Biased Process Has Favored Rail Interests over Avoiding Community Impacts
Del Mar was promised a fair and transparent route selection process but received the opposite. In its 2017 and 2023 studies, SANDAG invited only rail stakeholders to determine and weigh the criteria for route selection. Participants included freight carrier BNSF, NCTD, LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, and Caltrans.
Noticeably absent were representatives of Del Mar, Solana Beach, taxpayers funding the project, and the Coastal Commission.
Rail stakeholders prioritized their operational wish list — speed, transit time, and costs — while downplaying community impacts such as pollution, noise, vibration, and property acquisition. Safety was narrowly defined as rail crossing safety, ignoring risks posed by carrying hazardous materials in tunnels under homes.
As a result, SANDAG’s studies favored highly destructive routes with portals in Del Mar, now Routes B and C in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Notice of Preparation (NOP). The studies eliminated I-5 focused routes because the studies favored rail criteria and ranking.
Del Mar advocates for honest consideration of I-5-focused routes that bypass its city, avoiding tunnels under homes and flood-prone areas. After public outrage, SANDAG hastily reintroduced an I-5 option (Route A) and included it in the NOP, but with minimal engineering and significant design challenges.
The NOP’s proposed routes were scathingly criticized and created conflict among Del Mar, Solana Beach, and the Fairgrounds. Each stakeholder recognized the highly destructive impact of tunnel portals in their city or grounds and strongly opposed them.
Health and Environmental Consequences
NCTD’s plans to increase diesel train frequency, coupled with California’s soon-to-be relaxed emission standards, highlight the significant health risks for Del Mar and the destruction of the coastal environment. Concentrated diesel emissions and noise from tunnel portals would harm air quality near the coast and residents’ health. Routes B and C, which place portals near Del Mar’s homes and multi-family units, exacerbate these risks.
The Need for I-5-Focused Solutions
The only acceptable solution is an I-5-focused route with tunnel portals away from residential areas and the coast. Such routes would minimize environmental and community impacts while maintaining rail connectivity. Instead of addressing these concerns, SANDAG has allowed rail industry-biased processes to dominate.
In addition, Solana Beach’s mayor, using her position as vice chair of SANDAG (she is now chair) and fearing a portal in her city, attempted to eliminate Route A from the NOP without further study in the EIR. The Fairgrounds withdrew cooperation on unrelated housing matters to pressure Del Mar into supporting NOP routes disastrous to Del Mar.
Community Voices Must Be Prioritized
The NOP’s three proposed study routes drew over 1,500 mostly negative public comments, and its cost projections for Routes B and C are grossly unreliable because they failed to account for the cost of ROW acquisition, i.e., eminent domain of homes and easements and the litigation that foreseeably accompanies forced eminent domain taking.
Rail interests do not care how much eminent domain costs are because they are not paying for it, and federal and state taxpayers are, so SANDAG is interested in masking the actual costs and delay of ROW acquisition. In response to the backlash, new SANDAG CEO Mario Orso promised a “value analysis” prioritizing community input.
However, whose “values” are being prioritized are in doubt. The process has been closed to the public. It remains to be seen whether city-level input will be heeded or if it will be simply an exercise in SANDAG “box-checking.”
If Routes B and C proceed to the EIR while bypassing I-5-focused options, Del Mar residents will view the value analysis as another process manipulation favoring rail interests over community well-being.
A Precedent for Coastal Communities
Prioritizing rail speed and operational costs over community impacts in Del Mar sets a dangerous precedent for California’s coast. As erosion and climate change force infrastructure inland, SANDAG’s approach risks transit authorities’ disregarding community voices and environmental protections statewide. Destroying a city to save a few minutes in travel time in a tiny 1.7-mile portion of the LOSSAN corridor or to allow freight trains carrying hazardous materials to increase speed is, to borrow a word used by the Union-Tribune editorial Board to describe the whole Realignment: “nuts.”
Bottom Line
SANDAG must commit to a fair, transparent process that prioritizes community voices and minimizes harm. The only viable solution is a track realignment along I-5, away from coastal cities and the Fairgrounds. The future of California’s coastal communities depends on it.
Shirli Weiss is a resident of Del Mar and an attorney who has practiced law in California for over 40 years.
