HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-21; City Council; ; 2017 City Council Goals WorkshopItem #1 February 21, 2017 Page 1 of 116
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 21, 2017
Mayor and City Council To:
CAReview ~
From: Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Staff Contact:
Subject:
Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager
Jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2958
2017 City Council Goals Workshop
Recommended Action
Receive a status report on the 2016 City Council Goals, discuss City Council goals and priorities for the
coming year, and direct staff to prepare a resolution affirming the 2017 City Council Goals.
Executive Summary
Each year, prior to development of the fiscal year budget, the City Council meets to discuss key strategic
goals and priorities. In January 2016, the City Council identified six goals focused on a three to five year
planning horizon. This item presents a status report on the 2016 City Council Goals, and seeks City
Council discussion and direction regarding the City Council Goals for 2017.
Discussion
On February 16, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution affirming the following 2016 City Council
Strategic Policy Goals:
• Become a leader in multi-modal transportation systems and creative approaches to moving
people and goods through and within Carlsbad.
• Plan for a new city hall that will meet the future workplace and operational needs of the city and
the community.
• Promote education to increase civic engagement and attract and retain talent in Carlsbad.
• Enhance Carlsbad's coastline to ensure an exceptional experience in all the ways people want to
enjoy it.
• Lower the railroad tracks in a trench through the Village to improve safety, community
connectivity, quality of life and economic value.
• Enhance the health and vitality of the Village and Barrio, two neighborhoods that represent the
historic heart of Carlsbad.
On April19, 2016, Council adopted a resolution approving the FY 2016-17 City Council Goals Work Plan.
The Work Plan lays out the strategies by which city staff has been pursuing the Council Goals during the
current fiscal year. Each goal has been assigned a Team Leader and resourced with the appropriate city
staff support and expertise. Staff monitors our progress toward achieving the adopted goals
continuously, and presents a quarterly status report to Council on implementation of the approved
strategies, tactics and timelines.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 2 of 116
Regarding City Council Goals for 2017, staff will be prepared to discuss issues, such as the Hub Park
lease, which Council requested to be brought back for consideration at this time, as well as any
proposed amendments to current goals, or new goals the City Council may wish to adopt.
The staff presentation and City Council discussion will be segmented, in order to avoid any Council
member conflicts of interest.
Next Steps
Upon receiving direction, staff will prepare a resolution for the City Council to formally adopt the 2017
City Council Goals at the March workshop. Following adoption ofthe 2017 City Council Goals, a detailed
Council Goals Work Plan for FY 2017-18 will be developed and brought to Council for adoption at the
April workshop.
Fiscal Analysis
None.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
The proposed action does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notification
None.
Exhibits
1. FY 2016-17 City Council Strategic Policy Goals Work Plan -January 2017 Status Report
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 3 of 116
(_City of
Carlsbad
City Council
Goals
FY 2016-17 Work Plan
Status Report
January 2017
.........
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 4 of 116
Introduction
Each year, the Carlsbad City Council meets to discuss goals and priorities. These goals are ambitious
and center around long term, policy oriented direction that will help achieve the Carlsbad
Community Vision.
The goals are developed with the full understanding that the day to day core services of the city
account for the vast majority of resources and energy. Having a limited number of future oriented
goals lets staff know where to focus available resources, while maintaining a consistently high level
of service to the community. Together, the steady pursuit of audacious goals and the commitment
to providing excellent service are ultimately how the City of Carlsbad fulfills its mission: to enhance
the lives of all who live, work and play in our city by setting the standard for providing top quality,
efficient local government services
Strategic Planning Process
Although the strategic planning process is a continual loop of public input, goals, strategies, tactics
and evaluation, having an annual plan accomplishes several important things: it provides a
framework for operationalizing the City Council's policy direction; it allows staff to recommend
resource allocations for the annual city budget; and it helps ensure city staff and the City Council
share a common vision of where the city is going and how it will get there.
Community Vision
e
• Council Policy Goals
. [!1" • -• • ••
Work Plan & Budget
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 5 of 116
Community Vision
These nine core values make up the Carlsbad Community Vision. They were developed in
collaboration with the community and drive both the day to day work of the city and its long term
planning.
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness-
Enhance Carlsbad's defining attributes-its small town feel and beach
community character. Build on the city's culture of civic engagement,
volunteerism and philanthropy.
Open space and the natural environment-Prioritize protection and
enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and
protect Carlsbad's unique open space and agricult~ral heritage.
Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles-Promote active
lifestyles and community health by furthering access to trails, parks,
beaches and other recreation opportunities.
The local economy, business diversity and tourism-Strengthen the city's
strong and diverse economy and its position as an employment hub in
north San Diego County. Promote business diversity, increased specialty
retail and dining opportunities, and Carlsbad's tourism.
Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity-Increase travel
options through enhanced walking, bicycling and public transportation
systems. Enhance mobility through increased connectivity and intelligent
transportation management.
Sustainability-Build on the city's sustainability initiatives to emerge as a
leader in green development and sustainability. Pursue public/private
partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and
foods.
History, the arts and cultural resources-Emphasize the arts by promoting
a multitude of events and productions year-round and cutting-edge venues
to host world class performances, and celebrate Carlsbad's cultural
heritage in dedicated facilities and programs.
High quality education and community services-Support quality,
comprehensive education and lifelong learning opportunities, provide
housing and community services for a changing population, and maintain a
high standard for citywide public safety.
Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability-Revitalize
neighborhoods and enhance citywide community design and livability.
Promote a greater mix of uses citywide, more activities along the coastline
and link density to public transportation. Revitalize the downtown Village
as a community focal point and a unique and memorable center for
visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 6 of 116
Core City Services
This report does not address performance of the city's day to day services. The delivery of those
services is addressed in the annual resident survey results and the city budget. Although these
services remain fairly consistent from year to year, they are adjusted-adding services and even
reducing services-based on community needs.
{
{
{
{
(
Public Safety
Police, fire, emergency preparedness, emergency medical, traffic
safety, crime prevention
Community Services
Parks, recreation, trails, open space, libraries, cultural arts, classes,
camps, special events, arts education
Community & Economic Development
Land use, development services, building inspection, code
compliance, affordable housing, neighborhood services
Public Works
Streets and traffic, infrastructure, water, sewer, drainage, trash,
environmental sustainability
Governance
Public records, community outreach and engagement, legal,
management, clerk services
Administrative Services
Finance, human resources, information technology, purchasing,
risk management, utility billing
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 7 of 116
City Council Strategic Policy Goals
Become a leader in multimodal transportation systems
and creative approaches to moving people and goods
through and within Carlsbad .
The City Council expects Carlsbad to become a leader in the broad
array of plans and systems that support more efficient and
effective means of moving people and goods around and through
Carlsbad and the region, including technology that improves traffic
signal coordination and' vehicle operation. Major regional projects,
including the McClellan-Palomar Airport master plan update,
double tracking of the railroad, widening of 1-5 and reconfiguration
of the 1-5/78 interchange, require continued policy-level
involvement to ensure Carlsbad's interests are reflected in project
design and implementation.
Plan for a new city hall that will meet the future
workplace and operational needs of the city and the
community.
Plan for a new city hall that will be a point of pride for citizens
while greatly improving efficiency and effectiveness by centralizing
an employee base that is currently spread through many
facilities. A strategic approach to locating city operational
functions will provide better coordination among city functions
and enhanced customer service.
Promote education to increase civic engagement and
attract and retain talent in Carlsbad.
The City Council will take a stewardship role in encouraging the
development of high quality educational experiences that foster
economic development, civic engagement and community
leadership. This broad goal includes partnering with local school
districts, working to attract an institution of higher education, and
cultivating a community with life and workplace skills that will
support Carlsbad's vision for the future.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 8 of 116
1..•
Enhance Carlsbad's coastline to ensure an exceptional
experience in all the ways people want to enjoy it.
The Carlsbad coastline is a critical element of the city's
identity. The City Council is committed to making policy decisions
to ensure Carlsbad's coastline maintains the ·character the
community loves while enhancing access, amenities and mobility
to a level consistent with Carlsbad's high-quality community
standards. This includes partnering with State Parks, which ·
currently controls most of Carlsbad's beaches. This goal also
includes physical changes that will enhance natural beauty, better
manage traffic flow, expand walking and biking opportunities,
improve safety and create a uniquely Carlsbad experience.
lower the railroad tracks in a trench through the Village
to improve safety, community connectivit , quality of
ife and economic value.
The busy rail line that runs through the core ofthe community
divides Carlsbad. Railroad traffic, which will increase significantly
in coming years, has adverse effects on the City of Carlsbad,
especially in the area between the Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista
lagoons. Wit~ the p!anned addition of a second, parallel track
through the Village and Barrio, the city has an opportunity to
lower the tracks below street level, similar to what has been done
in other coastal communities. Achieving this goal would improve
safety and increase coastal access. Without this change, the future
quality of life and business climate in the Village would be
irreparably harmed, the Barrio would remain cut off from the
coast, and public safety would be severely compromised.
~nhance the health and vitality _of the Village and Barrio,
two neighborhoods that represent the historic heart of
Carlsbad.
The city has made significant investments in the revitalization of
the Village and Barrio, starting with "Redevelopment" and
continuing with public-private partnerships and city funded
infrastructure improvements. A new Village and Barrio Master
Plan is nearing completion, and achieving the vision developed
with the community through the master planning process will
require continued policy focus and investment.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 9 of 116
FY 2016-17 City Council Goals Quarterly Status Reports -
February 2017
The following describes how city staff has ope rationalized the City Council's policy direction over the
past quarter. Progress on specific strategies and tactics is included along with schedule updates and
information.
Team Lead
Strategy #1
Become a leader in multimodal transportation systems
and creative approaches to moving people and goods
through and within Carlsbad.
Craig Williams, Public Works
Improve Traffic Signal Effectiveness and Mobility on Existing Roadways
Traffic Signal Effectiveness
• Fiber optic conduit now runs uninterrupted from the city's Traffic
Management Center (TMC) at the Faraday Administration Center to the
intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.
• In 2016, the city had planned to extend the fiber network down El
Camino Real to Alga Road. This effort has been temporarily suspended
in order to coordinate with a broader city-wide fiber network effort to
most effectively serve our community and satisfy city-wide
communication needs. Together with IT, Economic Development, City
Attorneys' Office, Communications, and Real Estate, staff is exploring
how fiber optic conduit dfstribution can provide the foundation for a
broader city-wide communications network.
• Four pilot projects were proposed to test the effectiveness of Adaptive
Traffic Systems (ATS), and three corridors have been completed: 1) on
Aviara Parkway, between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Oaks Road, 2)
along El Camino Real, between Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road,
and 3) on Cannon Road, from Paseo del Norte to Grand Pacific Drive.
Sufficient data and feedback were obtained after three pilots, such that
the 4th pilot was unnecessary. The development and release of an RFP
for the installation of permanent ATS is expected in early 2017.
• New technology to facilitate the use of connected ("smart cars") and
autonomous ("self-driving") vehicles continues to be explored. The city
has been approached by several companies related to connected
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 10 of 116
vehicles and staff are currently coordinating efforts with IT, Economic
Development, and the City Attorneys' office. Proposals will be
considered along with costs and opportunities.
• Automated traffic measuring and monitoring equipment has been
installed at 16 intersections to automatically monitor traffic flow and
congestion levels. Sixteen (16) additional intersections will be completed
in 2017, for a total of 32 defined intersections at the end of 2017.
Multimodal Mobility Improvements
• Staff is implementing the new Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Interim Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines are complete, and the Multi-
modal Level of Service ~MMLOS) evaluation methodology is in final
stages. Development of an Evaluation and Monitoring Manual is in early
stages.
• The Sustainable Mobility Plan won a $300,000 grant from Caltrans;
contract negotiations have taken longer than early projections. Phase 1
work is complete--this work collected previous active transportation
plans and current asset maps, in order to produce compendium maps
showing existing active transportation and transit networks and gaps.
Following execution of the Caltrans agreement, the City will release an
RFP for Phase 2 work, including development of a multi-modal CIP
project list, a Safe Routes to School plan, and a Design Guide, in 2017.
• The first task ofthe Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program-to develop an internal City TDM program -is well underway.
Consultant work on updating the Traffic Impact Fee program is also
underway.
• Public Works and GIS staff have been collaborating to identify and refine
the existing inventory within our multi-modal transportation network,
and have developed performance measures to demonstrate annual
progress to address gaps. This work will feed directly into the
sustainable Mobility Plan.
• Most tasks concerning Multi-modal Mobility Improvements are on
schedule to be complete by December 2017. While most tasks for the
Sustainable Mobility Plan and the TDM program will be completed in
2017, the final tasks will extend into 2018.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 11 of 116
Strategy #2
Strategy #3
Collaborate with Regional Partners to Improve
Transportation in Carlsbad
Improve connections to transit and transit alternatives
• Staff recently selected Kim ley-Horn as a consultant to investigate best
practices and the feasibility for a trolley system service in the region. This
task is on schedule to be complete by December 2017.
Partnering to Improve Transportation Options
• Staff is continuing their work to enhance partner coordination and
involvement on major regional transportation projects.
Improve Transportation Sustainability to Meet Climate
Action Plan Goals
Lead efforts to decrease "vehicle miles traveled," thereby decreasin~:
greenhouse gas emissions
• In collaboration with SANDAG, a consultant (Steer Davies Gleeve) was
recently selected to assist in developing a TDM program, and the first
stage ofthis program is underway.
• Staff has identified the city's State Street parking lot (south of Carlsbad
Village Drive) and Stagecoach Community Park (in Southeast Carlsbad)
as the first locations to install electric vehicle charging stations for public
use. Through a partnership with NRG subsidiary, EVGO, the
underground infrastructure will be provided at no cost to taxpayers. The
FY 16/17'city budget includes funding for the charging station
installations. ·
• The city is monitoring State Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
efforts to develop new Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines consistent
with SB 743, and will update our final approach once state direction is
finalized. This work is part of the Evaluation and Monitoring Manual
described in Multimodal Mobility Improvements in Strategy #1.
• Most efforts within this strategy are on schedule to be completed by
December 2017. The Sustainable Mobility Plan final work will be
completed in early 2018.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 12 of 116
Plan for a new city hall that will meet the future
workplace and operational needs of the city and the
community.
Team Lead Curtis Jackson, City Manager's Office
Strategy (11 Determine future space needs for city staff and community
meeting space
• Staff has completed a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct a Space
Needs, Place Making, and Design services analysis for a new City Hall.
• The RFP will focus on analyzing current and future workplace efficiency, staff
adjacency, spatial efficiency, community outreach, city hall locational
assessments, future city operations & civic center trends, construction and
labor cost savings, and conceptual design alternatives.
• The RFP will also study space need requirements for a new City Council
Chamber and other city/community meeting space(s).
• Staff will provide the draft RFP to the City Council for review and input by
the end of the pt Quarter of 2017. /
• The final RFP will be presented to City Council for an authorization to release
the RFP by the end of 2nd quarter 2017.
Stra tegy #2 City Hall Funding Analysis
• With the help of outside legal counsel & city finance staff, a source, allowed
use, and expected availability of funds analysis for a city hall project has been
completed.
• The funding analysis will be presented to City Council by the end of 2nd
quarter 2017.
Strategy #3 Evaluate Potential City Hall Locations
• Once the Space Needs, Place Making, and Design Services analysis is
completed, the results will be presented to and reviewed by the City Council.
Using that analysis, staff then will evaluate & identify potential city hall
locations, including working with the public to obtain input.
• Originally anticipated for completion by May 2017, this task is now expected
to be completed by the end of 2017.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 13 of 116
Team Lead
Strategy#l
Strategy#2
Develop lifelong learners, civic leaders, and valuable
members of the public and private workforce in Carlsbad
through education partnerships and skills development.
Debbie Fountain, Community & Economic Development
Support partnerships for career and work force talent
development both in Carlsbad and within the 78 Corridor
Higher Education
• The city continues to work with local businesses and regional economic
development organizations to develop a graduate-level engineering
program that would best fit their talent needs. A survey was sent to
Carlsbad and 78 Corridor employees and Human Resources representatives
to assess the long-term market for master's students for a program in
Carlsbad.
• The results of the survey are being tabulated and analyzed. If a
determination is made that there is little or no demand for the graduate-
level engineering program, this strategy will be abandoned. A final decision
is pending, but will most likely be made by June, 2017.
~
Develop high potential emerging leaders through self-
discovery a~d equipping high school age residents with the
right tools to make meaningful contributions to Carlsbad
Emerging Leader Program .
• Graduation held (January, 2017) for the 28 high school age residents who
participated in the inaugural session ofthe Carlsbad Student Leader
Academy.
• Applications were again accepted, reviewed and 26 new high school age
residents were s~lected to participate in the Winter Session of the Carlsbad
Student Leader Academy, which started January lOth.
• A strategy is under development to allow for the continued engagement of
the alumni classes of the Academy.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 14 of 116
Strategy #3 Ensure the city's life-long learner programs continue to meet
the needs of the community for life enrichment and personal
success
• Life-long learner programs are continuing at newly renovated library
facilities, and various Parks & Recreation facilities.
• A strategic framework for offering life-long learning programs in the future
has been developed and adopted by the Library Staff.
• Efforts to develop an effective tool to evaluate existing programs and
measure impacts and outcomes remains underway; the timeframe for
completion ofthis evaluation has been extended to the end of 2017 due to
the specialized nature ofthis evaluation. Staff has experienced difficulty in
identifying a qualified evaluator, and determined that the effort might
require a partnership with a higher education institution to be successful
and will require an investment of more time for strategy development and
implementation.
Enhance Carlsbad's coastline to ensure an excepti
experience in all the ways people want to enjoy it
Team Lead Gary T. Barberio, City Manager's Office
Strategy #1 Improve beach access and amenities
Ocean Street Beach Access Project
• Conceptual plans for the refurbishment and improvement of the beach
access points have been developed and refined based on input from the
public and city staff, and environmental review and permitting has been
completed.
• The City Council awarded a contract for a professional design firm to
prepare construction documents on November 8, 2016.
• Project scheduled to commence in October 2017, and be completed'by
April2018.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 15 of 116
Strategy #2 Improve the safety and usability for all along Carlsbad
Boulevard
Terramar Area Coastal Improvement Project
• Conceptual design alternatives have been developed with the benefit of
several environmental and engineering technical studies, including
geotechnical, traffic, biological and cultural studies, as well as public
input.
• To date, feedback has been received from 1,750 online survey and/or
public meeting participants.
• The design alternatives have been advanced to a greater level of detail,
and an additional public outreach meeting will occur in the second
quarter of 2017, prior to environmental review and permitting.
• The project is scheduled for completion in 2019.
Tamarack Area Coastal Improvement Project
• The city was awarded a SANDAG Active Transportation Grant in the
amount of $1.32 million for this project.
• Staff developed three options to address the project goals, created
conceptual drawings and gathered input from nearly 2,000 individuals
through public meetings, an online survey and discussions with users at
the project site. This process has narrowed the project options to two.
• Staff has been working on preliminary technical reports in parallel with
ongoing public outreach efforts and efforts to advance t~e two design
options based on public input.
• A consultant has been selected to prepare contract plans following
selection of the preferred alternative.
• Property boundary issues have hampered progress in the past quarter, but the
project remains on schedule to be complete by July 2018.
Strategy #3 Initiate creating a vision for coastal enhancements from
Terramar to the southern Carlsbad border
Coastal Corridor Vision
• The first public outreach effort entitled "Highway 101 Past, Present, and
Future" is scheduled for February 16, 2017.
• Further elements of the overall project schedule and timeline are still to
be determined.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 16 of 116
Strategy #4 Expand city-state partnership for the management of state-
owned beaches to enhance facilities and services
Pilot Project and Agreement with State Parks
• Ongoing discussions with the State of California Department of Parks &
Recreation, which owns approximately five miles of beaches within the
City of Carlsbad are occurring.
• After the City Manager's team met with theCA State Parks Director in
Sacramento in October 2016, staff has had fruitful discussions with local
State Parks staff regarding the potential development of an operating
agreement.
• New energies and new perspectives on the side of CA State Parks are
contributing to positive dialogues and relationship development, and
building a culture of trust and mutual respect.
• Year three of the city's Right of Entry Permit to improve and maintain the
upper picnic facilities at Tamarack State Beach and the coastal bluff at
Tamarack/Frazee State Beach is set to expire in May 2017. Staff continues
to work with local State Parks staff to extend the agreement for another
year.
Lower the railroad tracks in a trench through
the Village to improve safety, community
connectivity, quality of life and economic value
Team Lead Jason Haber, City Manager's Office
Strategy #1 Preliminary Technical and Economic Analysis
• SANDAG has completed the Carlsbad Village Double Track-Railroad Trench
Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study
analyzed technical feasibility, design considerations, environmental
constraints, schedule, and cost, and generally determined that both the long-
and short-trench alternatives (in addition to the at-grade alternative) are
feasible. The Economic Analysis assessed the fiscal and economic impacts
expected to occur over 99 years with the trenched and at-grade alternatives,
including: the value of lives saved and injuries avoided, the value of time
saved by motorists and pedestrians, propertivalues, property taxes, retail
and restaurant sales, sales taxes, construction impacts, transient occupancy
taxes, vacancy and lease rates, job creation, emergency response delays, and
displacement.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 17 of 116
• The At-grade alternative has the lowest estimated construction cost of the
three alternatives at $62 million. For this alternative, the findings indicate
negative value of lives saved and negative economic and fiscal impacts
(estimated as ranging from -$228.9 million to -$567.9 million, at -$143.4
million, and at -$1.7 million, respectively}, primarily due to loss of life and
time, as well as changes in property values.
• The Short Trench has an estimated total project cost between $215 million
and $235 million, but has estimated fiscal and economic benefits in the
billions of dollars, the most prominent of which are the expected additional
retail sales, higher property values, and the value of lives saved. Other
significant benefits include the economic output resulting from construction,
additional sales tax revenues, and greater property tax revenues. In total, the
value of lives saved plus economic benefits of the Short Trench are estimated
between $5.87 billion and $20.27 billion, while fiscal impacts are estimated
from $56.1 million to $194.8 million.
• The Long Trench has the highest estimated total project cost, estimated at
between $320 million and $350 million, as well as the highest fiscal and
economic benefits. Overall, the value of lives saved plus economic benefits
range from $6.10 billion to $21.86 billion. Fiscal benefits are estimated
between $56.5 million and $207.0 million.
• Staff has initiated conversations with SANDAG and other potential partners to
inform a funding strategy for completing project-level environmental review,
which would be the next step in advancing this Council Goal.
Strategy #2 Collaborate with Local, Regional, State and Federal Stakeholders
to Advance Project and Develop Funding Strategy
• Staff is finalizing contracts to engage local, state and federal government
affairs and legislative consultants to support this project.
• Staff has initiated outreach to inform community stakeholders, including the
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, Carlsbad Village Association, the Sierra Club
and other local interest groups, as well as rail owners and operators about
the project.
• Since the city is not the final decision maker concerning the selection of a
preferred alignment alternative, there will be a significant need for Council
Members to engage with multiple partner agencies to advance city interests
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 18 of 116
Team Lead
Strategy #1
Strategy#2
over the coming year. These will include opportunities to influence decisions
at the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), North County Transit
District (NCTD), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Federal
Rail Administration (FRA), among others.
Enhance the health and vitality of the Village and
Barrio, two neighborhoods that represent the historic
heart of Carlsbad.
Christie Marcella, Community & Economic Development
Improve the public space in the Village and Barrio to enhance
quality of life and economic vitality
Improve Roadways in the Village and Barrio for public use by all
• Design underway for additional ADA improvements in the Village.
Construction to begin second quarter of 2017.
• Paving of Grand Ave. east of Madison Ave. to be completed by end of first
quarter of 2017.
Address current and future parking needs in the Village and Barrio
• Field and survey work for the preparation of the Village, Barrio and beach
area parking study has been completed. Analysis and outreach will be
conducted this quarter with recommendations going forward with the Village
and Barrio Master Plan.
Increase safety, security and quality of life in the Village and Barrio
• Barrio Strong meetings continue to identify initiatives for safety and
community improvement in the neighborhood.
• Multi-department Homelessness Response Team (HRT) formed to proactively
find solutions to address homelessness in the community.
• A team is working to enhance decorative lighting in the downtown core.
Optimize Public Properties in the Village and Barrio
Optimize City-Owned Properties and Activate the Public Right-of-Way
• "Village Grill" property lease to Council Feb. 2017 with an expected opening
third quarter of 2017.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 19 of 116
Strategy#]
• Pine Avenue Park Community Center & Gardens contract awarded in Jan.
with project starting Mar. 2017.
• Staff is coordinating the long term use of city owned property with the
strategic property efforts related to City Hall goal.
Enhance the Village and Barrio for current and future
residents, businesses and visitors
Implement Village and Barrio Enhancements
• Based on public input, the city is conducting additional outreach on the draft
Village and Barrio Master Plan and will update the plan as needed to address
this input, as well as results from the parking study. The updated plan is
expected to be ready to present to the City Council by end of 2017.
• Recruitment for the Village Manager position to begin Feb. 2017, providing
additional resources to Village and Barrio efforts.
• Staff are aligning capital improvement projects with the larger Village and
Barrio·Master Plan effort.
• Carlsbad Village Association events and marketing have increased visibility,
attendance and merchant engagement in the Village.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 20 of 116
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Counci I Members,
Hope Nelson <
Monday, February 20, 2017 10:37 PM
Council Internet Email
Council Goals Workshop
I am fortunate to be able to attend the Tuesday, February 21 Council Goals Workshop.
Unfortunately, most interested citizens of Carlsbad will not be able to attend.
It seems 8:30 in the morning is the least likely time for attendance of a majority of residents.
The timing of this meeting leaves out anyone who is employed in a full-time, day-time situation.
It also leaves out anyone who cares for children not in school. What percentage of the voters
does that preclude? Only those retired, working at night, self-employed or unemployed are able
to attend. What percentage of the voters does that include? Please compare the percentages.
Certainly, not everyone will be able to attend meetings, no matter when they are held. I believe
it is the City Council's responsibility to schedule meetings, especially those that are annual
meetings like this one, at a time that will allow the most voters to attend. Please consider this
viewpoint in the future.
Respectfully,
Hope Nelson
Carlsbad resident
1
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 21 of 116
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern-
rich breyer <
Monday, February 20, 2017 8:55 PM
Council Internet Email
Meeting time.
We were highly disappointed that the council chose to hold a community meeting to hear input from residents at
a time that the majority of residents are at work. 8:30 on a Tuesday morning shows that the council truly does
not want input and hopes to only hear from their base of supporters who are retired or business owners of the
city.
We would like to see future meetings for community input to actually be held when the majority of residents
can attend in the evenings or on weekends. Unfortunately it is clearly apparent that the only Council member
who truly advocates for the residents and their input is Ms. Schumacher, since she is the only Council member
who could see the disconnect and absurdity of calling it a resident input meeting when few residents can attend.
Sincerely,
Rich and Michelle Breyer
1
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 22 of 116
Andrea Dykes
From: Brian Flock < >
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 5:11PM
Council Internet Email To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Cori Schumacher; Mark Packard
Goal suggestion for this planning year
Dear Council Members:
I request that the Council make 2017 the year our city planning records are accessible to the public in a modern, map-
based fashion. I plan to attend the Goal Planning session tomorrow morning and would be happy to clarify any ofthese
points at the meeting.
The goal of could be phrased something to the effect of:
• Become a leader in thorough and early public engagement in the city planning process through the use of
modern, geographically-aware technologies.
Today the only way to get notified of what is going on in Carlsbad is through the Communications departments email
signup sheet at the following Internet URL:
https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001uiM2HFQzzSYOEwH6q8GOc3RM5ul-
7t 96bD9HOwBZW7aigHwF7NioLNPelw20bDb-ONrKbdsjYZ6Tsi8ylgngYik-
X33kYoEv959LihZEz Um8s4iN Cc9ifNoKiTJBISQgQj1CZFOpGFBp4AKs2cAkVgFdT7nu1
This system is supposed to send subscribers updates in each area of interest. However, many times I have found that the
notifications are links to pages where the user then must hunt for the relevant information. Further, documents such as
applications/permits are referenced by their city number, an ID unintelligible for the vast majority of the population.
Even the abbreviated address is inadequate because people frequently don't know the name of streets in their own
neighborhood. (I can provide a examples of this if requested.)
The current notification system has the following drawbacks, particularly for notifications by the Planning Department
which are often geographical in nature:
• Residents focused on a particular property, neighborhood, or quadrant are deluged with information about the
entire city, an overwhelming task for the average resident. There is no practical way to look on a map and filter
results based on geographical areas of interest when it comes to Planning Department.
o Situation 1: A friend told me about the local notice that was sent to residents within 600 feet of the
planned Veterans facility on Harding. How can someone NOT within 600 feet of that facility get a copy of
the same notice from the City website after it has gone out?
o Situation 2: A resident hears about an application about a project in their neighborhood but doesn't
know the exact address or location. How does that resident get the relevant information off the City
website so they can focus on the facts ofthe project and not just "rumor"?
• Once notifications have been made by the City using the email list, a formal records request seems to be the
only practical recourse for anyone who did not get the notification in the first place. Most people wouldn't even
know how to do such a task.
o Situation: If a Planning Administrative Permit Notice went out yesterday about an important city
development and I sign up for the email list today, I am unaware of a reasonable way to get that same
notification that went out yesterday. I am effectively "blind" to that issue simply because of timing. This
problem hit me especially clearly over the past month as I have had several residents question me about
projects and properties for which I as a real estate broker struggle to find the data.
1
• Residents find it difficult to share information and directly reference City documents online because it is hard to
find the documents and share a precise link to the document in question.
Thank you for your attention to this goal request. I feel that this nominal goal will help civic engagement and provide
improved input to city staff, the commissions, and the council.
Sincerely yours,
Brian Flock
Brian Flock
Phone: (
2
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 23 of 116
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Trautman
Monday, February 20, 2017 9:01AM
Council Internet Email
City/Council Goals
Dear Council members and mayor,
I would like to propose the following for your consideration as goals for 2017 and beyond:
1. The Goals workshop is an important means for citizens to directly offer input to the council. One meeting,
on a work day, at 8:30am greatly limits citizens ability to bring their ideas and concerns to the city. I would
propose at least one additional meeting, held in the evening for working citizens to have an opportunity to
address the council.
2. Carlsbad needs a campaign finance ordinance. There is a great deal of money donated to council members
and the mayor from outside development and real estate interests. There are also large donations from citizens
who have business before the council. I would propose a yearly limit on donations from any source of $250. or
a maximum of$1000 during a council member/mayor term. (4 years) I feel that these types of limits will
encourage candidates to focus on citizen contact rather than displaying as many signs as they can buy on our
streets.
3. Carlsbad should join many other cities in California and develop a climate change plan. There are many
beautiful but vulnerable areas of Carlsbad that bring thousands oftourists from around the world. We need a
plan to help mitigate the effects of climate change and keep our air, ocean, and other sensitive areas clean and
healthy.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to this process.
David Trautman
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sent from my iPad
1 Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 24 of 116
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Barbara Hamilton
Sunday, February 19, 2017 11:20 AM
Council Internet Email
Comments City of Carlsbad 2017 Goals Workshop
City Council Goals comments.docx
Please see attached submission in case I am unable to attend the workshop in person.
Thank you.
BARBARA HAMIL TON
Master of Applied Science (MAS)
Environmental Policy and Management
LEED Green Associate
Eco-Stream Sustainability
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe. ---John Muir
1 Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 25 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 26 of 116
2017 City of Carlsbad Annual Goals Workshop -
Comments from Barbara Hamilton, '. I will try to attend at the start of the meeting, but I
have an all-day work commitment on the day/time of this workshop and want to ensure that I at least submit
comments via email. I do think you would get more working folks to attend if you held these workshops on the
weekend, or over the course of a few evenings.
Multi-modal transportation
I would specifically request that you look for a safer, creative solution for multi-modal transportation
on Jefferson Avenue around Buena Vista Lagoon. I have corresponded with staff about reducing the speed
limit in this section of the road, and was told it could not be changed---although this would be the best fix for
now. This part of Jefferson is classified as an "Oide Carlsbad Street". It is a charming country-esque road (that
we cherish) filled with sharp turns and areas with low visibility. The auto lanes were narrowed in order to
make the bike lanes on both sides of the two-lane road wider. That is fine and good. But what happens now is
that autos are constantly driving in the bike lanes. They also drive too fast. There is only one speed limit sign
on this stretch of roadway going west, and it is posted with a speed limit of 35. It is virtually impossible to
safely drive at that speed when autos are in both lanes and pedestrians and/or bikes in the bike lanes. On
the stretch of Jefferson between Grand and Las Flores, at one point there is a speed limit reduction to 25 due
to a sharp turn---a turn that is not nearly as hazardous as the multiple twists and turns and narrow lanes
around the lagoon.
Sometimes drivers also use this section of Jefferson around the BV Lagoon as a shortcut to the 5 South.
These drivers traveling in westward direction tend to drive fast and tailgate, as they are in a hurry to get onto
the 5 Sat Las Flores. This part of Jefferson is classified as an "Oide Carlsbad Street". And it is a roadway that
abuts a sensitive and valuable ecological lagoon. It is a common bike, walk, and electric wheelchair route. It is
not a raceway. And it should be treated with special care and thoughtful decision-making.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 27 of 116
I recently saw "sharrow" signage added in the eastbound direction lanes right at the bridge over the
FWY. They are perfect. Just at the top ofthe hill where many cars naturally accelerate, the sharrow signage
draws attention for drivers to look for bikes. Great idea. It would also be helpful to put sharrow signage on the
street going westward, somewhere between Maron Rd and the entrance to Hosp Grove Park.
I would suggest that as infill development continues in our village, barrio, and surrounding older
neighborhoods that you look into ideas such as Pedestrian bridges and pathways (ie decomposed granite) in
lieu of concrete sidewalks and curbs (especially ifthe neighborhood street is classified as an Olde Carlsbad
Street). This idea would have fit my neighborhood better in the recent housing development on Pio Pico north
of Las Flores, for example. It looks ugly how the curbs were put right up to the street. We were not allowed to
do that when we built our house on Pio Pico, we had to set back. The way they built it there is no place off the
road for a car to park, or to be used as a pathway. They actually made it unsafe for a pedestrian. And ugly.
Traffic calming for these same infill developments should be considered. At a City Council meeting last
year one staff noted to Council that people in these neighborhoods "did not want improvements". This is not
true. If we take on hundreds of additional car trips per day, we may not want curbs and gutters and 30' wide
streets, put perhaps another option such as the decomposed granite pathways mentioned early or, i.e.
planted medians that function for natural drainage and traffic calming, too.
I would ask you to be careful about too many flashing lights and colored paintings on the roadways, as
this begins to look cluttered and ugly, and if overused becomes less effective.
It is great that you will focus on public transport "first and last mile". I would ask that you create a
preference for clean, non-polluting transportation as well.
Long-term planning should always be considering clean transport and opportunities for quality and
timely public transport. BV Lagoon. Save and preserve open and natural spaces. Don't make the 1-5/78
interchange into a giant noise producing twisting engineering feat. Consider less expensive, less impacts to
neighbors and nature, that will also relieve traffic pressure.
Carlsbad's Coastline
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 28 of 116
The process with the community was conducted well for the Ocean Street Beach Access Project.
Happy that you went for more understated signage and directionals, as well addressing needs for benches,
bike racks, drinking fountains and trash "enclosures". I would ask about what "enclosures" means, though
rather than just bins. And there is still an unaddressed need for public restrooms.
I think the idea of a traffic circle at Tamarack is not so good. Traffic circles don't work as well in heavy
pedestrian areas. Although traffic circles have been built in our neighboring cities, they perhaps did a more
thoughtful installation. The current traffic circle on the north end of Carlsbad at BV Lagoon is cluttered with
signage that is confusing and clunky, and the bike lane transitions are dangerous.
Regarding Terra mar south. We should preserve and protect as much of this coastline for public use as
possible. This is a special opportunity. If all that land is developed for tourists, we will lose it forever. Residents
pay the most into the City's coffers; let's keep some special places natural and as large as possible, and
development should be for the benefit of the residents. Nature-not shopping. The tourists will love it, too.
Enhance Village and Barrio
"appropriate uses" for City owned properties in the Village. Don't forget green spaces and gardens. I
also support the Public Plaza concept.
Please consider from a public health and safety perspective, as well as a climate impact perspective
that more restaurants are now hosting wood-burning fires. These have air-quality impacts that need to be at
the forefront of permitting. Sometimes it smells like a dirty old fireplace in the village now. One business
nearby to Campfire told me that in the mornings when they are cleaning up, the air quality gets considerably
worse with ash. This is an issue.
Do not approve 5 story buildings in the Village Center. What happened to the concept you used to
follow where it was three stories only, and the third floor had to be set back. This helps to keep the small
town charm of our village.
I also suggested that we develop a process for infill development fees for i.e. undergrounding of
power lines and connections to new infrastructure. Why do you put in a new development and not tie in "the
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 29 of 116
three houses that are right nextdoor but use an above ground solution. What is happening in Olde Carlsbad is
that the Utility is cutting down our mature trees in these power line right of ways. And this affects property
value. My family was out of town over Thanksgiving 2016. When we returned home we noticed that a number
of our trees had been radically and hideously topped by the utility without our permission. We can do better
than this, in planning and in working with developers, existing communities, and utilities.
Also, why do we put up City of Carlsbad signs with housing development directional signs? These infill
developments all have names, but they are being built in existing older neighborhoods. We are not going to
change how we refer to our neighborhoods because a developer came up with a cute name for those 20
houses he just built down the street. The City of Carlsbad signs should not be used to promote private
developer projects. They should be used for public events and locations.
Lower the Railroad tracks
This has not been a citizen participatory process. First, I do not understand why Council has been
advocating for a trench alternative for the past year when the economic and feasibility report was only
recently released. That is not an appropriate way to develop policy. There are three options for discussion, and
the public has not been invited to participate in a transparent seeping on these options yet.
We should slow down and first ask residents what they prefer and be more transparent about the
alternatives being presented. Yes, there will be double tracking and more train trips. Yes, with no additional
improvements this could result in more accidents and fatalities. Yes, we need to consider property value, and
perhaps with additional criteria than were initially included in the economic study. Carlsbad Village is a special
place and we want a voice in this.
Let's consider the At-Grade option, for example. Your economic study states that the negative
economic impacts are "primarily due to loss of life and time, as well as changes in property values". The study
goes on to state that even with the At-Grade option, "crossing improvements and fencing" could reduce
incidence of injury and death. The study also suggests that there is a "lack of data" demonstrating the
effectiveness of "new quadrant gates and crossing modifications". I suggest that your study be extended, as I
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 30 of 116
am aware of substantial study that has been done in regard to railroad crossings in the U.S. The economic
study also notes a pedestrian underpass will be built in the At-Grade plan for Beech Avenue, which the study
goes on to state "would likely help to reduce trespasser incidents and boost property values by improving
beach access".
I would assert that the area trenched in Solana Beach is quite different than Carlsbad Village. The
trench in Solana Beach is alongside a well-developed transit and business corridor along HWY 101. Carlsbad's
trench would run directly through the center of our charming, bustling little Village with a heck of a lot of
character that we would like to retain. Perhaps looking more closely at the At-Grade option, we could consider
if possible to add another underpass, and perhaps pedestrian and vehicle overpasses, which would certainly
be less expensive than trenching two rail lines below the water table. Charming overpasses for safety and
even pedestrian photo ops in a beautiful special place. Main point being that I feel that Council chose the
Trench Alternative before all the facts were in. Now that we have the economic and feasibility studies,
please let the public have a full and transparent disclosure and comment period.
The At-Grade option may not be the best. But it should be discussed as a viable option with the
residents due to the complexity and cost of trenching two rail lines through the middle of our Village---and
below the water table as well! Creative multi-modal goals align here.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 31 of 116
Carlsbad City Council Goals-Setting Meeting
February 21, 2017
We congratulate the City on its accomplishments especially in the areas that make our Climate Action Plan
effective and measurable . We propose an additional goal, focused specifically on a susta inable environment, which
will help us to quickly reduce our ca rbon "footprint" and thereby amplify the CAP's success.
The 2016 Public Opinion Survey revealed that efforts to promote environmental sustainability are services where
the level of importance was the highest and the level of satisfaction lower than most of the services that were
examined. The area of "environmental sustainability" was an area considered very important(> 91%) with
satisfaction levels below 80%. This area is especially important to our younger voters as environmental
susta inability was noted to be "extremely important" to 75% of our 18-24 years olds, and also to 79% of our 25-34
year olds.
Several volunteer organizations in Carlsbad have collaborated to propose an additional City Policy Goal for
"Environmental Sustainability'' for the Council to consider for 2017-18. The strategies that we list here, along with
suggested plans for implementation, align with the City's existing six goals for 2016-17, and each is in harmony
with one or more of our City's Legislative Platform planks. This proposal is compiled and subm itted for
consideration by Liz Myers-Chamberlin and Geri Ingram, members of the Citizens' Climate Lobby of North San
Diego County. *
Proposal-a New Goal for Environmental Sustainability
Lead the way to a Sustainable and Healthy Environment by
supporting innovative environmental policies and emerging
technologies in Carlsbad.
Strategy #1: Appoint a Carlsbad Sustainability Advisory Group to assist
the Council in developing policies that address issues of climate change,
energy policy, and public health.
Council should appoint a Sustainability Advisory Group-to work with the City Council
to study and recommend economic, social, and environmental policies and projects to
assure a sustainable environment for Carlsbad . This suggestion, if approved, will
enable the Council to move quickly to informed decisions on questions of
sustainability in Carlsbad. The Council-appointed group will serve as a clearinghouse
for research and reporting to a Council sponsor, upon request.
Strategy #2: Endorse state-wide, national, and international efforts to
slow global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
a. Endorse a National Carbon Fee-and-Dividend Policy
Carbon Fee and Dividend is a national policy to drastically reduce carbon emissions, while
creating millions of jobs, and saving countless lives. It includes a steadily rising price "fee"
on oil, coal and gas, charged at the point of extraction, with 100% of the proceeds
refunded to American households in the form of a monthly "dividend".
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 32 of 116
-See more at http://citizensclimatelobby.org
b. Join the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy
This is a Michael Bloom berg/Ban Ki-Moon initiative that has already
partnered with 7100 cities worldwide to systematically de-carbonize their
cities, and present standardized, quantified data on a worldwide platform
about their progress. Cities in San Diego County who have joined include San
Diego, Chula Vista, and Solana Beach.
-See more at https://www.compactofmayors.org/globalcovenantofmayors/ and
https://www.compactofmayors.org
Strategy #3: Increase investment in local renewable energy availability
a. Provide the citizenry with choice in energy sources. Follow
through on the regional Community Choice Energy effort as set
forth in the Climate Action Plan by contributing to a feasibility
study for North County cities.
b. Divest city investments from fossil fuels; re-invest in local
renewable energy generation and storage technologies
In keeping with our Environment Guiding Principles, we need to stop supporting fossil fuel
extraction, and instead invest in clean, local, renewable energy and energy storage.
1) Support a 500-megawatt San Vicente Energy Storage Project
The San Diego County Water Authority and the City of San Diego could help
the region meet its future energy needs through a new pumped storage
opportunity at the San Vicente Reservoir site. The potential project would
create a new, up to SOD-megawatt source of renewable energy that could
provide electric grid stability to the region during peak times for energy use
or other days when demand for electricity is high and renewable energy
supplies are scarce.
See more at: http://www.sdcwa.org/water-authority-citv-san-diego-measuring-
interest-potential-renewable-energy-supporting-pumped-storage
2) Decommission the aged Encino fossil fuel plant entirely;
withdraw support for a gas-fired .. peaker .. plant. Support a
100% renewable energy and battery storage facility.
Clean, reliable battery storage technology is here now. We must seize this
opportunity to build a state-of-the-art facility that frees us from the old
baggage of pollution. It is reported that the largely unstudied particle
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 33 of 116
pollutant, ammonia, would be emitted in large quantities from the
proposed gas-powered facility making Carlsbad the largest emitter of this
pollutant (that is linked to a host of health problems) in San Diego County.
-See more at http:l/inewsource.org/2017/02/15/carlsbad-encina-environmenU
and http://www. forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/12/13/vanadium-flow-batteries-
the-energy-storage-breakth roug h-weve-needed/#1 d93b 78072 71
Strategy #4: Manage our open spaces, parks, beaches and schools,
using clean, renewable energy-based methods and equipment
a. Switch from gas-powered equipment to locally generated renewable
energy devices wherever feasible.
Use electrically powered grass cutting devices/blowers etc. powered by renewable energy.
Gas powered lawn mowers and blowers are highly polluting. In fact, One hour of gas-
powered lawn mowing produces as much pollution as four hours of driving a car! Switching
to electric can be low-hanging fruit to help us lower our carbon footprint.
b. Stop using harmful pesticides in public spaces. Use only clean, green non-
toxic landscape cultivation and maintenance practices
Use sustainable methods to manage city land, parks, and schools. Don't spray Round-up
whose main ingredient "glyphosate" has been classified by the EPA as a likely carcinogen,
where other effective, lower-cost, non-toxic product replacements exist. Neonicotinoids
are killing bees and other pollinators that we depend on to pollinate our crops, while the
widely used malathion is a broad-spectrum insecticide that doesn't differentiate between
"good" and "bad" bugs.
Note: Locally, the City of Encinitas is running a pilot project at Glen Park to create a "Fruit
Forest". Funded by a "turf removal grant", the council approved testing a pesticide-free
park for one year at the request of residents who have health and environmental concerns.
City staff recommended testing the idea at Glen Park, and if it was successful, the concept
could move to more or even all city parks. Carlsbad can learn and benefit from the great
ideas our neighboring cities have tested.
Addendum:
legislative Platform items especially relevant to proposed Environmental Sustainability
Goal :
Environment
a. Support legislation that complements Council's Environmental Sustainability Guiding Principles.
b. Support efforts for the safe and cost effective disposal of solid, hazardous and medical waste.
c. Support legislation that encourages timely action to reduce the amount of ozone depleting compounds
discharged into the atmosphere.
d. Support legislation that allocates state and/or federal funds for the construction of facilities to capture and
treat the flow of raw sewage entering San Diego from Tijuana.
e. Support measures, which promote the recycling/reclaiming of natural resources, including water, timber,
oil, gas minerals and earth metals.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 34 of 116
•
f. Support measures that would make low-interest loans and/or grants ava ilable to local agencies for
programs that would encourage the recycling/reclaiming of resources.
g. Support legislation that streamlines federal and State of California's environmental review processes and
limits court reviews of environmental documentation.
h. Support legislation to develop an ongoing fund ing sou rce to implement the federally mandated Clean
Water Act of 1987 and to ensure protection of local resources.
i. Support legislation that provides funding to improve recreational water quality, habitat management, and
open space.
j. Support legislation that promotes alternatively powered vehicles in the State vehicle buying program.
k. Oppose environmental legislation that creates an unfunded mandate for cities to implement and fund .
Energy
a. Support legislation that develops regulatory and market mechanisms that ensure the State achieves the
greatest level of energy self-sufficiency and security as soon as practical.
b. Support legislation that establishes a market structure and rules that promote real competition and
reasonable, justifiable prices.
c. Support legislation that aggressively pursues refunds to consumers for rates that have been determined to
be unjust or un reasonable.
d. Support legislation that commits to and expedites the development of needed infrastructure (e.g.
generation, transmission, and natural gas pipelines) to create robust and functional markets.
e. Support legislation that increases the diversity of the State and region's energy resources, particularly
increasing the use of higher-efficiency, clean distributed generation (e.g. combined heat and power) and
renewable resources.
f. Support legislation that encourages and incentivizes the adoption of new and
emerging technologies that provide real-time pricing to promote better price response by consumers.
g. Support legislation that promotes municipal renewable energy development.
h. Support legislation that allows net electrical metering.
i. Support legislation that provides financial incentives for renewable energy.
j. Support legislation that minimizes adverse environmental impacts of the State and the region's energy
use.
k. Support legislation that encourages funding programs for and promotion of alternate energy sources
I. Support legislation that prohibits the California Energy Commission from issuing any license to operate a
power plant unless and until it has received the report requ ired by the California Coastal Commission
under the Warren-Aiqu ist Act.
Public Health
a. Support any measure that protects children and youth from exposure to tobacco, second hand smoke and
tobacco-related products.
b. Support legislation that recognizes and prevents the adverse impacts affecting the public health and welfare
of its citizens, and particularly minors.
*About the authors: We are a group of Carlsbad residents who want to encourage our city government to
adopt a range of important measures to enhance our way of life, boost our economy, promote our security,
improve our health, and strengthen our country. We are active members of a number of North County and
San Diego environmental groups including Citizens' Climate Lobby (568 local members), Carlsbad
Sustainability Coalition (200 members), North County Climate Change Alliance (1500 members); Sierra
Club (700 members), SanDiego350 (2800 members), and No Way Measure A (232 members).
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 35 of 116
All Receive -Agenda Item # 1._
For the Information of the:
C~ COUNCIL V"'
AOM __ . CA Lee_
Date ~City Ml!lnag~r ~
Memorandum
February 17, 2017
To:
From:
Via:
Re:
Mayor and City Council Members /1 __ ..A / J__ ..
Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager /~
Kevin Crawford, City Manager~'("
SANDAG Trench Studies ·
{City of
Carlsbad
Attached for your reference is the Executive Summary of the Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study, and the Executive
Summary of the Economic Study Assessing LOSSAN Corridor Improvement Options. These items
are intended to serve as supplemental information in support ofthe February 21, 2017 City
Council Goal Setting staff report. Both reports are on file and available for public review in the
City Clerk's Office.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
JH:mf
Attachments
City Manager's Office
City Hall1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 36 of 116
""
"" I
"\
I
"" I
"" I
' I
' I
" .J
' J
' J
"' I
" I
" j
\
./
\
"'
---,.............,_-=~~-.... ....,.__ ~-.--. ...... --.---~ -~-
CARlSBAD VIllAGE DOUBlE TRACK -
RAilROAD TRENCH AlTERNATIVE
ECONOMIC ANAlYSIS AND
FEASIBiliTY STUDY
January 2017
Prepared for:
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 921 01
(cit}rof
Carlsbad
Califor n i a
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
'T¥L N INTERNATIONAL
404 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 921 08
(619) 692-1920
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 37 of 116
' /
' /
\
/
\
/
\
/
/
\
/
/
\
/
/
/
Carlsbad Village Double Ti·cclt
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG I City of Carlsbad I NCTD
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
January 2017
This report documents the study of two additional alternatives for the Carlsbad Village Double Track
project. The Carlsbad Village Double Track project constructs a second railroad track from Cassidy Street
in Oceanside south to Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad. The At-Grade Alternative would construct a second
track at the existing ground level, modify the at-grade street crossings, and construct a double-track
bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon. The two new alternatives would include grade separation of the
railroad tracks by constructing them in a trench, beneath the existing street elevations. The first alternative,
known as the Short Trench Alternative, would construct the double track railroad lowered in a trench
passing under vehicular overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Oak Avenue, with
pedestrian overpasses at Beech Ave/Carlsbad Village Station and Chestnut Avenue. The second
alternative is the Long Trench Alternative, which would construct a railroad trench passing under vehicular
overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, and
Tamarack Avenue, with a pedestrian overpass at Beech Ave/Carlsbad Village Station. Both trench
alternatives would require replacement of the Carlsbad Boulevard Overcrossing with a new bridge
spanning the tracks.
Current conditions include only four loc.ations for pedestrians and vehicles to cross the railroad tracks in the
1.8 miles between Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, one grade separated and three
at-grade. By grade separating the tracks in a trench, additional crossings can be added at Oak Avenue
and Chestnut Avenue, and potentially others along the railroad Right-of-Way. The Long Trench
Alternative would construct a vehicular crossing at Chestnut Avenue, while the Short Trench Alternative
would construct a pedestrian crossing at Chestnut Avenue. The grade separated crossings will eliminate
delays to traffic and emergency responders caused by at-grade crossing gate arms that remain down as
trains approach and pass by.
Construction of either trench alternative would first require a temporary shoofly track be constructed to
allow railroad operations to continue throughout construction. An impact of the temporary shoofly track is
a temporary loss of parking at the station and in the area east of the tracks between Grand Avenue and
Oak Avenue. The historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot located between Grand Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive would need to be relocated prior to construction.
r
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 38 of 116
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG I City of Carlsbad I NCTD January 2017
Based on geotechnical borings taken in the project area from 2013 and 2016, the trench would be
located below the water table and require specialized design and construction techniques for trench
retaining walls and waterproofing of the trench in groundwater. Several options were studied for the
trench structure. The most viable retaining wall structure type is a secant pile wall system with horizontal
struts for bracing in the deepest portion. This type of wall creates an effective seal from groundwater and
can be constructed prior to excavation which reduces the volume of dewatering needed. A sealed trench
floor is required which will result in a buoyant force trying to lift the trench structure. A mass concrete base
is proposed to withstand the buoyant force due to the groundwater. Additional options presented in the
report are deep soil mixing walls or slurry diaphragm walls, and the use of tie-down anchors in the trench
floor to reduce the weight of concrete needed. Future phases of the project would require an extensive
groundwater monitoring program and analysis to confirm the proper design groundwater depth.
The Long Trench Alternative would require the acquisition of three single family residential parcels located
east of existing railroad Right-of-Way, just south of Tamarack Avenue. The existing Right-of-Way is
narrow in this location and there are utilities (a 48-inch sewer and 84-inch storm drain) located on the east
side of the tracks which must be relocated to construct this alternative. A feasible place to relocate them is
to shift them east into the subject parcels. The Short Trench Alternative does not require any Right-of-Way
acquisitions.
The Short Trench Alternative would have a total project investment between $215 million and $235 million
(2016), while the Long Trench Alternative would hove a total project investment between $320 million and
$350 million (2016). These costs include a 30% contingency on the estimated construction cost to account
for the preliminary nature of the design. Future maintenance costs due to the trench alternatives would
include maintenance of storm drain pump stations required to drain the trench, maintenance of bridges and
retaining walls, and elevator maintenance at the train station.
The preferred minimum vertical clearance on the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN)
corridor is 26 ft. North County Transit District (NCTD) has indicated that, with concurrence from Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF} Railway, the minimum vertical clearance may be reduced to 24 ft. If the
minimum clearance used for design were 24 ft., the construction cost of the project would be reduced by
an estimated $14 million for the Long Trench Alternative, and $8 million for the Short Trench Alternative.
2
'•
,.
'•
r'
'I
r' ,,
r'
'I ,..
't ,..
'I
'·
/
I
'
I
'
' '
I
'
f
'-
tl
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 39 of 116
.,
,,
;
..
Prepared for:
SAIVDAG
.. ... -~ .. -..,_--~ -~ -· . ~:~;
1/17/2017 .
: ... ,.. ~~~ ~:a•} -""' ''!.l:~l.l. ""·.,,.. • '""""""-• ./ ~
(_City of
Carlsbad
Ca l forn a
ECONOMIC STUDY
Prepared by RSG, Inc.,
Kimley-Horn and AssC)ciates, Inc., and
dBF Associates
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 40 of 116
_____ Economic Study_
Economic Study
Economic Study Assessing LOSSAN Corridor Improvement Options -City of Carlsbad
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Three different alternatives have been proposed in connection with the double tracking of the Los Angeles-San
Diego-San Luis Obispo ("LOSSAN") rail corridor through the City of Carlsbad ("City" or "Carlsbad"), primarily
through downtown Carlsbad (commonly called "Carlsbad Village"). This Economic Study ("Study") has been
prepared to project the economic and fiscal impacts throughout San Diego County ("County") of the following
three alternatives:
1. Double tracking entirely at-grade ("At-grade")
2. Double tracking with a railroad trench from the Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass to north
of Tamarack Avenue ("Short Trench")
3. Double tracking with a railroad trench from the Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass to north
of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon railroad bridge ("Long Trench")
This Study has been prepared for inclusion in the Carlsbad Village Double Track -Railroad Trench Alternative
Feasibility Study ("Feasibility Study") for the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and Carlsbad,
prepared by T.Y.lin International. The Feasibility Study analyzes the technical feasibility, design considerations,
environmental constraints, schedule, and cost of the three alternatives.
An important distinction must be made between fiscal and economic impacts. Fiscal impacts, such as property
and sales taxes, represent a direct revenue benefit to local public agencies. Per industry standards, this Study
focuses on fiscal impacts expected to result directly from the three alternatives. Additional fiscal impacts can
be expected to accrue to public agencies indirectly. Economic impacts-such as the values of lives and time
saved, as well as economic output-are distributed more broadly and may not be reflected directly in public
agencies' finances. This Study considers both categories of impacts, specifically the following:
• The value of lives saved and injuries avoided
• The value of time saved by motorists and pedestrians
• Property values
• Property taxes
• Retail and restaurant sales
• Sales taxes
• Construction imP,acts
• Transient occupancy taxes
• Vacancy and lease rates
• Job creation
• Emergency response delays
• Displacement
Where possible, the projected values have been calculated as a range with "Low," "Middle," and/or "High"
points due to the uncertainty associated with projecting economic and fiscal impacts. It is important to note that
Page 4
,.
,.
r·
f•
f·
, ..
I'
t·
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 41 of 116
''
Economic Study
the actual impacts of the three rail improvem~nt alternatives will depend on, and occur within the context of,
many factors and trends. This Study focuses on the impacts expected to occur solely due to the three alternatives.
Figure A below summarizes the results of this analysis and provides a side-by-side comparison of these impacts
under each alternative during a 99-year period. Figures B and C portray these results graphically.
Economic Study -LOSSAN Corridor Carlsbad Improvement Options
Summary of Economic and Fiscal Impacts-3 Scenarios
Figure A
All Numbers Expressed in 2016 Million Dollars
At-grade Short Trench-Long Trench
Low I Middle I High Low I Middle I High low I Middle I High
Construction Cost I I
Total Cost $62.0 $224.1 $335.1
Value of Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided
Total Value ($228.9) ($406.9) ($567.9) $363.2 $645.6 $901.2 $484.7 $861.6 $1,202.7
Economic Impacts
Value of Time Saved ($7.2) $10.9 $12.7
Secondary Economic Output of Construction $35.4 $139.2 $208.1
Property Value ($171.6) $3,432.0 $3,432.0 J
Retail and Restaurant Sales $0.0 $1,922.1 $6,890.2 $15,785.5 $1,958.4 $7,642.8 $17,003.2
Total Economic Impacts ($143.4) $5,504.2 $10,472.3 $19,367.6 $5,611.2 $11,295.6 $20,656.0
Fiscal Impacts
Additional Sales Tax $0.0 $19.2 $68.9 $157.9 $19.6 $76.4 $170.0
Property Tax due to Reduced Noise, Traffic Congestion ($1.7) $34.3 $343
Property Tax due to Reduced Noise ($1.7) $1.6 I $2.0 $2.3 $2.9 $3.3 I $3.7
Pro_llerty Tax due to Improved Beach Access $0.0 $2.6 $2.6
Transient Occupancy Tax $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Fiscal Impacts ($1.7) $56.1 1 $1os.8 $194.8 $56.5. $113.4 $207.0
The At-grade alternative has the lowest construction cost of the three alternatives at $62.0 million. The results
of the data analysis indicate negative value of lives saved and negative economic and fiscal impacts
(estimated as ranging from -$228.9 million _to -$567.9 million, at -$143.4 million, and at -$1.7 million,
respectively), primarily due to loss of life· and time, as well as changes in property values. Trespasser incidents
resulting in motorist and pedestrian death could potentially be reduced with crossing improvements and fencing
of the railroad corridor made in the At-grade alternative. The current construction cost estimate for the At-
grade alternative includes new quadrant gates and-crossing modifications. However, there is a lack of data
showing the statistical effect these improvements have in preventing incidents. Furthermore, the At-grade
alternative includes a pedestrian underpass at Beech Avenue, which would likely help to reduce trespasser
incidents and boost property values by improving beach access. As with crossing modifications, there is a lack
of data showing the exact statistical effect of the underpass. The primary cause of the At-grade's negative
economic and fiscal impacts is the expectation of an increase in lives lost as train traffic and the opportunity for
accidents increases (see Figure D). Other causes include a decline in property values due to higher noise and
traffic congestion levels, and greater delays due to traffic congestion.
The Short Trench has a significantly higher construction cost of $224.1 million, but has estimated fiscal and
economic benefits in the billions of dollars, the most prominent of which are the expected additional retail sales,
higher property values, and the value of lives saved. Other significant benefits include the economic output
resulting from construction, additional sales tax revenue~, and greater property tax revenues. In total, the value
Page 5
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 42 of 116
Economic Study
of lives saved plus economic benefits of the Short Trench are estimated between $5.87 billion and $20.27
billion, while fiscal impacts are estimated from $56.1 million to $194.8 million.
The Long Trench has the highest construction cost, estimated at $335.1 million, as well as the highest fiscal
and economic benefits. Overall, the value of lives saved plus economic benefits range from $6.10 billion
to $21.86 billion. Fiscal benefits are estimated bet~een $56.5 million and $207.0 million.
It should be noted that after the analysis for the Study was completed, the required vertical clearance for the
proiect was changed from 26 feet to 24 feet. Since the analysis was already complete, it was not changed.
However-, RSG notes that a lower required vertical clearance would allow for lower construction costs in the
Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives, which would correspond to a reduced construction duration as well
as lower economic impacts of construction. As described in the Feasibility Study, the reduction equals 5-6% of
the construction cost estimates identified in this Study.
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
($5,000)
Figure B-Total Projected Economic Impacts .
Total Economic Impacts-2016 Million Dollars
LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW
AT-GRADE SHORT1RENCH
• Retail Sales
• Value of Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided
• Property Value
Valu e of Time Saved
• Secondary Economic Output of Construction
MIDDLE HIGH
LONG1RENCH
Page 6
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 43 of 116
' ' ~
' )
' i
' .1
' I
·.'
·!
25
20
15
10
5
0
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
($50}
Economic Study
Figure C-Total Projected Fiscal Impacts
Total Fiscal Impacts-2016 Million Dollars
LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH
AT-GRADE SHORTlRENCH LONG 1RENCH
• Property Tax -Improved Beach Access
Property Tax-Reduced Noise and Traffic Congestion
• Additional Sales Tax
FigureD
Train Incidents in Carlsbad & Solana Beach
Injuries and Fatalities
CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH
BEFORE 1998
.I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I I ..
CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH
AFTER 1998
• Fatalities Injuries • Unspecified Incidents
Page 7
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 44 of 116
Memorandum
February 16, 2017
To:
To the members of the:
CITY COUNCIL ACM_~CA~·cc /
Date~ City Manager~·
{City of
Carlsbad
From:
Via:
Mayor and City Council Members
a.tarv T. Barberio, Assistant City Manager and Curtis M. Jackson, Real Estate Manager
Kevin Crawford, City ManageV
Re: City Hall Funding Analysis
The City Council has an established goal to develop a plan for a new city hall that will be a point of pride
for residents while greatly improving efficiency and effectiveness by centralizing an employee base that
is currently spread throughout many city facilities. One of the strategies in the City Council adopted work
plan for achieving this goal includes the completion of a City Hall Funding Analysis.
Over the past six months, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, real estate advisors, and city finance
staff, a draft funding source, allowed use, and expected availability of funds analysis for a new city hall
has been conducted.
City Hall Funding Analysis
Community Facility District No. 1 (CFD No. 1) -Background: Funding for a new city hall would come
primarily, although not exclusively, through CFD No. 1 funds. CFD No. 1 was established in 1991 to finance
certain specifically identified public capital facilities located throughout the City, among these was a City
Hall complex. To date, most all of the public facilities identified in CFD No. 1 have been constructed except
for the City Hall complex, a Public Works office and warehouse facility, the expansion of the Cole library,
and the construction of Veterans Park.
CFD No. 1 funds cannot be used to pay for civic facilities or services outside those mentioned above. CFD
No. 1 funds are not considered "general fund" dollars and are not subject to Prop H spending limitation
restrictions. There is no sunset or deadline by which CFD No. 1 funds must be used; however, if they are
not spent on the identified public facilities, the city is required to return these funds back to the parties
who paid them.
Current and Expected CFD No. 1 Fund Balance: The City currently has approximately $30,000,000 in CFD
No. 1 funds specifically allocated for the development of a new city hall, and anticipates collecting up to
$20,000,000 in additional funds that could be added to the current budget for a new city hall through the
city's build-out, for a total of $50,000,000.
Additionally, in 2002 the city acquired the Farmers Property as a.possible location for a new city hall utilizing
$15,730,000 in CFD No. 1 funds. If the city determines that the Farmers Property will not be the location
for a new city hall, the city is required to sell the property and deposit the realized funds back into the CFD
No. 1 fund. Our current (December 2016) real estate evaluation estimate is that the city could realize
between $25,206,000 and $35,473,000 through the sale of the Farmers Property. The sale of the Farmers
Property would bring the total amount of CFD No. 1 funds available for the construction of a new city hall
to between $75,206,000 and $85,474,000.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 45 of 116
Public Facility Fee -Background: In 1979, the City Council established a Public Facilities Fee (PFF) which
requires developers to pay the PFF prior to issuance of a building permit. All PFF funds collected must be
used only for acquiring, building, improving, expanding or equipping public property and public
improvements and facilities. PFF funds are not considered "general fund" dollars and are not subject to
Prop H spending limitation restrictions and use of these funds is generally more flexible than the use of CFD
No.1 funds.
Current city Real Estate assets purchased utilizing PFF funds include the Faraday Center and Las Palmas
properties. The Faraday Center was acquired in 2001 for $9,100,000. Our current (August 2016) real estate
evaluation estimate is that the Faraday Center property is valued at between $9,800,050 and $17,798,950.
The Las Palmas property was acquired in 1987 for $1,602,160, and is currently leased to Mira Costa
Community College through 2020. Our current (April 2016) real estate evaluation estimate is that the Las
Palmas property is valued at between $2,899,142 and $7,772,391.
Unlike the Farmers Property, if the city selects a new city hall location that does not involve the Faraday
Center or Las Palmas properties, the city would not be required to sell these properties as they were
purchased with PFF funds which are less restrictive than CFD No. 1 funds. However, if the city were to sell
the Faraday Center and the Las Palmas properties, the city could realize between $12,699,192 and
$25,571,341, and, given the flexibility allowed with PFF funds, these funds could be made available towards
the construction of a new city hall. Alternatively, the city could elect to lease the Faraday Center and the
Las Palmas properties and the lease revenue generated could also be made available for the construction
of a new city hall or utilized for general fund purposes.
lfthe city elected to combine the funds realized through the sale of the Faraday Center and the Las Palmas
properties together with the total estimated CFD No. 1 funds available for a new city hall project, the
resulting total funds available would be between $62,699,192 and $75,571,341, and, when combined with
potential funds from the sale of the Farmers Property, between $87,905,192 and $111,044,341.
Estimated City Hall Building Square Footage and Acreage Needed
Currently the majority of the city's administrative staff is located at the current City Hall (16,500 SF
building) and Faraday Center (68,000 SF building) properties. Ideally, the city would develop a city hall to
house all administrative staff, a new Council Chamber and community meeting spaces, and potentially
some additional commercially leasable space that would also be available for future municipal expansion.
It is estimated that the aforementioned new city hall would require approximately 120,000 square feet of
office and meeting space. Based on staff research of numerous recently constructed southern California
city halls, the current market estimates indicate the cost to develop a new city hall is between $320 and
$570 per square foot (range is directly influenced by design) including building and site construction. As
such, a 120,000 square foot city hall would cost between $38,400,000 and $68,400,000, plus an additional
40% for soft and contingency costs, for a total project cost of $53,760,000 to $95,760,000
Given the 120,000 square foot size estimate of a new city hall building, it is estimated that a new city hall
of that size would need to be located on 3 to 5 acres if the project included a structured parking garage,
and 5 to 8 acres if parking requirements were met by surface parking only. Total required parking spaces
for a new 120,000 square foot city hall are estimated to be 480 parking spaces. If a parking structure is
required for a new 120,000 square foot city hall, each structured parking space is estimated to cost
$37,000, or $17,760,000 for 480 parking spaces. The parking structure cost would be in addition to the
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 46 of 116
above mentioned total project cost, for a revised estimated development budget between $71,520,000
to 113,520,000.
Potential City-owned New City Hall Locations
Existing City Hall Location: The current City Hall property is 11.09 acres in size and includes the Cole
Library building and the existing 16,500 square foot city hall buildings. If the existing City Hall property
was selected as the site for a new city hall, the 11.09 acres would be more than sufficient to accommodate
both a new 120,000 square foot city hall and the expansion and rebuild ofthe Cole Library utilizing either
surface or structured parking, or a combination thereof. lfthe current City Hall property was chosen, the
City would have the opportunity to create a more cohesive and unique If civic center'' campus around the
existing and future Cole Library, and adjacency to the Village and freeway. lfthe city elects to not use this
location, the current City Hall portion of the property is valued conservatively at $20,465,000.
Additionally, the city could potentially lease the property for an estimated $1,637,200 per year and utilize
the revenue stream as determined by the City Council.
Farmers Property: The Farmers Property is 13.51 acres in size and consists ofthree separate parcels, one
of which is a 5.1 acre vacant parcel. The Farmers Property is currently developed with a 128,846 square
foot, three-story office building on a 6.95 acre parcel and a 6,100 square foot single story office building
(Bio, Tech & Beyond incubator) on a 1.46 acre parcel. If the Farmers Property was selected as the site for
a new city hall, the 13.51 acres would be more than sufficient to accommodate a new 120,000 square foot
city hall utilizing either surface or structured parking. Estimated costs (February 2016) to remodel the
existing 128,846 square foot building to a basic but functional city hall is $23,910,178, and the cost to
demolish the existing buildings is $1,000,000 (should the city decide to build a new building at this
location). Given the current city hall size estimate, it is very likely that the 5.1 acre vacant parcel would
not be needed to accommodate a new city hall. If the land is not needed for a new city hall or for future
city hall expansion, the city is required to sell this 11excess" parcel and deposit the realized funds back into
the CFD No. 1 fund. The current (December, 2016) real estate evaluation estimate is that the city could
realize between $2,665,872 and $6,804,638 through the sale of the 11excess" parcel at the Farmers
Property.
Pine Avenue Park Site (western parking lot): The Pine Avenue Park Site is 11.56 acres in size, and is
developed with 46,300 square feet of buildings for the Senior Center and soon-to-be constructed
community recreation center, along with a multi-purpose field, park and picnic areas, and parking lots. It
is feasible to construct a new multi-story 120,000 square foot city hall utilizing below-ground structured
parking on the existing 2.16 acre parking lot located just west of the Senior Center. If the Pine Avenue
Park Site was selected as the location for a new city hall, the city would have the opportunity to realize a
unique 11Civic center'' campus around the existing Senior Center and new community recreation center
within the heart ofthe Village and Barrio neighborhoods.
Faraday Center Property-1635 Faraday Avenue: The Faraday Center property is 7.25 gross acres, but
only approximately 3.5 acres in net size. It is developed with a 68,000 square foot office building. The net
acreage of the Faraday Center Property is not large enough to easily accommodate additional building
square footage and parking. In order to construct 52,000 square feet of additional administrative office,
Council Chamber and community meeting space and the parking needed to support the additional square
footage at the Faraday Center location, approximately 7.8 gross acres of the undeveloped portion of the
adjacent private property to the south would need to be acquired. Combined, the two properties
comprise an estimated 8.12 net buildable acres. It is estimated that the acquisition of the needed 7.8
acres to the south would cost between $4,000,000 and $6,700,000.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 47 of 116
To the members of the:
CITY COUNCIL AC~ ~ CA -lL-CC ./"
Date '1!!/.r1 City Manager Z
Memorandum
February 15, 2017
To:
From:
Via:
Re:
Mayor and City Council Members ~
Gary T. Barberio, Assistant City Manage/:'V
Kevin Crawford, City Manage'tt V
Hub Park lease
{City of
Carlsbad
This memorandum, including all attachments, is intended to serve as supplemental information
in support of the February 21, 2017 City Council Goal Setting staff report. As indicated in the
February 21, 2017 Staff Report, at its June 21, 2016 meeting, the City Council received a report
regarding the Hub Park Lease. Council direction at that meeting was to reconsider the
discussion and priority of the Hub Park Lease area at the City Council's 2017 Goal Setting
Workshop. Attached for your reference, please find the staff report, PowerPoint presentations
and the minutes from the June 2016 meeting.
One point of discussion and concern at the June 2016 City Council meeting was the expected
completion date of the Carlsbad Trails Master Plan. The anticipated completion date for the
Trails Master Plan is end of summer 2017.
GTB:mf
Attachments
CC: Parks & Recreation Director Chris Hazeltine
City Manager's Office
City Hall1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 48 of 116
Staff Report
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 49 of 116
CITY OF CARLSBAD-AGENDA BILL 1
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
22,321 DEPT. DIRECTOR h71:2.._
06/21/2016
CM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
REPORT AND PRESENTATION REGARDING
THE HUB PARK LEASE CITY ATTORNEY _,.-(!-;.'f1L-_ __,
CITY MANAGER ld
•
To receive a report and presentation regarding the Hub Park Lease and provide direction to city staff as
appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Recently, a number of community members have inquired about the possibility of the city developing
passive recreational uses such as hiking trails and view-points on the property covered by the Hub Park
Lease (Exhibit 1). This Agenda Bill provides background and a summary of the Hub Park Lease
provisions and the property in general, offers an overview of the opportunities, constraints and
challenges to executing the lease, and outlines an option for a course of action should the City Council
wish to pursue further work in this area.
Lease and Property Background: As a result of Encina Power Plant-related development activities
initiated by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and in direct response to significant community concerns
that were raised in 197S regarding the proposed development of an oil refinery on property east of the
1-5 freeway owned by SDG&E, the city entered into what is known as the Hub Park Lease with SDG&E in
November of 1975. The lease covers an area of approximately 96 acres on the south shore of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon (Exhibit 2). SDG&E continues to be the owner of the property. A majority of the Hub
Park lease area is subject to the provisions of Proposition D, adopted by the voters of Carlsbad in 2006.
A majority of the Hub Park lease area was also proposed for purchase by and was a part of the Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan initiative sponsored by Caruso Affiliated. The Agua Hedionda South
Shore Specific Plan was the subject of Measure A, which was defeated by the voters of Carlsbad in
February 2016.
The initial 60-year Hub Park lease term runs through November 2035, and may be extended for four
additional periods for a maximum lease term of 99 years, or until 2074. The lease provides that the city
may use the land for park and recreation purposes. Under the terms of the lease the city must pay rent
in an amount not to exceed $14,000 annually, with rent due at the time the city has an adopted plan for
development of the land and has obtained all permits necessary to initiate development of the
property. The lease acknowledges that a portion of the Hub Park lease area is currently leased to and
may continue to be leased to an agricultural user, currently the Carlsbad Strawberry Company. Prior to
the city initiating actual development in the lease area, the city is required to provide a one-year
advance notice so that SDG&E can arrange termination of the agricultural lease use.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Gary T. Barberio, Assistant City Manager, 760-434-2821 gary.barberio@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED ~ CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
DENIED D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
CONTINUED D RETURNED TO STAFF D
WITHDRAWN D OTHER-SEE MINUTES ll(
AMENDED D
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 50 of 116
Hub Park Lease Area
June 21, 2016
Pagel
Analysis: Execution of the Hub Park lease provides an opportunity for expanding passive recreational
uses such as hiking trails and view-points on the 96 acre property. However, the property is also highly
constrained and development of the property presents many challenges. The opportunities,
constraints, and challenges exhibited by the 96 acre Hub Park lease property are summarized as follows:
Opportunities
96 acres (gross) of property under city control to 2074
Public access could be provided for first time in over 60 years
Lagoon frontage and views
Development consistent with the values of the Carlsbad Community Vision
Development consistent with Open Space & Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP)
Development consistent with draft Trails Master Plan
Proposition C-Open Space and Trail Connections set-aside fund
Future trail connections
-West to 1-5 and coastline
-Cannon Road undercrossing
-AHLF Discovery Center
-Veteran's Park
-Crossings Golf Course trails
-Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan trails
Constraints and Challenges
Property Deed Restrictions
Cal Coastal Commission (CCC) OS Deed Restriction and existing HMP Hard line-62 acres of lease area
Utility Easements/Power line Corridor-41 acres of lease area
-Net lease area is 34 acres (net of OS deed restriction)
-Net-net lease area is 16 acres (net of OS deed restriction & utility easement)
Land Use/Zoning Policies, Regulations, and Permits
Carlsbad General Plan
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan provisions
No LCP Implementation Plan-Coastal Development Permit issued by CCC
Proposition D Implementation provisions of the Cannon Road Agricultural/Open Space Zone
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provisions
Lease area not included in Growth Management Program
-not needed for Park compliance
-not included as Park in the Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
-not included as Park in the Zone 13 LFMP financing plan
Permitting/CEQA issues and costs
State and Federal Resource Agencies-US Army Corps, US F&W, CASt F&W, RWQCB
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 51 of 116
Hub Park Lease Area
June 21, 2016
Page3
Environmental Considerations
Pesticide considerations
Biological Resource impact avoidance and mitigation considerations
Cultural Resource considerations
Archeological Resource considerations
Storm water/drainage/grading considerations
Physical Considerations
Steep Topography
Lease area is isolated
-access to/from Cannon Road is significantly challenging
-location of a trail-head is problematic
-no direct trail connection to existing trail system
Legal and Lease Considerations
Property is leased, not owned
Historical and existing Agricultural use and tenant provisions
Lease rate
As can be readily appreciated by the above enumerated opportunities, constraints and challenges, it is
evident that any planning, public outreach, environmental review, permitting, and development of
passive recreational uses such as hiking trails and view-points on the 96 acre Hub Park Lease property
will take a significant amount of effort, time, and resources. Any work effort in this area at this time
would compete for resources with the many other initiatives and projects already anticipated by the
City Council's adopted goals and in the city's adopted capital improvement program, many of which are
planned and needed for compliance with the provisions of the city's growth management program.
Options for Consideration:
If the City Council wishes to pursue further analysis and work in this area, staff would recommend that
the City Council consider the merits of such an effort and the resources necessary to undertake it at
their next annual goal setting workshop. If, after consideration as a part of the goal setting workshop
process, the City Council determines to move forward, staff will develop a comprehensive work plan for
this effort, including a schedule and budget, and present the work plan to the City Council for their
consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The activities associated with receiving this report will not involve or result in any disturbance to the
environment, and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA
Section 15306 describes the following activities as being exempt from environmental review:
" ... basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which
do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for
information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not
yet approved, adopted or funded."
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 52 of 116
Hub Park Lease Area
June 21, 2016
Page4
EXHIBITS:
1. Hub Park Lease
2. Map of Hub Park Lease Area
3. Map of Hub Park Lease Area Constraints
4. "Proposal for Public Access and Trail Project on Hub Park/Proposition D Open Space Lands",
submitted to the City Council by Ms. Vicky Syage on June 14, 2016.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 53 of 116
. '
~
(
\
i . ' ..) ,.. EXHIBIT 1
........
L E A s E
;,
THIS LEASE, made and. entered into as of th~ lO·th d~
of November . ' , 19 75· , J:IY ·and between SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
COMP~NY, a carifornia corporation, herei.nafter called "Lessor",
and the CITY QF CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA, a muni~ipal corpo~ation~
~
hereinafter called ."Lessee",
WIT N E·S SET B:
WEEREA$1 In 1971 Lessor requested· specific. plan approval ·-for certain publiC? utility operati.,ons fn the City of Carlsbad;.
and
WHEREAS, In the course of processing said request Lessor ..
{ ·. offerec;l to make a portion of the property covered by the specific
(
plan. available to the Lessee for pa'rk· and recreational · purposes,
.and .•
WHEREAS, Said offer was accepted by Lessee and incorpor-:.
a~ed in Ordinance No. 9279 which approved the specific plan as a
conditio~ thereof; ·and -
WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 2, Condition ~o. 3, ..
of Ordinance No.· 9279, Lessor and Lessee have resolved the deta~ls .
regarding the lease of c.ertain hereinafter described real property;
NOW, T~EREFORE, in consideration of the performance of .
.. . the terms and conditions hereof the-parties ag~ee as follows:
l. Leased Premises. Lessor does hereby lease to Lessee .,
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 54 of 116
.. .. . . . l/ 0 .
those certain premises located .in the City of Carlsbad, State of
California 1 containing approximately ninety-one ( 91) ac.res as
generally shown on the map marked Exhibit "A ... I attached h~fert;.p ..
. . ···C....·
and !.llade a pa:rt _..hereof. ·Less·or shall survey the premises within
ninety {90) days of the execll;tion. of .this lease and shall furnish
.Lessee with a legal description tq be attached h.ereto ·as Exhibit "B 11
II'
and made a part hereo'f.
2. Use. The leased premises may be used by Lessee
..:
for park and recreation purpo~es which shall be supervised'to -the same extent as other comparable properties ovm·ed by Lessee
and. used for the same purpose. Lessee shall not use the leased . .
premises for any commercial or busin_ess purpose that does not
. reasonably relate to the use of ·the premises .for park and recreation
purposes a
3. Term·. The term of this lease shall· be for · a period
of sixty (60) years commencing on th.elOthday of November
19~, and ending on the9th p.ay of_N_o_v_e_m_b_e_r _______ , 2.035 •
4. Renewal. Within ninety ( 9'e') days from the expiration
of the initial sixty (60) year term, and each succeeding term
. .
thereafter 1 the parties may by written mutual agreement rene\•1 this
lease for three (3} additional periods, each consisting of a ten .
{10} year term, plus one (1) additional term of nine (9) years.
In no event shall the cumulative terms exceed ninety-nine (9~}) , .
.
5. Additional Construction. This lease is made upon the
express condition that the leased premises will be available. for
2.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 55 of 116
use by Less(" . at · ''\Y and all times for· e f'ir or maintenance . \.;.!'. . .. ....,
of existi~g and -f~ture facilities, as well as all other operations
·( _necessary in connection with ·its public utility operations.. It is
,,
' ...
understood that Lessor may construct additional electrical trans-
. /. . . . ... .
mission lines and/or other utility lines upon the leased 1>remises
-and reserves th17 right to accomplish said construction. Lessor shall
-?nak~ _reasonable ·efforts to coordinat·e such . activities wit,h Lessee to
minimize the interfere~ce with the Lessee's use of the prernis~s.
,6. Rent. Lessee agrees to pay Lessor rent based on the
amount of one half of the taxep assessed against the leased premises
· and paid by Lessor, but in no case shall the amount_ paid by the City
exceed the sum .of fou~een thousand 'c1ol·lars ($14, o'oo) annually •..
Lessee and Lessor shall take-~11 reasonable steps to relie~e·Lessor of
the real property·tax liability on the leased premises for the term
·of the lease or any J;enewal as herein provided. The obligation of
Lessee to pay· rent· shall not commence until five (5) y~axs aft:er
execution o£ this lea~e or until Les~ee .has ~dopted a plan of develop-
.me_nt for the premises and obtained all permits necessary to accomplish
the development, whichever occurs later • . -.
7 ~-. Improvements •. Lessee shal~have the right to construct
improvements upon the leased prem~ses·. Lessee agrees to consult with
-Lesso·r regarding any proposed improvements prior_ to the commencement
of construction. ·No improvements 6 including' grading or structures of
any type, ·shall interfere with Lessors public utility ·facilities or
operations on the leased premises. Lessor may ~eiocate in a ~utually
agr~eable manner any such improvement at Lessor's expense. Lessor
---,:, .. ~ .;
~iir ~a~e every reasonable means ~o avoid reloca~ion of Lessee's
improvements. Upon te~ination of this lease, ~fter_receipt of a .
-written demana· from Lessor, -Lessee shall remove all impr~vements
3.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 56 of 116
.•, ..
.
( .
(
...
I i '
___) I )' . .. -within llinety {90 ). days at Lessee's expense. -
a;. Protection and Pat.rols. Lessee agrees to police I
regulate, and control the entry and activities in and upon th.e
"· leased premises to the same extent as other comparable prope·;.t¥
owned . by Lessee... 'rn· addition, Lessee will take reasonable steps
'to protect all Lessor-owne-d property surrounding or adjacent
to the leased premises and exterior thereto so as tomipimize any
. r .
and all disturbances ~nd damages,. including the possibility. of
damage to property and in'jurie.s to persons incident to ·the use of
said premises by.· any person ent~ring :thereon. ·Said . protection .. shall be consistent with the protection given to other ·.privat~
property in the City· of Carlsbad ..
(' . '
9. 1'1aste. Lessee shall not conunit, suffer, nor permit
any waste, nuisances, or unlawful acts on the'· leased premises; and
shall ·at all-tiJnes maintain the. same in a clean and sanitary con-
dition in compliance with all applicable rules, laws, regulations~
and ordinances . respecting.health and safety of the City of Carlsbad
and County of San Diego, and·-·the State of California.
10. Right of Entry. Lessor· reserves the right to enter .
upon the leased prernises.at any ~ime for the purpose of viewing,
patroling.and inspecting the same to see if Lessee is _faithfully
complyi~g with the terms and.conditions of this lease.
11. Rights of Lessee. Lessee shall have no rights mor
aqguire interest in to the leased ... other than any or prem~ses as ,
-Pli9~i~ed . this leas~ and lessee and tenant thereof. ~n as a
'I 12. Default. Should default be made in the performance
of any of the terms and conditions of this lease and such defuult
shall continue for sixty (60) days after Lessee has been notifi~d
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 57 of 116
···.
.. ·
·,.,_
•.
1.'--"
...
I ,,/
irt writin~ of such default, then Lessor may re-enter, .take possession
of said premises, and remove any and all persons and· pr?perty of
Lessee_therefroiJt. ·. "--,.
:"' -~·-=-c;_. 13. Assignment. Lessee shall not assign this lease nor
·sublease the l·e~sed premises except upon the ,.,ritten consent of
Lessor which sha.ll not be unreasonably. withheld. Sub~ect to the
terms and provisions of this lease, Lessee may make any' joint· use
~ l<'
agreement for the use or improvement of the premises and_ may grant
permits·, licenses or privil.edges to any agency,· person or partner-.
· ·ship to enter upon anC!tor. use .any or all of the leas·ed· premises, upon
. . . .
terms and conditions as the Lessee de.eins necessary or desirable.·
14~ Waiver. Any. waiver by Lessor of any . bre·ach of one.·
or more of the terms, covenants, and conditiqns of this lease shall .
. not be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same, or
of any other term or condition-hereof.
15. · Indem'ni ty. Lessee hereby agre·es to indernni ty, save
and hold Lessor harmless from and against any and all demands,
·claims, suits, loss, ·aarn?lge, 'in:)ury, resulting from any act or
1: • • • • ., • •
omission-of.Lessee, its employees, agents, permittees, invitees,
or other persons ·upon the leased 'premises with or without the
consent of Lessee to the person or persons, or p~operty or proper~
ties of"any person, including injury too~ death of any person in
any way arising from u~e and occupancy of the leased premises by -. . . .
_ Lessee, its-agents 1 servants, employees, or inv1. te.es 1 whether
a~ual~or implied by law.
It is the mutual intention and agreement of the parties
that the foregoing indemnity provi~ions shall extend to any nnd
5 ..
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 58 of 116
(
(
all damages suffered by Lessor to its property adjacent to the
leased premises or injury to. or death of ~ny person upon thp .ad:-. .,
jacent property in any "1ay arising from the us.e or . occupari'cy .·~~
I
Of the leased premises 1 ·OCCasioned by the negligent 1 Willful 1 Or
.intentional actS Or omissions Of any personS I USing . and WhO may be
in or ·upon the leased premises.
·16. Liability Protection. Lessee agrees to include the
leased property in the liability·· protection program in use for
other property owned b~-Lessee.
17. Notices. Notices to be given from or to either· party
may be addressed as follows:
a. Le~sor at 101 A~h Street, San ~Diego, California 92101 • . ;
b. Lessee at 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California: 92008.
Notices shall be deemed given . hereunder when placed by.
eit~er pa.rty in the United States mail, postage prepaid,· certified,
and properly"addressed to the other •
. -. ~8 •. Ordinarice No. 9279, Section 2, 13-B, 1 -3 . It is agreed -that construction of park improvements, under Paragraph 7 of this
lease, are not considered development of Lessor's property as
specified in Ordinance No·. 9279, Se~tion 2, 13-B, 1-3 .
1·9. Existing Agricultural Lease. L~ssee recognizes· that
. . . .
a part of the pa·rk lease a.rea is presently being leased by Lessor ·
for agricultural purpos~s. Le~see agrees that 1Lessor may continue
~.... . . . .to "l~a·s~ this area for agricultural pur-pos~s and. will not require
\., the cancellation until Lessee's plans to develop the leasedpremises
for its intended park use are ready to he implemented. Prior to
' . 6.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 59 of 116
~. . .
/ I
(_.
\. } . .__,
--~
. _.,
implementation, Lessee agrees to provide Lessor with one year.' s
advance notice so.'that Lessor can arrange the terminati.on of the ·
·;
agricultural use.
IN WITJ:JESS WHEREOF,· the parties have indi ,fidually · execute9
and caused this lease to be executed for. and on behalf ·Of each
by their respective officers or agents as of the day and year fir·st
above written.
'· .
;
SAN DI·EGO GAS & ELECTRIC COHPANY, I ' . 'a Calr.~rnia corp~ration
By~~!~e_/~t_~(~.,~c·~17~~~1~.·~~~~~~.1~~~----~--~--Senior Vice President
·LESSOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Muuicipal -
Corporat~on/of;the State.of
. Califoz:ni / / : . . . . ,/ ~ ,
. BYO(-VL.-L.</Lc:Yc:......__ .
7.
ROBERT C. FRAZEE, . Mayor
LESSEE
-LENrs-r... CEASE, Vice Mayor
,
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 60 of 116
-.
·.
(
~·· . ,,
() ..
\.~
;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 'oF HUB PARK SITE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
I
. That portion of' Lots "F" ?-nd trHn of Rancho Agua .
Hedionda, in the City o£ Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Partition Nap thereo.f No.
823> filed in the office of the County Recorqer of· said
County~ November 1&, 1896,:described. as follows: .
Beginning at the corner common to Lots 11F"' 11 H11
and urn . of' said Rancho Agua Hedionda; thence along. t)le . ·
·Northerly line of said Lot 11 Fu South 86° 52' 04 11 East
(record South 87° 23' 24 11 East per Record o:f Survey No.
7938), 1456.25 feet; thence leaving said line South 22°
50 1 04" West, 1273.28 feet-to the beginning of a 91J9.00
i'oot radius tangent curve concave Northwesterly; thence
Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central
angle or 18° 39' 40n, a distance of 309.00 f'eet; thence.
non-tangent North 84° 52' 43" West, 2517.07 feet; tharice
North 27° 23~" 43'' West, 392.39 feet; thence North 811°.
52'· 43 11 West, 453.19 feet; thence North 07° 51' 113 11 West,
259.19 f'eet; thence No~th 89° 26 1 05" West, ~011.67 .feet; .
thence North 16° 24' 38 n \'l-est, 44 0 i'eet more or less to the
mean-high_tide line oi''Agua Hedionda tWPer Lagoon; thence
Southea~terly, Northeasterly and Northwesterly along said
mean ·high tide line to the Northeasterly line of said Lot
11 H"; thence along said line Squth 64° 01' 41" East, 275
.feet more or less to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
,
0 .
DESCRI?TION
m:P;\Rl'D DY .B.J_~-5j~
-. . -I ~i.l?l.iltD SY _ p~ ~ _
m~u t:'J. EI5tJ~--Z.l :1.>-
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 61 of 116
Legend
Exhibit 2-Hub Park Lease Area CJ Hub Park Lease Area 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 62 of 116Exhibit 3-Hub Park Lease Area Constraints ~Open Space Deed Restriction 1,000 500 0 1,000 ~ --=::::J-E::::::J ______ Feet r:zJ Utility Easement I Powerline Corridor
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 63 of 116
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRAIL PROJECT ON HUB PARK/PROPOSITION D OPEN SPACE
LANDS
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 64 of 116
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRAIL PROJECT ON HUB PARK/PROPOSITION 0 OPEN SPACE
LANDS
I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This is a citizen group prepared proposal for the city to construct a public trail project on the Hub
Park/Proposition D Open Space lands located south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
In 1975, the city entered into a lease agreement with San Diego Gas and Electric Company ("Hub Park
Lease") that granted the city the legal right to use a portion of the company's land located south of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon for public park and recreational uses. The Hub Park lease consists of 91 acres
and was granted as a condition for the city approving a Specific Plan which allowed the expansion of
operations at the Encina Power Plant. The lease would allow public access to and the construction of a
trail project. The trail project described in this proposal would be located on the Hub Park Lease area.
Proposition D was approved by Carlsbad voters in 2006 and placed a permanent open space designation
on approximately 155 acres of land south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and north of Cannon Road. The Hub
Park Lease area is part the Proposition D open space land. The Proposition stated, in part, that the
purpose was "to allow public use, access and community gathering places to occur in the area". The
Permitted Use Section of the Proposition specifically lists public trails as a permitted use. Therefore, the
public trail project described in this proposal is consistent with Proposition D.
Proposition C was approved by Carlsbad voters in 2002 and provided the city with authorization to
spend more than $1 million on several projects including open space and trails. In the city's 2012-13
Budget, the City Council transferred $5 million of the Proposition C funds to a line specific item for open
space and trails. Therefore, funds are available to construct the trail project described in this proposal
and the voters have already given authorization to use the funds for this type of project.
The trail project is also consistent with the city's existing Citywide Trail Plan. That plan shows a future
trail in the same general location as the trail shown in this proposal. The trail project is also consistent
with the standards and guidelines contained in the "Citywide Trails Report" previously prepared by the
city. An important feature of the project is that it has been planned in a manner that allows viable
connections/linkage to other existing and future trails as shown in the Citywide Trail Plan and as further
described in detail in the Project Description section of this proposal. As such, this project could be
viewed as Phase 1 of a larger, future trail project(s) that would provide public access to the entire south
shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon as well as other areas of the city.
There was community disagreement recently over a development project located adjacent to the Hub
Park/Proposition D Open Space lands (Measure A). Citizens on both sides of this issue were in
agreement, however, in their desire to have public access and trails on the open space lands. The vision
of this proposal for the construction of a trail project on Hub Park is to take a major step in unifying the
community.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 65 of 116
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TRAIL PROJECT
Except for an entrance off Cannon Road, the proposed trail project would be located entirely on the
city's Hub Park lease area and is shown on Attachment 1 to this proposal (Proposed Trail Plan). It would
be approximately one mile in length, 8 feet wide, unpaved and available for both hiking and biking users.
The trail would be located outside of and setback from the City's Habitat Management Plan preserve
boundaries and split-rail fencing is proposed along the edge of the trail closest to the preserve. Access to
the trail project would be provided by an entrance off Cannon Road at the existing, signalized
intersection of Cannon Road and Grand Pacific Drive. A small, unpaved parking area could be provided
next to the entrance. Some grading of the existing slope located on the north side of Cannon Road
would be required. Additional trail amenities being proposed include three picnic areas with tables,
benches and shade structures and two vista points with benches. The location of these trail amenities
are also shown on Attachment 1. With these amenities, the trail project will not only provide for
recreational use but for community gathering spaces for social interaction. The vista points will provide
for spectacular views of the lagoon.
The trail project has been planned to allow for connections/linkage to existing and future trails as shown
on the Citywide Trail Plan. These trail linkage points are shown on Attachment 2 to this proposal (Trail
linkage Map). These trail linkage points include: 1) a westerly connection to remaining open space on
the south shore of Agua Hedionda lagoon; 2)a southerly connection to the previously constructed
under-crossings at Cannon Road and Armada Drive which would provide a continuous trail linkage to the
existing trails near Legoland, on the Municipal Golf Course and on Veterans Memorial Park; 3} a possible
easterly connection to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Discovery Center; and 4} a potential,
northerly connection which could provide public, pedestrian access to the existing, sand beaches
located along the south shore of Agua Hedionda lagoon.
Ill. COST ESTIMATES FOR TRAIL PROJECT
The cost estimates for the construction of the Hub Park Trail Project utilized the "Citywide Trails Report"
previously prepared by the city (adjusted for rate of inflation), citizen research and input from
construction professionals. Because the Hub Park Lease area has been farmed in the past, the estimate
also provides for soil testing. The estimates are as follows:
Trail Construction (clearing, grubbing, grading)-$207,000
Trail Amenities (3 picnic tables,3 sun shade structures, 4 vista sitting benches, 5 trash
receptacles with dog-waste bag dispensers-$57,800
Split-Rail Fencing (adjacent to entire HMP preserve boundaries)-$120,000
Storm Water Runoff Prevention Measures and Erosion Control-$30,000
Soil Testing-$10,000
Total Project Cost Estimate-$424,800
IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is requested that the City Council indicate its support for the Hub Park Trail Project as presented in this
proposal and refer it to staff to determine the appropriate and applicable procedures for processing the
project including environmental review and the opportunity for maximum public input and review.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 66 of 116
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Hub Park Proposed Trail Plan
Attachment 2. Hub Park Trail linkage Map
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 67 of 116
LEGEND:
• •
PROPOSED TRAIL
PICNIC AREA
VISTA POINT
HMP HARDUNE
HUB PARK LEASE
PROP. D LAND
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
HUB PARK
PROPOSED TRAIL PLAN
0·--5~0~0===~1,000 F'eet
c---·-----c•••••-••••••••••
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 68 of 116
---···--·----------------------------------,
LEGEND:
• •
I \
\ I \
PROPOSED TRAIL
PICNIC AREA
VISTA POINT
HMP HARDLINE
-----)"' FUTURE TRAIL LINK
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
HUB PARK
TRAIL LINKAGE MAP
~-
/, J. ~ '
/·· -1'\'• \ . / z \.
';!) I \ -;\ ',
~\
0 500 1,000
---E::::::=3 Feet
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 69 of 116
City
Presentation
Gary T. Barberio, Assistant City Manager
June 21, 2016
Hub Park Lease
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 70 of 116
Today’s Agenda
•Purpose
•Lease history
•Lease provisions
•Opportunities
•Constraints & challenges
•Staff recommendation
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 71 of 116
Purpose
•Community member inquiries
•City Council member request
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 72 of 116
Lease History
•Result of activities initiated by SDG&E
•Encina Power Plant
•Macario Refinery proposal
•Entered into in 1975
•±96 acres on Agua Hedionda Lagoon south shore
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 73 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 74 of 116
Ne'\vs(Not es
from Macario lndeoendent Refinery
PUBLISHED NOW I< THEN "FUEL FOR THOUGHT'' N0.1
Two Firms Study Feasibility of
Macario Refinery Near Carlsbad
Pacific n...o.u-, Inc. of Hawaii
aod Sao o;-Gaa & Electric Com-
pony.,., cocducting • joint feuibil.
ity m.dy for the ..... -.. of •
refinery near C&rlJbad.
The facility would produce Jow.
IUilur lael oils for J>O'I'W plan to aod eill>er S:-!G (oyntbetic natuml cuf
or p90li.ne, but not both SNG and
gasoline.
James F. Gary, PRJ preold<nt,
aod Walter A. Zitlau, SDG&E preoi·
dent, said tbat tbo SNG eoofigura-
t:ion would require an in\'ettmcnt of
$152 million, wbile the guoline con·
oop~ would require a $l:U million
investnieot.
North of Airport
Tbe poopoocd lite io north of the
Palomar airport~ about three m.iJee
.east of SDG&.E's marine terminal at
the Encina Power Plant. Tbc site is
owned by a wholly-owned SDO&E
subsidiAry. -Gary said that PRI, beadqua,r.
tared in Honolulu, would ba the
operator and majority owner. PRJ
owns: GASCO, Hawaii's gaa public
utility, and operates t.b6 Hawalian
lndependcmt Refinery, lcc.t near
Honolulu.
A delegation selected by the Cads-
bad Cbomber of Commer<:o ._..tzy
retnmed !tOm an inspection trip of
the Honolulu facility:
SDG&E now receives approxi·
mately ooe-third of ito low-aullur
fuel oil supply !tOm the Hawaiian
refinery.
SDG&B at this time is seen u
the principal CUI!Wmer of the pro-
poood lacility,-has been named
the Macario Iodependenl Refinery.
Tlte outlined 866·ocrc porctl of lo.nd propo1ed for tM &ite of the Macario
Independent Re(lner-y U opprozinuJl~ly thrte mil.u to.tt of the Encilu:J
Pow<r Plant (bottom cont•r). TM facility itself would b• lp<Je<d on 310
ocre• u.J~U within tM parctl boundoriet.
f;arly Olsdosu:re Made
"BecaUM: of itl community impor-
tance.'J Zitlau lllidJ "'the two COft1oo
J)6nioo mada an aarly cliocloouN, clo-
apito &he tact t.hlt much pla:nnina
~wbadone.
''Durin• tha MXl yeer, .... will ba
oooductinc on•ir<>nmmlal aod other
otudiot, U ...U U 1.,._..;.,1 baf<>N
the variout public •rtnciet con-
oemed with air and water quality,
la_od-uae plaoniDa, cODitructloo
lianda.rdl, aod other ...,.,.,;ty 1ft.
tereato w P""..,..t lhe propoaal"
Cle:tn flunt Promised
Both ZiUau and Gary emphas.izesl
tha~ whatever £s ultimaWyproP<*(I
from an enri.neerint ttandpoint
would permit plant operations to
.roeet or exceed the appropriate loc:aL
ttate, or federal environmental
rtandarda.
"We built and we opem:te • dean
plant in eovinx:unentally~
llowaii, and orith that oxperionce we
bel:leve wo ha'"' t.be cntdel:lti.lh to
plan and _,..~ • lacility that will
-the needs aod desires of the people bare,. Guy said.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 75 of 116Exhibit 2 -Hub Park Lease Area C Hub Partc lease Area 1,000 500 0 --1,000
Feet
Lease Provisions
•60-year lease through 2035
–Four extensions for 99 years or through 2074
•$14,000 annual rent
–Adopted plan and permits in place
•One-year notice to SDG&E to allow agricultural
lease termination
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 76 of 116
Opportunities
•96 acres
•South shore lagoon location and views
•Carlsbad Community Vision
•Consistent with OSCRMP and draft Trails MP
•Prop C –Open Space and trails fund
•Future trail connections
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 77 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 78 of 116Exhibit 2 -Hub Park Lease Area C Hub Partc lease Area 1,000 500 0 --1,000
Feet
Constraints & Challenges
•Property deed restrictions
•Land Use/ Zoning Policies, Regulations And
Permits
•Environmental
•Physical
•Legal and Lease considerations
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 79 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 80 of 116Exhibit 3 -Hub Park Lease Area Constraints
I:J Utility Easement I Pow•line Corri6or
1,000 -500 -0 1,000
Feet
Summary
•Opportunities exist
•Constraints and challenges are numerous
•Will require significant effort, time and
resources
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 81 of 116
Recommendation
•Consider merits at the next City Council Goal
Setting Workshop
•If, after goal setting workshop, City Council
decides to move forward:
–Staff will develop comprehensive work plan
process, schedule, budget
–Present work plan to City Council
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 82 of 116
Questions?
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 83 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 84 of 116Exhibit 2 -Hub Park Lease Area C Hub Partc lease Area 1,000 500 0 --1,000
Feet
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 85 of 116Exhibit 3 -Hub Park Lease Area Constraints
I:J Utility Easement I Pow•line Corri6or
1,000 -500 -0 1,000
Feet
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 86 of 116
Community
Presentation
SOUTH SHORE
TRAILS
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRAIL PROJECT
ON HUB PARK/PROPOSITION D OPEN SPACE LANDS
JUNE 21 2016
Photo: FluxPhotography@gmail.comItem #1 February 21, 2017 Page 87 of 116
ENVISION CARLSBAD
NOVEMBER 2009
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 88 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 89 of 116
nected
Th • I
I i • I , u li
I n
PICNIC AREAS, VISTA POINTS, LINKED TRAILS
2013: What do Carlsbad residents want?
Parks Needs Assessment concludes:
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 90 of 116
CARLSBAD’S IMAGINATION
2015 THIS IMAGE CAPTURES
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 91 of 116
THE PROPOSAL
AND CONTEXT
•Citizen group prepared proposal.
•Hub Park Lease allows for public access
and trail use.
•Complies with Proposition D
•Funds Available from Proposition C
•Consistent with City Trail Plan
•Project Vision will help to unify the
community
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 92 of 116
•Located on Hub Park Lease area
•1 mile in length
•8 feet wide –unpaved
•Hiking and bike use
•Access off Cannon Road
•Trail Amenities –Public gathering places,
picnic areas, and vista points
•Potential connections and linkage to existing
and future trails
DESCRIPTION OF TRAIL
PROJECT
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 93 of 116
HUB PARK PROPOSED TRAIL PLAN
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 94 of 116
LEGEND:
• •
_J w Cl
0 w
Vl < (l.
PROPOSED TRAIL
PICNIC AREA
VISTA POINT
HMP HARDLINE
HUB PARK LEASE
PROP. D LAND
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
HUB PARK
PROPOSED TRAIL PLAN
0 500 1,000 ----===3 Feet
HUB PARK TRAIL LINKAGE MAP
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 95 of 116
LEGEND:
• •
_J w 0
0 w
Vl < a..
PROPOSED TRAIL
PICNIC AREA
VISTA POINT
HMP HARDLINE
-----)~ FUTURE TRAIL LINK
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
HUB PARK
TRAIL LINKAGE MAP
0 500 1,000 ----=====a Feet
III. COST
ESTIMATES FOR
TRAIL PROJECT•Trail Construction:
$207,000
•Trail Amenities:
$57,800
•Split Rail Fencing:
$120,000
•Storm Water Runoff:
$30,000
•Soil Testing:
$10,000
Total Cost Estimate:
$424,800
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 96 of 116
REQUESTED CITY
COUNCIL
ACTION
Demonstrate support for the
Agua Hedionda South Shores Trail Project today! Say Yes!
•Direct Staff to concurrently:
1.Begin Public Outreach.
2.Initiate trail design/technical studies
for CEQA process.
3.Immediately Consult with the California Coastal Commission.
4.Publish project timeline.
•Allocate project funding at
upcoming budget workshop
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 97 of 116
Thank you for your support!
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 98 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 99 of 116
Arnie Cohen
Presentation
*
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 100 of 116
*
Read & understand the plan
Tour the property
Review the cost estimates
Key considerations before moving forward
Does the City currently have all the necessary rights to provide
public access to the property?
Do the cost estimates reflect the total cost of completing this
project?
Does the plan fully provide for public safety?
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 101 of 116
*
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 102 of 116
LEGEND:
..J w c
~ < 11.
----PROPOSED TRAIL
• PICNIC AREA
• 111STA POINT
~ HMP HAROUNE
----HUB PARK lEASE
----PROP. 0 LAND
AGUA HEO!ONOA LAGOON
HUB PARK
PROPOSED TRAIL PLAN
*
P
V
P
P
V
-View PointV
-Picnic AreaP
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 103 of 116
*
The City does not currently have rights to
the land for the entry driveway and
parking lot. (SDG&E owned Parcel 11)
The City would have to negotiate with
SDG&E for that NEW access.
There is a dramatic grade change from
the road to the proposed parking area.
Does the City currently have all the necessary rights to the property?
Parking
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 104 of 116
*
Grade difference from street to
parking area of 20+ feet will require
significant engineering & grading.
“Some grading of the existing slope
located on the north side of Cannon Road
will be required.”
How much will this work cost?
Evaluating the Cost Estimates
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 105 of 116
*
What will it cost to engineer and
construct the necessary median
modifications and new turn lane?
Evaluating the Cost Estimates
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 106 of 116
*
Evaluating the Cost Estimates
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 107 of 116
I
~ I ..
*
Will the Coastal Commission require
the removal of invasive plants and
the restoration of native vegetation
as they have for other projects?
How much would this work cost?Is this the type of vegetation you
want to hike through?
Evaluating the Cost Estimates
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 108 of 116
*
Proposed trail alignment goes straight up this steep
incline instead of incorporating switchbacks as were
previously proposed.
The trail is proposed as mixed-use for biking & hiking.
The potential for bikers coming down this hill at high
speeds creates a dangerous condition for hikers &
families.
Does the plan fully provide for public safety?
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 109 of 116
*
Does the plan fully provide for public safety?
P
V
P
P
V
-View PointV
-Picnic AreaP
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 110 of 116
During the recent election campaign there was considerable concern raised about
the “post-agricultural land” and its condition. The following standards were put
forth for the previous plan and should also apply to the current proposal:
What level of toxaphene exposure would you say is acceptable for you, your
friends and family, for the hiking and biking trails, picnic areas and other
passive recreational activities promised…..?
Fails to call for detailed sampling and analysis of those parts of other passive
recreational activities (P-OS areas) that contain elevated post-agricultural
land slated for hiking and biking trails, picnic areas and levels of toxaphene.
Fails to discuss the potential release of hazardous materials in the P-OS areas,
and fails to discuss potential soil remediation efforts.
Fails to discuss the potential impact on hazards if contaminated soil would be
removed from the project site.
*
Does the plan fully provide for public safety?
Source: www.citizensfornorthcounty.org
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 111 of 116
*
*Hub Park was rejected as a viable park during the city’s extensive Growth
Management planning process. Why is it a better idea now than it was then?
*This plan is much more complicated and costly than what has been suggested in
the proposal. Costs not accounted for include:
*New entry driveway & parking lot area
*New left-turn lane and median modifications
*Environmental review conforming to CEQA
*Potential extensive habitat restoration
*Potential soil remediation & removal
*Adding such a complex project, with unknown total costs,in the last days before
next year’s budget adoption does not seem to make good civic or business sense.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 112 of 116
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 113 of 116
Minutes
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 114 of 116
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
INVOCATION:
CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
June 21, 2016, 9 a.m.
9:00a.m.
Hall, Wood, Schumacher, Blackburn, Packard
None.
Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Packard led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION: None.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Larry Posner expressed his appreciation for the Council's efforts in prohibiting the retail sale of
puppies. In addition, he expressed concerns relating to the placement of concrete blocks in front
of parking spaces due to potential damage to vehicles and personal injury.
Diane Nygaard, representing Preserve Calavera, expressed concerns relating to the City's future
removal of palm trees in the Lake Calavera Preserve.
Melanie Burkholder voiced her support for the Council and their vision that has resulted in the
City of Carlsbad being considered one of the top 10 cities in the state.
PUBLIC HEARING: None.
DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORT:
1. AB #22,321-Report and Presentation Regarding the Hub Park Lease.
Assistant City Manager Gary Barberio reviewed the report and presented a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). He explained that should the Council
wish to move forward with adding trail development within the Hub Park area to the City's
current work plan, staff would recommend the following steps: ..
• Consider the work at the next Council Goal Setting Workshop (early 2017)
• If after the Workshop, Council decides to move forward, staff would return with a
com,prehensive work plan which would include process, schedule and budget
• As part of the process, staff would likely recommend that a Citizens Advisory
Committee be appointed by the Council
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 115 of 116
June 21, 2016 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Blackburn, Assistant Manager Barberio
explained that although facilitating the construction of trails in the Hub Park area would
increase access to open space, there are other considerations such as preserving agricultural
and environmental resources in that area. He further explained that the City already has a
Habitat Management Plan in place that has been approved by the California Coastal
Commission.
Council Member Blackburn confirmed with Administrative Services Director Chuck McBride
that the City has set aside approximately $5 million for open space improvements. Of the $5
million, approximately $3.7 million is available at this time.
Mayor Pro Tern Wood confirmed with staff that there are archeological artifacts in the Hub
Park area.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Schumacher, Manager Barberio explained
that the City's lease on the Hub Park property runs through the year 2035.
Carlsbad residents Vicky Syage and De' Ann Weimer presented a PowerPoint presentation (on
file in the Office of the City Clerk) encouraging the Council to move forward with developing
public access trails on the Hub Park property.
Carlsbad resident Arnie Cohen presented a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of
the City Clerk) encouraging Council to consider all the costs and complications with
implementing a trail system within Hub Park property area.
Speakers in favor of moving forward with a trail system within the Hub Park area: Elizabeth
Banks; Hope Nelson; Carl Pope; Larry Posner; Laurie Boone; Diane Nygaard.
Speakers with a neutral position regarding staff's recommendation: Fred Briggs; Kerry
Siekmann.
Mayor Hall declared a recess at 10:37 a.m. Council returned to the dais at 10:44 a.m.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Blackburn, City Manager Kevin Crawford
explained that if the Council were to move forward with developing the trail plan at Hub Park
at this time, staff would need to remove some work from the current work plan due to
capacity issues.
Mayor Pro Tern Wood asked staff if there are specific ADA requirements that must be
followed when constructing trails.
Park Planning Manager Liz Ketabian explained that there are requirements that staff follows;
however, variances are permitted at times.
In response to Council Member Blackburn, City Manager Crawford explained that it would be
possible to go ahead and assemble a Citizens Advisory .Committee if that is what the Council
desires.
Item #1 February 21, 2017 Page 116 of 116
June 21, 2016 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Pro Tern Wood expressed support for moving forward with the formation of a Citizens
Advisory Committee in advance of the Council Goal Setting Workshop.
Council Member Schumacher expressed concerns with moving forward with a segment of
trails prior to completion of the Trails Master Plan.
Council Member Blackburn also expressed support for the formation of a Citizens Advisory
Committee prior to the Council Goal Setting Workshop.
Council Member Packard spoke in favor of staff continuing with their current work plan and
revisiting the possibility of trails in the Hub Park area at a later date.
Mayor Hall suggested that once the Trails Master Plan is complete, the Council should
consider the appointment of a Citizens Advisory Committee.
On a minute motion by Council Member Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Packard,
Council accepted staff's recommendations and requested that staff determine the
appropriate time to assemble the Citizens Advisory Committee. Motion carried 4/1 (Wood-
No)
Mayor Pro Tern Wood explained that she would prefer to assemble the Committee prior to
the Goal Setting Workshop and review of the Trails Master Plan; therefore, she voted "no"
vote on the motion.
COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS:
Mayor Hall and Council Members reported on activities and meetings of some committees and
sub-committees of which they are members.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 11:16 a.m.
Sheila R. Cobian, CMC
City Clerk Services Manager
February 21, 2017
2017 City Council Goals
Workshop
Today’s Agenda
•Background, Context & Objectives
•Public Comment
•Council Remarks
•2016-17 Work Plan Status Report
–Segmented Discussion
•2017 Goals –Direction to Staff
Background, Context & Objectives
•Annual Process –Goals & Priorities
•Aspirational Goals, 3-5 Year Horizon
•2017 Goals Workshop –February
•2017 Goals Adoption –March
•2017-18 Work Plan Adoption –April
•2017-18 Budget Adoption -June
Community Vision
•Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness
•Open space and the natural environment
•Access to recreation and active healthy lifestyles
•The local economy, business diversity and tourism
•Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity
•Sustainability
•History, the arts and cultural resources
•High quality education and community services
•Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability
Core City Services
•Public Safety
•Community Services
•Community & Economic Development
•Public Works
•Governance
•Administrative Services
2016 City Council Goals
•Become a leader in multimodal transportation
•Plan for a new city hall
•Develop lifelong learners through education
•Enhance Carlsbad’s coastline
•Trench the railroad tracks
•Build vitality in the Village and Barrio
Workshop Objectives
•Receive 2016 Council Goals Status Report
•Discuss Council goals & priorities
•Direct staff to prepare 2017 Council Goals resolution
Workshop Segmentation
Part I -Status Report & Discussion
–Transportation
–City Hall
–Education
–Coastline (Beach Access, State
Partnership, Terramar)
Part II -Status Report & Discussion
–Coastline (Tamarack)
–Railroad Trench
–Village & Barrio
Public Comment
Council Opening Remarks
Conclusion
Public Comment
Council Remarks
(Break)
2016-17 Council Goals Work Plan
Status Report –Part I
•Transportation
•City Hall
•Education
•Coastline
–Beach Access, State Partnership, Terramar
Transportation Leader
Become a leader in multimodal
transportation systems and creative
approaches to moving people and
goods through and within Carlsbad.
Transportation Strategies
•Improve Traffic Signal Effectiveness &
Mobility on Existing Roadways
–Adaptive Traffic Signal pilots
•3 complete / RFP for permanent next
–Automated Traffic Measuring and Monitoring
•16 intersections complete
•16 more by December
–Multi-modal Mobility improvements -December
Transportation Strategies
•Collaborate with Regional Partners to
Improve Transportation in Carlsbad
–Trolley Feasibility Study: RFP complete,
contract to Council in March
–$300,000 Caltrans Sustainable
Communities Program Grant awarded
Transportation Strategies
•Improve Transportation Sustainability to Meet CAP Goals
–SANDAG’s TDM consultant work underway
–Sustainable Mobility Plan
•Phase 1 complete
–Transportation & transit networks/gaps
•Phase 2 RFP late 2017
–OPR and SANDAG efforts to reduce VMT
late 2017
City Hall
Plan for a new city hall that will meet
the future workplace and operational
needs of the city and the community.
City Hall Strategies
•Determine future space needs
–Draft RFP (Complete)
•City Hall funding analysis
–Draft analysis (Complete)
•Present to City Council in Q2
Education
Develop lifelong learners, civic leaders
and valuable members of the public
and private workforce in Carlsbad
through education partnerships and
skills development.
Education Strategies
•Workforce Talent Development
–Determine local demand for graduate
level Engineering Program
–Carlsbad & 78 Corridor survey is complete
–Analysis of results is underway
Education Strategies
•Emerging Leaders Program
•Carlsbad Student Leader Academy
–Inaugural Academy complete
–Graduation held at New Village Arts for
28 students & families
–Winter Academy began January 10th
Education Strategies
•Life-long Learning Programs
–Continuing programs at renovated
libraries & Parks & Rec facilities
–Evaluation of existing programs
extended to end of 2017
Coastline
Enhance Carlsbad’s coastline to
ensure an exceptional experience in
all the ways people want to enjoy it.
Coastline Strategies –Part I
•Ocean Street Beach Access
Improvements
–Construction commences
Oct. 2017
Coastline Strategies –Part I
•City-State Partnership
–Oct. 2016 State Parks Director meeting
–Positive partnership discussions at the
local level (ongoing)
–Discussing long-term M&O agreement
Coastline Strategies –Part I
•Terramar Area Improvement
Project
–Public Outreach Efforts Ongoing
•3rd Outreach effort in Q2
–Earliest possible construction start
Q3 2018
2016-17 Council Goals Work Plan
Status Report –Part II
•Coastline
–Tamarack
•Railroad Trench
•Village & Barrio
Coastline Strategies –Part II
•Tamarack Area
Improvements Project
–Public Outreach Efforts Ongoing
–ROW/Ownership Challenges
–Project Completion –July 2018
Railroad Trench
Lower the railroad tracks in a trench
through the Village to improve safety,
community connectivity, quality of life
and economic value.
Railroad Trench Strategies
•SANDAG Economic & Feasibility Study (Complete)
–At-Grade and Trench alignments are feasible
Cost VSL & Economic Impact Fiscal Impact
•At-Grade $62m ($372m to $711m)($1.7m)
•Short Trench $215m to $235m $5.9b to $20.3b $56m to $195m
•Long Trench $320m to $350m $6.1b to $21.9b $56.5m to $207m
(99 years -2016 dollars)
Railroad Trench Strategies
Injuries and Fatalities
'llo
ncidents
CA~~8AO ~OLANA UlACH CAALSBAD SOlANA B ACH
a£FORf I~?A AFTER JI)<)P
Trains Per Day
41992 62017
aliil:I:Q .....3.. I llj.~... I
lililliw ~ llj!OilliQ
~UQ
;;,;li.;;~;OolljOI;~!OIIIj
Q~iUa:UiilUQ al
w;iiiiiiOiilliiiwill IOi.lOIOI~QiijOiilliQal
Q~ilO:IiliiiiiUQill
2030
Railroad Trench Strategies
–Next Step: Project Level Environmental Review
•Collaborate with Local, State & Federal Stakeholders
–Engage Local, State & Federal Lobbyists
–Engage Community
–Engage Decision Makers (SANDAG, NCTD, FRA,
CPUC, CA Coastal Commission, Rail Operators)
Village and Barrio
Enhance the health and vitality of the
Village and Barrio, two neighborhoods
that represent the historic heart of
Carlsbad.
Village and Barrio Strategies
•Improve the public space in the Village and Barrio
Village and Barrio
•Optimize public properties in the Village and Barrio
Village and Barrio
•Enhance the Village and Barrio for current and future
residents, businesses and visitors
Council Goals Dashboard
l"fD""Ck tdl.«~o 10 •nan~ c: "" • .. ,.., nC nd I Kl
d reu n cent e;vu, d.
~o, • .,. __ .., .. __ , __ ........... __
~Cily of
Carlsbad
:=:::·.:~== .. -· ... ---..... -===-----
, ...... , .. ,. ............ I ,,._, . .,,l.t>~.Jo•!I.-•-·UI.-"
ll :~~~~-=~:i" ,. <'VIol, ......... ,,,. ,..,_, .. __ ........... ..
" .... ,., .. ,.,,, ...... 1'\ ....... . -••• ,,,_., ...... *' .. . -NO •• _,.,,~ twnn~·••• ....... , -;.· .. ~··· ... ·-·•to•"' .... '' .......... _ ................. _ .......... .. -'""'"''"" II fllooof\vn.,..,.¥-._•,.,......._~,1 .,..
I ,_...,_,,..,,..,,,!.ou,..
.~::=~2:'~€-''''
(Cil) of
Carlsbad
-
2017 Council Goals Workshop
•New Goals & Priorities to consider?
–Hub Park Lease, etc.
•Provide direction on 2017 Council Goals
•Final Comments
•Next Steps:
–Resolution / Work Plan / Budget
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK -
RAILROAD TRENCH ALTERNATIVE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
January 2017
Prepared for:
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
404 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 692-1920
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
i
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Current Rail Services ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Previous Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 6
3. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................................ 7
4. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................................................... 7
5. PROJECT BENEFITS.................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Roadway Circulation and Beach Access .................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Public Safety and First Response ................................................................................................................ 9
5.3 Railroad Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 9
5.4 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 10
5.5 Economic Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 10
6. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 11
6.1 Trench Cross Section and Clearance Requirements .............................................................................. 11
6.2 Track Geometry .......................................................................................................................................... 12
6.3 Station Design .............................................................................................................................................. 14
6.4 Drainage ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
6.5 Utilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
6.6 Right-of-Way............................................................................................................................................... 17
6.7 Railroad Signaling ...................................................................................................................................... 18
6.8 Geotechnical ................................................................................................................................................ 18
6.9 Trench Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 20
6.10 Bridge Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 33
6.11 Constructability ............................................................................................................................................ 36
6.12 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 37
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 39
7.1 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources ............................................................................................................... 39
7.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 40
7.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 40
7.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 43
7.5 Cultural and Historical Resources ............................................................................................................. 44
7.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 45
7.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................... 45
7.8 Hydrology and Floodplains ...................................................................................................................... 46
7.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions ........................................................................................ 46
7.10 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................................................... 47
7.11 Parks and Recreational Areas .................................................................................................................. 48
7.12 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................................................... 48
7.13 Relocation Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 49
7.14 Water Quality and Water Resources .................................................................................................... 49
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ii
7.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 49
7.16 Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................................... 50
8. PROJECT SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................................................. 51
9. PROJECT FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................... 51
10. PROJECT COST ....................................................................................................................................................... 51
11. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 56
12. PROJECT PERSONNEL ........................................................................................................................................... 57
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: ECONOMIC STUDY: LOSSAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS-CARLSBAD AREA
ATTACHMENT B: LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT C: RAIL MAINLINE CAPACITY AND GRADE SEPARATION EVALUATION SUMMARIES
ATTACHMENT D: SHORT TRENCH ALTERNATIVE PLAN AND PROFILE
ATTACHMENT E: LONG TRENCH ALTERNATIVE PLAN AND PROFILE
ATTACHMENT F: SHORT TRENCH ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE
ATTACHMENT G: LONG TRENCH ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE
ATTACHMENT H: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the study of two additional alternatives for the Carlsbad Village Double Track
project. The Carlsbad Village Double Track project constructs a second railroad track from Cassidy Street
in Oceanside south to Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad. The At-Grade Alternative would construct a second
track at the existing ground level, modify the at-grade street crossings, and construct a double-track
bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon. The two new alternatives would include grade separation of the
railroad tracks by constructing them in a trench, beneath the existing street elevations. The first alternative,
known as the Short Trench Alternative, would construct the double track railroad lowered in a trench
passing under vehicular overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Oak Avenue, with
pedestrian overpasses at Beech Ave/Carlsbad Village Station and Chestnut Avenue. The second
alternative is the Long Trench Alternative, which would construct a railroad trench passing under vehicular
overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, and
Tamarack Avenue, with a pedestrian overpass at Beech Ave/Carlsbad Village Station. Both trench
alternatives would require replacement of the Carlsbad Boulevard Overcrossing with a new bridge
spanning the tracks.
Current conditions include only four locations for pedestrians and vehicles to cross the railroad tracks in the
1.8 miles between Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, one grade separated and three
at-grade. By grade separating the tracks in a trench, additional crossings can be added at Oak Avenue
and Chestnut Avenue, and potentially others along the railroad Right-of-Way. The Long Trench
Alternative would construct a vehicular crossing at Chestnut Avenue, while the Short Trench Alternative
would construct a pedestrian crossing at Chestnut Avenue. The grade separated crossings will eliminate
delays to traffic and emergency responders caused by at-grade crossing gate arms that remain down as
trains approach and pass by.
Construction of either trench alternative would first require a temporary shoofly track be constructed to
allow railroad operations to continue throughout construction. An impact of the temporary shoofly track is
a temporary loss of parking at the station and in the area east of the tracks between Grand Avenue and
Oak Avenue. The historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot located between Grand Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive would need to be relocated prior to construction.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
2
Based on geotechnical borings taken in the project area from 2013 and 2016, the trench would be
located below the water table and require specialized design and construction techniques for trench
retaining walls and waterproofing of the trench in groundwater. Several options were studied for the
trench structure. The most viable retaining wall structure type is a secant pile wall system with horizontal
struts for bracing in the deepest portion. This type of wall creates an effective seal from groundwater and
can be constructed prior to excavation which reduces the volume of dewatering needed. A sealed trench
floor is required which will result in a buoyant force trying to lift the trench structure. A mass concrete base
is proposed to withstand the buoyant force due to the groundwater. Additional options presented in the
report are deep soil mixing walls or slurry diaphragm walls, and the use of tie-down anchors in the trench
floor to reduce the weight of concrete needed. Future phases of the project would require an extensive
groundwater monitoring program and analysis to confirm the proper design groundwater depth.
The Long Trench Alternative would require the acquisition of three single family residential parcels located
east of existing railroad Right-of-Way, just south of Tamarack Avenue. The existing Right-of-Way is
narrow in this location and there are utilities (a 48-inch sewer and 84-inch storm drain) located on the east
side of the tracks which must be relocated to construct this alternative. A feasible place to relocate them is
to shift them east into the subject parcels. The Short Trench Alternative does not require any Right-of-Way
acquisitions.
The Short Trench Alternative would have a total project investment between $215 million and $235 million
(2016), while the Long Trench Alternative would have a total project investment between $320 million and
$350 million (2016). These costs include a 30% contingency on the estimated construction cost to account
for the preliminary nature of the design. Future maintenance costs due to the trench alternatives would
include maintenance of storm drain pump stations required to drain the trench, maintenance of bridges and
retaining walls, and elevator maintenance at the train station.
The preferred minimum vertical clearance on the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN)
corridor is 26 ft. North County Transit District (NCTD) has indicated that, with concurrence from Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, the minimum vertical clearance may be reduced to 24 ft. If the
minimum clearance used for design were 24 ft., the construction cost of the project would be reduced by
an estimated $14 million for the Long Trench Alternative, and $8 million for the Short Trench Alternative.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Carlsbad (City), in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), has
initiated this Feasibility Study for the Carlsbad Village Double Track project. The Study documents the
feasibility of two additional alternatives for this project. These two alternatives would include grade
separation of the railroad tracks and construction of the second track. In addition, the City commissioned a
detailed economic analysis of the alternatives as a companion document to the Feasibility Study
(Attachment A).
2.1 Project Location
The project study area is in San Diego County in the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside along
approximately 2.6 miles of the railroad corridor from Agua Hedionda Lagoon to Cassidy Street.
See Attachment B for a larger location map.
Figure 2.1: Location Map
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
4
2.2 Existing Facilities
The California Southern Railroad, a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, was
constructed from 1881 to 1885. It provided a connection between what is now the City of Barstow and
San Diego. At its most southern end the railway began in what is now National City proceeding northward
to the City of Oceanside, then northeast through Temecula Canyon and on toward Barstow. The
California Southern Railroad formed the original railroad right-of-way through the City of Carlsbad that is
still in use today. The San Diego Northern Railway, a subsidiary of NCTD, purchased the tracks from
Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway in 1994. NCTD dissolved the San Diego Northern Railway
Corporation in 2002.
Currently, NCTD, Amtrak, and BNSF Railway operate rail services through the LOSSAN Corridor,
operating through the project site. NCTD’s COASTER trains and six Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains stop at
the Carlsbad Village station.
The existing tracks consist of a double track section from the Agua Hedionda railroad bridge to
Control Point (CP) Carl, located at Pine Avenue. At CP Carl the tracks are reduced to a single track going
north through Carlsbad Village Station, under the Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass and across
Buena Vista Lagoon to CP Longboard. The tracks return to double track north of the turnout at
CP Longboard continuing north through Oceanside.
The area surrounding the railroad right-of-way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Avenue has
developed into the downtown commercial area of Carlsbad and is known as Carlsbad Village. The area
between Oak Avenue and Tamarack Avenue is known as the Barrio and is considered Carlsbad’s first
neighborhood, initially settled in the early 1900s. The City has completed several revitalization projects in
the area with more planned in the future.
Within the Carlsbad Village area there are three at-grade railroad crossings: one at Carlsbad Village
Drive, one at Grand Avenue, and one at the Carlsbad Village Station platform; and one grade separated
crossing at Carlsbad Drive. Farther south there is one more at-grade crossing located at
Tamarack Avenue. There is approximately 0.8 miles between the crossings at Carlsbad Village Drive and
Tamarack Avenue where there is no access for pedestrians or vehicles across the railroad tracks.
The Carlsbad Village Station is located just north of Grand Avenue on the east side of the railroad tracks.
It includes a parking lot and a station building with restrooms. Across the tracks there is a bus depot
operated by NCTD with six saw-tooth bus bays. Near the center of the station platform there is an
at-grade pedestrian crossing leading from the bus depot to the train station.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
5
Between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive, the existing track is bordered by a green space
known as Rotary Park to the west and the current location of the historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot to the
east. The historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is currently utilized by the City of Carlsbad as a
Visitor’s Center. North of the bus station and immediately west of the NCTD right-of-way is the
Army/Navy Academy athletic fields. Farther north, beyond Buena Vista Lagoon, the track corridor is
located between single family home developments.
2.3 Current Rail Services
Current rail services that run through the project area include NCTD COASTER, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner,
and BNSF freight trains. The following table provides typical numbers of trains per day passing through
the project area.
Table 2.1: LOSSAN Service Levels (Oceanside to San Diego)
Operator/Line 2016 Service Levels
Intercity (All Stop) 22
Commuter 22
BNSF Freight 6
TOTAL 50
Current passenger service schedules are available at octa.net/OCTA2015/Components/SurflinerLanding/assets/Pacific-Surfliner-Schedule.pdf.
There are typically 4-6 freight trains operating on the San Diego Subdivision daily.
SANDAG provides an Assistance to Transit Operations and Planning (ATOP) program that monitors the
performance of the region’s transit system. The latest data available for fiscal year 2013 showed an
average of 620 daily riders departing and arriving on the COASTER at the Carlsbad Village Station with
the vast majority of riders departing the station travelling south on the COASTER.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
6
2.4 Previous Studies
At-Grade Double-Tracking Alternative
Previous studies of the Carlsbad Village Double Track project have focused on at-grade alternatives for
double-tracking. A Project Study Report prepared by RailPros, Inc. in August 2011 recommended that an
at-grade second track alignment be constructed to the east of the existing track maintaining 18 ft. track
centers through the station area, Grand Ave, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
An Alternatives Analysis Report was prepared by T.Y. Lin International in April 2014 that studied various
alternatives for at-grade double-tracking and recommended a preferred alternative that shifted the
existing track 3 ft. west and constructed a new track 15 ft. east of the existing track.
The project limits for an At-Grade Alternative would be similar to the trench alternatives on the north end,
however to the south the at-grade double-tracking would end north of Chestnut Avenue where it meets up
with existing double-track.
Regional Planning
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, approved by SANDAG in October 2015 evaluated regional
grade separations providing rankings based on certain criteria. The grade separation of
Grand Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive received a relative ranking of 23rd among railroad grade
separation projects, and had an estimated cost of $110 million (2014$). The grade separation of
Tamarack Avenue was evaluated separately and given a ranking of 25th with an estimated cost of
$90 million (2014$). See Attachment C for a summary of the evaluations from The Regional Plan.
Local Planning
The City of Carlsbad is currently in the process of completing the Village and Barrio Master Plan. The plan
was released for public review in November 2015 and in January 2016 the public review period
concluded. Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council were scheduled to take place in
May and June 2016. One of the most transformative concepts in the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan
is supporting trenching of the railroad tracks along with double tracking to create a more connected
network of streets across the tracks. The Draft plan also includes transit oriented development
opportunities at the Carlsbad Village Station site, and the Village Central Green concept introduced in the
Plan would cover the trenched railroad tracks with a park area.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
7
3. PURPOSE AND NEED
Project Need
The 351-mile Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor serves as a vital link for
passenger and freight movements in San Diego County. The LOSSAN corridor is the second busiest
intercity passenger rail line in the United States. Additionally, the corridor is the only viable freight rail
link between San Diego and the rest of the nation. Currently, because of single track through the northern
part of the project area, trains must wait at a siding whenever a COASTER train is loading or unloading
passengers at the Carlsbad Village Station. Additionally, meeting or passing trains must take turns using
the single track, which reduces operational flexibility and results in cascading delays. Double tracking this
segment directly supports the objective of SANDAG, NCTD, Amtrak, and BNSF Railway to increase the
efficiency of this rail corridor, not only to accommodate existing train volumes, but also to provide for
future demand for rail services on the LOSSAN corridor.
In a letter addressed to the California Coastal Commission on July 17, 2014, the City of Carlsbad
provided comments on the draft North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan and Transportation and Resource
Enhancement Program (PWP/TREP). Included in the comments was a request to require SANDAG to
conduct environmental review of both an at-grade railroad option and a trench alternative.
Project Purpose
Double tracking this segment directly supports the objective of SANDAG, NCTD, Amtrak and
BNSF Railway. In addition to supporting mobility in the region the City of Carlsbad would like to address
and improve the items noted in the letter by studying trench alternatives. Trenching through the
City of Carlsbad will provide much improved and safer connections to coastal resources and the coastline
for residents, visitors, and train riders; as well as allow increases in railroad volumes without negatively
impacting the on-street traffic in the City.
4. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a grade separated double track
railroad in a trench structure through Carlsbad Village. This report evaluates two alternatives:
Short Trench Alternative
• Lower the railroad in a trench to pass under an overpass at Carlsbad Boulevard, Beech Avenue,
Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
8
• Maintain Tamarack Avenue as an at-grade crossing.
• Minimize impacts to on-street traffic during construction.
• Minimize impacts to railroad operations during construction.
• Provide double-tracking from Cassidy Street in Oceanside to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge.
Long Trench Alternative
• Lower the railroad in a trench to pass under an overpass at Carlsbad Boulevard, Beech Avenue,
Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue.
• Minimize impacts to on-street traffic during construction.
• Minimize impacts to railroad operations during construction.
• Provide double-tracking from Cassidy Street in Oceanside to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge.
5. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits of trenching the railroad tracks through Carlsbad Village include roadway circulation,
improved beach access, public safety, first response, and railroad operations, environmental benefits such
as noise reduction and visual improvements, and economic benefits.
5.1 Roadway Circulation and Beach Access
By grade separating the railroad tracks and eliminating the at-grade crossings, traffic circulation on the
roads within the Carlsbad Village area will see a reduction in delays due to crossing gates. Certain
vehicles such as commercial buses, passenger-carrying vehicles, and vehicles carrying hazardous materials
are required to stop at all at-grade railroad crossings, per Section 22452 “Railroad Crossings”, of the
California Vehicle Code. This restriction imposes further delay on following vehicles, especially since there
are two bus routes, NCTD Breeze routes 321 and 325, which cross the railroad tracks at Grand Avenue.
Grade separation of these crossings would eliminate these delays for both the NCTD buses and following
vehicles.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
9
With the tracks lowered in a trench, bridges can be constructed at Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue
where there is currently no access across the tracks; and there is potential to connect other streets west of
the tracks to the Coastal Rail Trail via bike/pedestrian overpasses. The Long Trench Alternative provides
a vehicular crossing at both Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. This will provide a greater benefit to
vehicular traffic when compared to the Short Trench Alternative, which would provide only one new
vehicular crossing at Oak Avenue.
Beach access for residents east of the tracks will be improved by adding the additional crossings, allowing
bikes and pedestrians additional safe access points over the railroad tracks. Currently, residents who live
between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue cross the tracks at Carlsbad Village Drive and
Tamarack Avenue, requiring them to travel up to an additional 0.4 miles to cross the tracks. If grade
separated crossings were made at Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue, it would reduce the distance
required for many of these residents east of the tracks to access the beach and downtown areas.
5.2 Public Safety and First Response
Emergency access response times would also improve with the grade separation of the tracks and the
addition of grade separated crossings at Oak Avenue for the Short Trench Alternative or both
Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue for the Long Trench Alternative. The nearest fire station is located
about 0.8 miles east of the railroad tracks on Carlsbad Village Drive. At times emergency response to
locations west of the railroad tracks can be impeded by trains sitting idle at the station and as trains pass
through the at-grade crossings. Elimination of the at-grade crossings would provide improved reliability
for emergency response west of the railroad tracks.
Elimination of the at-grade crossings would provide safety benefits for pedestrians and vehicles crossing
the tracks. Certain express trains travel through the existing at-grade crossings at up to 90 miles per hour
without stopping. Railroad related incidents are tracked by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
San Diego Sheriff’s Office Train Deputies, and Carlsbad Computer Aided Dispatch. Since the year 2000
there have been 22 incidents involving trains and either pedestrians or vehicles, resulting in 19 fatalities
and 4 injuries in the Carlsbad area. Grade separation will eliminate these types of incidents.
5.3 Railroad Operations
Grade separating the tracks will lessen maintenance needs at grade crossings and yield security benefits
for NCTD. The grade separated crossings would no longer require maintenance for the grade crossing
warning devices and crossing arms. The tracks would be made more secure because the trench would
create a positive barrier preventing trespassers from fouling the tracks and possibly endangering
themselves and disrupting railroad operations.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
10
The benefits of double tracking the area from CP Longboard to CP Carl are the removal of the single
track bottleneck where trains currently must wait for trains travelling in the opposite direction to clear the
single track section prior to entering. This project combined with others in the corridor, will reduce travel
times for passengers, improve system reliability, facilitate goods movement, help to reduce passenger and
truck volumes on Interstate 5, and provide for increased passenger and freight rail services in the future.
5.4 Environmental Benefits
The railroad trench alternative will provide benefits to the area including visual and noise. The visual
aesthetics of the area will be improved by placing the railroad tracks in a trench. The road crossings will
no longer require crossing arms, and will be lined by architectural features such as decorative iron fencing
rather than the railroad tracks.
With the railroad tracks lowered in a trench, the trench walls will provide a reduction in noise impacts from
passing trains when compared to tracks at grade. Additionally, crossing bells will no longer be required
once the tracks are grade separated.
5.5 Economic Benefits
Economic benefits of trenching the railroad tracks were detailed in the Economic Study: LOSSAN Corridor
Improvement Options – Carlsbad Area by RSG, Inc./Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc./dBF Associates
(See Attachment A). Benefits listed in the study include increased property values, additional interest in
redevelopment in the area, increased development density near transit, increased property taxes, and job
creation. Additionally, the study relates an economic benefit to lives saved by grade separating the
railroad tracks and to the reduction in delay at the railroad crossings.
The reduction in traffic congestion and noise, as well as increased walkability could make property in the
area more desirable, which can raise property values and improve the experience of visitors to the area.
Higher property values would increase property taxes and be more attractive to developers. Lower noise
levels and improved walkability may increase the number of visitors to the area and lead to generation of
higher sales tax revenues.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
11
6. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Trench Cross Section and Clearance Requirements
The proposed railroad trench would consist of two railroad tracks with 15 ft. track center spacing, a
15-foot-wide access road, and drainage ditches on each side. The drainage ditches are shown as grated
to allow them to be incorporated into the access road width, thereby reducing the overall trench width.
According to NCTD requirements the minimum horizontal distance from a retaining wall to the nearest track
centerline is 15 ft. The edge of the access road must be located a minimum of 10 ft. clear from the
nearest track centerline.
Within the station area the minimum track centerline spacing would be 18 ft. to allow for an inter-track
fence. Platform edges are set at 5’-5” from track centerlines and the minimum width required by NCTD
for station platforms is 16 ft. Additional width would be added to the trench at specific locations for
stairs, ramps, and other improvements.
The minimum vertical clearance required at all overpasses and from permanent overhead struts would be
26 ft. from top of rail.
Access to the trench would be provided at either end of the trench through an access road running along
the west side of the tracks. The access road could include a turn-around location prior to or after the
station. A turn-around area (if provided) should accommodate up to a 35-foot-long vehicle, preferably
able to turn around without fouling the tracks. If no turn-around is included the access road should be
continuous through the station to allow maintenance vehicles to pass through the trench and exit the
opposite end. Access through the station could be provided by adding crossing panels through the station
and allowing maintenance vehicles to drive over the tracks.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
12
Figure 6.1: Typical Section of Trench (Looking North)
6.2 Track Geometry
The design speed used for both permanent and shoofly track designs shall be 90 mph for passenger and
55 mph for freight. The track geometry shall be designed per the latest revision of the SANDAG
Design Criteria Volume III LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County.
Vertical Profile
The track profile shown in the plan and profile exhibits represents the top of rail elevation. The trench
floor slab would be set approximately 2 ft. below top of rail to allow for ties and ballast. Both the
Short Trench Alternative and the Long Trench Alternative have generally similar vertical profiles for the
trench section, but differ in the northerly approach to Tamarack Avenue. Beginning at the south end of the
project limits, the existing double tracks cross Agua Hedionda Lagoon at a 0.00% grade for both
alternatives.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
13
Short Trench Northbound Approach
Because Tamarack Avenue remains as an at-grade crossing, similar to existing conditions, moving north the
profile increases at a 0.79% grade up through a reverse vertical curve up to the Tamarack Avenue
at-grade crossing. The short trench alternative matches the existing grade across Tamarack Avenue. The
profile then transitions to -1.15% grade through a 1,000 ft. crest vertical curve, then begins to flatten out
after transitioning out of a 675 ft. sag curve.
Long Trench Northbound Approach
Tamarack Avenue becomes a grade-separated crossing with the long trench alternative. North of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge, the profile transitions to -1.09% grade through an 800 ft. crest
vertical curve south of Tamarack Avenue then passes under an overpass at Tamarack in a 900 ft. sag
vertical curve.
Trench Profile
The proposed track profile through the trench section was set based on the required vertical clearance of
26 ft. between the top of rail and overpass structures. A roadway bridge structure depth of 2.25 ft. was
assumed for design of the trench profile beneath each overpass. The preliminary track profiles were
designed with the assumption that the existing road profiles will be raised 1.5 ft. at Grand Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive, and 0.5 ft. at Tamarack Avenue to reduce the depth of the trench. This can be
accomplished by modifications to the roadway profile on Washington Street, and the driveways east of
the tracks. This requires the struts to be shifted higher by extending the top of the retaining wall above
the existing grade about 2 ft.
With the track elevations set beneath each overpass profile grades were extended out to vertical curves
at each end of the trench. The minimum top of rail elevation is 13.65 ft. for the Long Trench and
14.38 ft. for the Short Trench. Through the station the track profile is set at 0.39% coming out of the trench.
Passing under Carlsbad Boulevard, the track profile is proposed to be about 3 ft. lower than the existing
track elevation. This requires the replacement of the existing bridge structure at
Carlsbad Boulevard due to the existing spread footings at the bridge, which would be undermined by the
proposed track elevation under the bridge.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
14
Buena Vista Lagoon Crossing
The profile grade across Buena Vista Lagoon was set based on the required bridge depth and results of
the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge Fluvial Hydraulics Analysis (Everest International Consultants,
February 2014). This study analyzed the 100-year flood depth in the lagoon, including the effects of
tidal influences, scour, and sea level rise, and required the proposed track elevation to be set about 5 ft.
higher than the existing lagoon bridge. North of the lagoon the track profile matches back into existing
near Cassidy Street in Oceanside.
Horizontal Alignment
The horizontal alignment of the tracks is constrained by the narrow right-of-way at two locations: near
Tamarack Avenue and on the west side of the existing station. At the station the tracks would need to be
constructed in the existing location with one track set 18 ft. to the east in order to avoid significant impacts
to existing Washington Street and infrastructure, as well as an existing church located on the south side of
Carlsbad Village Drive. The existing right-of-way between Carlsbad Village Drive and
Tamarack Avenue is 200-foot-wide, however south of Tamarack it becomes 100-foot-wide for around
300 ft. then gradually widens closer to the Lagoon.
The short trench alternative would shift the tracks west at Tamarack to avoid impacting an existing 48-inch
sewer line and 84-inch storm drain. Since the short trench option would be at-grade where the existing
right-of-way narrows south of Tamarack there are no additional right-of-way requirements for this option.
The long trench alternative would shift the tracks to the east at Tamarack to provide space between the
trench walls and the existing right-of-way line for a sewer and storm drain line, without impacting the
properties on the west side of the right-of-way. As a result of shifting the tracks to the east the existing
48-inch sewer and 84-inch storm drain would need to be relocated farther east. This requires additional
right-of-way along the east side, south of Tamarack.
6.3 Station Design
The proposed grade separation would require a below grade station. The current NCTD standard is to
provide a 1,000-foot-long platform on each side. The tracks would be separated by 18 ft. within the
platform area to allow for construction of an inter-track fence. The inter-track fence would be a barrier to
prevent pedestrians from crossing the tracks to access the opposite platform. A pedestrian overpass would
provide access between the platforms. Access across the tracks would also be available on the
Grand Avenue overpass. Elevators and stairs would be included on each platform. The minimum platform
width would be 16 ft. with small portions narrowed to a minimum of 12 ft.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
15
The existing station building would be demolished. The new station design could include a restroom facility
to replace the restrooms located within the existing building and platform shelters or covered areas.
Station amenities should be consistent with other recent station projects completed on the corridor.
A portion of the existing parking lot would be temporarily removed during construction of the trench and
temporary shoofly track and station platform. The final design would enable a new parking configuration
that better utilizes the property.
6.4 Drainage
Several options for providing drainage of storm water from the trench were discussed during the
preparation of this report. Typically, a gravity flow swale would be preferred but in this case the middle
of the trench is lower than the ends, so a swale would not work.
Another solution was to bore a storm drain line west out of the trench at the low points to an ocean outfall.
The benefit of this is that it requires less future maintenance than a pump station would. There are a
number of challenges associated with this. First, the environmental permitting of a new ocean outfall would
be very difficult, if allowed at all. If this were pursued it would be beneficial to modify an existing outfall
location. The second issue is that the elevation of the low point in the trench would place the storm drain
around 9 ft. above sea level at the trench. High tides have reached up to 7 ft. recently and with the
possibility of sea level rise the storm drain may not function in the future during high tides. The pipe would
also need to be constructed at a very flat slope, roughly 0.15%, in order to stay above sea level. This can
be problematic for trenchless installation because it requires a very high degree of accuracy that is not
always achievable with trenchless installation methods. Third, the construction of the storm drain by boring
would require the contractor to bore through the trench wall, creating an entry point for groundwater.
It would be difficult to maintain a sealed condition at the pipe connections.
Another approach that has been used on other railroad trench projects, and is recommended in this report,
is to provide storm drain pump stations at low points. Since each end of the trench is at a higher elevation
than the middle of the trench, water would be collected at low points into underground sumps, then
pumped out to existing City storm drains. The design of the pump systems would maintain the 100-year
headwater depths below the railroad ballast. The proposed Long Trench Alternative would require
two pump stations, while the proposed Short Trench Alternative would require one pump station.
Sub-drains consisting of pervious pipes would be constructed within the track bed allowing for drainage of
the sub-grade.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
16
Offsite drainage from the west would be conveyed parallel to the tracks along the top of the wall in
either open channels or buried storm drain. The short trench alternative would connect the parallel storm
drain into the existing storm drain system in Tamarack Drive. The long trench would require the parallel
storm drain to continue south past Tamarack to the end of the retaining walls where it could cross the tracks
and join the existing 84-inch storm drain. A 20-foot wide area between the right-of-way line and the
retaining walls would be provided south of Tamarack for storm drain and sewer.
Near the station existing storm drains that cross the tracks would be re-routed to flow north parallel the
tracks along the outside of the trench to the end of the retaining walls where the runoff would enter a ditch
along the side of the tracks, eventually entering Buena Vista Lagoon.
Due to the expected groundwater level being higher than the trench floor the use of infiltration BMPs
would not be feasible. Water quality within the trench could be maintained through the use of media
filters prior to pumping the storm water. Additionally, runoff from low flow storms could be stored then
released via a low flow pump at a specified flow rate to minimize increases in runoff. An additional
option for enhanced water quality is to pump low flows into the City sewer system, to then be treated at
the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. This would require concurrence from the City of Carlsbad, and
verification that the treatment facility and sewer system have sufficient capacity for added flows. The next
phase of the project should explore this further in a Water Quality Technical Report and
Preliminary Drainage Report.
6.5 Utilities
Utility information was requested and obtained from AT&T, Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD),
City of Carlsbad, City of Oceanside, Cox Communication, Crown Castle International, Southern California
Gas Co., San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Time Warner Cable (TWC), and Verizon. Letters were
sent to each utility owner requesting electronic media or hard copies of record as-built drawings.
AT&T Transmission, Crown Castle International, and City of Oceanside Traffic Signals provided response
letters stating that they have no active facilities within the project vicinity. The remaining utility companies
provided mapping of their facilities in the area (the City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water
District provide access to as-built drawings online through its Document Management System.
As-built research in the City of Oceanside was completed at the City Engineering Counter).
Existing utilities in the project area were mapped based on the provided as-built drawings, aerial
topography, aerial photos, site visits, and survey data. The existing utilities mapped were overlaid onto
the proposed design and all mapped impacts were noted.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
17
It is anticipated that all water lines, gas lines, underground electrical, and communication lines crossing the
trench can be relocated to either be attached to the proposed overpass bridges, or placed on separate
utility structures. Where gravity sewer lines cross the trench the system would be modified to flow parallel
the trench to a point where the track profile is high enough for the sewer to pass under while maintaining
the proper slope and clearances.
An existing 48-inch sewer line exists along the east side of the existing tracks. The pipe has
approximately 16 ft. of cover. In certain locations the temporary shoofly track would be placed over the
existing pipe. The depth is such that live loads from railroads are diminished and it is anticipated that the
pipes can accommodate the railroad tracks. During the design phase of the project this assumption should
be validated by structural calculations. Where manholes are located under the shoofly track they will
require modifications to lower the rim, and possibly provide additional structural support.
There is a Verizon fiber optic line that runs parallel the existing tracks which will require relocation. This
relocation would occur through the trench and also at the Buena Vista Lagoon crossing where the line
would be relocated from the existing bridge to the new bridge.
A 12-inch gas line owned by SDG&E parallels the tracks within the right-of-way. Between Carlsbad Blvd
and the proposed station, the gas line would need to be relocated. A new storm drain line is required
between the right-of-way and retaining wall, as well as an existing sewer line. This does not leave enough
room for the gas line and therefore it is anticipated that the gas line would be relocated between
Carlsbad Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6.6 Right-of-Way
Between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue, the existing railroad Right-of-Way width is
200 ft. South of Tamarack Avenue the Right-of-Way is 100-foot-wide for a short distance, then gradually
widening moving south toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The narrowed segment of
Right-of-Way south of Tamarack Avenue is insufficient to construct the Long Trench Alternative. In addition
to fitting the proposed trench in the Right-of-Way there is a 48-inch sewer and an 84-inch storm drain,
along with several smaller utilities that parallel the tracks and need to be located outside the trench. The
Long Trench Alternative would require acquisition of three single family residential properties located
along the east side of the existing Right-of-Way south of Tamarack Avenue. The Short Trench Alternative
does not require the acquisition of any new Right-of-Way.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
18
6.7 Railroad Signaling
Signal improvements would include wayside signals within the trench and associated signal houses located
outside the trench, temporary grade crossing warning devices and instrument houses, temporary control
points at each end of the trench, and positive train control (PTC) infrastructure. It is anticipated that
wayside signals would be located at either end of the station, near Tamarack Avenue, and near
Cassidy Street. PTC is communicated via fiber optic cabling that runs adjacent to the existing tracks within
the right-of-way. It will require relocation outside the trench to allow for continuous use during construction.
The temporary shoofly track would cross several streets at grade, requiring the modifications to the grade
crossing warning devices. This could include relocation of crossing arms and flashing light assemblies as
well as relocation of associated signal houses if they are in conflict with the work area or shoofly track
alignment.
6.8 Geotechnical
The Technical Memorandum included in Attachment H was prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. (EMI) in
May 2016 to discuss the geotechnical setting of the proposed trench alternatives as well as the feasibility
of retaining wall types. Data from borings taken by Southern California Soil Testing in 2016, EMI at the
station in 2013 along with data from as-built log of test borings at the Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass, and
info from the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website were utilized as sources of
information for the geotechnical memorandum.
The proposed trench alternatives are anticipated to be excavated primarily through the shallow terrace
deposits and Santiago Formation. The soil types expected to be encountered during trench excavation will
be predominantly medium dense to dense clayey sand and soft sandstone with occasional claystone and
siltstone interlayering. Site soils are not expected to present a rippability problem and can be excavated
using conventional earthmoving equipment.
The borings encountered groundwater as high as elevation +28 ft. mean sea level (about 13 ft. below
ground level). As-builts from the seismic retrofit showed a similar groundwater elevation at about 15 ft.
below ground level. The natural grade does not vary significantly with the project limits and it is
anticipated that groundwater will generally be between 10 and 20 ft. below natural grade. The final top
of rail elevation within the trench will be 10 to 20 ft. below the water table. The trench walls and trench
slab will need to be designed to resist hydrostatic earth pressures.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
19
Groundwater is likely to be encountered during excavation for the trench as well as overpass foundations.
Groundwater will need to be controlled during construction of retaining walls, retaining wall footings,
overpass foundations, and the trench base slab. Any seepage or groundwater removed from an
excavation would need to be tested and disposed of in compliance with all applicable local, state, and
federal laws. A comprehensive groundwater monitoring program should be conducted as part of the
design of either trench alternative. Seasonal variations, variations in groundwater levels along the length
of the trench should be monitored as well as potential groundwater flow that might affect design and
construction of the trench.
For sidewall support of the trench and at the bridge abutments, both bottom-up and top-down construction
methodologies are geotechnically feasible. The most challenging geotechnical issue will be constructing
deep cut retaining walls in the presence of shallow groundwater.
For a conventional bottom-up construction method, it is anticipated that there is insufficient right-of-way to
lay back the excavations so some form of shoring will be required. Site soils are not conducive to driven
sheet piling due to the shallow Santiago Formation and soil nail walls are not suited for construction below
the groundwater table. Drilled soldier pile walls with lagging are feasible; however, lagging installation
below the groundwater will not be water-tight so the excavation will need to be continually pumped.
Additionally, the cut heights are expected to exceed the practical limits for cantilever soldier piles so
either ground anchors (tie-backs), internal struts or bracing will be required to resist lateral earth loading.
For top-down construction, site soils are expected to be conducive to both secant pile wall and slurry wall
construction. Both secant pile walls and slurry walls are effective methods to seal off water which would
eliminate or reduce the expense of pumping and disposal of groundwater from the excavation during
construction. Due to the anticipated excavation heights, internal bracing or ground anchors will most likely
be required. Secant pile walls are generally more common in the western United States; however, recently
slurry walls have started to be used more frequently on the west coast. Projects on the west coast where
slurry walls have been used require a substantial quantity of work to offset the mobilization cost of the
equipment which is much larger than conventional Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) pile construction equipment
and usually has to come from the east coast. At this time secant piles are assumed to be the most feasible
option for top-down construction.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
20
Recently, ground improvement techniques have been incorporated into secant pile wall design and
construction to eliminate the time and expense of shaft stabilization (casing and/or slurry). Jet grouting,
Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM), and Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) are examples of methods that have been
used to inject and mix cementous grout with native soils to create a soil grout column of sufficient strength
to be used for temporary lateral earth support. The vertical reinforcing in the secondary piles is stabbed
into the soil-grout column while the mixture is still wet. Due to the high relative density of the
Santiago Formation, site soils are anticipated to be more conducive to CSM and CDSM than jet grouting.
Pre-drilling the soil column with a flighted auger can also be used in advance of ground improvement
techniques to facilitate grout injection and soil mixing.
At the bridge overpasses, the abutments would be supported on CIDH piles that would provide lateral
support for the trench and also carry the axial superstructure loads. The CIDH piles at these locations
would need to extend deeper below the trench slab to develop the necessary axial capacity from side
friction to support the structural loads.
6.9 Trench Structure
The trench structure will consist of a wall and invert slab system, which will be required to support
approximately 32 ft. of trench cut at the grade separations, a temporary shoofly track running along the
east edge of the trench and will support abutment loads for the overpass structures. The system also has to
work under high ground water conditions both for temporary construction and for permanent configuration.
A typical section for the trench is shown in Figure 6.1.
Constraints
Some of the constraints affecting the trench construction include:
• Proximity of existing utilities
• High groundwater table
• At least one temporary shoofly track needs to stay operational during construction
• Vertical clearance under the overpass structures
• Available Right-of-Way
• Dense Santiago formational material at relatively shallow depths
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
21
Trench Structural Elements Evaluation Criteria
Structural feasibility of several trench systems and their associated components were evaluated for this
project based on the following criteria:
1) Applicability to Soil conditions: As discussed in Section 6.7, the proposed trenches are anticipated to
be excavated primarily through the shallow terrace deposits and Santiago Formation. The soil types
expected to be encountered during trench excavation will be predominately medium dense to dense
clayey sand and soft sandstone with occasional claystone and siltstone interlayering. The Santiago
Formation was able to be easily excavated with a hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and
exhibited soil-like behavior during sampling and did not require rock coring. However, this material
is not expected to be conducive to pile driving, per the technical memorandum in Appendix F.
2) Groundwater Control: Based on the proximity of the site to the Pacific Ocean and the groundwater
elevations encountered in the borings, shallow groundwater is anticipated along the trench
alignment. Natural grade does not vary significantly within the project limits and it is anticipated
that groundwater will be generally between 10 and 20 ft. below natural grade. During construction,
wall systems that require dewatering and treating large volumes of water could be prohibitively
expensive. Also in the final configuration, wall system is expected to be watertight.
Any seepage water that has to be disposed off-site would have to be treated.
3) Bridge Abutment Loading: The long trench option will include construction of 7 overpass structures
along the grade-separated trench alignment while the short trench option will include construction of
6 overpass structures. The wall/slab invert system of the trench structure is proposed to be
integrated with the bridge abutments at these crossings and should be able to resist the vertical
abutment loads from these overpass structures. Thus wall systems requiring fewer modifications to
accommodate the bridge abutments are preferred from cost and schedule perspective.
4) Construction Duration and Impacts: The trench alignment passes through both business and residential
area of the City of Carlsbad and hence the noise and traffic impacts of the construction need to be
considered. Wall systems that use construction equipment with smaller impact footprints are
preferred. A single shoofly track will be operational during the entire duration of trench construction
and hence a wall system is preferred that will minimize the construction duration and lead to early
operation of the double tracks.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
22
5) Utility/Right-of-Way (ROW) conflicts: The ROW limits and utility layouts are shown in Attachments C
& D. The close proximity of the trench walls to the utilities and right-of-way limits precludes the use
of tiebacks and soil nails in certain locations.
Wall Systems
Due to close proximity of utilities and ROW limits and the need to maintain a dry excavation to avoid
dewatering, a top down construction is proposed for the wall. A schematic of a typical top down
construction wall system is shown in Figure 6.2.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
23
Stage 1: Construction of wall Stage 2: Construction of top strut
Stage 3: Excavation and bracing Stage 4: Construction of invert slab
Stage 5: Construction of wall facing
Note: The schematics shown above are applicable for any wall system with top down construction in which the wall
acts as a structural system and shoring for constructing the trench.
Figure 6.2: Schematic of Construction Staging for Top-down Wall Systems
("Construction of Secant Pile Wall", Land Transport Authority, Singapore, October 2004)
Wall (see note) Top strut
Top strut
Bracing
Bracing
Bottom
Facing
Top strut Eliminate strut for clr <26'
Slab
Top strut
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
24
The wall systems considered for feasibility analysis include:
a) Secant Pile Walls are formed by top down construction of overlapping concrete piles. The secant
piles are reinforced with either steel rebar or with steel beams and are constructed by either drilling
under mud or augering. Primary piles are installed first with secondary piles constructed in between
primary piles once the latter gain sufficient strength. This wall system provides an effective method
to seal off water into an excavation, which will eliminate or reduce the expense of pumping and
disposal of groundwater from the excavation during construction.
b) Slurry-Diaphragm Walls consist of top down construction of excavated panels which are filled with
soil-bentonite slurry to prevent caving. After design depth is reached, the slurry is displaced with
concrete pumped through a tremie pipe and steel reinforcement cage is inserted into the panel.
However, slurry walls are more suitable as curtain cutoff walls to slow down migration of
groundwater and other contaminants and are usually not used as permanent structural elements.
Considerable reinforcing and thicker sections will be required to provide the structural strength to
hold back soil pressures on the unsupported side of the trench. Secant pile walls are generally more
common in the eastern United States; however, recently slurry walls have started to be used more
frequently on the west coast. Projects on the west coast where slurry walls have been used require a
substantial quantity of work to offset the mobilization cost of the equipment which is much larger
than conventional CIDH pile construction equipment (per the technical memorandum in Appendix F).
c) Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) Walls also consist of top down construction by creating columns of ground
improvement by mechanically mixing the soil with cementitious binder slurry. The process constructs
rows of overlapping columns. H-piles are usually inserted into the columns for lateral capacity.
A bracing system with tiebacks may also be used as an alternative to the H-piles. At this project
location some predrilling may be required into the Santiago formation before the soil mixing
operation, which will increase the cost for the DSM walls (per the technical memorandum in
Appendix F). Also, similar to the slurry walls, DSM walls are more commonly used as temporary
shoring and are usually not used as permanent structural elements.
d) Cantilever Walls are cast-in-place reinforced concrete structures. These wall systems consist of
constructing a wall stem and footing in stages from the bottom up. A standard benched cut cannot be
used at this project since this will require the excavation to be dewatered during construction. The
exorbitant costs associated with pumping and treating large volumes of water, combined with the
adverse environmental impacts associated with mitigation of water infiltration and the ROW and
utility constraints will probably not allow a traditional cantilever wall construction. Sheetpiling is the
preferred shoring option for cantilever walls in which the vertical members are typically driven or
vibrated from the original ground surface to a specified depth. However, this system is ruled out at
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
25
the project location due to the shallow Santiago Formation that is not conducive to driving the
sheetpiles. The construction operation also will have noise impacts on the neighborhood. Thus a
temporary water-sealed shoring system (similar to the three wall systems described above) will be
required to get to the bottom of the footing. Thus a standard cantilever wall construction may not be
feasible for this project unless a top-down method of construction is used for shoring.
e) Soil Nail Walls are constructed through top down excavation in lifts of approximately 5 ft. and the
excavated soil is passively reinforced with grouted tension-resisting steel elements (nails) that can be
design for permanent or temporary support. The nails increase the shear strength of the reinforced
soil mass and limit displacement during and after excavation. A shotcrete facing is constructed to
provide local resistance to raveling. Soil nail walls cannot be constructed with anchors below the
water table and at locations where the wall is in close proximity to utilities or within the zone of
influence of a railroad track. However, soil nail walls may be considered for the beginning and end
segments of the trench which are above the ground water table where the proximity of adjacent
utilities and right-of-way limits permit. Also for the trench sections with groundwater, it may be
possible to come up with a hybrid system consisting of secant piles below the groundwater table and
soil nail walls above the water table. Careful consideration will be needed for any seasonal water
fluctuations or sea level rise to determine the design water table for such hybrid system.
f) Soldier Piles with Lagging is a top down excavation support technique where vertical steel piles are
lowered into a drilled hole and grouted at regular intervals along the proposed wall location.
Wood lagging is placed between the soldier piles as excavation proceeds. For excavations of small
height, the walls are typically cantilevered. The walls can be tied-back or braced where additional
lateral support is required. Since the excavation between the piles to install the lagging is open
excavation, this system cannot be used without dewatering. Also the installation rate for soldier pile
walls is usually slower than other wall systems (per the technical memorandum in Appendix F).
g) MSE Walls are gravity structures consisting of alternating layers of granular backfill and linear
metallic and/or polymer based, high-adherence soil reinforcing strips to which a modular precast
concrete facing is attached. Its strength and stability are derived from the frictional interaction
between the granular backfill and the reinforcements that creates a unique composite construction
material. A mechanical connection between the facing panels and the soil reinforcing strips is
achieved by way of a special tie strip embed and high strength nut/bolt/washer assembly.
MSE walls are usually fill walls and hence is not applicable for this project location due to close
proximity R/W, utilities and the presence of groundwater.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
26
A comparison of eight different wall systems in terms of the Structural Elements Evaluation Criteria have
been summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Wall System Evaluation Summary
Invert Slab and Seal Course Systems
Due to the trench depth below the groundwater level a method of keeping the railroad trench dry must be
included in the design. There are two ways to dry the trench. One is to provide a drainage system that
drains the groundwater into a basin within the trench where it would be pumped out to the lagoon or storm
drain system. The other option is to seal off the trench from the water, similar to what has been done in the
Alemeda Corridor and Reno ReTrac railroad trench projects. Although the pumping option may have a cost
savings, it is not proposed in this report for the following reasons:
•The groundwater would require testing and treatment prior to discharging to the storm drain or
lagoon.
•The impacts of permanently lowering the groundwater in the area would need evaluation of the
environmental effects as well as impacts to any current uses of the groundwater.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
27
• There would be a risk of flooding the railroad tracks in the case that the pump systems failed, resulting
in impacts to commuters, freight movement, and possible damage to the track bed. Pump systems
could fail due to mechanical failure or clogging of a drain line.
• NCTD has stated that they would not allow groundwater to enter the trench.
For trench sections below groundwater, a structural concrete invert slab is proposed between the walls to
seal off the base of the trench from groundwater. Sealing of the trench would create a buoyant force that
would act to lift the approximately 32-foot-tall x 55-foot-wide trench section. The invert slab is proposed
to be designed as a strut system at the bottom of the wall which will reduce the embedment length of the
piles. Along the majority of the trench, the secant piles/slurry wall will only need to extend far enough
below the trench slab to resist the temporary lateral earth loads until the bottom slab is poured. These
temporary lateral loads can be reduced by adding temporary bracing systems over the height of the wall.
Some of the invert slab options include:
a) Cast-in-place Concrete Slab: Designing a cast-in-place invert slab thick enough to resist the buoyancy
forces by virtue of dead load only is one of the simplest design approaches. However, the thicker
the slab gets, the buoyancy forces also increase proportionally. Thus this approach by itself could
result in an uneconomical design for high ground water because of dewatering. A cast-in place slab
may be used in combination with a seal course or jet grouting as described below.
b) Seal Course: The seal course is a concrete slab placed underwater by the tremie placement method
and is constructed thick enough so that its weight is sufficient to resist uplift from buoyant forces.
A seal course also seals the entire bottom of an excavation and prevents subsurface water from
entering the excavation.
c) Jet grouting: Jet grouting is a top-down soil treatment used to create in-situ, cemented soil
formations. The method uses pressurized fluids to segregate and remove some of the soil particles
and replace them and blend them with a soil/cement mixture that can provide high strength and low
permeability. This jet grouted zone then acts as a seal for the invert slab and ballast. The
advantage of the jet grouting method, as compared to a seal course, is that the treated zone can be
constructed before starting the excavation. This can help to reduce the depth of excavation and wall
embedment zone. In some instances, tiedowns may also be used to hold down the treated zone itself
against the buoyant forces, thus resulting in a thinner seal course.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
28
Struts
Since the trench will have two opposing walls a strut brace can be used between the walls, with available
vertical clearance over 26 ft., to resist the lateral soil pressures. Since wall tiebacks cannot be used due to
close proximity of utilities and R/W boundaries, the wall design can be optimized by designing the strut as
a beam-column between the two walls of the trench with compression loads produced by the lateral soil
pressures and moments produced by the strut self-weight. To speed construction the struts can be precast
and connected to the wall over waler beams.
The construction staging for the Alameda Corridor, located in Los Angeles, California, which has similar
proportions to the proposed CVDT is shown in Figure 6.3.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
29
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(a) Excavation of the trench after installation of secant piles and top struts
(b) Construction of invert slab and wall facing (c) Ballast placement (d) Completed trench
Figure 6.3: Expected Construction Staging
Note: Photos shown are from the of the construction of the Alameda Corridor, in Los Angeles County, CA, which had
similar constraints as the Carlsbad Village Double Track Trench project, such as limited right-of-way and close
proximity to underground utilities.
(Photos courtesy: Eric Brown, Earth Mechanics)
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
30
Trench Typical Section
The trench walls may be divided into several segments based on the following criteria:
•Presence of groundwater
•Presence of utilities in close proximity to wall
•Presence of shoofly track next to excavation
•Adjacent to overpass structure
Wall segments for the long trench option with groundwater, utility and shoofly impacts are summarized in
Table 6.2. Typical sections of the trench are shown in Figures 6.4 and 6.5.
Table 6.2: Wall Segments with Groundwater, Utility, and Shoofly Impacts
along Long Trench Alignment
Note: Carlsbad Village Station Platform limits are from STA 2339+50 to STA 2349+50
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
31
Figure 6.4: Cross Section of Trench System with Walls, Seal Course, and Permanent Strut
(Wall height to bottom of ballast, H > 28 ft. only)
Figure 6.5: Cross Section of Trench System at Overpass Structures
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
32
Cost Evaluation
The cost for the trench structure was estimated through discussions with specialty contractors, field experts,
and published construction cost data from Caltrans. These wall costs, neglect the costs for temporary
construction lateral support systems. The estimated cost in Table 6.3 does not include the cost of roadway
excavation, contingency and escalation costs. Contingency and escalation costs should be included to
reflect the preliminary level of design at the feasibility study level and are shown later in the overall
project cost.
Table 6.3: Estimated Cost for Trench Structure
Notes:
1 Estimate for walls is based on $65/sq ft. for soil nail walls for H<15 ft. with no utility impacts (Caltrans Contract Cost Data) and $110/sq ft. for secant pile wall system (Sunil Arora, Senior Project Manager, Hayward Baker Inc.)
2 Estimate for invert slab is based on Caltrans Contract Cost Data
3 Estimate for seal course is based on Caltrans Contract Cost Data
4 Estimate for struts is based on $12,000/precast strut and $500/CY for support beam (bid data from Carroll Canyon
DAR Retaining Walls, San Diego, California)
5 Cost estimate backups for the long trench and short trench options are shown in Appendix D and Appendix E. All estimates are in 2016 costs.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
33
Summary of Trench Structure Evaluation
A preliminary structural evaluation of feasible trench systems for the CVDT project has been performed.
This includes looking at both wall and invert slab systems considering the relevant project constraints and
conflicts. Based on these studies, the feasible wall systems for trench sections under the groundwater level
include: a) Secant pile wall; b) Slurry wall and c) Deep-Soil-Mixing Wall. The invert slab is proposed to be
a combination of cast-in-place slab and seal course. An opinion of preliminary costs also are provided for
the different options. Further detailed structural and geotechnical investigations are necessary to develop
a preferred alternative. During final design of the project the trench structure should evaluate the
potential of using slope paving above the design groundwater elevation and the recommended wall
systems above below the design water table. This could potentially be included where the right-of-way
allows enough room for the paved slope.
6.10 Bridge Structures
A total of six overpass structures would be needed for the grade separated short trench option and seven
structures would be needed for the long trench option. The overpass structures constructed directly over the
trench are proposed to be single span Precast/Prestressed Girder structures supported on abutments which
are made integral with the trench walls. The precast structure type is an attractive alternative because of
reduced construction time and elimination of falsework. The Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass and the
Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge would be multi-span structures which would be constructed outside the limits of
the trench.
Tamarack Avenue Overpass (Long Trench Only)
The Long Trench Alternative would construct a vehicular bridge on Tamarack Avenue over the proposed
trench. The proposed bridge was assumed to match the existing configuration of the road, with a 5 ft.
sidewalk on each side, a 10-foot-wide median, a single 12 ft. lane in each direction, and 6 ft. bike lanes.
The overall bridge dimensions would be 60’ wide by 55’ long single span structure. It is assumed that
phased bridge construction would be required to allow the road to remain open during construction.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
34
Chestnut Avenue Overpass
The Short Trench Alternative would construct the Chestnut Avenue Overpass as a pedestrian overpass.
A vehicular crossing would not work in the Short Trench Alternative because the track profile cannot
maintain 26 ft. of vertical clearance to the overpass and still reach the existing grade at Tamarack
Avenue. The pedestrian overpass is proposed to be raised approximately 7 ft. above existing grade to
provide the clearance to the pedestrian overpass. This would require stairs and an
ADA accessible ramp to access the bridge on each side of the trench.
The Long Trench Alternative would construct the Chestnut Avenue Overpass as a vehicular crossing
connecting the existing street on each side of the railroad right-of-way. The new crossing would include a
sidewalk in each direction and match the width of the existing Chestnut Avenue. The overall bridge
dimensions would be 56-foot-wide by 55-foot-long single span structure.
Oak Avenue Overpass
Both the short and long trench alternatives would construct a vehicular crossing connecting the existing
street on each side of the railroad right-of-way. The new crossing would include a sidewalk in each
direction and match the width of the existing Oak Avenue. The overall bridge dimensions would be
46-foot-wide by 55-foot-long single span structure.
Carlsbad Village Drive Overpass
The existing Carlsbad Village Drive is an at-grade crossing with 2-vehicular lanes in each direction. Both
the long and short trench alternatives would match the existing configuration of the road, with a
5 ft. sidewalk on each side, a 10-foot-wide median, two 12 ft. lanes in each direction, and 6 ft. bike lanes.
The overall bridge dimensions would be 84-foot-wide by 55-foot-long single span structure. It is assumed
that phased bridge construction would be required to allow the road to remain open during construction.
Grand Avenue Overpass
The Grand Avenue Overpass would be similar to the Carlsbad Village Drive Overpass with overall bridge
dimensions of 84-foot-wide by 55-foot-long single span structure.
Beech Avenue Pedestrian Overpass
A pedestrian overpass would be constructed at Beech Avenue to connect the Carlsbad Village Station
platforms on either side of the tracks. The overpass structure would be 12-foot-wide by 62-foot-long
single span structure.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
35
Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass
The existing Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass structure would have to be replaced with both trench
alternatives. The track profile for both trench alternatives would undermine the existing spread footings at
the bridge piers. The replacement of this bridge was not included in the At-Grade Alternative because
that alternative did not undermine the existing spread footings at the bridge piers.
The proposed bridge was assumed to match the existing configuration of the road, with a 5 ft. sidewalk on
each side, a 10-foot-wide median, a single 12 ft. lane in each direction, and 6 ft. bike lanes. The overall
bridge dimensions would be 60-foot-wide by 170-foot-long three span structure. It is assumed that
phased bridge construction would be required to allow the road to remain open during construction.
Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge
The Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge was previously designed to a 30% level in preparation of the
Carlsbad Village Double Track Alternative Analysis Report in 2013. The recommended structure type for
the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge was a 7-span Cast-in-Place/Prestressed (CIP/PS) Concrete Box Girder
structure. The bridge will consist of 45 ft. maximum span lengths for a total bridge length of 294 ft.
The structure depth will be 6 ft. Abutments will be short seat abutments on shaft pile foundations.
Bents will be multi-column, 5 ft. diameter circular columns. 7 ft. diameter CIDH piles were the preferred
foundation alternative. The potential artesian groundwater condition present at the site will require the
contractor to use slurry displacement methods with a weighted drilling fluid during CIDH pile construction.
Overpass Structure Cost Evaluation
The cost for the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge was estimated in the Carlsbad Village Double Track
Alternative Analysis Report in 2013. The cost of the other overpass structures have been estimated based
on Comparative Bridge Costs published by Caltrans, January 2015 for PC/PS Girder alternative.
The estimated costs for the long trench and short trench alternatives are summarized in Table 6.4.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
36
Table 6.4: Cost Estimate for Overpass Structures, 2016 Costs
Bridge Name sq ft $/sq ft Bridge Removal Short
Trench Total
Long
Trench Total
Buena Vista Lagoon 9,899 285 $ 1,200,000 $ 4,020,000 $ 4,020,000
Carlsbad Blvd 10,200 250 $ 750,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 3,300,000
Beech Ave 744 200 $ 0 $ 149,000 $ 149,000
Grand Ave 4,620 225 $ 0 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000
Carlsbad Village Drive 4,620 225 $ 0 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000
Oak Avenue 2,750 200 $ 0 $ 550,000 $ 550,000
Chestnut Ave 2,750 200 $ 0 $ 156,000 $ 550,000
Tamarack Drive 3,300 225 $ 0 $ 0 $ 743,000
SUBTOTAL $10,256,000 $11,393,000
10% Mobilization $ 1,025,000 $ 1,139,000
TOTAL $11,281,000 $12,532,000
6.11 Constructability
Due to the ongoing operations through the LOSSAN corridor, project construction would require phasing to
maintain operation of the tracks. Construction of the grade separation would require a temporary shoofly
track and temporary station platform. The first phase of construction could include replacement of the
Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass, construction of the new double track Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge,
installation of a temporary No. 24 turnout on either end of the trench, and construction of a temporary
shoofly track. The temporary station platform would be located within the existing station parking lot on
the east side of the shoofly track. The second phase of construction could include construction of the trench,
overpasses, two new tracks, COASTER station, and then removal of the shoofly track and temporary
station.
As a consequence of the construction of the shoofly track and temporary station platform there will be a
temporary loss of parking. Approximately half of the existing parking lot at the station would be taken
out during construction. This could necessitate the construction of additional parking on a vacant lot just
north of the existing parking lot. To construct the temporary shoofly track parking would be temporarily
removed adjacent to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive,
and between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
37
In addition to keeping railroads operating during construction the on-street traffic must also be maintained.
Construction on existing streets crossing the tracks should be planned to minimize disruptions. One possible
solution includes the use of precast bridge elements to install bridges over one shorter duration road
closure. Construction of the Oak Avenue Overpass first could provide relief during closures of
Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive by maintaining two railroad crossings open at all times, which
would be similar to the existing condition. The overpass at Carlsbad Boulevard could be replaced by
constructing the bridge in phases, half at a time. This would allow the road to remain open during
construction.
The construction of temporary at-grade crossings along the shoofly track would require
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) GO 88-B authorization to modify an existing public crossing.
A GO 88-B application would be required for the crossing at Carlsbad Boulevard, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue, and the pedestrian crossing at the existing station.
A Formal Application for a new public crossing would be required at Oak Avenue and at Chestnut Avenue,
these would then require a GO 88-B authorization to modify them to grade separated at the end of
construction.
The excavation of the trench would require removal of almost 400,000 cubic yards of earth for the
Short Trench and over 600,000 cubic yards of earth for the Long Trench. It is anticipated that the removal
would be trucked offsite to an approved disposal location by the contractor. The most direct path for
trucks removing materials would be along Tamarack Avenue to I-5 or Carlsbad Village Drive to I-5.
The export of materials would take roughly eight to twelve months to complete. Additional truck traffic is
expected due to the delivery of materials and equipment; however, the volume would be small compared
to during export of soil.
6.12 Operation and Maintenance
A benefit of trenching is that the operations and maintenance costs for the grade crossing warning devices
and gate arms would be eliminated. The proposed trench alternatives would require maintenance of the
retaining walls, overpass structures, elevators at the station, and storm drain pump stations. Estimated
annual operation and maintenance costs related to the proposed trench alternatives are shown in the
following table. A maintenance agreement to cover these costs would be required between the City and
NCTD. The costs shown were based on available public information from various sources, the actual costs
of maintenance may vary greatly depending on the agency, final design conditions, and the environment.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
38
Table 6.5: Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Activity
Short Trench
Annual Cost
(2016$)
Long Trench
Annual Cost
(2016$)
Bridge Maintenance1 $ 6,000 $ 7,000
Retaining Wall/Trench Maintenance2 $ 8,000 $ 12,000
Elevator Operation & Maintenance3 $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Storm Drain Pump Station Operation &
Maintenance4 $ 4,000 $ 8,000
Notes:
1 Annual bridge maintenance costs were calculated from Bridge Cost x 4% divided by the life of the bridge (100 years). A discount rate of 4% is currently used by Caltrans for Life Cycle Cost Analysis.
2 Retaining Walls, Trench Slab, and Waterproofing only. Costs were calculated with $0.50/sf divided by the design life of the
wall (100 years), based on data from the City of Seattle Asset Management Status and Conditions Report, 2010.
3 Maintenance costs per the Standard Services agreement between KONE Elevator and MTS for Maintenance and Repair of three elevators from 2010 to 2014, reduced by 1/3 for two elevators. The ThyssenKrupp Elevator online energy calculator was used to calculate energy cost (thyssenkruppelevator.com/Tools/energy-calculator)
4 Annual cost per pump were taken from the City of Alameda Capital Improvements Projects Fiscal Years 2013-2014
Annual Maintenance Projects for Storm Drain Pump Station Maintenance, divided by ten pump stations in the City of Alameda.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
39
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The following discusses the potential environmental impacts to select relevant issue areas associated with
construction and operation of a Short or Long Trench Alternative for the Carlsbad Village Double Track
Project. The information contained in this section is taken primarily from existing reports prepared for the
Carlsbad Village Double Track Project.
7.1 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
In comparison to the At-Grade Alternative the implementation of a Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative,
the Carlsbad Village area would be improved from its existing visual quality and visual response once
construction is completed. Carlsbad Village would maintain office, commercial, and residential
development, and could be expanded to include parkland and community meeting spaces around or within
the railroad right-of-way. The Proposed Action would modify the railroad infrastructure and alter the
existing landform due to the elimination of at-grade crossings and construction of trench throughout the
developed segment. It is anticipated construction of the project with either trench alternative would occur
over a 40 - 48-month time frame, compared to an 18 – 30-month timeframe for an At-Grade alternative.
Upon completion of construction, the rail and trains would not be as visible because they would be below
the ground surface.
During construction, the existing setting along the railroad Right-of-Way (ROW) both within
Carlsbad Village and in areas to the south, and at the Carlsbad Village Station would be highly
disturbed. Construction activities would take place primarily within the railroad ROW with construction-
related traffic impacting haul routes into and out of the City. Construction would involve numerous pieces
of large, heavy equipment. Tandem dump trucks would be used to haul excavated materials from the site
and cement trucks and flatbed trucks would be used to bring in cement and other construction materials.
Assuming 18 cubic yards of excavated material per tandem dump truck, between 16,000 and
30,000 round trips would be required for the short trench and long trench alternatives, respectively, just to
haul excavated material. Construction activities would last for between 10 and 18 months longer than
would construction activities for the at grade project. During much of this time, the train would run on a
relocated track (shoofly) along the existing ground surface, east of the existing track. Within the Carlsbad
Village, construction activity would be much more pronounced due to the effort required to build a shoofly,
excavate the trench, demo and reconstruct City streets, relocate utilities, construct the walls trench bottom,
and demo the shoofly. Work on the shoofly would require demolition of the existing station building and
a temporary station would be provided to the east.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
40
7.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Short Trench Alternative
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) during construction would substantially increase with the
Short Trench Alternative compared to the At-Grade Alternative due to the increase in truck trips associated
with the construction of the shoofly, excavation of the trench, demolition and reconstruction City streets,
relocation of utilities, construction of the trench walls, trench bottom, and demolition of the shoofly.
Operation of a double track within a trench would result in air quality and GHG offsets due to reduced
vehicular idling at railroad at-grade crossings as the vehicular traffic and rail traffic would be separated
and the grade crossing would be removed. The LOSSAN Program EIR/EIS recommends several best
management practices (BMPs) to ensure that air quality and GHG impacts are minimized during
project-level construction phases to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, BMPs will be implemented
during construction.
Long Trench Alternative
Air Quality and GHG impacts associated with the construction of the Long Trench Alternative would be
proportionately greater than those associated with the Short Trench Alternative discussed above.
7.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Vegetation Communities
Similar to the At-Grade Alternative the construction of the either the Short Trench or Long Trench
Alternative would primarily result in direct, permanent impacts to habitat immediately adjacent to the
existing tracks, which is classified as either non-native vegetation, urban/developed, or disturbed habitat.
The exception to this is within the immediate vicinity of the lagoon where creation of a second track
(inclusive of removal of the existing bridge and construction of a new bridge and wider embankment)
would result in permanent impacts to open water and coastal and valley freshwater marsh, predominantly
located on the east side of the existing tracks. Note that work in the lagoon would remain the same with
an At-Grade alternative or either trench alternative. In addition, construction of the second track south of
the lagoon would permanently impact thin portions of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and eucalyptus
woodland. Impacts would require mitigation, similar to the At-Grade Project.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
41
Federally Listed Species
Similar to the At-Grade Alternative, the trench alternatives would have the following impacts related to
federally listed species.
Light-Footed Clapper Rail. Construction of either the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative would likely
result in the same level of take of the light-footed clapper rail as a result of permanent and temporary
loss of habitat associated with the bridge replacement and berm widening, elevated noise levels during
construction, and temporary night lighting during construction. The trench alternatives occur south of the
Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead; and therefore, impacts to Buena Vista Lagoon and supported species are
not expected.
San Diego and Riverside Fairy Shrimp. The federally listed endangered San Diego and Riverside fairy
shrimp could potentially be present within low-lying areas, parallel to the railroad tracks.
The Potential Area of Impact for either the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative extends beyond the
study area that was previously surveyed for San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp for the CVDT project.
Impacts to fairy shrimp are not expected as the disturbed ROW south of the Carlsbad Village Drive Study
Area was previously impacted by the Carlsbad Double Track Project, and no fairy shrimp were reported
during environmental clearance for that project. A biologist would be required to conduct surveys to
determine if a direct or indirect impact to fairy shrimp would result with the implementation of the Short
Trench or Long Trench Alternative.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CGN). There is a low potential for federally listed threatened coastal
CGN to occupy the isolated patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS) south of the lagoon. Based on the
low potential for presence and distance to potentially suitable habitat from the project footprint
(approximately 68 ft.), elevated noise levels from construction would not be expected to adversely affect
CGN individuals by disrupting normal behavioral patterns including, but not limited to breeding, feeding,
or sheltering. The trench alternatives occur south of the Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead; and therefore,
impacts to any CGN in the isolated DCSS habitat area would not occur.
California Least Tern. The California least tern is an opportunistic forager and was observed foraging
over/within the lagoon during the biological surveys. Although there are no potential nesting sites within
the Biological Study Area (BSA) and no active nesting in the lagoon, indirect impacts could occur to this
species from alteration of foraging habitat as a result of elevated turbidity during construction.
In addition, there would be a permanent reduction in available open water surface within which foraging
may occur as a result of the addition of the second track. However, the permanent loss of open water
foraging habitat would be considered minimal, with only an approximate total loss of 0.07 acres
(0.05% of the lagoon). As a result, it is expected that the California least tern would utilize other portions
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
42
of Buena Vista Lagoon if local foraging habitat losses would occur. If present during construction, the
temporary construction activities are expected to reduce local foraging area. While the permanent
footprint of the project constitutes a negligible portion of the total open water in the lagoon, inadequate
control of turbidity during construction could result in an adverse impact to temporarily affected foraging
areas. However, these impacts may be reduced by controlling turbidity generation to a small footprint
area around the construction zone during the summer least tern breeding season. In addition, consultation
between the FRA and the USFWS under Section 7 of the federal ESA would be required, which would
identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to federally listed species. Section 7 consultation has not
yet occurred. The trench alternatives occur south of the Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead; and therefore,
impacts to Buena Vista Lagoon and supported species are not expected.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and Coastal Wetlands.
Similar to the At-Grade Alternative, both trench alternatives will result in impacts to waters of the US and
coastal wetlands associated with the bridge and embankment work in the lagoon. The trenches themselves
may impact track ditches that are determined to jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or
California Coastal Commission. Such impacts would require avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of
impacts in accordance with the following permits by regulatory federal agencies:
1) USACE, CWA Section 404 permit for placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US;
2) RWQCB, CWA Section 401 state water quality certification/waiver for an action that may result in
degradation of waters of the US; and
3) CCC, Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination.
Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites
Due to the already limited corridors for wildlife within the project site and the presence of the existing
railroad corridor, the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative are not expected to result in adverse
changes to present wildlife movement patterns or intensity.
The project footprint does not include any identified nursery sites. The project would result in direct
permanent and temporary impacts to habitat of marsh nesting birds. There are no anticipated adverse
impacts to nursery sites as a result of implementation of either the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
43
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Avian species could potentially nest in the onsite habitats; therefore, the Short Trench or
Long Trench Alternative could result in adverse impacts to active bird and/or raptor nests (if present at
time of construction) under the federal MBTA.
7.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Substantial community disruption would be expected during construction. Construction of the
Short Trench Alternative would occur entirely within NCTD Right-of-Way, while the Long Trench Alternative
would require acquisition of three single family residential properties. Community movement opportunities
and coastal access would be substantially impacted during construction by construction-related traffic as
well as by temporary street and sidewalk closures. The Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative would
therefore periodically isolate a neighborhood during construction. It could also periodically separate
residences from community facilities near the project area during construction.
The Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative would not isolate any portion of a neighborhood or ethnic
group, nor would it separate residences from community facilities near the project area once construction is
complete. Likewise, the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative would not result in any adverse community
impacts or disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations located within the project area
once construction is complete. By replacing at-grade crossings with grade separated crossings, either
trench alternative would ultimately enhance community movement opportunities throughout the vicinity of
the project. This is in contrast to the At-Grade Alternative which would maintain the division of the
community by the approximately 100-year-old railroad ROW. Traffic delays due to grade crossing gate
arms would be eliminated by the grade separation of the existing crossings. Additionally, the new
vehicular crossings at Oak Avenue in the Short Trench Alternative or Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in
the Long Trench Alternative would provide enhanced traffic circulation in the area.
Pedestrian movement across the railroad Right-of-Way would be restricted by the trench, but crossing
safety would be improved by the addition of grade separated crossings.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
44
7.5 Cultural and Historical Resources
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternatives
The Short Trench and Long Trench Alternatives include plans to relocate the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot from
its current location. The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) since 1993. Direct effects to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot were not assessed in
ASM’s 2013 Cultural and Historical Resource Evaluation Report for the CVDT project, as relocating the
Carlsbad Depot was not proposed at that time. Moving this structure to a new location would be
considered an adverse effect on a historic property.
A formal assessment of effects for the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative, including preparation of
mitigation recommendations will be required should either alternative move forward to environmental
clearance. If the relocation of the Carlsbad Depot is determined to be an adverse effect under
Section 106 of the NHPA, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will require the preparation of a
Historic Property Treatment Plan (HPTP) that will detail mitigation measures designed to protect and
preserve the structure.
The HPTP will identify the character defining features of the building and assess their current
condition. Recommendations will be made pertaining to the best practices to employ in moving the
building that will ensure preservation of those features, as well as approaches to minimally impact the
historic fabric of the building. Recommendations will also be made pertaining to the siting, foundation
construction, building reassembly, and restoration work after the move has taken place. The HPTP will be in
compliance with guidance provided in the National Park Service Technical Report, Moving Historic Buildings
(Curtis 1975).
Mitigation measures appropriate to relocation of a historic building include documentation of the building
prior to the relocation in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and monitoring of the
relocation by a qualified Historic Architect. Rehabilitation of the building following the relocation, if
required, should be in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties and the National Parks Service Preservation Briefs, Bulletins, and Technical Reports.
In addition, due to the depth of excavation that would be required for either trench alternative, there is
a greater chance of impacting buried archaeological resources. Therefore, SHPO may require
archaeological monitoring during construction.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
45
7.6 Geology and Soils
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Either trench alternative has the potential to result in impacts associated with groundwater, strong seismic
shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and corrosive soils. In particular, the trenches would
be built at a bottom elevation that is below the groundwater table. However, with the implementation of
mitigation measures during final design and construction, impacts would be reduced to a negligible level.
7.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Similar to the At-Grade Project, due to the intrusive nature of the construction involved for the project, it is
recommended that preliminary media sampling (surface and near surface soils in particular) be conducted
prior to commencing any intrusive work at the site to confirm whether contaminants are or are not present
at the subject property. The subject property’s historic use as an active railroad since the 1880’s may
provide for the presence of creosote, heavy metals (such as arsenic), petroleum based compounds, and
other non-metal herbicide compounds. If these contaminants are present, they may pose a risk to human
health (site workers and the public within the vicinity of the subject property) from the inhalation of dust or
direct contact with skin or eyes. Furthermore, the contaminants may pose a risk to natural habitat or
sensitive species in the open area around the lagoon, and may threaten the water quality of the lagoon.
As such, potential impacts to human and/or environmental health resulting from exposure to contaminants
potentially present on the project site would be considered adverse. However, preliminary media
sampling would identify the location, if any, of potential contaminants on the project site and measures to
reduce their exposure would be developed at that time.
In addition, an ACM and lead-based paint survey of the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is recommended if the
building would be disturbed during construction or modified as part of the Short Trench or Long Trench
Alternatives.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
46
7.8 Hydrology and Floodplains
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Typical construction related impacts to hydrology and floodplains may include flooding, soil erosion,
stormwater runoff, and sedimentation. However, implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) including the proper use of construction BMPs would reduce construction related hydrology
and floodplain impacts to a negligible level. Both the Short Trench and Long Trench Alternative require
construction of substantial new areas of impermeable surfaces in the trench bottom. Because the horizontal
alignment of the trench bottom necessary to allow for overheads to be constructed at grade, gravity
drainage of storm water from the bottom of the trench is not possible. With the Long Trench Option
two pump stations will be required to dewater the trench bottom during rain events and one pump station
would be required with the Short Trench Option. Long term storm water Best Management Practices will
be required for compliance with NCTD’s non-traditional small MS4 permit under
Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ.
7.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Construction of the Short Trench Alternative would occur entirely within the NCTD ROW, and no temporary
property acquisition would be required. Construction of the Long Trench Alternative would not occur
entirely within the NCTD ROW, and property acquisition would be required. Temporary construction access
would be provided through existing NCTD maintenance access roads. Implementation of either of the
trench alternatives would not result in a significant impact that could not be reduced to a level less than
significant with the implementation of mitigation. As such, either trench alternative would support the
corresponding elements of the General Plans (i.e. Noise Element, Public Safety Element) for Carlsbad and
Oceanside, and there would be no construction-related impacts to existing land uses, zoning, or properties.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
47
7.10 Noise and Vibration
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Construction Related Noise
Temporary noise during excavation of a trench and construction of the new tracks and the stations has the
potential of being intrusive to residents and businesses near the construction sites. Most of the construction
would consist of trenching and earthwork removal, site preparation, concrete work, and laying new track.
Therefore, initially during trenching and earth removing operations, construction noise levels would be
higher and would occur for a longer period of time. However, as the trench gets deeper the noise from
construction equipment would be shielded from the surrounding community reducing noise that would
otherwise occur from construction activities associated with an At-Grade Project.
Due to the increase in truck trips that would be associated with trench construction, it is recommended that
additional analysis be completed, should either of the trench alternatives be selected to move forward, to
determine if a trench alternative would result in a temporary construction noise impact along likely haul
routes to and from the site. In addition, potential vibration impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot would
need to be evaluated.
Similar to the At-Grade Project, construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all
applicable local noise regulations. In addition, specific residential property line noise limits would be
developed during final design and included in the construction specifications for the Proposed Action, and
noise monitoring would be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. Furthermore,
the noise control measures identified below would be implemented as needed to meet the noise limit
standards.
Operational Noise
Based on FRA criteria moderate noise impacts from train operations were identified at certain residential
locations for the At-Grade Project in the year 2030. According to ATS Consulting, an acoustical consulting
firm specializing in rail and highway, when compared to an At-Grade Alternative a trench alternative
would substantially reduce train noise to the community.
Included in the economic analysis (See Attachment H), is noise analysis by dBF, a noise and vibration
consultant. dBF found that construction of a trench alternative would reduce noise levels by up to
12 dBA Leq. For reference, train horn systems required by 49 CFR Part 222 to be blown as trains
approach at-grade crossings must provide a minimum sound level of 92 dBA and a maximum of 110 dBA
when measured 100 ft. from the centerline of the nearest track.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
48
7.11 Parks and Recreational Areas
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
While there would be no direct impacts to other nearby parks by physical encroachment onto the
property, the two other nearest parks and athletic fields may be impacted by construction noise and
vibration. These include Lions Club Park in Oceanside, and the Army and Navy Academy’s athletic fields in
Carlsbad. Located at the northern end of the project site, Lions Club Park is within 100 ft. of the permanent
and temporary impact areas, and directly across Cassidy Street from the entrance to the temporary
access road that would provide ingress/egress for construction vehicles. The Army and
Navy Academy’s athletic fields are located immediately south of and directly adjacent to the ROW and
the permanent impact area. Both parks are close enough to the project site to be potentially impacted by
construction noise and vibration as a consequence of implementation of the either trench alternative.
However, as further discussed above in Section 1.10, Noise and Vibration, construction activities for the
trench alternatives would need to be analyzed to determine compliance with all applicable local noise
regulations. Noise and vibration control measures would be required to be implemented, as necessary, to
reduce construction-generated noise and vibration impacts to a negligible level.
7.12 Public Health and Safety
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Trench alternatives would allow for the removal of existing railroad related traffic control at intersections.
This would reduce wait times at the at-grade railroad crossings when trains are passing through the project
area. Separating pedestrians and vehicles from train operations through the project area would
substantially reduce the potential for accidents involving pedestrians/vehicles and trains, enhancing
public safety.
Traffic control personnel would ensure that protection of vehicles and pedestrians at the railroad crossings
would be maintained during work on any safety feature such as crossing gates and signals. Therefore,
there would be no construction related impacts to public health or safety as a result of the implementation
of the either the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
49
7.13 Relocation Impacts
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
For both the Short and Long Trench Alternatives, the historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot would have to be
relocated. For the Long Trench Alternative, a few properties south of Tamarack with single family homes
would have to be acquired. Relocation of the Depot would be conducted in accordance with a
Treatment Plan to be negotiated with the SHPO. The single family residences would receive fair market
value and relocation benefits in accordance with federal law.
7.14 Water Quality and Water Resources
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Similar to the At-Grade Alternative, the construction activities associated with the trench alternatives may
have the potential to generate runoff that would discharge pollutants into Buena Vista Lagoon and/or
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which are both listed as Section 303(d) impaired water bodies. Construction
discharges could result in a water quality impact. However, with the implementation of a SWPPP and
construction BMPs, impacts to water quality would be reduced to a negligible level.
Both the Short Trench and Long Trench Alternative require construction of new areas of impermeable
surfaces in the trench bottom. Long term storm water Best Management Practices will be required for
compliance with NCTD’s non-traditional small MS4 permit under Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ.
7.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation
Short Trench or Long Trench
Park and Recreation Areas. Similar to At-Grade Project, a total of 42 acres of parkland within one-half
mile of the Project area would qualify for protection as parkland under Section 4(f), however, the
parkland is located outside of the either trench alternative’s permanent and temporary impact area.
There would be no direct impacts to other nearby parks by physical encroachment onto the property.
Two other parks may be indirectly impacted by construction noise and vibration. These include
Lions Club Park in Oceanside, and the Army and Navy Academy’s athletic fields in Carlsbad. However,
Lions Club Park is within NCTD’s ROW and so is it not a 4(f) resource, and the Army and Navy Academy’s
athletic fields in Carlsbad is privately-owned and so it is not a 4(f) resource.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
50
Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges. Similar to the At-Grade Alternative, a total of 100 acres of the
Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve (and adjacent City of Carlsbad open space land) is within one-half
mile of the Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative and would therefore qualify for protection under
Section 4(f). However, because either trench alternative’s permanent and temporary impact area do not
encroach on this land, there would be no direct impacts. Construction of the new double-track bridge over
Buena Vista Lagoon would be limited to within the NCTD ROW.
Historic and Cultural Resources. As discussed above under Cultural and Historical Resources,
a Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative would require the relocation of the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot.
Relocating this structure to a new location would be considered an adverse effect on a historic property,
which is also a 4(f) resource.
A formal assessment of effects for the Carlsbad Village Double Track Long and Short Trench alternatives
will need to be completed, including preparation of mitigation recommendations. If the relocation of the
Carlsbad Depot is determined to be an adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) will require the preparation of a Historic Property Treatment Plan (HPTP) that
will detail mitigation measures designed to protect and preserve the structure. The implementation of the
mitigation measures developed as part of the HPTP and approved by SHPO would likely reduce
Section 4f impacts to below a level of significance.
7.16 Paleontological Resources
Short Trench or Long Trench Alternative
Similar to the At-Grade Project, due to the moderate paleontological sensitivity of the old paralic deposits
underlying the site, excavation associated with construction of either the Short Trench or
Long Trench Alternative would have the potential to uncover significant paleontological resources.
Implementation of paleontological monitoring during construction would ensure that any potential impacts
to paleontological resources potentially located within old paralic deposits would be reduced to
a negligible level.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
51
8. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Project Milestone Milestone Target Date
Begin Environmental 12/2017
Circulate Draft Environmental Document 6/2019
PA & ED 5/2020
Begin PS&E 8/2020
Ready to List 8/2022
Award 3/2023
Construction Complete 7/2027
9. PROJECT FUNDING
To date, capital improvement projects along the San Diego section of the LOSSAN rail corridor have been
funded through a number of public sources at the federal, state, and local levels. As shown in Section 10
below, costs for either trench alternative are significant and funds would be difficult to secure from any
one source, especially in the current financial climate at the federal and state levels in particular. The
region’s TransNet transportation sales tax program funds set aside for the LOSSAN corridor have been
programmed for other improvement projects. Given these factors, the City of Carlsbad may wish to fund
a portion of the design and/or construction with local resources.
The Carlsbad Village Double Track project, for example, has been funded through a combination of
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and local TransNet funds for the preliminary engineering and
environmental documentation stages only ($5.7 million).
10. PROJECT COST
The estimated construction costs were established based on preliminary design data and cost data from
Caltrans, recent projects, drilling sub-contractors, field experts and engineers. The project costs shown are
inclusive of all of the overpasses listed in this report. A contingency totaling 30% of the construction cost is
added to each estimate to account for the preliminary nature of the design included with this report.
Costs are escalated from 2016 dollars to 2023 dollars based on the TransNet Early Action Program
Escalation Rates (transnettrip.com/TrendsRisksIssues/Escalation.aspx).
At this preliminary level of analysis, costs are shown as ranges. However, Attachments A, F, and G use a
cost in the middle of each range for planning and analysis purposes.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
52
Short Trench
The total estimated project cost of the Short Trench Alternative, which includes a 30% contingency, ranges
between $215 million and $235 million in 2016 dollars, with a construction cost between $145 million and
$165 million. The escalated project cost ranges between $260 million and $285 million in 2023,
the planned year of expenditure.
Long Trench
The total estimate project cost of the Long Trench Alternative, which includes a 30% contingency, ranges
between $320 million and $350 million in 2016 dollars, with a construction cost between $215 million and
$235 million. The escalated project cost ranges between $385 million and $425 million in 2023,
the planned year of expenditure.
Potential Cost Savings with Change in Vertical Clearance Required
NCTD has indicated that the minimum vertical clearance may be changed to 24 ft. with concurrence from
BNSF Railway. The estimated change in costs due to the lower vertical clearance are shown in
Table 10.1 below.
Table 10.1: Costs for 24-ft. and 26-ft. Vertical Clearance
Long Trench Short Trench
26-ft. Vertical
Clearance
24-ft. Vertical
Clearance
26-ft. Vertical
Clearance
24-ft. Vertical
Clearance
Construction Cost (2016$) $215m-$235m $201m-$221m $145m-$165m $137m-$157m
Construction Cost
Change N/A $14m N/A $8m
Project Cost
(2016$) $320m-$350m $299m-$329m $215m-$235m $204m-$224m
Project Cost
Change N/A $21m N/A $11m
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
53
Cost Comparison with Other Railroad Trench Projects
Table 10.2 below shows comparison of the estimated construction cost for the proposed CVDT trench
project with two other trench structures completed recently for grade separated rail corridors, the
San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project, San Gabriel, California and the Reno Transportation Rail
Access Corridor (ReTRAC) project, Reno, Nevada. Each of these railroad trench projects had similar
conditions to the proposed Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench; including construction below groundwater in
urban areas and installation of a temporary shoofly track during construction. The San Gabriel Trench was
awarded in 2012 and is expected to complete construction in 2017. The Reno ReTRAC project was
constructed from 2002 to 2006.
A railroad trench was constructed in Solana Beach, Ca in the late 1990s. This trench is about 6,000-foot-
long and lowered the Solana Beach COASTER Station and grade separated Lomas Santa Fe Drive.
The construction cost of the Solana Beach trench was $17.7 million in 1998. This translates to a cost of
around $43.3 million in 2016 dollars, or $7,214 per foot (2016). Although this trench is the only other
railroad trench that has been constructed on the LOSSAN corridor, it is not considered comparable to the
proposed trench in Carlsbad because this project was not constructed below the groundwater table which
allowed for cheaper construction techniques. Mainly, it was constructed with steep cut slopes rather than
walls for the majority of its length, which is not considered a viable option for the Carlsbad Village Trench.
Table 10.2: Comparison of CVDT Proposed Cost with
Recently Completed Similar Trench Structures in 2016
Project
Total
Construction Cost
($ millions)
Max.
Trench
Height (ft)4
Trench
Width
(ft)
Trench
Length (ft)
Adjusted
2016 Cost /
LF of Trench3
Reno Transportation
Rail Access Corridor1 $171 (2002) 33 54 10560 $39,803
San Gabriel Trench
Grade Separation2 $173 (2012) 30 51 7920 $33,681
CVDT Long Trench
(With 30% Contingency) $226 (2016) 32 55 8100 $27,852
CVDT Short Trench
(With 30% Contingency) $155 (2016) 32 55 5700 $27,263
Notes:
1 ReTRAC trench cost is based on "Digging It", Cover Story, AGC of America, May/June 2005
2 San Gabriel trench cost is based on "California construction authority receives six bids for San Gabriel trench", Rail News, Progressive Railroading, 6/26/2012
3 Cost adjustments are based on Quarterly Highway Construction Cost Index published by the California Department
of Transportation from the 2nd Quarter of 2016, see Table 10.3 below.
4 Above top of rail
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
54
Table 10.3: Comparison of CVDT Proposed Cost with
Recently Completed Similar Trench Structures in 2016
Project Project
Year
Cost Index,
Project Year1
Cost Index, 2nd
Quarter of 2016
Unadjusted
Cost/LF
Adjusted
2016 Cost/LF
Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor 2002 53.1 130.75 $16,165 $39,803
San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation 2012 84.6 130.75 $21,793 $33,681
CVDT At-Grade
Alternative 2016 106.2 130.75 $5,106 $5,106
Note:
1 See Quarterly Highway Construction Cost Index published by the California Department of Transportation from the
2nd Quarter of 2016, Price Index for Selected Highway Construction Items 2007=100, Fisher Formula
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/cost_index/historical_reports/CCI_2QTR_2016.pdf
Cost Comparison with At-Grade Double Tracking
The At-Grade Alternative is estimated to have a total construction cost of $42 million and a total project
cost of $62 million (in 2016 dollars) based on the previously completed 30% design. The northern limit of
the At-Grade Alternative would be the same as that of the trench alternatives, however the southern limit
for the At-Grade Alternative would be just north of Chestnut Avenue. The total length of the two trench
alternatives would be longer due to the length required to bring the track profiles back to grade and to
extend the trench through the Tamarack crossing. The cost per foot for the At-Grade Alternative would be
approximately $5,000 per foot. In Table 10.4 below the costs of each trench alternative is compared
with the at-grade double tracking alternative based on cost per linear foot (LF) of project. This includes
the length of the project outside of the trench since this is the only way to compare the at-grade project
with the trench alternatives.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
55
Table 10.4: Comparison of CVDT Trench Construction Cost Estimates with
At-Grade Double Tracking in 2016
Project 2016 Total Construction Cost ($ millions)
Project Length (LF) 2016 Cost/LF of Project
CVDT Long Trench
(With 30% Contingency) $226 13,458 $16,763
CVDT Short Trench (With 30% Contingency) $155 11,116 $13,979
CVDT At-Grade Alternative
(With 30% Contingency)1 $42 8,226 $5,106
Note:
1 The CVDT At-Grade Alternative cost is based on the 30% Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost included in the Alternatives Analysis Report from 2014, by T.Y. Lin International
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
56
11. REFERENCES
Earth Mechanics, Inc.
2014 Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Foundation Report Carlsbad Village Double Track Buena Vista
Lagoon Bridge. February.
2014 Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Foundation Report Carlsbad Village Double Track Carlsbad
Village Station Pedestrian Underpass. February.
2016 Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report Carlsbad Village Double Track –
Trench Alternative. May.
Parsons Brinkerhoff
2013 Infrastructure Development Plan for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County
RailPros, Inc.
2011 Project Study Report: Carlsbad Village Double Track Project. August.
RSG, Inc. / Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. / dBF Associates
2016 Economic Study: LOSSAN Corridor Improvement Options – Carlsbad Area. September. SANDAG
2011 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. October.
T.Y.Lin International
2014 Carlsbad Village Double Track Improvements Alternative Analysis Report
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
57
12. PROJECT PERSONNEL
SANDAG
Tim Dewitt
Project Manager (619) 699-1935
City of Carlsbad
Glen Van Peski
Director of Community
& Economic Development (760) 602-2783
T.Y. Lin International
Steve Smith
Consultant Project Manager (619) 692-1920
Philip Brand
Project Engineer (619) 692-1920
Jay Holombo Lead Structures Engineer (619) 692-1920
Kumar Ghosh
Structures Engineer (619) 692-1920
BRG Consulting Inc.
Erich Lathers
Environmental Consultant (619) 298-7127
Earth Mechanics Inc.
Eric Brown
Geotechnical Consultant (760) 736-8222
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT A:
ECONOMIC STUDY: LOSSAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS-
CARLSBAD AREA
Prepared for:
ECONOMIC STUDY
1/17/2017 Economic Study Assessing LOSSAN Corridor
Improvement Options – City of Carlsbad
Prepared by RSG, Inc.,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and
dBF Associates
Economic Study
Page 2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 8
ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 8
STUDY AREAS ............................................................................................................................................ 8
EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 11
Property Values ..................................................................................................................................... 11
By Land Area ...................................................................................................................................... 11
By Assessed Value .............................................................................................................................. 12
Secured Property Tax Revenue .......................................................................................................... 12
City Share of Secured Property Taxes .......................................................................................... 13
Commercial Activity............................................................................................................................... 14
Lease Rates/Square Foot ................................................................................................................. 14
Vacancy Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Business Licenses/Revenue/Turnover ............................................................................................... 15
Employment ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Number of Jobs ................................................................................................................................... 15
Jobs by Industry .................................................................................................................................. 16
Number of Residents Working and Living in Area ...................................................................... 17
Sales Tax ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Property Sales by Land Use................................................................................................................ 18
Transient Occupancy Tax ..................................................................................................................... 18
Train Incidents ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Walkability/Livability .......................................................................................................................... 20
COMPARABLE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 22
Case Studies ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Other Trenching Projects ................................................................................................................... 22
LOSSAN North San Diego County Submarkets ............................................................................ 22
LOSSAN Corridor Submarkets ......................................................................................................... 23
Property Owner/Developer/Broker Interviews .............................................................................. 23
Property Values .................................................................................................................................. 24
Redevelopment ................................................................................................................................... 25
Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 25
PROJECTION OF ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS ....................................................... 26
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided ...................................................................................................... 27
Value of Statistical Life ..................................................................................................................... 27
Note on Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 28
Value of Time Saved ............................................................................................................................ 29
Delay Times ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Delay Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Economic Study
Page 3
Sales Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Solana Beach Case Study ................................................................................................................. 30
Analysis and Assumptions (“DD” Approach) .................................................................................. 31
Sales Tax Projections ......................................................................................................................... 33
Property Taxes ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Short Trench and Long Trench Alternatives .................................................................................... 35
Reduced Noise and Traffic Congestion Impacts ........................................................................... 35
Impacts of Reduced Noise Alone (Subset of Total Property Value Impacts) .......................... 37
At-grade............................................................................................................................................... 40
Impacts of Improved Beach Access ................................................................................................. 41
Construction Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 42
Economic Impacts of Construction..................................................................................................... 43
Carlsbad Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 43
County Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 43
Transient Occupancy Taxes ................................................................................................................. 45
Vacancy and Lease Rates .................................................................................................................... 45
Job Creation ........................................................................................................................................... 46
Emergency Response ............................................................................................................................. 46
Displacement (Long Trench) ................................................................................................................. 47
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX 1 - REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 49
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX 2 - TRAFFIC EVALUATION FOR LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS,
PREPARED BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. .................................................... 52
APPENDIX 3 - CARLSBAD LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – NOISE AND VIBRATION
EVALUATION, PREPARED BY DBF ASSOCIATES, INC. ...................................................... 53
Economic Study
Page 4
Economic Study
Economic Study Assessing LOSSAN Corridor Improvement Options – City of Carlsbad
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Three different alternatives have been proposed in connection with the double tracking of the Los Angeles-San
Diego-San Luis Obispo (“LOSSAN”) rail corridor through the City of Carlsbad (“City” or “Carlsbad”), primarily
through downtown Carlsbad (commonly called “Carlsbad Village”). This Economic Study (“Study”) has been
prepared to project the economic and fiscal impacts throughout San Diego County (“County”) of the following
three alternatives:
1. Double tracking entirely at-grade (“At-grade”)
2. Double tracking with a railroad trench from the Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass to north
of Tamarack Avenue (“Short Trench”)
3. Double tracking with a railroad trench from the Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass to north
of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon railroad bridge (“Long Trench”)
This Study has been prepared for inclusion in the Carlsbad Village Double Track - Railroad Trench Alternative
Feasibility Study (“Feasibility Study”) for the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) and Carlsbad,
prepared by T.Y. Lin International. The Feasibility Study analyzes the technical feasibility, design considerations,
environmental constraints, schedule, and cost of the three alternatives.
An important distinction must be made between fiscal and economic impacts. Fiscal impacts, such as property
and sales taxes, represent a direct revenue benefit to local public agencies. Per industry standards, this Study
focuses on fiscal impacts expected to result directly from the three alternatives. Additional fiscal impacts can
be expected to accrue to public agencies indirectly. Economic impacts—such as the values of lives and time
saved, as well as economic output—are distributed more broadly and may not be reflected directly in public
agencies’ finances. This Study considers both categories of impacts, specifically the following:
The value of lives saved and injuries avoided
The value of time saved by motorists and pedestrians
Property values
Property taxes
Retail and restaurant sales
Sales taxes
Construction impacts
Transient occupancy taxes
Vacancy and lease rates
Job creation
Emergency response delays
Displacement
Where possible, the projected values have been calculated as a range with “Low,” “Middle,” and/or “High”
points due to the uncertainty associated with projecting economic and fiscal impacts. It is important to note that
Economic Study
Page 5
the actual impacts of the three rail improvement alternatives will depend on, and occur within the context of,
many factors and trends. This Study focuses on the impacts expected to occur solely due to the three alternatives.
Figure A below summarizes the results of this analysis and provides a side-by-side comparison of these impacts
under each alternative during a 99-year period. Figures B and C portray these results graphically.
The At-grade alternative has the lowest construction cost of the three alternatives at $62.0 million. The results
of the data analysis indicate negative value of lives saved and negative economic and fiscal impacts
(estimated as ranging from -$228.9 million to -$567.9 million, at -$143.4 million, and at -$1.7 million,
respectively), primarily due to loss of life and time, as well as changes in property values. Trespasser incidents
resulting in motorist and pedestrian death could potentially be reduced with crossing improvements and fencing
of the railroad corridor made in the At-grade alternative. The current construction cost estimate for the At-
grade alternative includes new quadrant gates and crossing modifications. However, there is a lack of data
showing the statistical effect these improvements have in preventing incidents. Furthermore, the At-grade
alternative includes a pedestrian underpass at Beech Avenue, which would likely help to reduce trespasser
incidents and boost property values by improving beach access. As with crossing modifications, there is a lack
of data showing the exact statistical effect of the underpass. The primary cause of the At-grade’s negative
economic and fiscal impacts is the expectation of an increase in lives lost as train traffic and the opportunity for
accidents increases (see Figure D). Other causes include a decline in property values due to higher noise and
traffic congestion levels, and greater delays due to traffic congestion.
The Short Trench has a significantly higher construction cost of $224.1 million, but has estimated fiscal and
economic benefits in the billions of dollars, the most prominent of which are the expected additional retail sales,
higher property values, and the value of lives saved. Other significant benefits include the economic output
resulting from construction, additional sales tax revenues, and greater property tax revenues. In total, the value
Low Middle High Low Middle High Low Middle High
Construction Cost
Total Cost
Value of Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided
Total Value ($228.9) ($406.9) ($567.9)$363.2 $645.6 $901.2 $484.7 $861.6 $1,202.7
Economic Impacts
Value of Time Saved
Secondary Economic Output of Construction
Property Value
Retail and Restaurant Sales $1,922.1 $6,890.2 $15,785.5 $1,958.4 $7,642.8 $17,003.2
Total Economic Impacts $5,504.2 $10,472.3 $19,367.6 $5,611.2 $11,295.6 $20,656.0
Fiscal Impacts
Additional Sales Tax $19.2 $68.9 $157.9 $19.6 $76.4 $170.0
Property Tax due to Reduced Noise, Traffic Congestion
Property Tax due to Reduced Noise $1.6 $2.0 $2.3 $2.9 $3.3 $3.7
Property Tax due to Improved Beach Access
Transient Occupancy Tax
Total Fiscal Impacts $56.1 $105.8 $194.8 $56.5 $113.4 $207.0
Economic Study ‐ LOSSAN Corridor Carlsbad Improvement Options
Summary of Economic and Fiscal Impacts ‐ 3 Scenarios
Figure A
$0.0
($1.7)
All Numbers Expressed in 2016 Million Dollars
At‐grade Short Trench Long Trench
($7.2)$10.9 $12.7
$35.4
$3,432.0
($1.7)
($1.7)
$3,432.0
$62.0 $224.1
($143.4)
$335.1
$139.2 $208.1
$34.3$34.3
($171.6)
$0.0
$2.6 $2.6$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Economic Study
Page 6
of lives saved plus economic benefits of the Short Trench are estimated between $5.87 billion and $20.27
billion, while fiscal impacts are estimated from $56.1 million to $194.8 million.
The Long Trench has the highest construction cost, estimated at $335.1 million, as well as the highest fiscal
and economic benefits. Overall, the value of lives saved plus economic benefits range from $6.10 billion
to $21.86 billion. Fiscal benefits are estimated between $56.5 million and $207.0 million.
It should be noted that after the analysis for the Study was completed, the required vertical clearance for the
project was changed from 26 feet to 24 feet. Since the analysis was already complete, it was not changed.
However, RSG notes that a lower required vertical clearance would allow for lower construction costs in the
Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives, which would correspond to a reduced construction duration as well
as lower economic impacts of construction. As described in the Feasibility Study, the reduction equals 5-6% of
the construction cost estimates identified in this Study.
Figure B – Total Projected Economic Impacts
($5,000)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH
AT-GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCH
Total Economic Impacts ‐2016 Million Dollars
Retail Sales Property Value
Value of Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided Value of Time Saved
Secondary Economic Output of Construction
Economic Study
Page 7
Figure C – Total Projected Fiscal Impacts
Figure D
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH LOW MIDDLE HIGH
AT-GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCH
Total Fiscal Impacts ‐2016 Million Dollars
Property Tax ‐ Improved Beach Access
Property Tax ‐ Reduced Noise and Traffic Congestion
Additional Sales Tax
0
5
10
15
20
25
CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH
Train Incidents in Carlsbad & Solana Beach
Injuries and Fatalities
Fatalities Injuries Unspecified Incidents
No
Incidents
BEFORE 1998 AFTER 1998
Economic Study
Page 8
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Three different alternatives have been proposed in connection with the double tracking of the LOSSAN rail
corridor through the City of Carlsbad, primarily through the Carlsbad Village area. This Carlsbad Village
Double Track project would construct a second railroad track from Cassidy Street in Oceanside south to
Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad. The introduction of a second line will increase regional rail mobility by reducing
bottlenecks that frequently occur in the corridor. Placing the rail line in a grade-separated trench to reduce
noise and traffic congestion and improve safety conditions is an alternative being considered as part of these
improvements. Because the costs of trenching a rail line are significant, comparing the costs and benefits of each
alternative is important in determining which alternative is most feasible and provides the greatest net benefit.
This Study estimates the economic and fiscal benefits, as well as costs, of three alternatives for the Carlsbad
Village Double Track project. This Study will be included in the Carlsbad Village Double Track - Railroad Trench
Alternative Feasibility Study for SANDAG and Carlsbad, prepared by T.Y. Lin International.
ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives of the Carlsbad Village Double Track project are as follows:
1. At-grade double tracking from the Buena Vista Lagoon railroad bridge south to connect to existing
double track just south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Includes a new pedestrian underpass at Beech Avenue.
2. Short Trench double tracking would construct a trench to lower the railroad level beginning at the
Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass south to end north of Tamarack Avenue. Includes a new
complete (i.e., vehicular and pedestrian) overpass at Oak Avenue and a pedestrian overpass at
Chestnut Avenue.
3. Long Trench double tracking would construct a trench to lower the railroad level beginning at the
Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass south to end just north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
railroad bridge. Includes new complete overpasses at Oak and Chestnut Avenues.
RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) projected the economic and fiscal benefits with critical assistance from Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn”) for traffic impact analysis (Appendix 2) and dBF Associates (“dBF”) for noise
impact analysis (Appendix 3).
This Study does not address capital and operating costs for the proposed rail infrastructure and future
operations, only construction costs. All three alternatives include double tracking, and assume that rail traffic
receives priority over vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, it is expected that all three alternatives would
provide similar economic benefits and costs with regard to increased train service and operations. This Study
therefore focuses on existing conditions in the Carlsbad area and projects the difference in economic and fiscal
impacts resulting from each of the above alternatives.
STUDY AREAS
In assessing a multitude of different economic and fiscal impacts resulting from a specific project, some of these
impacts may affect a smaller radius around the project site, while others may affect a larger area of a
community or even the region. For example, sales taxes will be generated locally, i.e., within the Coastal
Corridor, as defined below. Such impacts will primarily benefit the Carlsbad Village area. The economic impacts
of construction, meanwhile, will be spread throughout the County as construction workers spend their earnings in
those communities where they live and shop. Therefore, in order to provide a comprehensive, accurate and
conservative analysis, certain economic and fiscal impacts require evaluation for Carlsbad or a larger area as
a whole, while others need to be evaluated at the smaller sub-area level as these impacts will be more localized.
Economic Study
Page 9
The first step in the process of (1) identifying existing conditions (to establish a baseline for projecting economic
impacts) and (2) evaluating economic impacts for this Study was to define “Study Areas.” In reviewing the
project site, land uses, and available data sources for use in the analysis, the following Study Areas, shown in
Figure 1, were designated for the purposes of this Study:
1. Village-Barrio District - designated in Carlsbad’s Village and Barrio Master Plan. The Village portion
of this area is based on the legal boundary of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the
predecessor to the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and is shown in Figure 1. The Barrio portion is
bounded by Tamarack Avenue to the south, Interstate 5 to the east, the Village to the north, and the
railroad tracks to the west.
2. Coastal Corridor – generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Buena Vista Lagoon to the
north, Interstate 5 to the east, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south. This subarea includes the
Village-Barrio District and surrounding land. It is also referred to as Carlsbad Village in this Study.
3. 92008 zip code area within the City, includes the Coastal Corridor and land south of the Agua Hedionda
lagoon and east of Interstate 5.
4. Carlsbad geographic boundaries. This area covers all land within City boundaries, including the 92008
zip code.
This Study summarizes existing conditions at each of the four Study Areas for which data is available. The Study
Areas were selected in part because the impacts were considered as possibly occurring at different levels within
the geographic location of the City. However, research and analysis (see Appendix 1 for references) indicated
that the economic and fiscal impacts themselves would occur within the Coastal Corridor Study Area. While local
impacts will benefit regional entities (such as the County), measurable changes in economic metrics are expected
to occur only within the Coastal Corridor. (See Methodology description on page 26 for more information.)
In addition to the Study Areas, Figure 1 illustrates the potential trenched areas and crossings of the three double
track alternatives listed in the previous section. The Short Trench would extend between the existing Carlsbad
Boulevard highway overpass (identified as “A” in Figure 1) and just north of Tamarack Avenue (“G”), between
Hemlock Avenue and Redwood Avenue. The Long Trench would extend between the Carlsbad Boulevard
highway overpass (“A”) and approximately 0.3 miles south of Tamarack Avenue (“G”) at Olive Avenue.
Crossings are identified by letter in the map portion of Figure 1 and explained in the table portion of Figure
1.
Economic Study
Page 10
Figure 1 – Map of Double Track Alternatives, Study Areas, and Rail Crossings
Street Name Existing Conditions At-grade Alternative Short Trench Alternative Long Trench Alternative
A Carlsbad
Blvd. Overpass Overpass Overpass Overpass
B Beech Ave. No Access Underpass Overpass Overpass
C Grand Ave. At-grade Crossing At-grade Crossing Overpass Overpass
D Carlsbad
Village Dr. At-grade Crossing At-grade Crossing Overpass Overpass
E Oak Ave. No Access No Access Overpass Overpass
F Chestnut
Ave. No Access No Access Overpass Overpass
G Tamarack
Ave. At-grade Crossing At-grade Crossing At-grade Crossing Overpass
92008 Zip Code
City of Carlsbad
Coastal Corridor
Village District
Barrio District
A B
D E
F
G
C
Economic Study
Page 11
EXISTING CONDITIONS
An analysis of existing conditions within all four (4) Study Areas was conducted to establish the baseline
conditions from which economic impacts would be assessed for the following metrics.
Property Values
Commercial Activity
Employment
Sales Tax
Property Sales by Land Use
Transit Occupancy Tax
Train Incidents
Walkability/Livability
The results of these analyses are presented below.
Property Values
By Land Area
Carlsbad is primarily a residential community – residential is the dominant land use type in all Study Areas, as
demonstrated in Figure 2. More specifically, 70% to 87% of the land use by area in the Study Areas is
residential. Commercial uses vary by Study Area, with the Village-Barrio area at the highest percentage of
commercial at 13%, followed by the 92008 area at 9%. The Coastal Corridor and City have a lower
percentage of commercial uses, at 3% and 1.5%, respectively.
Industrial uses are low at below 2% for all areas except 92008 at 6% of land area. Other uses include
agricultural, institutional, recreational, and rural. Figure 2 below presents land use information by land area.
Figure 2
Economic Study
Page 12
By Assessed Value
The fiscal year 2015-16 total assessed valuation of the City Study Area is estimated at $25 billion
(according the 2015-16 San Diego County Equalized Assessment Roll). The 2015-16 assessed value of the
remaining Study Areas are $675 million in Village Barrio, $1.7 billion in the Coastal Corridor, and $7.4 billion
in 92008.
Land uses by assessed valuation were also examined as an economic indicator of real estate values in each
Study Area. As shown in Figure 3, residential uses represent a smaller percentage of assessed value than
the percentage of land area. In contrast, commercial property represents a higher percentage of assessed
value and a lower percentage of land area. As stated in the above section, the percentage commercial
property by land area for the Study Areas ranges from 1% to 13%, while the percentage by assessed value is
15% to 32% (Figure 3). The percentage of total assessed value for industrial uses is somewhat higher at 1% to
6%.
Figure 3
Secured Property Tax Revenue
The City, County, school districts, and special districts receive a portion of the property taxes applied to all
property to pay for municipal and regional services. Property taxes in California are generally levied at the
rate of 1% of assessed value and are distributed among taxing entities as determined generally by Proposition
13, Senate Bill 154, and Assembly Bill 8. Each taxing entity is assigned a property tax rate that represents
that entity’s share or portion of the 1% property tax levy.
More specifically, property taxes are calculated by applying the 1% tax rate (referenced above) to the total
assessed valuation of property, as determined by county assessors. This property tax revenue is then
apportioned to each taxing entity based on each entity’s proportional share of the 1% tax rate. For example,
the City’s tax rate in the Village is approximately 22%. Therefore, the City receives approximately 22% of
all property taxes paid for the Village area.
Economic Study
Page 13
The estimated total amount of property tax revenues for fiscal year 2015-16 in each Study Area is depicted
in Figure 4.
Figure 4
City Share of Secured Property Taxes
Carlsbad’s share of the 1% general tax levy varies slightly by Study Area, but ranges from 16% to 22% (the
lowest overall City tax rate is in the City Study Area, while the highest City tax rate is in the Village-Barrio
area). The rates vary because each taxing entity’s share of property taxes is set for a specified “Tax Rate
Area.” The City’s share of property taxes in each Study Area depends on the Tax Rate Areas contained in the
Study Area and the City’s share of property taxes within those Tax Rate Areas. The estimated City share of
property taxes within the Study Areas is listed below.
Village-Barrio: $1.5 million
Coastal Corridor: $3.5 million
92008: $13.2 million
City: $41.2 million
It is important to note that these estimates exclude unsecured and state assessed property. Therefore, these
amounts do not track exactly to Carlsbad’s budget documents.
Economic Study
Page 14
Commercial Activity
Lease Rates/Square Foot
2016 Quarter 1 real estate data for retail and office uses was obtained from CoStar. Restaurant lease rates
were unavailable as the vacancy rate was 0% in all Study Areas.
Figure 5
As shown in Figure 5, lease rates for office uses are very similar for all Study Areas. However, retail lease rates
for Carlsbad are higher than the remaining subareas.
Vacancy Rates
2016 Quarter 1 vacancy rates, obtained from CoStar (as shown in Figure 6), indicate very low retail vacancy
rates in all Study Areas (ranging from 1% to 4%). Office vacancy rates in the Village-Barrio and Coastal
Corridor are also very low at 3.5% and 3.7%, respectively. However, office vacancies in the 92008 and
City Study Areas are much higher at 18% and 16%, respectively.
Economic Study
Page 15
Figure 6
Business Licenses/Revenue/Turnover
Business license information for fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 was obtained from Carlsbad city staff and
is only available on a city-wide basis, rather than a Study Area basis. This data indicates the following changes
over this time period:
New business licenses increased by 1%
Business license revenues increased by 9%
An average of 1,130 new licenses and 1,064 unrenewed licenses
Employment
Number of Jobs
The total number of jobs in each Study Area (Figure 7) indicates that the Coastal Corridor Study Area comprises
less than 15% of the total jobs in Carlsbad. Jobs in Village-Barrio represent less than 8% of total City jobs.
Economic Study
Page 16
Figure 7
Jobs by Industry
Figure 8 illustrates a breakdown of jobs in selected key industries, in each Study Area. The Village-Barrio and
Coastal Corridor Study Areas have similar breakdowns, with the majority of jobs in the Accommodation
and Food Service (restaurants and hotels) and Health Care and Social Assistance industries. Both areas
have a relatively small percentage of workers in Retail Trade and Manufacturing.
Figure 8
Economic Study
Page 17
In contrast, the 92008 and City Study Areas show jobs in Accommodation and Food Service, Retail Trade
and Manufacturing industries at similar levels (about 15% of the workforce in each industry), with the
smallest percentage in Health Care and Social Assistance.
Number of Residents Working and Living in Area
Data from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (five-year estimates) was obtained to determine the
percentage of working Carlsbad residents who also live in Carlsbad. This information was available for the
92008 and Carlsbad Study Areas, but could not be aggregated for the Village-Barrio and Coastal Corridor
Areas specifically.
The percentages of workers who both live and work in the same area was very similar for both the 92008
and Carlsbad Study Areas at 38% and 36%, respectively. These figures reflect the large proportion of local
residents (62% to 64%) who work elsewhere and local workers who live elsewhere and commute to their jobs,
which contributes to traffic congestion in the County.
Sales Tax
Figure 9 presents the total estimated sales tax receipts in 2014 for each Study Area. The Coastal Corridor,
which includes the Village-Barrio Study Area, generated 5% of the total sales tax revenue in Carlsbad as
a whole.
Figure 9
Similar to the Jobs by Industry (described previously and shown in Figure 8), the sales tax by business type
(as a percentage of the total sales tax generated within a Study Area) in the Village-Barrio and Coastal
Corridor Study areas are very similar. The 92008 and City Study Areas also show sales tax percentages
that are similar as well. This information is depicted in Figure 10.
Economic Study
Page 18
Figure 10
Property Sales by Land Use
Data on monthly sales by land use (residential and commercial) for calendar years 2014 and 2015 was
obtained from Metroscan, a CoreLogic company that provides assessment roll information, including property
sales. This data was aggregated by Study Area as a factor contributing to projected future increases in assessed
value.
When a property is sold for a higher price than the existing assessed value per the equalized County roll (the
basis for property taxes), increased property taxes are generated from that property for all taxing entities,
including Carlsbad and the County. On average, monthly sales in all Study Areas in 2014 and 2015
represented less than 1% of the total assessed value of that particular Study Area.
Transient Occupancy Tax
Transient occupancy taxes (“TOT”) result from a fee charged on hotel room stays and are based on a
percentage of the nightly room rate. Carlsbad has a 10% TOT rate, which also applies to homeowners in
coastal neighborhoods who rent out part or all of their homes through services such as Airbnb.com or VRBO.com.
The number of hotels, by Study Area, is shown in Figure 11. Twelve (12) hotels are located in the Coastal
Corridor, representing 27% of the total hotels located in Carlsbad.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
VILLAGE‐
BARRIO
COASTAL
CORRIDOR
ZIP CODE
92008
CITY OF
CARLSBAD
Sales Tax by Business Type
Restaurants
Food Markets
Service Stations
New Auto Sales
Apparel Stores
Miscellaneous Retail
Economic Study
Page 19
Figure 11
TOT revenue from fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 is presented in Figure 12. These revenues increased
significantly by 12% during this time period.
Figure 12
Train Incidents
Incident data from Federal Railroad Administration, the California Highway Patrol’s Computer Aided Dispatch,
and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department reports show that Carlsbad and Solana Beach each had six
(6) trespasser incidents (injuries or fatalities) from 1979 to 1998, a nearly 20-year period. However, the
number of incidents increased dramatically in Carlsbad with 22 incidents reported between 1998 and 2015,
Economic Study
Page 20
a 17-year period. During this same time, Solana Beach, which separated its railroad grade in 1998,
experienced zero trespasser incidents. Looking at injuries and fatalities, the number of incidents in Carlsbad
between 1998 and 2015 total 18 fatalities and four (4) injuries over 17 years.
Figure 13 tracks all injuries and fatalities since 1979.
Figure 13
Walkability/Livability
According to Walk Score’s website, a Walk Score measures the walkability of an address or an area. The
website’s algorithm analyzes various walking routes and their proximity to nearby amenities. Points are given
based on addresses’ distance to various types of amenities. A score is then assigned on a scale from 0 to 100:
90-100, “Walker’s Paradise,”
70-89, “Very Walkable,”
50-69, “Somewhat Walkable,”
25-49, “Car-Dependent,” and
0-24, “Car-Dependent.”
Living in a “walkable” community is considered desirable by many demographic groups, most often empty
nesters and millennials. According to Gary Pivo of the University of Arizona Urban Planning Program and
Responsible Property Investment Center and Jeffrey D. Fisher of the Indiana University Kelly School of Business
and Benecki Center for Real Estate Studies measuring Walk Scores, “the benefits of greater walkability were
capitalized into higher office, retail, and apartment values.” Each location within a city can have a different
Walk Score.
Figure 14 presents Walk Scores for locations throughout the Coastal Corridor, including on both sides of the
railroad tracks, along Chestnut and Oak Avenues (where additional crossings would be added), and on opposite
0
5
10
15
20
25
CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH CARLSBAD SOLANA BEACH
Train Incidents in Carlsbad & Solana Beach
Injuries and Fatalities
Fatalities Injuries Unspecified Incidents
No
Incidents
BEFORE 1998 AFTER 1998
Economic Study
Page 21
sides of Carlsbad Village Drive. Figure 15 these locations. All Walk Scores range between 70 and 95, or Very
Walkable and Walker’s Paradise (per Walk Score data).
Figure 14 – Walk Scores in Select Coastal Corridor Locations
These high Walk Scores, especially scores in the 90s on Oak Avenue, Madison Street, and Carlsbad Boulevard,
indicate that there are likely to be many pedestrians walking throughout the Coastal Corridor. However, the
prevalence of pedestrian activity can also increase the risk for accidents at train crossings.
According to Walk Score representatives, the company does not have the ability to predict how a score will
change based on changes to the road and pedestrian networks. Therefore, there is no currently established
method to estimate the change in due to additional crossings at Oak and Chestnut Avenues.
Figure 15 – Map of Walk Score Locations
Address Side of Tracks Walk Score
525 Chestnut Ave East 87
431 Oak Ave East 95
2751 Madison St East 90
3183 Madison St East 93
303 Chestnut Ave West 70
354 Oak Ave West 91
3244 Lincoln St West 84
2775 Carlsbad Blvd West 92
Rail Road Line
2751 Madison St
2775 Carlsbad Blvd
431 Oak Ave
354 Oak Ave
3183 Madison St
3244 Lincoln St
303 Chestnut Ave
525 Chestnut Ave
Economic Study
Page 22
COMPARABLE ANALYSIS
Case Studies
Case studies provide a comparable analysis to accurately project the economic impacts from a proposed
project, in this case the proposed railroad improvement alternatives, based on the actual economic impacts
realized from similar, completed projects.
Other Trenching Projects
In California over the past 30 years, there have been a relatively small number of projects involving railroad
trenching, with the majority of grade separation projects involving either a road underpass or overpass for rail
lines or roads. The grade separation projects over the last 20 years that did involve trenching include the Solana
Beach project (completed in 1998), the San Gabriel project (in progress, part of the larger Alameda Corridor
East line) and the Alameda Corridor project. The San Gabriel Trench is not yet complete and therefore could
not be used as a case study for this analysis. The completed Alameda Corridor project involves rail lines that
run through Los Angeles County cities including Compton, Lynwood, and South Gate with surrounding land uses
that are largely industrial. The geographic location and the land use characteristics are not comparable to the
Carlsbad portion of the LOSSAN corridor, as Carlsbad is a beach-adjacent tourist destination with a
concentration of retail, office, hospitality and service uses in addition to residential uses.
Though not located in California, the trenching project completed in Reno, Nevada in 2005 was also examined
as a comparable analysis for this Study. Significant research and coordination with city staff, local developers,
and documentation was completed by RSG staff to identify case study data. However, no economic studies
were completed in connection with this project. Reno and Carlsbad are very different communities
geographically (located in different states and Carlsbad being directly on the coast) with differing land use
patterns and zoning, making this project a less-than-suitable candidate for a comparable analysis. Additionally,
there is an absence of available economic data for the time period immediately prior to the trenching (for
example, historic sales tax data). Therefore, there is no available historic data to compare to current economic
conditions to assess the economic impacts of this project.
LOSSAN North San Diego County Submarkets
The next step taken in identifying appropriate comparable case studies was to examine other North County
coastal submarkets along the LOSSAN rail corridor – Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas and Solana Beach. A
comparison of metrics around grade-separated and at-grade rail crossings within the same city would reduce
the possibility of unrelated factors (such as those that differ between cities – land uses, walkability, types of
businesses, etc.) affecting the difference in metrics. A case study provides a real-world example of a similar
completed project or improvement and the resulting economic and financial impacts realized in the area around
the project or improvement.
There are three grade-separated pedestrian crossings in Oceanside and one such crossing in Encinitas. However,
these crossings are not comparable because there is no vehicular access at these locations.
There are grade-separated crossings (bridges over the rail line) in Carlsbad (at Palomar Airport Road,
Poinsettia Lane, and Avenida Encinas) and Encinitas (at La Costa Avenue). However, these crossings are located
in areas with limited surrounding development and/or are not mixed-use, walkable environments. These
characteristics contrast strongly to the Coastal Corridor’s land uses and character and therefore do not provide
a good comparison.
Economic Study
Page 23
Encinitas has a grade-separated crossing at Encinitas Boulevard/B Street, in its downtown area. However, this
crossing is not comparable because the rail line is elevated. An elevated rail line provides the benefit of reduced
traffic congestion and reduced noise from train horns and crossing bells. However, it does not reduce train wheel
and engine noise. dBF’s analysis shows that most of the noise reduction within a rail corridor resulting from grade
separation is related to wheel and engine noise.
Data on median home values, for example, shows that homes in the immediate vicinity (within a half-mile radius)
of the Encinitas Boulevard/B Street intersection are valued approximately 5.4% higher than median homes in
the immediate vicinity of downtown Encinitas’s at-grade crossings, D Street and E Street. This supports the slightly
higher benefit of 8.5% found for a reduction in both traffic congestion and noise shown later in this report and
based on a more complete methodology (see Property Values section, Residential Property subsection on page
35).
It is worth noting here that noise and traffic are, of course, not the only factors in home values and other economic
metrics. Available data and this Study’s limited scope do not allow for a complete comparison of all factors.
RSG has nonetheless attempted to mitigate the potential role of other factors by selecting areas similar in
development pattern, proximity to the beach, and other likely influential factors, i.e., to hold those variables
“constant” as much as possible.
LOSSAN Corridor Submarkets
In an effort to examine all comparable case studies available, data from other coastal submarkets along the
LOSSAN rail corridor with both an at-grade railroad crossing and a grade-separated crossing was reviewed:
Grover Beach-Pismo Beach, San Clemente, Carlsbad, and Encinitas. However, when identifying land uses and
development patterns around the crossings located in Grover Beach and San Clemente, each have limited
development within a half-mile radius of their grade-separated crossings. Grover Beach’s grade-separated
crossing involves the US 101 freeway and neighbors the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. San
Clemente’s grade-separate crossing is surrounded by the San Onofre Group Camp Site on one side and cliffs
leading to the Pacific Ocean on the other side. As such, these locations could not be considered comparable for
the purposes of an economic analysis due to the significant differences in the character of the areas surrounding
the crossings. Encinitas includes a downtown, grade-separated crossing with an elevated rail line (Encinitas
Boulevard/B Street), as described in the previous section. A comparison of this crossing to Encinitas’s downtown,
at-grade rail crossings provided partial support to a more complete methodology described later in this report.
Based on the findings above from the various approaches to establishing appropriate case studies, Solana
Beach was deemed to be the sole case study that possessed a sufficient number of similarities with the proposed
rail improvements, community characteristics, and geographic location on the coast for a comprehensive analysis.
Solana Beach is located near Carlsbad, is a beach-adjacent community with similar land uses to those
particularly within the Coastal Corridor Study Area, has a rail line that is grade separated by trenching, and
provides some historical economic data prior to the completion of the trenching project for comparison.
Property Owner/Developer/Broker Interviews
RSG staff interviewed local real estate professionals actively working in Carlsbad and adjacent communities to
obtain:
1. Information on economic impacts resulting from the Solana Beach trenching project completed in 1998;
and
Economic Study
Page 24
2. Professional opinions regarding changes in property values, potential land use changes, new
development/redevelopment, and other expected economic changes resulting from the proposed rail
alternatives.
The professionals interviewed include the following:
Brett Farrow – an architect/builder with recent commercial projects in San Diego, Cardiff-by-the-
Sea, and Carlsbad. In particular, Mr. Farrow is completing a commercial project in Carlsbad on the
west side of State Street in the Village-Barrio Study Area near the rail line. Mr. Farrow is also the
architect working on the proposed mixed-use development project at the Solana Beach train station
(a large part of the 1998 trenching project in Solana Beach).
John Dewald - the developer of the mixed use Pacific Station Project including 47 residential units
and a Whole Foods located in downtown Encinitas directly adjacent to the rail line. Mr. Dewald is
the chosen developer for the proposed Solana Beach train station project referenced above and,
as such, has experience with development projects adjacent to both at-grade and grade separated
rail lines.
Dave Hodges – a commercial property owner and one of the creators of the Cedros Design District
in Solana Beach. Mr. Hodges owned a number of properties before the trenching project and
improved and repositioned his properties after the trenching was completed in 1998. He witnessed
the transformation of the Cedros Design District that resulted from this project
Hil Mercado - an experienced commercial real estate broker with Voit in North County with over
past 30 years of brokerage experience, including:
o Acted as the broker representing the seller of the Forum in Carlsbad
o Involved with the leasing of the Premium Outlet Centers in Carlsbad
o Represented the sellers of the Pacific Station and Ranch projects in Encinitas
o Involved in the sale and/or lease of dozens of properties along the 101 in North County
coastal cities.
A summary of the professional opinions related to the railroad alternatives are presented below and on the
next page.
Property Values
Increased beach access resulting from the trenching alternatives (particularly under the Long Trench
alternative) will significantly increase property values in downtown Carlsbad and the Coastal Corridor
Study Area.
5-10% increase in property values within four (4) blocks of trenching area along the corridor.
Reduced noise will equate to higher rents, new construction, and increased demand in the Coastal
Corridor Study Area.
Commercial rents for properties adjacent to the railroad tracks have remained the same in the last 2-3
years in Carlsbad.
A high-end grocer will look to locate in downtown Carlsbad if the trenching project moves forward
Solana Beach experienced the following after trenching:
o Proposed train station mixed-use project
o Transition from industrial use to retail and residential uses
o Increased visitors and population downtown supporting new and existing retail uses
Economic Study
Page 25
Redevelopment
The proposed improvements, particularly the Long Trench, will provide tremendous benefit to the
Coastal Corridor with additional beach access.
Demand from millennials and empty nesters for a walkable downtown area with beach access.
Developers and retailers are now looking at the Village in particular after the potential trenching was
announced.
Development adjacent to trench areas is appealing because:
o Underground parking doesn’t have to be shore-cast
o Development savings ($500,000 cost savings was estimated for recent Encinitas project if rail
line had been trenched)
Tracks are intimidating for pedestrians – they stop pedestrian flow and disconnect the downtown area.
Benefits in Solana Beach
o Proposed train station project and land use changes would not have occurred without trenching
o Many property owners made building improvements after trenching was complete
o Trenching allowed for more development (traffic constraints would have limited new development)
Land Use
Trenching (particularly the Long Trench) will:
o Transform land uses as there are very few north San Diego County cities with transit and a
vibrant, walkable downtown adjacent to the beach
o Encourage residential and mixed-use development in downtown Carlsbad
o Increase development intensities, including residential, near transit
o Increase development density near transit further SANDAG Smart Growth goals (San Diego
Forward Plan)
Carlsbad would experience double the transformation of Solana Beach (because Solana Beach is a
slow-growth city)
In particular, the proposed Solana Beach train station project (which all of the real estate professionals’
interviews stated would not have occurred without the trenching project there) will further SANDAG’s Smart
Growth goals of development clustered near rail transit in walkable communities to reduce reliance on
automobiles and reduce urban sprawl.
Economic Study
Page 26
PROJECTION OF ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Assumptions
The analysis presented below details the projections of economic and fiscal impacts resulting from the three rail
improvement alternatives; At-grade, Short Trench, and Long Trench. All analyses were completed for all three
alternatives and presented in graphs and charts to aid in the comparison of the alternatives. Due to the fact
that the proposed rail improvements under all three alternatives have an economic useful life of 99 years, costs
and values have been calculated for a 99-year period following completion of construction (except for lives
saved, which begin when construction is started). The net present value of all projected values is calculated to
provide an appropriate comparison to estimated construction costs. All numbers contained in this section are in
2016 dollars, except where noted.
When possible, the projected values have been calculated as a range with “Low,” “Middle,” and/or “High”
points due to the uncertainty associated with projecting economic and fiscal impacts. It is important to note that
the actual impacts of the three rail improvement alternatives will depend on many factors, including City staff’s,
elected officials’, and local stakeholders’ openness to changes, as well as local, regional, state, national, and
global economic trends and policies.
An important distinction must be made between fiscal and economic impacts. Fiscal impacts, such as property
and sales taxes, represent a direct revenue benefit to local public agencies. Economic impacts—such as the
values of lives and time saved, as well as economic output—are distributed more broadly and may not be
reflected directly on public agencies’ finances. Nonetheless, both impacts provide measurable benefits to
residents, businesses, visitors, and government agencies.
Methodology
The methodology utilized in this Study attempts to project the impacts of the At-grade, Short Trench, and Long
Trench scenarios. Of course, none of the improvement alternatives would occur in a vacuum. The Study does not
suggest that the impacts it identifies will be the only resulting changes to occur. Other factors, including those
mentioned above, will compound changes to all of the measured impacts, some by enhancing impacts and others
by diminishing them.
The results of the research and analysis (see Appendix 1 for references) indicated that the majority of the
economic and fiscal impacts will occur within the Coastal Corridor Study Area. Based on data collected, the
previously described conversations with professionals, as well as academic and professional literature on
economic impacts, it is not expected that the improvement alternatives will directly impact economic metrics
outside of the Coastal Corridor. For example, sales and property values (and therefore sales taxes and
property taxes) are not expected to increase for retailers and properties outside of the Coastal Corridor Study
Area. However, the impacts within the Coastal Corridor will benefit Carlsbad, the County, and other taxing
entities. Similarly, construction will have indirect impacts beyond the Coastal Corridor based on goods purchased
for construction and local spending by construction employees.
Economic Study
Page 27
Lives Saved and Injuries Avoided
Value of Statistical Life
Definition and Background
The value of lives saved and injuries avoided is calculated using the US Department of Transportation’s
“Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in US Department of Transportation Analyses
– 2016 Adjustment” (“DOT Guidelines”) and data on fatalities and injuries.
The DOT Guidelines use a term “value of statistical life” or “VSL.” This term is intended to represent “not the
valuation of life as such, but the valuation of reductions in risks.” Revised most recently in 2016, the DOT
Guidelines recommend that policy analyses use $9.6 million as the VSL. This means that an average individual
would pay $960 to reduce the risk of death by one in 10,000. The policy guidelines assume a linear relationship
between risk and willingness to pay.
The DOT Guidelines arrive at a $9.6 million measure for the VSL by surveying 12 published studies calculating
VSL in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries and updating a 2015 baseline value
based on changes in prices and real incomes. Among those 12, the DOT Guidelines exclude outliers. Due to the
uncertainty of making decisions where lives are at stake, the DOT Guidelines require the use of low ($5.4 million)
and high ($13.4 million) alternatives for the VSL. Furthermore, the DOT Guidelines provide a factor to apply in
the case of injuries. For critical injuries, this factor is 0.593. This analysis assumes that all non-fatal injuries
involving trains will be critical.
INCIDENT DATA (INJURIES AND FATALITIES)
Current Conditions
The incident data was obtained from the Federal Railroad Administration, the California Highway Patrol’s
Computer Aided Dispatch, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department reports. The data in Figure 13,
shows that while Carlsbad and Solana Beach each had six trespasser incidents from 1979 to 1998, Solana
Beach had no incidents in the 17 years after 1998 (after the trenching project there was complete), but
Carlsbad had 22 incidents, including 18 fatalities and four (4) injuries over 17 years in Carlsbad. Incidents
include accidents involving a train and either vehicles or pedestrians. The incident increase in Carlsbad may be
due partly to the cluster of restaurants and other commercial businesses directly adjacent to the rail corridor.
Regardless of the reason for the incidents, this Study focuses on the potential cost and benefit of increased or
reduced incidents in the double tracking alternatives.
At-grade Alternative (Cost)
Double tracking would allow for increased train frequency. Using Kimley-Horn’s traffic analysis, RSG calculated
that an increase in gate down times (based on increased train frequency) would result in a corresponding
increase in the opportunity for incidents, both vehicular and pedestrian. RSG increased the incident frequency
measurement starting in 2035 (the same year in which Kimley-Horn shows gate down times increasing) by the
same factor as the increase in gate down times (2.17 for the Short Trench area and 2.18 for the Long Trench
area).
The results of this analysis suggest that the total number of incidents (including injuries and fatalities) per year
would increase from a current level of approximately 1.00 (Short Trench) and 1.29 (Long Trench) per year to
approximately 2.17 (Short Trench, 1.00 * 2.17 = 2.17) and 2.82 (Long Trench, 1.294 * 2.183 = 2.82) per
year in years 2035 through 2121. Given the VSL, the total cost in statistical lives would total between $229
million and $568 million over the 99-year period.
Economic Study
Page 28
This information is illustrated in Figure 16.
Figure 16
Note on Methodology
Incidents could potentially be reduced with crossing improvements, fencing of the railroad corridor, and the
pedestrian underpass made in the At-grade alternative. The current construction cost estimate for the At-grade
alternative includes new quadrant gates and crossing modifications. However, there is a lack of data showing
the effect these improvements have in preventing incidents.
Short Trench and Long Trench Alternatives (Lives Saved)
The data for Solana Beach incidents, as seen in Figure 13, shows that there have been no incidents (injuries or
fatalities) in the 18 years since the trenching was completed there. Because Solana Beach provides a very
similar example—with double tracking, grade separation, and increased train frequency—it serves as the most
appropriate case study. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the proposed Short Trench and Long Trench
alternatives, which would separate the railroad grade from the street, would eliminate all incidents. The most
recent DOT Guidelines use 2015 as a base year and recommend applying an inflation factor based on the
growth of real incomes and the consumer price index. The inflation factor accounts for the increasing amount
that people are expected to pay to reduce their risk of fatal injury as their incomes rise and the cost of safety
measures rises. We noted that from 2013 to 2015, this factor averaged a 2% annual growth. The inflation
factor allows for a more accurate measurement of the VSL from 2016 to 2121. A 4% discount rate was applied
to represent the relative value of future VSL in 2016 dollars.
In total, the value of lives saved and injuries avoided during the 99-year period ranges from $363 million to
$901 million for the Short Trench and between $485 million and $1.2 billion for the Long Trench. These
figures take into account the increased incident rate as described for the At-grade alternative and therefore
should not be added to the total cost in statistical lives in the At-grade alternative.
Economic Study
Page 29
Value of Time Saved
Delay Times
Kimley-Horn’s analysis identifies the daily average delay at the at-grade crossing locations on Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue under existing and future (in 2035, with higher train frequency)
conditions for most of the year and for the summer season (Appendix 2). This information was used to calculate
the total annual delay in vehicle-hours under the three alternatives:
The At-grade delay represents the additional delay caused by increasing train frequency.
The Short Trench delay represents the decrease in delay within the Short Trench area, starting in 2027
based on current train frequency and changing in 2035 based on increased train frequency.
The Long Trench delay shows the same thing for the Long Trench area.
RSG calculated total annual delays using Kimley-Horn’s analysis of current and future delays at three crossings:
Grand Avenue
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
The Short Trench would eliminate delays at only the first two crossings because it would leave Tamarack Avenue
as an at-grade crossing. The Long Trench would eliminate delays at all three crossings.
Kimley-Horn’s analysis includes an average daily and weekly delays and vehicle trips at each intersection,
including an estimate based on measurements taken in the spring and an adjustment for the busier summer
season. Current delays are based on existing train and vehicle traffic levels. Future delays are based on 2035
projections using Infrastructure Development Plan for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County to calculate
expected future train volume and SANDAG Series 13 to calculate expected future vehicle volume, both
provided by SANDAG.
RSG used the summer season delays as 25% of the year and converted the daily delays and vehicle trips into
annual delays. Current annual delays equal 10,719 hours in the Short Trench (i.e., at Grand Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive) and 12,846 hours in the Long Trench (i.e., all three intersections listed above). Future
annual delays are projected to equal 28,823 hours in the Short Trench and 33,623 hours in the Long Trench.
Delay Costs
The California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) recommends economic parameters for life-cycle
benefit-cost analysis (cost is presented in the Construction section) to assess the benefit of transportation
investment. These parameters include an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.15 people per vehicle and an
average value of time of $12.50 per person-hours, which includes all people. Applying these parameters to
the total annual delays provides the total annual value of time saved. These annual values are inflated at a
1.6% annual rate based on the US Department of Transportation’s guidelines for valuing travel time in economic
analysis. The same 4% discount rate used in other portions of this analysis is applied here.
Multiplying the delays in hours by Caltrans’ parameters, the results of this analysis are provided below and
shown in Figure 17.
At-grade would increase the value of time lost due to delays by approximately $7.2 million over
99 years due to increased traffic.
Economic Study
Page 30
Short Trench would save close to $10.9 million over 99 years, including as train frequencies and traffic
increase
Long Trench would save more than $12.7 million in the same period and with the same conditions as
the Short Trench.
It is important to note that the trenching alternatives’ figures take into account the increased train frequency and
therefore should not be added to the total cost in value of time lost or saved in the At-grade alternative.
Figure 17
Sales Taxes
Solana Beach Case Study
As stated previously in this Study, the Solana Beach trenching project (completed in 1998) is the sole case study
utilized as this project and location possess sufficient similarities in geographic location, community characteristics
and other factors to provide meaningful data. The growth in sales taxes since 1997 in the “Solana Beach Rail
Corridor,” shown in Figure 18 and defined to represent the portion of Solana Beach within approximately four
blocks of the rail line, was compared with the growth in the remainder of Solana Beach. This remaining area is
essentially all of the city of Solana Beach except the “Solana Beach Rail Corridor” and is also shown in Figure
18. Data was available for four defined primary commercial centers:
Cedros Design District
Highway 101 Corridor
Lomas Santa Fe Plaza
Town Centre West
These centers contribute approximately 80% of Solana Beach’s sales tax revenues. Because these areas are
the only portion of Solana Beach’s sales tax revenues that are geographically identified, these commercial
‐$7,216,000
$10,890,000
$12,732,000
‐$10,000,000
‐$5,000,000
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
2035 2027 2027
AT‐GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCH
Total Time Value Savings, 2016 dollars
Economic Study
Page 31
areas were utilized to represent the Solana Beach Rail Corridor (Cedros Design District and Highway 101
Corridor) and the remainder of Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe Plaza and Town Centre West).
Sales taxes grew at a higher rate from 1997 to 2015 in the Solana Beach Rail Corridor than in the remainder
of Solana Beach. This accelerated growth could have occurred for multiple reasons, including the corridor’s
proximity to the beach, its dense land use pattern, and the efforts of the Cedros Merchants Association and the
Cedros Property Owners Association—two organizations advocating for growth in the Cedros Design District.
Figure 18 – Map of Solana Beach Rail Corridor and Remainder of Solana Beach
It is important to note that proximity to the beach, a dense land use pattern, and a supportive business
association (the Carlsbad Village Association) are also factors present in the Coastal Corridor. However, sales
tax growth in the Coastal Corridor has trailed behind the growth in the rest of Carlsbad, even when excluding
fast-growth commercial sectors and centers such as automobile dealerships, the Carlsbad Premium Outlets and
other shopping centers in Carlsbad.
Analysis and Assumptions (“DD” Approach)
In order to determine if the at-grade rail crossings are the factor negatively affecting sales tax growth, a
difference in differences (“DD”) approach was taken in this analysis. More specifically, the use of a comparable
area as a control (i.e., Solana Beach) neutralizes the effect of variables that are similar between the two areas
to suggest that the identified difference (grade separation) affects the resulting variable (sales tax revenue
growth).
Economic Study
Page 32
It is important to note that one adjustment is necessary due to one stark contrast between the two cities. Almost
half of Solana Beach’s retail space is concentrated in its rail corridor. When compared with Carlsbad, the
remainder of Solana Beach has a relatively small and unchanging amount of retail space. Carlsbad, on the
other hand has such large sales tax producers like Legoland, the automobile dealerships, Carlsbad Premium
Outlets, the Shoppes at Carlsbad (formerly known as Plaza Camino Real), and The Forum. These sources account
for large portions of Carlsbad’s overall sales tax growth since 1997.
The DD approach and the comparison of sales taxes in Solana Beach and its rail corridor suggest that separating
the railroad and street grades will allow the Coastal Corridor to grow its sales, and the taxes thereon,
significantly faster than its current growth (2.9% annually in the Short Trench Area and 3.2% annually in the
Long Trench Area). Due to the contrast in the cities described above, adjustments in the projected sales tax
growth rate are necessary. It cannot be assumed that sales in the Coastal Corridor will grow faster than sales
in the remainder of Carlsbad at the same difference as sales in the Solana Beach Rail Corridor grew compared
to the remainder of Solana Beach. Rather than expecting sales taxes to grow faster in the Coastal Corridor
than in the rest of Carlsbad, this analysis conservatively sets the two growth rates equal to each other going
into the future. Additionally, certain sectors’ and centers’ exceptional growth in sales tax generation were
excluded from the definition of “the rest of Carlsbad” under the “Low,” “Middle,” and “High” sales tax
projections in order to estimate a range of potential sales tax growth. More specifically, the following describes
which centers and sectors were excluded from each scenario:
Low - excludes the Coastal Corridor, auto sales, and the Carlsbad Premium Outlets (4.4% annual
growth),
Middle - excludes only the Coastal Corridor (5.0% annual growth),
High - excludes the Coastal Corridor, auto sales, the Carlsbad Premium Outlets, and Plaza Camino Real
(5.4% annual growth).
Because Legoland files as a single retailer, its sales tax generation data cannot be isolated. Therefore, it could
not be excluded in any of the scenarios of this analysis. The implications of the DD approach for Carlsbad sales
taxes in the At-grade and grade-separated scenarios are shown indexed in Figure 19.
Figure 19
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Projected Annual Sales Tax Change in Coastal
Corridor, Index
At‐grade
Grade separate (low)
Grade separate (middle)
Grade separate (high)
Economic Study
Page 33
The index shows growth by representing sales taxes for a given year in relation to the sales taxes in 2026 (the
latter being indexed at 100). Because the comparison to Solana Beach provides only approximately 20 years
of data, the analysis (over 99 years) includes the higher growth rates described above for the first 20 years
after construction is complete. In the Low scenario, the comparison then applies the Short Trench’s and Long
Trench’s lower historical sales tax growth rates of 2.9% and 3.2% for the remaining years, 21 to 99. In the
Middle scenario, the comparison uses the average rates of 4.1% and 4.3% in the Short Trench and Long Trench,
respectively, for years 21 to 99. These rates are the averages of the lower historical sales tax growth rates
and the higher annual growth rate used in the High scenario. Finally, in the High scenario, the comparison
continues with the rest of Carlsbad’s higher annual growth rate of 5.4% for all 99 years. The change from the
higher growth rates to the lower growth rates is marked by a vertical line in Figure 19.
Sales Tax Projections
The resulting sales tax projections are presented in Figure 20. To show the difference between the At-grade
scenario and the trenching scenarios more clearly, Figure 20 identifies the expected sales tax revenues in the
At-grade alternative (separately for the Short Trench and Long Trench areas) as a baseline. Additional sales
taxes generated due to grade separation and its associated impacts are shown in a different color.
Figure 20
In the Short Trench alternative, these growth rates translate to between $19.2 million and $157.9 million (2016
dollars) in additional sales taxes generated for Carlsbad within the Coastal Corridor over 99 years.
Additional retail sales resulting from greater economic activity would likely occur at first at existing retailers,
increasing their sales per square foot, and then create demand for new retail development. RSG estimates that
sales could increase at existing retailers from the current level of approximately $179 per square foot to the
current level in the Solana Beach Retail Corridor at $189 per square foot. Once Coastal Corridor retailers’
sales increase to an average of $189 per square foot, it is estimated that additional sales will result from new
$66.2
$85.4
$135.1
$224.0
$86.4
$106.0
$162.8
$256.4
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
AT‐GRADE
BASELINE
LOW MIDDLE HIGH AT‐GRADE
BASELINE
LOW MIDDLE HIGH
SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCHMillionsSales Tax Projections, 2016 dollars
Above At‐grade Alternative At‐grade Alternative
$157.9
$64.1
$19.2
$19.6
$62.7
$170.0
Economic Study
Page 34
development at the rate of $189 per square foot of new development. Based on this assumption, new sales
could generate demand for up to 1,180,000 square feet of new commercial development in the Short Trench
area. Actual new commercial development may be limited by factors such as land use limitations and the
permitting process.
In the Long Trench alternative, the growth rates described earlier in this section translate to between $19.6
million and $170.0 million (2016 dollars) in additional sales taxes generated for Carlsbad within the Coastal
Corridor over 99 years. Using the same approach regarding the sales capacity of existing retailers and new
retail development RSG estimates that new sales as presented in Figure 20 could generate demand for as
many as 1,377,000 square feet of new commercial development in the Long Trench area.
The increase in sales may generate additional sales tax revenues for the County of San Diego and the State of
California. However, given Carlsbad’s location within the County, economic development literature suggests that
additional sales occurring in the Coastal Corridor will displace sales that would have occurred elsewhere in the
County. Almost all, if not all, of the additional sales would have likely occurred elsewhere in the State. Therefore,
this analysis assumes that the sales tax impact on the County and the State would be negligible.
Property Taxes
Carlsbad, County, and other taxing entities annually receive a portion of the ad valorem property taxes from
all real property to pay for municipal and regional services. These property taxes are based on the assessed
value of all property. Proposition 13 limits property taxes to 1% of assessed value and value increases to 2%
per year, except when ownership changes. The effects of reduced traffic and noise on assessed values and
property taxes will therefore be realized as properties are sold. This Study assumes that the double track
alternatives will not affect the rate of property re-sale (also called turnover). Higher market prices may
encourage some people to sell their home, while improved beach access and lower levels of traffic congestion
and noise may influence some people to remain in their homes longer. Still other homeowners may sell their
home based on relocation for work, family changes, or other factors independent of market home prices.
The trenching alternatives’ impacts would be evidenced in a difference between market values. The value
"capture” resulting from the difference between a Proposition 13-limited assessed value for a property that
previously sold many years ago and that same property’s sale and resulting re-assessment at market/sale
value would occur with and without the trenching alternatives.
Property within the Coastal Corridor that may have been held by the same property owner for many years will
be sold during the 99-year period. The result will be a very large jump in assessed value and property taxes.
However, the focus of this Study is to determine the difference in property taxes between the At-grade scenario
and grade-separated double tracking. Therefore, what is being projected in this section is only the difference
resulting from a property turning over for a higher value than it would otherwise in the same situation.
For example (hypothetical), a property purchased in 1982 for $100,000, with a 2016 assessed value of
$180,000, would likely be assessed in 2026 for approximately $220,000. If this property is sold in 2026 for
$800,000 under the At-grade alternative, it would sell for $865,000 in a grade-separated alternative. The
gain in assessed value of $580,000 ($800,000 - $220,000) for this hypothetical property would occur
regardless of which double tracking alternative is implemented. Because this Study accepts that grade
separation would not affect the timing of property sales, as explained above, the grade-separated alternatives
would provide solely the additional $65,000 ($865,000 - $800,000) assessed value gain.
By reducing traffic congestion and noise, the trenching alternatives would increase that market/sale value a
single time by an amount that can be determined using the DD approach introduced in the Sales Tax section.
Economic Study
Page 35
Only this difference in sale value can be attributed to the trenching alternatives and only on the first property
sale, aside from the associated 2% increase for each following year. Subsequent property sales would result
in re-assessments in the same amount regardless of trenching.
As another example, assuming a home assessed at $500,000 would sell at a market price of $600,000 in the
absence of trenching. If trenching would increase the market price to $650,000, it would account only for the
increase of $50,000 ($650,000 - $600,000) when the property sells. The other $100,000 increase ($600,000
- $500,000), the value capture, would occur with and without trenching. Over 10 years, these new assessed
values would likely increase annually by 2%, from $600,000 to approximately $730,000 and from $650,000
to approximately $790,000. If the home is sold again after 10 years in the absence of trenching for $780,000,
the expected market price at that later time with trenching would be expected close to $840,000. The
difference between the re-assessment value captures in the absence of trenching ($780,000 - $730,000 =
$50,000) and with trenching ($840,000 - $790,000 = $50,000) are equal, demonstrating that the impact of
trenching only applies to the first property sale.
Short Trench and Long Trench Alternatives
The Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives could support increased property values and property taxes in
Carlsbad Village in two ways. First, by separating the railroad grade and thereby reducing traffic congestion
and noise, these alternatives could make property throughout Carlsbad Village more desirable and raise the
values thereof. Second, by adding crossings at Oak and Chestnut Avenues, the trenching alternatives would
improve beach access for residents in certain areas east of the tracks, similarly increasing the desirability and
values of those residents’ homes.
Reduced Noise and Traffic Congestion Impacts
To estimate the impact of reduced noise and traffic congestion, we looked at the closest and most similar
comparable example of a trenched rail line – Solana Beach.
Residential Property
Comparing the Solana Beach rail corridor to the rest of Solana Beach shows that home values in the two areas
are about equal. The DD approach suggests that Coastal Corridor home values, currently on average
approximately 8.5% less than home values in the rest of Carlsbad, will increase until they are about equal.
A turnover analysis (which summarizes the number of homes sold each year) shows that approximately 60% of
homes in the Coastal Corridor have sold at least once within the last 10 years, while some homes are not sold
for as long as 50 years. The projection of residential property tax growth due to reduced noise and traffic
mimics the historical turnover rate of approximately 6% of homes sold each year during the first 10 years
following trench construction completion, and approximately 1% of homes sold each year thereafter. This
approach results in modeling historical turnover as closely as possible, with 60% of homes sold at least once
within 10 years and 100% of homes sold at least once within 50 years. Properties can be sold more than once,
but value changes associated with subsequent sales are not considered to result from the trenching as described
earlier in the Property Taxes section. As the reduced noise and traffic congestion is expected to increase the
homes’ sale price, its effect is cumulative, accounting for the initial assessed value increase and each
corresponding annual 2% increase afterwards.
Commercial Property
Commercial properties would also grow in value. There is a relationship between lease rates and property
value for commercial properties such that a percentage change in a market’s average lease rate corresponds
to the percentage change in the market’s value of all properties. The average lease rate in the Solana Beach
Economic Study
Page 36
Rail Corridor is approximately 15% lower than it is in the rest of Solana Beach. Meanwhile, the Coastal Corridor
has an average lease rate almost 39% lower than in the rest of Carlsbad. Based on the DD approach, we
estimate that Coastal Corridor lease rates would increase to the point at which they would be about 15% lower
than lease rates elsewhere in Carlsbad if the railroad grade were separated.
From the turnover analysis, we found that commercial properties in Carlsbad Village have sold less frequently
than residential properties. Approximately 50% of commercial properties have sold in the last 10 years. The
projection of commercial property tax growth models turnover based on historical data such that approximately
5% of commercial properties will be sold each year during the first 10 years after construction is complete, and
approximately 1% of commercial properties are sold each year thereafter. This results in the model having
50% of commercial properties sold at least once within 10 years and 100% of commercial properties sold at
least once within 60 years, paralleling the historical commercial turnover. The conditions of subsequent sales not
considered to result from trenching and properties’ annual 2% increase following the first sale accounted for
by trenching, as described in the Property Taxes section, also apply to commercial properties.
In total, residential and commercial property taxes for properties located in the Coastal Corridor are
expected to increase $34.3 million (in 2016 dollars) over 99 years due to noise and traffic reduction (Figure
21).
Figure 21
While these changes would occur within the Coastal Corridor only, their effects would extend farther. Projected
property taxes to the different taxing entities, based on a weighted distribution of property taxes in the Coastal
Corridor are:
Carlsbad – approximately $7 million.
County – $6.3 million.
Other Taxing Entities (Includes Carlsbad Unified School District, Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund, several related elementary and secondary educational funds, Mira Costa Community College
$7,008,000 $6,330,000
$20,976,000
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
CARLSBAD COUNTY OTHER TAXING ENTITIES
Property Tax Projections, 2016 dollars
(Noise and Traffic Congestion)
Economic Study
Page 37
District, and special districts (such as Tri-City Hospital District and Carlsbad Municipal Water District) –
approximately $21.0 million
Impacts of Reduced Noise Alone (Subset of Total Property Value Impacts)
Property value and associated tax revenue estimated using the DD approach with Solana Beach as a
comparison (discussed above) should account for value changes resulting from changes in noise and traffic
congestion. The impacts of the noise reduction discussed in this particular section are a part of the total impacts
identified above and not additional impacts to those stated above.
Construction noise would affect property values for a short period of time. However, this impact would only
occur for properties adjacent to the tracks, which already experience high noise levels from train operations.
Therefore, construction noise is not expected to impact home values significantly. Moreover, the construction term
in the context of a 99-year period is relatively small. Even if construction noise affected property values in the
short term, that effect would be overwhelmed by the long-term increase in property values.
A reduction in noise is expected to increase property values for single family homes. This effect is not expected
to apply to multi-family residential and commercial properties due to the unique premium placed on single
family homes in “quiet” neighborhoods. To estimate the noise reduction impact in dollars, RSG conducted an
initial analysis of recent home sales, which did not provide usable results, and subsequently examined peer-
reviewed studies on the relationship of noise and property values, which provided a usable methodology.
dBF, the noise and vibration consultant, analyzed the change in noise for the Short Trench and Long Trench
scenarios (see Appendix 3). dBF’s findings show that both the Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives would
reduce noise levels by up to 12 dBA Leq1, with additional analysis showing the magnitude and spatial
distribution of the noise reduction. Specifically, the noise reductions would range between 0-3 and 9 dBA Leq
in various segments of the Short Trench and Long Trench areas as shown in Figures 22 and 23. The magnitude
of the noise reduction would depend on the trench depth at each point along the rail line. A reduction of 12
dBA Leq would occur at the railroad-street crossings, but would be so limited in geographic coverage that it
would not affect a significant number of properties. The noise analysis looked at the three scenarios and
provided the following:
Maps of impact areas affected by trenching (replicated in Figures 22 and 23) and
Degree of noise reduction in each impact area (identified by number of dBA Leq in Figures 22 and 23).
1 dBA is an “A-weighted” decibel, a measure of noise adjusted to account for the range-limited sensitivity of human hearing.
Leq is the average dBA level during a period of time. It is the preferred method of recording sound levels, especially for
community noise.
Economic Study
Page 38
Figure 22 – Short Trench Noise Impact Areas
Figure 23 – Long Trench Noise Impact Areas
Economic Study
Page 39
Property Values Approach
RSG’s initial analysis explored recent home sales to evaluate how noise may influence the value of a home. We
analyzed home sale values from several Carlsbad tract developments; within each tract development, the homes
were separated into two groups. The first group included homes located next to a highly trafficked street,
whereas the homes of the second group were more interior to the development and were not adjacent to a
busy street. The goal was to control for the impact of noise by attributing the difference in sales price to the
premium a homebuyer is willing to pay for a home located in a quieter area, all other things being equal. The
findings of this approach were inconclusive, as the data showed a mixed relationship between home value and
proximity to a busy street. RSG attributes this result to the difficulty in finding homes that are exactly identical,
even in the same tract development, and each difference in home qualities potentially resulting in differences
in sale price.
Study Survey Approach
As an alternative methodology, RSG examined peer-reviewed journals and federal reports, leading to three
studies describing the empirical evidence linking home values and noise (“Noise-Value Reports”). The Noise-
Value Reports are
“Highway noise and property values: a survey of recent evidence” by J.P. Nelson,
“Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study” by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), and
“The impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses” by M. Wilhelmsson.
The Noise-Value Reports assigned a monetary value to noise in terms of a percent discount for each increased
decibel of noise above 55 dBA Leq, a common threshold for what is considered “noisy”. The noise discounts
presented in Figure 24 show a consistent range of impact.
Figure 24 – Decrease in Assessed Value per Increased dBA Leq
A reduction rate of 0.6% per decibel was selected:
This rate was cited in the most recent study and fell within the ranges of the two other studies.
The Noise-Value Reports suggest using a larger noise discount effect for higher income neighborhoods,
such as those found in the Coastal Corridor.
It should be noted that the Noise-Value Reports focus on value reductions due to noise increase, while RSG’s
analysis applies this relationship in reverse. Also, the Noise-Value Reports consider changes in values among
single-family homes only. Studies addressing the impacts on rental units and other non-residentially zoned
properties are not available. Therefore, the impacts on these uses are not included as part of this analysis.
The reduction rate was applied to the total home value of each impact area in order to determine the potential
range of noise impacts. In both Long Trench and Short Trench scenarios, the noise reduction effects amplify in
the middle of the trench – by Chestnut Ave where it is deepest – and gradually taper moving north and south
towards the lagoons, where the trench would be shallower.
Referencing dBF’s noise reduction maps, the total home value was identified within each of the areas delineated
in the map and high and low noise discounts were applied to the total home values. For example, in the areas
Minimum Mean Maximum Source
0.16% 0.40% 0.63% Nelson
0.14% 0.40% 0.88% FHWA
0.60%Wilhelmsson
Economic Study
Page 40
that show a noise reduction of 3 to 6 decibels, using a noise discount rate of 0.6% per decibel, the low value
increase is 1.8% and the high value increase is 3.6%.
The property turnover assumptions detailed previously in this Study were applied to this analysis in order to
calculate increased property tax revenues.
As shown in Figure 25, increased property values resulting from noise reduction alone in the Short Trench
scenario are expected to generate between $1.6 and $2.3 million (2016 dollars) in property taxes over 99
years. In the Long Trench scenario, this estimate ranges from $2.9 million to $3.7 million. The distribution
among taxing entities is similar as previously described. Carlsbad would receive from $331,000 to $470,000
in the Short Trench scenario and between $589,000 and $754,000 in the Long Trench. The County’s expected
benefit ranges from $299,000 to $425,000 in the Short Trench and from $532,000 to $681,000 in the Long
Trench. Other taxing entities would be expected to receive between $990,000 and $1.4 million in the Short
Trench and between $1.8 million and $2.3 million in the Long Trench.
Figure 25
At-grade
dBF refrained from predicting changes in the average noise level in the At-grade scenario because double
tracking could affect the character of train traffic and because it would have required a more specific analysis.
The character of train traffic could be altered by freight trains running during daytime hours, whereas they are
currently restricted to nighttime and one mid-day off-peak trip. The more specific analysis would require a
survey of the number and type of trains passing through the Coastal Corridor each hour, which was beyond the
scope of the noise evaluation.
According to dBF, the At-grade alternative would increase the average noise level by approximately 3 dBA
Leq, which represents an approximate doubling, if double tracking simply doubled the existing train frequency.
‐$350,000
$331,000 $470,000 $589,000
$754,000
‐$317,000
$299,000
$425,000
$532,000 $681,000
‐$1,049,000
$990,000
$1,407,000
$1,762,000
$2,258,000
‐$1,500,000
‐$1,000,000
‐$500,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
AT‐GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCH
Property Tax Projections, 2016 dollars
(Noise Change Only)
Carlsbad County Other Taxing Entities
Economic Study
Page 41
To evaluate the property value and tax impact of the At-grade scenario, the analysis assumes that double
tracking would do exactly that and would not change the train traffic character significantly.
The doubling in noise in the At-grade alternative could reduce property values so that tax revenues would
decline by approximately $1.7 million (2016 dollars) for all taxing entities over 99 years. Carlsbad’s portion
of this potential decline is $350,000. The County could lose $317,000, while the other taxing entities could lose
more than $1.0 million.
Impacts of Improved Beach Access
The additional crossings at Oak and Chestnut Avenues would improve beach access for residents living east of
the railroad tracks, south of the midpoint between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue, and north of
Magnolia Avenue. RSG expects that this improved access may increase the median home value of this area
within about 4 blocks of the railroad to the point that it will match the median home value in areas east of the
tracks located closer to existing crossings (Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue). The areas are shown
in Figure 26 based on their existing beach access. Residents living in the Poor Beach Access area would benefit
from the additional railroad crossings and would likely see increased home values. Some residents on Oak and
Chestnut Avenues may see increased traffic if their streets provide additional railroad crossings, but this would
represent a relatively minor impact compared to the increased values for homes in the Poor Beach Access area
with improved beach access.
Figure 26 – Map of Good Beach Access and Poor Beach Access Areas
Economic Study
Page 42
Proposition 13 limits the impact of property value increases due to improved beach access in the same way that
it does for property value increases due to noise and traffic congestion. In total, the improved beach access is
expected to increase property taxes over 99 years by approximately $2.6 million in 2016 dollars. It is
important to note that the methodology used here suggests that these value increases are additional to the
value increases resulting from reduced noise and traffic congestion. Carlsbad and the County are expected to
receive approximately $530,000 and $480,000, respectively. Other taxing entities would receive
approximately $1.6 million. This information is illustrated in Figure 27.
Figure 27
Construction Impacts
Construction costs for the LOSSAN corridor increase as the amount of proposed trenching increases. The total
construction costs for the Long Trench alternative is estimated at $335.1 million; for the Short Trench alternative,
estimated construction costs total $224.1 million. The At-grade alternative with no trenching is projected to cost
$62.0 million. All construction costs described here are in 2016 dollars. Construction costs were provided in the
Feasibility Study and other supporting data from T.Y. Lin. Cost estimates were calculated using data from
Caltrans, recent projects’ drilling sub-contractors, field experts, and engineers.
Although there could be local negative economic impacts during the construction period, construction would be
phased to minimize these negative impacts. For example, in the grade-separated alternatives, new crossings
would be added before the existing at-grade crossings are removed. Nonetheless, road closures and
construction vehicle traffic will likely reduce ease of access and shopper visits for local retailers. In addition, the
proximity of the temporary shoofly track used during construction to the community would require trains to travel
at lower speeds during construction, potentially creating negative regional economic impacts.
These impacts would occur for the length of construction. According to the Feasibility Study and discussions with
T.Y. Lin, the length of construction is expected to be four and a half years for the Long Trench, four years for
the Short Trench, and two years for the At-grade alternative. Focusing on local impacts, as this Study does,
construction’s impacts on retail access and shopper visits is difficult to estimate exactly given the many variables
involved and retailers’ ability to adapt (e.g., by extending business hours). What is certain is that the Short
$532,000 $481,000
$1,593,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
CARLSBAD COUNTY OTHER TAXING ENTITIES
Property Tax Projections, 2016 dollars
(Beach Access Improvements)
Economic Study
Page 43
Trench’s negative economic impacts of construction will be about double that of the At-grade alternative, and
the Long Trench’s impacts will be about 2.25 times as large.
It should be noted that after the analysis for the Study was completed, the required vertical clearance for the
project was changed from 26 feet to 24 feet. Since the analysis was already complete, it was not changed.
However, RSG notes that a lower required vertical clearance would allow for lower construction costs in the
Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives, which would correspond to a reduced construction duration as well
as lower economic impacts of construction. As described in the Feasibility Study, the reduction equals 5-6% of
the construction cost estimates identified in this Study.
Economic Impacts of Construction
Aside from the limited, potential negative concurrent economic impacts, construction will generate employment
opportunities outside of the construction itself, add labor income to the market area, and add value to the gross
regional product. For the purpose of this analysis, RSG used the IMPLAN model to measure the economic impacts
of construction for Carlsbad and the County. IMPLAN is an input-output analysis software tool that tracks the
interdependence among various producing and consuming sectors of the economy. According to MIG, Inc., the
creators of IMPLAN, the software measures the relationship between a given set of demands for final goods
and services and the inputs required to satisfy those demands. IMPLAN publishes countywide data on an annual
basis; this analysis utilized the 2014 San Diego County dataset (the latest available) to calculate direct, indirect,
and induced impacts.
Carlsbad was defined using its four zip codes: 92008, 92009, 92010, and 92011. RSG analyzed the direct,
indirect, and induced effects for employment, labor income, and total economic output from construction. The
various types of effects are described below:
Direct Effect – Refers to the direct effects resulting from construction costs.
Indirect Effect – Represents changes in sales, jobs, and income within the businesses that supply goods
and services for the construction. Indirect effects impact surrounding and related businesses.
Induced Effect – Regional changes resulting from additional spending earned either directly or indirectly
from the construction.
The direct effects correspond to the cost and employment of the construction itself. Indirect and induced effects
together (“Total Secondary Effects”) demonstrate the impact of construction on the local economy, which is the
focus of this Study. The results of the IMPLAN analysis are depicted in Figures 28 and 29.
Carlsbad Impacts
The construction of the At-grade alternative will result in 121 new secondary jobs and generate more than
$18.2 million in secondary economic output in Carlsbad. The Short Trench would create 607 new secondary
jobs and almost $91.6 million in secondary economic output, and the Long Trench would provide 907 new
secondary jobs and more than $136.9 million in secondary economic output in Carlsbad.
County Impacts
Based on the nature of indirect and induced effects, indirect effects are relatively concentrated geographically,
while induced effects can spread over larger areas. For this reason, when we look at effects on the County
level, indirect effects increase slightly and induced effects increase more significantly. Overall, the At-grade
alternative generates 195 new secondary jobs and almost $27.7 million in secondary economic output in the
County. The Short Trench would produce 981 new secondary jobs and almost $139.2 million in secondary
Economic Study
Page 44
economic output, and the Long Trench would lead to 1,467 new secondary jobs and more than $208.1 million
in secondary economic output Countywide. These effects include those occurring within Carlsbad.
Figure 28
Figure 29
168
607
907
247
981
1,467
‐
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
AT‐GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCH
Secondary Construction Employment
City of Carlsbad County of San Diego
$25.3
$91.6
$136.9
$35.4
$139.2
$208.1
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
AT‐GRADE SHORT TRENCH LONG TRENCHMillionsSecondary Construction Economic Output,
2016 dollars
City of Carlsbad County of San Diego
Economic Study
Page 45
Transient Occupancy Taxes
RSG analyzed room rates at Carlsbad hotels to identify the impact of proximity to the rail line on hotel rates.
The analysis suggests that proximity to the beach and to Legoland play a larger and tremendous role in
determining hotel room rates than proximity to the railroad. Hotels that are close to the beach or Legoland and
the railroad have consistently higher room rates and appear to cater to a higher-paying clientele than hotels
that are not in close proximity to these locations.
RSG communicated with Brandon Feighner, Director at CBRE Hotels’ Valuation and Advisory Services, who
evaluates hotel development and room rates throughout Southern California. Based on his experience, Mr.
Feighner noted that unless access is added where there was no access previously or access is completely
removed, change in access (what would occur with additional railroad crossings and crossings’ grade separation)
is not likely to impact hotel room or occupancy rates in a measurable way.
RSG also communicated with several hotel operators in the Coastal Corridor. One operator of a hotel located
within several blocks of the railroad indicated that trenching would likely not affect their hotel. Two other hotel
operators—one located very close to the railroad and the other within about a half mile—indicated that
trenching would likely help hotels in the Coastal Corridor.
Additionally, increased TOT revenues from AirBnB and VRBO were considered as part of this analysis. The City
currently allows short term vacation rentals in the general area within the Coastal Corridor. The City’s ordinance
allows homeowner’s associations to prohibit short term rentals for member homeowners. Because of the lack of
vacant residential land within the designated short term rental area, and the likelihood that additional housing
units added as a result of the future redevelopment of existing properties may be higher density than single
family residential (meaning that homeowner’s associations are likely for future residential units in this specific
area), there is a lack of evidence that the number of short term vacation rentals will substantially increase in the
future. It is likely that nightly rates for existing short term rental properties and the number of units will increase
over time, resulting in additional TOT to the City, but these revenues are difficult to predict with certainty given
a lack of data.
Another factor that contributes to the challenge of projecting TOT revenues in the Coastal Corridor would be
community support of additional hotel development in this area.
Based on the data gathered, the finding that the role of proximity to the beach and to Legoland significantly
outweigh the role of proximity to the railroad, input from Mr. Feighner (a hotel specialist), and local hotel
operators, RSG believes that the Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives will likely contribute to higher room
rates and occupancy rates in the Coastal Corridor, which would lead to greater TOT revenue for Carlsbad.
Similarly, increased noise and traffic congestion associated with the At-grade alternative may reduce room and
occupancy rates. However, there is currently insufficient quantitative data readily available to identify the scope
of the impact of double tracking or trenching on TOT revenue.
Vacancy and Lease Rates
The Coastal Corridor’s retail vacancy rate is currently less than half of the retail vacancy rate in the rest of
Carlsbad. It is not expected to change significantly as a result of grade separation. This is partly based on a
DD comparison to Solana Beach, where the retail vacancy rate in the rail corridor and in the rest of Solana
Beach are approximately equal.
More specifically, the average lease rate in the Solana Beach Rail Corridor is approximately 15% lower than
it is in the rest of Solana Beach. The Coastal Corridor has an average lease rate almost 39% lower than in the
Economic Study
Page 46
rest of Carlsbad. Based on the DD approach, we estimate that Coastal Corridor lease rates would increase to
the point at which they would be about 15% lower than lease rates elsewhere in Carlsbad if the railroad grade
were separated. The impact of this change in lease rates on property values and taxes is provided in the
Property Taxes section of this Study.
Job Creation
As greater economic activity resulting from trenching leads to retail sales increases in the Coastal Corridor, the
increases will contribute both to increased sales at existing retailers as well as demand for new retail
development. As referenced in the Sales Taxes section, RSG estimates that sales could increase at existing
retailers from the current level of approximately $179 per square foot to the current level in the Solana Beach
Retail Corridor at $189 per square foot. Once Coastal Corridor retailers’ sales increase to an average of $189
per square foot, it is estimated that additional sales will result from new development at the rate of $189 per
square foot of new development. Based on this assumption, new sales could generate demand for as many as
1,180,000 square feet of new commercial development in the Short Trench area and up to 1,377,000 new
square feet in the Long Trench area. The amount of this real estate demand that is realized, as stated in the
Sales Taxes section, may be limited by land use limitations, the permitting process, and other similar factors.
Based on the peak sales numbers identified as part of the sales tax projections, the associated estimated growth
in retail square footage, current retail square footage of approximately 741,000 square feet, and existing
retail-based (i.e., Retail Trade plus Accommodation and Food Services) employment of 2,196, local employment
could increase from 0 jobs (in the “Low” projection for both trenching alternatives) to 3,500 or 4,083 jobs (in
the “High” projection for the Short Trench and Long Trench alternatives, respectively).
Emergency Response
Train activity on the railroad can sometimes delay emergency responders. Fire Station 1, which serves the
Coastal Corridor, reported three delays due to trains, ranging from 4.5 minutes to 7.5 minutes within a three-
month period from February to April. One of these delays involved an ambulance, and the other two delays
involved a fire truck.
The National Fire Protection Association recommends a standard for fire departments to have “the first arriving
engine company at a fire suppression incident” within 4 minutes and “the full first alarm assignment” at the
incident within 8 minutes. Firetactics.com estimates that an average fire can double in size every 60 seconds.
Brain damage starts to occur within 3 to 5 minutes following a heart attack. Delays of 4.5 to 7.5 minutes for
emergency responders can have serious consequences, sometimes being the different between life and death.
These statistics are not intended to suggest that railroad crossing delays cause any of the mentioned outcomes;
they simply underscore the importance of rapid emergency responses and the potential qualitative impact of
delays.
There is an extreme amount of uncertainty in calculating the fiscal and economic impacts of reducing emergency
response delays, particularly with one delay per month noted. The delays are not significant enough to affect
Carlsbad’s cost of emergency response services. Nor is it clear that the delays would lead to significantly
different results in the cause of the emergency response. Ambulances and fire trucks respond to life-threatening
situations as well as to non-urgent situations. At the very least, however, the comparison of current delays and
what those delay times could mean in specific circumstances is provided as a qualitative consideration for the
potential benefits of the trenching alternatives.
At-grade double tracking will likely increase the emergency response delays due to increased train
frequency. Increased activity resulting in the trenching alternatives may increase local vehicle traffic, but this is
Economic Study
Page 47
likely to be offset by eliminating railroad crossing delays. Therefore, it is not expected that the trenching
alternatives would contribute to emergency response delays related to increased traffic activity. The Short
Trench and Long Trench alternatives are expected to eliminate emergency response delays by separating
the railroad grade from the street grade.
Displacement (Long Trench)
According to the Double Track – Railroad Trench Alternative Feasibility Study prepared in July 2016, the Short
Trench could be constructed within the current railroad right-of-way, while the Long Trench would require
acquisition of three single family residential properties. The same study estimates that property acquisition
of those three single family residential properties would cost $7,350,000. This is included in the Long
Trench construction cost estimate.
This section addresses the Long Trench alternative’s displacement impact on private development only. For the
At-grade and Short Trench alternatives, the displacement impact on private development is $0.
Economic Study
Page 48
CONCLUSION
The results of a comprehensive economic and fiscal analysis of the proposed rail improvements in the City of
Carlsbad:
At-grade Alternative
Construction cost - $62.0 million.
Value of lives saved – ($228.9) to ($567.9) million
Economic impacts – ($143.4) million
Direct fiscal impacts – ($1.7) million
Short Trench Alternative
Construction cost - $224.1 million
Value of lives saved - $363.2 to 901.2 million
Economic benefits - $5.50 to $19.37 billion
Direct fiscal impacts - $56.1 to $194.8 million
Long Trench Alternative
Construction cost - $335.1 million
Value of lives saved - $484.7 million to $1.20 billion
Economic benefits - $5.61 to $20.66 billion
Direct fiscal benefits - $56.5 to $207.0 million
APPENDIX 1 - REFERENCES
Economic Study
REFERENCES
1. Firetactics. “Fire Growth & Flow-Rate”. www.firetactics.com September 1, 2016.
2. AFCOM Consulting, Ewing, D., & Gallagher, W. Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation. 2002.
3. Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority [ACECA}. Fact Sheet: San Gabriel Trench Project. 2016.
4. American Public Transportation Association [APTA]. Communities See Economic Impacts of Public
Transportation Infrastructure Investment.
5. Arndt, J. C., Morgan, C., Overman, J. H., Clower, Ph.D., T. L., Weinstein, Ph.D., B. L., & Seman, M.S., M.
Transportation, Social and Economic Impacts of Light and Commuter Rail. 2009.
6. Bay Area Council Economic Institute [BACEI]. The Economic Impact of Caltrain Modernization. 2012.
7. Brain Injury Foundation [BIF]. “Because it is a Matter of Life and Death”. www.braininjuryfoundation.org
August 31, 2016.
8. Caltrain. Issues, Values, and Goals Matrix for the Peninsula Rail Program. 2010.
9. Caltrain. San Bruno Grade Separation Project. 2013.
10. CDC Associates, Inc. SR 747 CSX Rail Grade Separation: Inside Track to Commerce. 2007.
11. Cervero, R. Effects of Light and Commuter Rail Transit on Land Prices: Experiences in San Diego County.
2003.
12. Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County. 2002.
13. Cooper, Ph.D., C., & Mitra, Ph.D., S. Construction Impact of Metro’s Measure R Transportation Projects.
2015.
14. Council of the City of Toronto [CCT]. “Steeles Avenue East/CN Rail Grade Seperation Near Kennedy
Road”. 2002.
15. De Gruyter, C. & Currie, G. Impacts of Rail-Road Crossings: International Synthesis and Research Gaps.
2015.
16. Economic Development Research Group, Inc. [EDRS], & Lodestar Logistics. Economic Benefits of Rail Systems
Improvements for Shippers in the Houston-Galveston Region. 2009
17. Gitelman, V., Hakkert, A. S., Doveh, E., & Cohen, A. Screening Tools for Considering Grade Separation at
Rail-Highway Crossings. 2006.
18. Hakkert, A. S. & Gitelman, V. Development of Evaluation Tools for Road-Rail Crossing Consideration for
Grade Separation.
19. HR&A Advisors, & Brinckerhoff, P. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Long Island Rail Road Main Line
Third Track. 2014.
20. Metrolinx. Economic Impacts. 2010.
21. Morgan, C. A., Warner, J. E., Roco, C. E., Anderson, G. C., Olson, L.E., & Roop, S. S. Rail Relocation Projects
in the U.S.: Case Studies and lessons for Texas Rail Planning. 2007.
22. National Capital Planning Commission [NCPC], & District Departments of Transportation [DDT}. Freight
Railroad Realignment Feasibility Study. 2007.
23. Pivo, G., & Fisher, J. D. The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments. 2011.
24. Seifel Consulting, & The Concord Group. Transbay Transit Center: Key Investment in San Francisco’s Future
as a World Class City. 2012.
25. Sifuentes, E. City Oks beachfront, luxury resort. September 10, 2014.
26. Sifuentes, E. Train noise irks hotel guests, city listens. September 26, 2014.
27. Sifuentes, E. Oceanside to build railroad ‘quiet zone’. March 7, 2016.
28. Taggart, R. C., Lauria, P., Groat, G., Rees, C., & Brick-Turin, A. Evaluating Grade-Separated Rail and
Highway Crossing Alternatives. 1987.
29. The Center for Neighborhood Technology [CNT], & deBettencourt, Ph.D., J. Economic Effects of Public
Investment in Transportation and Directions for the Future. 2012.
30. The International Association of Fire Fighters [IAFF], & The International Association of Fire Chiefs [IAFC].
NFPA 1710 Implementation Guide. 2002.
Economic Study
31. The Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering [CASE]. Analyzing the Economic Impacts of
Transportation Projects. 2013.
32. T.Y. Lin International. Carlsbad Village Double Track - Railroad Trench Alternative Feasibility Study. 2016.
33. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration [USDOTFHA]. Freight Transportation
Improvements and the Economy. 2004.
34. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration [USDOTFRA]. Southwest Multi-State
Rail Planning Study. 2014.
35. United States Government Accountability Office [GAO]. Freight Transportation: Developing National
Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts. 2014.
36. Vu, P., Shankar, V., Chayanan, S., Milton, J., & Washington State Transportation Center. Economic Impacts
of Access Management. 2002.
37. Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT]. Grade Separation Concept Evaluation. 2012.
38. Weisbrod, G., & Weisbrod, B. Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects. 1997.
39. Weisbrod, G. Procedures for Assessing Economic Development Impacts from Transportation Investments.
2000.
40. Weisbrod, G., & Reno, A. Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment. 2009.
41. Wilbur Smith Associates, BMS Design Group, & Bay Area Economics. City of Fresno: Downtown
Transportation and Infrastructure Study. 2007.
42. Woolpert Consultants. Grade Separation Feasibility Study. 1981.
APPENDIX 2 - TRAFFIC EVALUATION FOR LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS, PREPARED BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC.
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
MEMORANDUM
To:Hitta Mosesman, RSG
From:Leo Espelet, P.E., T.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: July 27, 2016
Subject: Traffic Evaluation for LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvement Options
The following memo has been prepared to evaluate the traffic effects associated with the railroad
improvements for the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor.
The LOSSAN rail corridor runs from the San Diego – Sante Fe Depot Station to San Luis Obispo. Within
the City of Carlsbad there are three at-grade crossings; Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and
Tamarack Avenue. There are also three train services that utilize the corridor within the City of
Carlsbad; freight, Coaster Rail, and Amtrak Rail.
The railroad improvement alternatives include options for keeping the at-grade crossings or creating
grade separated crossings at each location. Two scenarios were analyzed as part of the traffic
evaluation, which are listed below:
Existing Conditions
n Existing Conditions (traffic volumes and train frequencies) with at grade crossings
n Existing Conditions with grade separated crossings
Future 2035 Conditions
n Future 2035 Conditions (traffic volumes and train frequencies) with at grade crossings
n Future 2035 Conditions with grade separated crossings
DATA COLLECTION
Vehicle arrivals, gate down times, train frequencies, and train schedules were determined for both the
Existing and Future 2035 Conditions.
Vehicle Arrivals
24-hour road segment data was collected by National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) from
February 26, 2016 to March 3, 2016. These counts were collected for each direction of travel for a one-
week period in 1 minute intervals at each of the railroad crossing locations. 1-minute counts were used
for Existing Condition arrival volumes. Existing Counts are included as an attachment.
Based on SANDAG Series 13 unadjusted average daily traffic volumes, an annual growth rate for each
roadway segment with a railroad crossing was determined. These rates were then applied to the
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
existing arrival volumes to determine the Future 2035 arrival volumes. SANDAG Series 13 volumes are
included as an attachment.
Carlsbad experiences a high summer season. The high summer season typically begins in May and
runs through August.Based on the Tourism Industry Study Prepared for the City of Carlsbad, January
2015, the month with the highest hotel occupancy is July with 89%. In comparison, February has a
hotel occupancy of 65%. To account for the increase of activity in Carlsbad in the summer season, a
seasonal adjustment of 24% was applied to the existing and future 2035 arrival volumes.
Gate Down Times
Field observations were conducted on March 30, 2016 between 7:00 am and 10:00 am to discern the
morning peak hour operations at each of the at-grade crossing locations. Typical gate down times for
each type of train service were determined based on these field observations.
Field observation estimates were rounded up to the nearest minute for analysis. At the Grand Avenue
and Carlsbad Village Drive railroad crossings the gate down time was assumed to be four minutes for
southbound Coaster trains due to the fact that the gates remained down the whole time the train was
stopped at the Carlsbad Village Station. At the same locations, the gate down for northbound Coaster
trains and Pacific Surfliner trains (both directions) was assumed to be two minutes and one minute
respectively. At the Tamarack railroad crossing the gate down time was assumed to be one minute for
all train types.
Gate down times were assumed to be the same for both Existing and Future 2035 Conditions. It should
be noted that Amtrak service (Pacific Surfliner trains) may not stop at the Carlsbad Village Station in
the future. This would not change the analysis, as the gate down time for Pacific Surfliner trains is
already assumed to be the minimum amount of time (1 minute).
Train Frequency and Schedule
Existing train frequency and schedule was obtained from the Southern California Passenger Rail
System Map and Time Tables, effective October 5, 2015. The frequency and schedule did not include
freight trains, therefore freight trains were not included in the analysis. Existing schedule is included as
an attachment.
Future Service Level Assumptions from Oceanside to San Diego were provided by SANDAG in the
Infrastructure Development Plan for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County, dated August
2013. On Table 3-2 it was assumed that Intercity Lines would increase by 14 trains with a frequency
goal of 60 minutes and Commuter Lines would increase by 32 trains with a peak frequency of 20
minutes and a non-peak frequency of 60 – 90 minutes. These assumptions were applied to the existing
weekday and weekend train schedules to estimate a Future 2035 Condition schedule. Assumed future
schedules are included as an attachment.
With the future schedule and increased train frequency the total gate down times would increase by
more than double.Table 1 displays the gate down times under Existing and Future 2035 Conditions
for the at grade crossing locations.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
Table 1 Daily Gate Down Times
Schedule
Gate Down Time (min)
Existing Future 2035
Grand Ave & Carlsbad Village Dr
Weekday 84 167
Weekend 46 120
Tamarack Ave
Weekday 44 92
Weekend 30 76
DATA ANALYSIS
Cumulative traffic delay times were determine for each railroad crossing location for each scenario. The
analysis process includes determining the vehicular delay at each railroad crossing on a typical
weekday, Saturday, and Sunday.
As shown above, the analysis scenarios include at grade and grade separated crossing options. Grade
separated crossings put the train and vehicles on separate levels, therefore there are no conflicts
between the two modes of transportation and no associated vehicular delay.
To evaluate the impacts of the at-grade crossings, a spreadsheet tool was created to determine the
total delay for each train arriving at each crossing over the course of a day. The total delay was
determined starting at the time the gate goes down and continued until the queue was fully dissipated.
It was assumed that the vehicle queues are completely dissipated before the next train arrives at the
crossing. Daily average delay per vehicle was then calculated by dividing the sum of the total delay by
the number of vehicles arriving at the crossing.
Delay will vary by time of day, because it is dependent on the amount of crossing traffic. It is important
to note that many of the vehicles arriving at the crossing will not be delayed by the train, but they are
included in the calculation of average delay. The same way that average delay is computed for
signalized intersections.
AVERAGE DELAY
Daily average delay was calculated at the at-grade crossing locations on Grand Avenue, Carlsbad
Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue under Existing, Future 2035, and Summer Seasonal Conditions.
Average delay calculations are included as an attachment.
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
Grand Avenue
Grand Avenue is classified as a Village Street between Ocean Street and Interstate 5, per the Carlsbad
General Plan Mobility Element, that provides access to the Carlsbad Village Station. At the railroad
crossing, the roadway is currently one lane in each direction with a raised center median. No changes
in geometry are assumed for the Future 2035 Condition.Table 2 displays the daily average delay for
the Grand Avenue railroad crossing under Existing and Future 2035 Conditions with the at-grade
crossing option.
As shown in the table, under Existing Conditions the average daily delay is expected to be less than 7
seconds during a typical weekday day and less than 4 seconds during a weekend day. The total typical
weekly delay is expected to be less than 37 seconds in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
Under Existing Conditions during a typical weekday day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be
approximately 26 seconds.
Table 2 Grand Avenue Summary of Delay
Direction
Typical
Weekday Day Saturday Sunday Typical Week
Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (b)AWT
Existing
Eastbound 5.95 2,765 2.12 3,590 3.01 2,891 34.88 20,306
Westbound 5.60 2,791 3.11 3,402 3.12 2,600 34.23 19,957
Existing
Summer
Season
Eastbound 6.26 3,283 2.18 4,320 3.20 3,427 36.68 24,162
Westbound 5.90 3,334 3.26 4,072 3.23 3,080 35.99 23,822
Future 2035
Eastbound 12.94 2,768 10.11 3,594 10.53 2,896 85.34 20,330
Westbound 12.99 2,796 10.68 3,408 11.96 2,601 87.59 19,989
Future 2035
Summer
Season
Eastbound 13.57 3,286 10.69 4,324 11.12 3,432 89.66 24,186
Westbound 13.69 3,339 11.40 4,078 12.61 3,081 92.46 23,854
ADT = Average daily traffic
AWT = Average weekly traffic (calculated by multiplying the typical weekday ADT by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday ADT)
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire day, measured in seconds per vehicle.
(b) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire week, measured in seconds per vehicle and calculated by multiplying the
typical weekday delay by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday delay.
Under Future Conditions, the average daily delay is expected to be less than 14 seconds during a
typical weekday and weekend day. The total typical weekly delay is expected to be less than 93
seconds in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Under Future 2035 Conditions during a
typical weekday day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be approximately 36 seconds.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive classified is an Identity Street south of Interstate 5, per the Carlsbad General
Plan Mobility Element, that provides access to the beach, Interstate 5, and further east. At the railroad
crossing, the roadway is currently two lanes in each direction with a raised center median and bike
lanes. No changes in geometry are assumed for the Future 2035 Condition.
Table 3 displays the daily average delay for the Carlsbad Village Drive railroad crossing under Existing
and Future 2035 Conditions with the at-grade crossing option.
Table 3 Carlsbad Village Drive Summary of Delay
Direction
Typical
Weekday Day Saturday Sunday Typical Week
Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (b) AWT
Existing
Eastbound 6.10 6,107 2.70 7,690 3.57 6,583 36.77 44,808
Westbound 6.31 6,364 3.72 8,229 3.97 6,699 39.24 46,748
Existing
Summer
Season
Eastbound 6.57 7,463 2.99 9,422 6.68 8,035 42.52 54,772
Westbound 6.78 7,799 4.19 10,100 4.65 8,179 42.74 57,274
Future 2035
Eastbound 14.32 6,213 12.52 7,911 14.20 6,742 98.32 45,718
Westbound 15.74 6,504 15.15 8,496 13.97 6,887 107.82 47,903
Future 2035
Summer
Season
Eastbound 15.94 7,579 14.59 9,673 15.73 8,214 110.02 55,782
Westbound 13.06 7,955 20.53 10,414 16.47 8,406 102.30 58,595
ADT = Average daily traffic
AWT = Average weekly traffic (calculated by multiplying the typical weekday ADT by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday ADT)
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire day, measured in seconds per vehicle.
(b) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire week, measured in seconds per vehicle and calculated by multiplying the
typical weekday delay by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday delay.
As shown in the table, under Existing Conditions the average daily delay is expected to be less than 7
seconds during a typical weekday day and less than 5 seconds during a weekend day. The total typical
weekly delay is expected to be less than 43 seconds in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
Under Existing Conditions during a typical weekday day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be
approximately 24 seconds.
Under Future Conditions, the average daily delay is expected to be less than 16 seconds during a
typical weekday and less than 21 seconds during a weekend day. The total typical weekly delay is
expected to be less than 111 seconds in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Under Future
2035 Conditions during a typical weekday day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be
approximately 37 seconds.
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue is classified as a Connector Street, per the Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element,
that provides access to the beach and Carlsbad Boulevard, Interstate 5, and further east. At the railroad
crossing, the roadway is currently one lane in each direction with a raised center median and bike
lanes.
Table 4 displays the daily average delay for the Tamarack Avenue railroad crossing under Existing and
Future 2035 Conditions with the at-grade crossing option.
Table 4 Tamarack Avenue Summary of Delay
Direction
Typical
Weekday Day Saturday Sunday Typical Week
Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (a) ADT Delay (b) AWT
Existing
Eastbound 2.00 5,298 1.53 5,722 1.32 5,105 12.85 37,317
Westbound 1.89 5,180 1.59 5,713 1.62 5,035 12.66 36,648
Existing
Summer
Season
Eastbound 2.25 6,450 1.78 6,977 1.50 6,211 14.53 45,438
Westbound 2.12 6,316 1.80 6,965 1.84 6,106 14.24 44,651
Future 2035
Eastbound 4.29 5,298 3.72 5,722 3.31 5,105 29.98 37,317
Westbound 4.38 5,180 3.67 5,713 3.66 5,035 29.23 36,648
Future 2035
Summer
Season
Eastbound 4.79 6,450 4.28 6,977 3.68 6,211 31.91 45,438
Westbound 4.89 6,316 4.14 6,965 4.08 6,106 32.67 44,651
ADT = Average daily traffic
AWT = Average weekly traffic (calculated by multiplying the typical weekday ADT by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday ADT)
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire day, measured in seconds per vehicle.
(b) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire week, measured in seconds per vehicle and calculated by multiplying the
typical weekday delay by 5 and adding the Saturday and Sunday delay.
As shown in the table, under Existing Conditions the average daily delay is expected to be less than 3
seconds during a typical weekday and weekend day. The total typical weekly delay is expected to be
less than 15 seconds in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Under Existing Conditions
during a typical weekday day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be approximately 6 seconds.
Under Future Conditions, the average daily delay is expected to be less than 5 seconds during a typical
weekday and weekend day. The total typical weekly delay is expected to be less than 33 seconds in
both the eastbound and westbound directions. Under Future 2035 Conditions during a typical weekday
day, the maximum hourly delay was found to be approximately 13 seconds.
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
QUEUEING ANALYSIS
Queueing analysis was performed for each direction of travel and determined for each railroad crossing
location for each scenario on a typical weekday day.Table 5 displays the maximum queue for each of
the railroad crossing locations. Daily queue fluctuations charts are included as an attachment.
As shown in the table, at the Grand Avenue at-grade crossing under Existing Conditions, the maximum
queue is expected to be 21 and 17 vehicles in the eastbound and westbound directions respectively.
Under Future Conditions, the maximum queue is expected to be 27 and 25 vehicles in the eastbound
and westbound directions respectively.
At the Carlsbad Village Drive at-grade crossing under Existing Conditions, the maximum queue is
expected to be 36 and 38 vehicles in the eastbound and westbound directions respectively. Under
Future Conditions, the maximum queue is expected to be 45 and 55 vehicles in the eastbound and
westbound directions respectively.
At the Tamarack Avenue at-grade crossing under Existing Conditions, the maximum queue is expected
to be 17 and 20 vehicles in the eastbound and westbound directions respectively. Under Future
Conditions, the maximum queue is expected to be 17 and 20 vehicles in the eastbound and westbound
directions respectively.
Table 5 Maximum Vehicular Queue
Direction
Queue (veh)
Grand
Ave
Carlsbad
Village Dr
Tamarack
Ave
Existing
Eastbound 17 29 14
Westbound 14 31 16
Existing
Summer
Season
Eastbound 21 36 17
Westbound 17 38 20
Future 2035
Eastbound 22 36 14
Westbound 20 44 16
Future 2035
Summer
Season
Eastbound 27 45 17
Westbound 25 55 20
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
CONCLUSIONS
As shown in the analysis above, the increase in train schedule and frequency expected in the future
will have an impact on vehicular operations at the existing at-grade crossing within the City of Carlsbad.
Specifically in terms of average delay per week, the expected increase in train frequency and growth
in traffic more than doubled the average delay at each crossing. Percent increases at each railroad
crossing are listed below.
n Grand Avenue –150%
n Carlsbad Village Drive –171%
n Tamarack Avenue –132%
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619-234-9411
Attachments
n Existing Counts
n SANDAG Series 13 Volumes
n Existing Train Schedule
n Assumed Future 2035 Schedule
n Average Delay Calculation Model
n Daily Queue Fluctuations
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 3,643 3,323
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 13 10 23 79 74 15300:15 13 8 21 69 66 13500:30 9 6 15 64 54 11800:45 9 44 8 32 17 76 63 275 54 248 117 52301:00 15 4 19 62 68 13001:15 9 10 19 72 66 13801:30 10 6 16 71 54 12501:45 4 38 2 22 6 60 53 258 63 251 116 50902:00 2 1 3 74 74 14802:15 8 0 8 70 46 11602:30 1 1 2 51 60 111
02:45 6 17 0 2 6 19 71 266 69 249 140 51503:00 0 2 2 60 62 12203:15 0 0 0 70 67 13703:30 0 1 1 49 71 12003:45 2 2 3 6 5 8 65 244 67 267 132 51104:00 1 0 1 69 62 13104:15 1 0 1 81 62 143
04:30 2 0 2 67 56 12304:45 2 6 6 6 8 12 62 279 85 265 147 54405:00 5 2 7 57 62 11905:15 6 8 14 69 69 13805:30 5 5 10 57 66 12305:45 7 23 9 24 16 47 83 266 63 260 146 52606:00 5 8 13 73 44 117
06:15 9 14 23 56 51 10706:30 14 21 35 65 37 10206:45 22 50 34 77 56 127 64 258 41 173 105 43107:00 21 32 53 57 49 10607:15 21 25 46 64 41 10507:30 25 29 54 49 36 8507:45 31 98 42 128 73 226 50 220 29 155 79 37508:00 15 32 47 33 28 6108:15 25 42 67 32 36 6808:30 33 34 67 39 25 6408:45 37 110 54 162 91 272 38 142 24 113 62 255
09:00 43 55 98 47 25 7209:15 59 52 111 28 20 4809:30 54 52 106 47 31 7809:45 48 204 47 206 95 410 38 160 27 103 65 26310:00 59 51 110 34 14 4810:15 54 49 103 34 21 5510:30 55 52 107 32 21 53
10:45 58 226 62 214 120 440 27 127 20 76 47 20311:00 45 57 102 40 21 6111:15 51 52 103 18 17 3511:30 55 43 98 23 18 4111:45 67 218 59 211 126 429 31 112 17 73 48 185
TOTALS 1036 1090 2126 2607 2233 4840
SPLIT %48.7% 51.3%30.5%53.9% 46.1%69.5%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 3,643 3,323
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 15:45 16:45 16:00
AM Pk Volume 279 253 532 282 282 544
Pk Hr Factor 0.883 0.855 0.869 0.870 0.829 0.925
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 208 290 498 0 0 545 525 1070
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:45 16:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 110 162 272 0 0 279 282 544
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.743 0.750 0.747 0.000 0.000 0.861 0.829 0.925
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
6,966
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
21:3021:4522:00
Total
6,966
19:3019:4520:0020:15
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
16:4517:0017:15
Friday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:0014:1514:30
2/26/2016
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:3013:45
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 3,590 3,402
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 21 17 38 66 79 14500:15 22 19 41 56 62 11800:30 20 16 36 80 69 14900:45 14 77 5 57 19 134 64 266 58 268 122 53401:00 12 13 25 70 64 13401:15 19 12 31 63 76 13901:30 27 21 48 67 53 12001:45 32 90 16 62 48 152 57 257 58 251 115 50802:00 19 9 28 69 61 13002:15 11 6 17 54 59 11302:30 2 2 4 58 50 108
02:45 4 36 1 18 5 54 65 246 63 233 128 47903:00 0 0 0 66 43 10903:15 1 1 2 74 58 13203:30 3 3 6 63 57 12003:45 2 6 0 4 2 10 62 265 66 224 128 48904:00 2 2 4 56 68 12404:15 1 3 4 55 50 105
04:30 3 1 4 49 66 11504:45 4 10 2 8 6 18 60 220 73 257 133 47705:00 2 2 4 55 71 12605:15 3 4 7 50 44 9405:30 2 6 8 51 50 10105:45 4 11 3 15 7 26 74 230 44 209 118 43906:00 2 6 8 74 46 120
06:15 4 15 19 52 39 9106:30 6 13 19 59 39 9806:45 11 23 17 51 28 74 59 244 42 166 101 41007:00 12 20 32 45 32 7707:15 17 27 44 40 37 7707:30 19 14 33 39 25 6407:45 28 76 30 91 58 167 33 157 34 128 67 28508:00 22 32 54 40 20 6008:15 20 33 53 36 23 5908:30 37 50 87 33 24 5708:45 47 126 49 164 96 290 33 142 24 91 57 233
09:00 44 54 98 29 30 5909:15 42 42 84 32 24 5609:30 38 41 79 28 33 6109:45 54 178 53 190 107 368 41 130 32 119 73 24910:00 49 72 121 51 33 8410:15 53 42 95 36 23 5910:30 58 81 139 38 28 66
10:45 82 242 89 284 171 526 36 161 23 107 59 26811:00 49 65 114 26 24 5011:15 86 91 177 30 26 5611:30 74 80 154 24 21 4511:45 81 290 83 319 164 609 27 107 15 86 42 193
TOTALS 1165 1263 2428 2425 2139 4564
SPLIT %48.0% 52.0%34.7%53.1% 46.9%65.3%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 3,590 3,402
AM Peak Hour 11:15 11:15 11:15 12:30 12:00 12:30
AM Pk Volume 307 333 640 277 268 544
Pk Hr Factor 0.892 0.915 0.904 0.866 0.848 0.913
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 202 255 457 0 0 450 466 916
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 17:00 16:15 16:15
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 126 164 290 0 0 230 260 479
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.670 0.820 0.755 0.000 0.000 0.777 0.890 0.900
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Saturday
2/27/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
6,992
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
6,992
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,891 2,600
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 30 14 44 59 66 12500:15 16 11 27 58 68 12600:30 24 14 38 68 47 11500:45 28 98 12 51 40 149 58 243 53 234 111 47701:00 22 23 45 57 59 11601:15 14 12 26 51 62 11301:30 22 22 44 60 68 12801:45 40 98 15 72 55 170 57 225 43 232 100 45702:00 17 10 27 65 49 11402:15 14 5 19 65 43 10802:30 5 4 9 72 49 121
02:45 2 38 6 25 8 63 57 259 71 212 128 47103:00 3 2 5 49 56 10503:15 5 1 6 60 59 11903:30 3 1 4 66 47 11303:45 3 14 2 6 5 20 65 240 51 213 116 45304:00 2 2 4 48 53 10104:15 1 0 1 63 48 111
04:30 2 0 2 55 46 10104:45 0 5 5 7 5 12 39 205 58 205 97 41005:00 2 3 5 41 60 10105:15 3 3 6 48 44 9205:30 1 2 3 54 26 8005:45 2 8 6 14 8 22 65 208 41 171 106 37906:00 4 5 9 45 28 73
06:15 5 4 9 53 29 8206:30 6 12 18 33 16 4906:45 7 22 14 35 21 57 29 160 21 94 50 25407:00 9 16 25 41 17 5807:15 9 15 24 34 15 4907:30 10 14 24 17 14 3107:45 19 47 33 78 52 125 33 125 17 63 50 18808:00 16 35 51 25 19 4408:15 14 33 47 20 11 3108:30 30 39 69 26 16 4208:45 28 88 35 142 63 230 20 91 10 56 30 147
09:00 34 46 80 19 10 2909:15 38 38 76 16 12 2809:30 37 50 87 12 11 2309:45 45 154 58 192 103 346 21 68 2 35 23 10310:00 38 64 102 10 14 2410:15 37 43 80 9 4 1310:30 51 36 87 3 3 6
10:45 59 185 55 198 114 383 7 29 6 27 13 5611:00 55 52 107 8 10 1811:15 55 50 105 9 4 1311:30 73 63 136 8 3 1111:45 66 249 55 220 121 469 7 32 1 18 8 50
TOTALS 1006 1040 2046 1885 1560 3445
SPLIT %49.2% 50.8%37.3%54.7% 45.3%62.7%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,891 2,600
AM Peak Hour 11:30 11:30 11:30 13:45 12:45 12:00
AM Pk Volume 256 252 508 259 242 477
Pk Hr Factor 0.877 0.926 0.934 0.899 0.890 0.946
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 135 220 355 0 0 413 376 789
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 17:00 16:15 16:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 88 142 230 0 0 208 212 410
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.733 0.910 0.833 0.000 0.000 0.800 0.883 0.923
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Sunday
2/28/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,491
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,491
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,742 2,709
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 3 9 60 60 12000:15 0 3 3 60 58 11800:30 7 6 13 66 53 11900:45 0 13 3 15 3 28 62 248 64 235 126 48301:00 1 1 2 51 58 10901:15 0 2 2 63 51 11401:30 1 0 1 65 57 12201:45 4 6 2 5 6 11 58 237 41 207 99 44402:00 2 2 4 50 61 11102:15 1 0 1 53 43 9602:30 2 1 3 50 51 101
02:45 1 6 0 3 1 9 62 215 49 204 111 41903:00 0 3 3 48 55 10303:15 0 0 0 37 51 8803:30 0 2 2 52 54 10603:45 1 1 3 8 4 9 53 190 58 218 111 40804:00 3 1 4 54 43 9704:15 2 0 2 48 47 95
04:30 1 3 4 62 67 12904:45 1 7 3 7 4 14 56 220 67 224 123 44405:00 7 2 9 43 58 10105:15 1 2 3 47 55 10205:30 7 7 14 49 35 8405:45 4 19 8 19 12 38 54 193 42 190 96 38306:00 17 7 24 49 34 83
06:15 3 17 20 40 35 7506:30 9 23 32 43 39 8206:45 17 46 36 83 53 129 35 167 40 148 75 31507:00 11 52 63 33 24 5707:15 21 43 64 30 17 4707:30 27 33 60 32 21 5307:45 25 84 42 170 67 254 22 117 19 81 41 19808:00 31 35 66 29 26 5508:15 25 35 60 31 12 4308:30 26 35 61 21 23 4408:45 47 129 40 145 87 274 23 104 13 74 36 178
09:00 39 52 91 21 15 3609:15 30 47 77 15 5 2009:30 37 51 88 26 15 4109:45 37 143 45 195 82 338 30 92 10 45 40 13710:00 45 50 95 13 10 2310:15 57 42 99 10 6 1610:30 60 50 110 12 5 17
10:45 62 224 56 198 118 422 6 41 4 25 10 6611:00 44 53 97 6 3 911:15 45 58 103 16 5 2111:30 60 45 105 7 3 1011:45 51 200 41 197 92 397 11 40 2 13 13 53
TOTALS 878 1045 1923 1864 1664 3528
SPLIT %45.7% 54.3%35.3%52.8% 47.2%64.7%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,742 2,709
AM Peak Hour 11:45 10:30 11:45 12:00 16:30 12:00
AM Pk Volume 237 217 449 248 247 483
Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.935 0.935 0.939 0.922 0.958
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 213 315 528 0 0 413 414 827
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:00 08:00 16:00 16:30 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 129 170 274 0 0 220 247 455
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.686 0.817 0.787 0.000 0.000 0.887 0.922 0.882
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Monday
2/29/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,451
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,451
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,801 2,664
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 2 3 75 52 12700:15 7 1 8 72 45 11700:30 4 3 7 61 54 11500:45 5 17 3 9 8 26 66 274 60 211 126 48501:00 3 2 5 46 58 10401:15 2 1 3 48 50 9801:30 3 3 6 51 60 11101:45 2 10 0 6 2 16 57 202 60 228 117 43002:00 0 1 1 58 41 9902:15 1 1 2 54 46 10002:30 0 0 0 58 53 111
02:45 0 1 0 2 0 3 52 222 65 205 117 42703:00 1 0 1 65 65 13003:15 0 1 1 49 33 8203:30 1 1 2 48 50 9803:45 2 4 0 2 2 6 72 234 66 214 138 44804:00 1 1 2 62 56 11804:15 1 0 1 46 50 96
04:30 1 2 3 52 67 11904:45 3 6 3 6 6 12 61 221 68 241 129 46205:00 5 1 6 66 57 12305:15 2 0 2 58 54 11205:30 3 6 9 53 38 9105:45 7 17 15 22 22 39 43 220 47 196 90 41606:00 12 7 19 51 44 95
06:15 11 19 30 57 36 9306:30 13 18 31 42 47 8906:45 13 49 32 76 45 125 33 183 38 165 71 34807:00 18 34 52 47 36 8307:15 24 30 54 35 25 6007:30 26 35 61 24 22 4607:45 21 89 47 146 68 235 43 149 18 101 61 25008:00 22 35 57 24 20 4408:15 30 39 69 29 10 3908:30 31 34 65 35 19 5408:45 38 121 52 160 90 281 29 117 7 56 36 173
09:00 37 43 80 23 15 3809:15 37 28 65 26 14 4009:30 23 40 63 20 11 3109:45 50 147 32 143 82 290 16 85 11 51 27 13610:00 42 47 89 11 7 1810:15 41 58 99 15 9 2410:30 43 30 73 11 4 15
10:45 43 169 54 189 97 358 6 43 4 24 10 6711:00 46 39 85 9 7 1611:15 45 50 95 11 5 1611:30 41 53 94 8 0 811:45 53 185 54 196 107 381 8 36 3 15 11 51
TOTALS 815 957 1772 1986 1707 3693
SPLIT %46.0% 54.0%32.4%53.8% 46.2%67.6%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,801 2,664
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:15 11:45 12:00 16:30 12:00
AM Pk Volume 261 209 466 274 246 485
Pk Hr Factor 0.870 0.968 0.917 0.913 0.904 0.955
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 210 306 516 0 0 441 437 878
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:45 16:30 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 121 160 281 0 0 238 246 483
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.796 0.769 0.781 0.000 0.000 0.902 0.904 0.936
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Tuesday
3/1/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,465
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,465
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,931 2,933
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 12 7 19 59 72 13100:15 6 4 10 46 56 10200:30 1 1 2 50 38 8800:45 1 20 1 13 2 33 58 213 64 230 122 44301:00 1 3 4 61 74 13501:15 2 0 2 58 64 12201:30 1 0 1 65 46 11101:45 1 5 2 5 3 10 71 255 57 241 128 49602:00 2 0 2 55 55 11002:15 2 1 3 65 49 11402:30 0 3 3 53 51 104
02:45 1 5 0 4 1 9 64 237 65 220 129 45703:00 1 3 4 59 78 13703:15 1 1 2 66 55 12103:30 2 1 3 64 58 12203:45 1 5 1 6 2 11 54 243 56 247 110 49004:00 0 1 1 67 66 13304:15 0 0 0 64 58 122
04:30 3 0 3 54 59 11304:45 0 3 2 3 2 6 67 252 74 257 141 50905:00 4 2 6 54 66 12005:15 3 3 6 61 85 14605:30 5 4 9 68 63 13105:45 6 18 13 22 19 40 50 233 78 292 128 52506:00 13 8 21 69 56 125
06:15 11 12 23 67 54 12106:30 14 20 34 51 44 9506:45 12 50 30 70 42 120 37 224 34 188 71 41207:00 18 36 54 34 40 7407:15 13 37 50 23 26 4907:30 22 32 54 26 37 6307:45 15 68 41 146 56 214 34 117 19 122 53 23908:00 26 26 52 40 19 5908:15 37 34 71 21 16 3708:30 29 41 70 28 19 4708:45 41 133 37 138 78 271 30 119 12 66 42 185
09:00 33 26 59 20 20 4009:15 47 42 89 33 13 4609:30 42 41 83 27 9 3609:45 49 171 48 157 97 328 19 99 8 50 27 14910:00 40 56 96 20 10 3010:15 40 29 69 12 7 1910:30 46 44 90 11 5 16
10:45 42 168 54 183 96 351 13 56 8 30 21 8611:00 49 51 100 7 7 1411:15 47 55 102 6 3 911:30 50 60 110 16 5 2111:45 56 202 58 224 114 426 6 35 4 19 10 54
TOTALS 848 971 1819 2083 1962 4045
SPLIT %46.6% 53.4%31.0%51.5% 48.5%69.0%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,931 2,933
AM Peak Hour 11:15 11:30 11:15 13:30 17:00 16:45
AM Pk Volume 212 246 457 256 292 538
Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.854 0.872 0.901 0.859 0.921
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 201 284 485 0 0 485 549 1034
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:00 08:00 16:00 17:00 16:45
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 133 146 271 0 0 252 292 538
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.811 0.890 0.869 0.000 0.000 0.940 0.859 0.921
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Wednesday
3/2/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,864
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,864
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,765 2,791
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 7 2 9 48 71 11900:15 2 5 7 54 55 10900:30 5 2 7 65 44 10900:45 2 16 4 13 6 29 48 215 59 229 107 44401:00 2 4 6 53 52 10501:15 1 1 2 44 32 7601:30 2 3 5 51 53 10401:45 3 8 4 12 7 20 76 224 47 184 123 40802:00 1 0 1 67 56 12302:15 2 1 3 61 54 11502:30 0 0 0 55 54 109
02:45 0 3 4 5 4 8 55 238 49 213 104 45103:00 0 0 0 59 61 12003:15 0 1 1 48 47 9503:30 5 1 6 50 57 10703:45 1 6 1 3 2 9 58 215 55 220 113 43504:00 0 0 0 55 67 12204:15 0 1 1 40 49 89
04:30 2 1 3 55 48 10304:45 1 3 1 3 2 6 43 193 69 233 112 42605:00 5 2 7 53 59 11205:15 2 4 6 61 52 11305:30 4 6 10 42 54 9605:45 12 23 9 21 21 44 51 207 58 223 109 43006:00 10 6 16 55 60 115
06:15 9 11 20 48 37 8506:30 10 28 38 48 39 8706:45 17 46 39 84 56 130 36 187 33 169 69 35607:00 13 33 46 43 25 6807:15 16 27 43 48 28 7607:30 24 35 59 25 37 6207:45 29 82 28 123 57 205 29 145 24 114 53 25908:00 28 28 56 26 31 5708:15 27 40 67 39 23 6208:30 30 32 62 36 16 5208:45 36 121 38 138 74 259 25 126 20 90 45 216
09:00 23 41 64 39 13 5209:15 44 35 79 14 10 2409:30 31 43 74 26 13 3909:45 33 131 41 160 74 291 19 98 19 55 38 15310:00 45 41 86 22 16 3810:15 44 53 97 13 12 2510:30 26 37 63 21 12 33
10:45 58 173 48 179 106 352 10 66 9 49 19 11511:00 41 56 97 14 10 2411:15 51 60 111 11 9 2011:30 46 56 102 15 4 1911:45 48 186 71 243 119 429 13 53 5 28 18 81
TOTALS 798 984 1782 1967 1807 3774
SPLIT %44.8% 55.2%32.1%52.1% 47.9%67.9%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 2,765 2,791
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:15 11:45 13:45 16:45 13:45
AM Pk Volume 215 258 456 259 234 470
Pk Hr Factor 0.827 0.908 0.958 0.852 0.848 0.955
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 203 261 464 0 0 400 456 856
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:30 16:45 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 121 138 259 0 0 212 234 440
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.840 0.863 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.869 0.848 0.973
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Grand Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Thursday
3/3/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,556
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
5,556
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 7,331 7,596
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 8 8 16 153 150 30300:15 13 13 26 152 133 28500:30 13 8 21 131 168 29900:45 8 42 7 36 15 78 128 564 121 572 249 113601:00 6 5 11 128 130 25801:15 10 5 15 133 139 27201:30 6 6 12 135 113 24801:45 3 25 5 21 8 46 141 537 137 519 278 105602:00 1 2 3 139 98 23702:15 0 5 5 161 121 28202:30 3 2 5 133 151 284
02:45 9 13 5 14 14 27 136 569 149 519 285 108803:00 1 0 1 137 152 28903:15 6 3 9 125 141 26603:30 3 0 3 132 132 26403:45 0 10 4 7 4 17 146 540 127 552 273 109204:00 1 4 5 135 149 28404:15 5 1 6 153 127 280
04:30 4 10 14 146 147 29304:45 4 14 6 21 10 35 114 548 108 531 222 107905:00 10 11 21 148 163 31105:15 12 14 26 131 155 28605:30 23 23 46 132 146 27805:45 25 70 18 66 43 136 174 585 133 597 307 118206:00 19 27 46 167 113 280
06:15 23 43 66 141 128 26906:30 33 47 80 118 124 24206:45 34 109 74 191 108 300 139 565 125 490 264 105507:00 45 77 122 121 116 23707:15 60 82 142 103 110 21307:30 67 106 173 108 101 20907:45 75 247 103 368 178 615 103 435 96 423 199 85808:00 69 91 160 91 65 15608:15 74 102 176 82 79 16108:30 81 97 178 88 86 17408:45 71 295 91 381 162 676 87 348 78 308 165 656
09:00 77 110 187 58 79 13709:15 107 91 198 69 90 15909:30 102 86 188 59 64 12309:45 99 385 119 406 218 791 45 231 55 288 100 51910:00 103 113 216 43 62 10510:15 103 127 230 41 47 8810:30 91 104 195 58 47 105
10:45 110 407 125 469 235 876 46 188 46 202 92 39011:00 111 116 227 34 32 6611:15 111 117 228 36 20 5611:30 137 132 269 27 22 4911:45 120 479 149 514 269 993 28 125 27 101 55 226
TOTALS 2096 2494 4590 5235 5102 10337
SPLIT %45.7% 54.3%30.7%50.6% 49.4%69.3%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 7,331 7,596
AM Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:45 17:30 17:00 17:00
AM Pk Volume 562 600 1156 614 597 1182
Pk Hr Factor 0.918 0.893 0.954 0.882 0.916 0.950
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 542 749 1291 0 0 1133 1128 2261
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:45 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 299 402 692 0 0 585 597 1182
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.923 0.948 0.972 0.000 0.000 0.841 0.916 0.950
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
14,927
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
21:3021:4522:00
Total
14,927
19:3019:4520:0020:15
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
16:4517:0017:15
Friday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:0014:1514:30
2/26/2016
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:3013:45
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 7,690 8,229
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 23 26 49 150 172 32200:15 31 26 57 128 195 32300:30 27 22 49 136 161 29700:45 23 104 15 89 38 193 131 545 173 701 304 124601:00 18 19 37 164 172 33601:15 12 18 30 142 179 32101:30 41 19 60 146 195 34101:45 19 90 12 68 31 158 116 568 156 702 272 127002:00 12 9 21 147 157 30402:15 23 10 33 157 140 29702:30 6 6 12 121 134 255
02:45 7 48 3 28 10 76 156 581 164 595 320 117603:00 5 3 8 137 133 27003:15 6 1 7 148 149 29703:30 3 5 8 156 159 31503:45 4 18 2 11 6 29 145 586 122 563 267 114904:00 3 2 5 172 128 30004:15 3 5 8 149 134 283
04:30 7 5 12 147 122 26904:45 3 16 4 16 7 32 149 617 144 528 293 114505:00 6 5 11 136 132 26805:15 10 11 21 130 135 26505:30 13 9 22 123 141 26405:45 14 43 12 37 26 80 168 557 155 563 323 112006:00 14 22 36 145 106 251
06:15 15 27 42 135 121 25606:30 20 29 49 111 116 22706:45 24 73 69 147 93 220 100 491 110 453 210 94407:00 35 45 80 105 90 19507:15 23 63 86 106 103 20907:30 47 54 101 96 82 17807:45 50 155 80 242 130 397 91 398 81 356 172 75408:00 74 85 159 79 83 16208:15 63 99 162 61 78 13908:30 72 103 175 73 88 16108:45 105 314 104 391 209 705 94 307 72 321 166 628
09:00 110 129 239 86 54 14009:15 95 113 208 72 82 15409:30 110 114 224 79 59 13809:45 111 426 114 470 225 896 56 293 62 257 118 55010:00 115 147 262 57 65 12210:15 155 112 267 70 60 13010:30 112 154 266 58 48 106
10:45 135 517 183 596 318 1113 53 238 59 232 112 47011:00 114 113 227 37 59 9611:15 167 210 377 50 39 8911:30 116 177 293 44 43 8711:45 154 551 189 689 343 1240 23 154 33 174 56 328
TOTALS 2355 2784 5139 5335 5445 10780
SPLIT %45.8% 54.2%32.3%49.5% 50.5%67.7%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 7,690 8,229
AM Peak Hour 11:15 11:15 11:15 15:30 12:45 12:45
AM Pk Volume 587 748 1335 622 719 1302
Pk Hr Factor 0.879 0.890 0.885 0.904 0.922 0.955
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 469 633 1102 0 0 1174 1091 2265
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 17:00 16:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 314 391 705 0 0 617 563 1145
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.748 0.940 0.843 0.000 0.000 0.897 0.908 0.954
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Saturday
2/27/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
15,919
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
15,919
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,583 6,699
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 36 31 67 150 155 30500:15 33 35 68 138 165 30300:30 23 19 42 149 174 32300:45 23 115 16 101 39 216 153 590 156 650 309 124001:00 19 12 31 139 162 30101:15 25 20 45 136 169 30501:30 21 14 35 128 134 26201:45 27 92 18 64 45 156 126 529 135 600 261 112902:00 21 14 35 128 146 27402:15 13 10 23 136 126 26202:30 16 13 29 143 152 295
02:45 15 65 5 42 20 107 137 544 128 552 265 109603:00 6 4 10 130 126 25603:15 3 8 11 143 108 25103:30 10 1 11 130 124 25403:45 8 27 3 16 11 43 141 544 138 496 279 104004:00 8 6 14 137 131 26804:15 3 4 7 150 97 247
04:30 3 2 5 130 128 25804:45 5 19 3 15 8 34 125 542 129 485 254 102705:00 3 4 7 140 122 26205:15 8 6 14 124 138 26205:30 3 14 17 126 113 23905:45 6 20 22 46 28 66 133 523 98 471 231 99406:00 13 23 36 145 93 238
06:15 15 22 37 130 81 21106:30 8 31 39 103 93 19606:45 15 51 42 118 57 169 89 467 80 347 169 81407:00 25 26 51 76 59 13507:15 23 48 71 73 71 14407:30 36 55 91 75 52 12707:45 52 136 78 207 130 343 65 289 56 238 121 52708:00 38 65 103 67 54 12108:15 51 80 131 64 46 11008:30 69 85 154 57 33 9008:45 82 240 100 330 182 570 47 235 40 173 87 408
09:00 66 112 178 48 29 7709:15 79 93 172 38 26 6409:30 84 99 183 33 22 5509:45 86 315 143 447 229 762 38 157 34 111 72 26810:00 112 139 251 33 35 6810:15 93 126 219 29 14 4310:30 96 119 215 17 16 33
10:45 129 430 125 509 254 939 17 96 8 73 25 16911:00 125 137 262 14 5 1911:15 130 141 271 11 12 2311:30 142 146 288 14 4 1811:45 114 511 156 580 270 1091 7 46 7 28 14 74
TOTALS 2021 2475 4496 4562 4224 8786
SPLIT %45.0% 55.0%33.9%51.9% 48.1%66.1%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,583 6,699
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 12:00 12:30 12:00
AM Pk Volume 551 650 1201 590 661 1240
Pk Hr Factor 0.918 0.934 0.930 0.964 0.950 0.960
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 376 537 913 0 0 1065 956 2021
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:15 16:30 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 240 330 570 0 0 545 517 1036
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.732 0.825 0.783 0.000 0.000 0.908 0.937 0.989
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Sunday
2/28/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
13,282
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
13,282
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,842 6,285
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 5 7 12 126 132 25800:15 6 5 11 137 145 28200:30 4 3 7 126 156 28200:45 5 20 4 19 9 39 111 500 110 543 221 104301:00 2 1 3 98 130 22801:15 5 4 9 105 122 22701:30 2 2 4 113 125 23801:45 5 14 2 9 7 23 93 409 123 500 216 90902:00 4 4 8 126 103 22902:15 5 3 8 129 101 23002:30 3 2 5 112 104 216
02:45 5 17 1 10 6 27 113 480 124 432 237 91203:00 2 2 4 119 106 22503:15 4 1 5 112 115 22703:30 1 2 3 114 98 21203:45 5 12 4 9 9 21 101 446 107 426 208 87204:00 3 2 5 113 101 21404:15 2 3 5 126 95 221
04:30 7 5 12 131 122 25304:45 3 15 8 18 11 33 102 472 119 437 221 90905:00 10 12 22 107 115 22205:15 19 9 28 120 132 25205:30 11 19 30 111 109 22005:45 20 60 21 61 41 121 130 468 137 493 267 96106:00 14 16 30 107 102 209
06:15 25 35 60 103 119 22206:30 27 50 77 98 121 21906:45 41 107 85 186 126 293 84 392 101 443 185 83507:00 40 79 119 84 72 15607:15 54 104 158 60 72 13207:30 49 93 142 60 75 13507:45 59 202 88 364 147 566 69 273 68 287 137 56008:00 69 90 159 77 46 12308:15 60 94 154 63 56 11908:30 65 97 162 64 32 9608:45 76 270 84 365 160 635 52 256 44 178 96 434
09:00 78 93 171 56 28 8409:15 78 71 149 22 29 5109:30 86 100 186 42 33 7509:45 101 343 84 348 185 691 36 156 24 114 60 27010:00 86 106 192 33 17 5010:15 102 111 213 22 23 4510:30 80 112 192 21 12 33
10:45 102 370 114 443 216 813 17 93 20 72 37 16511:00 101 108 209 17 7 2411:15 105 115 220 14 9 2311:30 98 132 230 8 6 1411:45 107 411 140 495 247 906 17 56 11 33 28 89
TOTALS 1841 2327 4168 4001 3958 7959
SPLIT %44.2% 55.8%34.4%50.3% 49.7%65.6%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,842 6,285
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 12:00 12:00 12:00
AM Pk Volume 496 573 1069 500 543 1043
Pk Hr Factor 0.905 0.918 0.948 0.912 0.870 0.925
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 472 729 1201 0 0 940 930 1870
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:15 08:00 16:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 270 375 635 0 0 472 493 961
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.888 0.901 0.980 0.000 0.000 0.901 0.900 0.900
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Monday
2/29/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,127
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,127
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,920 6,326
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 5 8 13 99 146 24500:15 10 6 16 104 120 22400:30 10 8 18 99 128 22700:45 5 30 3 25 8 55 121 423 134 528 255 95101:00 4 5 9 108 101 20901:15 1 4 5 111 116 22701:30 2 5 7 106 110 21601:45 2 9 2 16 4 25 118 443 114 441 232 88402:00 2 3 5 116 114 23002:15 3 3 6 112 90 20202:30 4 1 5 106 109 215
02:45 1 10 3 10 4 20 105 439 102 415 207 85403:00 0 3 3 123 118 24103:15 7 3 10 98 106 20403:30 1 0 1 109 107 21603:45 4 12 6 12 10 24 113 443 114 445 227 88804:00 5 6 11 111 123 23404:15 6 5 11 95 109 204
04:30 3 4 7 103 109 21204:45 9 23 6 21 15 44 128 437 132 473 260 91005:00 5 8 13 134 144 27805:15 8 10 18 116 142 25805:30 10 20 30 109 134 24305:45 16 39 25 63 41 102 136 495 126 546 262 104106:00 19 15 34 102 131 233
06:15 28 30 58 112 121 23306:30 28 32 60 89 90 17906:45 39 114 71 148 110 262 73 376 119 461 192 83707:00 51 96 147 97 91 18807:15 44 91 135 74 72 14607:30 50 97 147 68 65 13307:45 56 201 91 375 147 576 66 305 60 288 126 59308:00 63 59 122 65 50 11508:15 75 89 164 83 52 13508:30 51 88 139 81 58 13908:45 83 272 91 327 174 599 58 287 43 203 101 490
09:00 88 98 186 47 30 7709:15 94 87 181 56 49 10509:30 97 94 191 57 41 9809:45 77 356 107 386 184 742 38 198 25 145 63 34310:00 103 85 188 29 14 4310:15 94 93 187 37 23 6010:30 120 123 243 38 18 56
10:45 77 394 88 389 165 783 18 122 21 76 39 19811:00 91 104 195 25 12 3711:15 105 120 225 18 10 2811:30 97 124 221 18 12 3011:45 124 417 148 496 272 913 14 75 3 37 17 112
TOTALS 1877 2268 4145 4043 4058 8101
SPLIT %45.3% 54.7%33.8%49.9% 50.1%66.2%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,920 6,326
AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 17:00 16:45 17:00
AM Pk Volume 426 542 968 495 552 1041
Pk Hr Factor 0.859 0.916 0.890 0.910 0.958 0.936
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 473 702 1175 0 0 932 1019 1951
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:00 08:00 17:00 16:45 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 272 375 599 0 0 495 552 1041
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.819 0.966 0.861 0.000 0.000 0.910 0.958 0.936
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Tuesday
3/1/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,246
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,246
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,035 6,504
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 7 3 10 125 113 23800:15 6 4 10 104 122 22600:30 7 6 13 96 113 20900:45 5 25 4 17 9 42 111 436 129 477 240 91301:00 3 5 8 109 126 23501:15 3 2 5 108 122 23001:30 6 4 10 132 125 25701:45 5 17 8 19 13 36 110 459 118 491 228 95002:00 3 3 6 124 119 24302:15 3 3 6 103 111 21402:30 4 4 8 119 100 219
02:45 4 14 0 10 4 24 125 471 131 461 256 93203:00 2 2 4 116 129 24503:15 5 3 8 117 137 25403:30 1 1 2 117 109 22603:45 5 13 5 11 10 24 137 487 144 519 281 100604:00 4 2 6 109 125 23404:15 4 6 10 116 131 247
04:30 5 4 9 138 141 27904:45 6 19 14 26 20 45 112 475 129 526 241 100105:00 9 8 17 121 157 27805:15 9 24 33 115 139 25405:30 14 18 32 136 119 25505:45 18 50 18 68 36 118 152 524 135 550 287 107406:00 19 18 37 134 142 276
06:15 23 33 56 124 128 25206:30 23 35 58 121 104 22506:45 46 111 80 166 126 277 88 467 102 476 190 94307:00 47 72 119 113 72 18507:15 58 82 140 60 71 13107:30 46 92 138 65 74 13907:45 56 207 76 322 132 529 71 309 59 276 130 58508:00 47 76 123 82 60 14208:15 68 91 159 75 74 14908:30 72 96 168 79 45 12408:45 77 264 88 351 165 615 49 285 44 223 93 508
09:00 77 86 163 46 48 9409:15 76 77 153 56 38 9409:30 91 94 185 38 35 7309:45 96 340 105 362 201 702 28 168 18 139 46 30710:00 77 89 166 33 31 6410:15 91 106 197 28 28 5610:30 73 131 204 21 19 40
10:45 82 323 103 429 185 752 29 111 17 95 46 20611:00 73 86 159 21 13 3411:15 106 125 231 10 10 2011:30 110 112 222 16 18 3411:45 110 399 119 442 229 841 14 61 7 48 21 109
TOTALS 1782 2223 4005 4253 4281 8534
SPLIT %44.5% 55.5%31.9%49.8% 50.2%68.1%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,035 6,504
AM Peak Hour 11:15 11:15 11:15 17:30 16:30 17:00
AM Pk Volume 451 469 920 546 566 1074
Pk Hr Factor 0.902 0.938 0.966 0.898 0.901 0.936
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 471 673 1144 0 0 999 1076 2075
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 17:00 16:30 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 264 351 615 0 0 524 566 1074
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.857 0.914 0.915 0.000 0.000 0.862 0.901 0.936
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Wednesday
3/2/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,539
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,539
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,107 6,364
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 13 6 19 122 105 22700:15 7 6 13 130 130 26000:30 10 9 19 99 116 21500:45 6 36 2 23 8 59 131 482 131 482 262 96401:00 3 0 3 122 128 25001:15 7 2 9 123 114 23701:30 10 3 13 104 111 21501:45 4 24 8 13 12 37 141 490 112 465 253 95502:00 5 0 5 113 128 24102:15 6 1 7 123 105 22802:30 1 3 4 102 118 220
02:45 1 13 2 6 3 19 119 457 126 477 245 93403:00 3 2 5 109 119 22803:15 2 4 6 125 108 23303:30 2 5 7 110 98 20803:45 3 10 2 13 5 23 99 443 108 433 207 87604:00 2 2 4 115 115 23004:15 8 6 14 119 114 233
04:30 6 5 11 117 96 21304:45 5 21 9 22 14 43 122 473 120 445 242 91805:00 8 13 21 114 127 24105:15 14 16 30 111 133 24405:30 17 24 41 94 123 21705:45 20 59 20 73 40 132 139 458 123 506 262 96406:00 27 22 49 132 114 246
06:15 26 29 55 124 88 21206:30 27 54 81 130 123 25306:45 38 118 84 189 122 307 87 473 95 420 182 89307:00 52 76 128 79 78 15707:15 57 69 126 68 67 13507:30 52 81 133 77 91 16807:45 63 224 85 311 148 535 59 283 60 296 119 57908:00 67 84 151 61 76 13708:15 67 103 170 70 51 12108:30 56 77 133 77 50 12708:45 69 259 91 355 160 614 63 271 55 232 118 503
09:00 81 80 161 61 62 12309:15 82 73 155 43 34 7709:30 81 73 154 42 47 8909:45 104 348 98 324 202 672 43 189 30 173 73 36210:00 101 96 197 27 35 6210:15 88 94 182 31 31 6210:30 96 104 200 18 23 41
10:45 92 377 120 414 212 791 25 101 24 113 49 21411:00 112 122 234 25 14 3911:15 102 139 241 24 13 3711:30 110 134 244 19 14 3311:45 85 409 132 527 217 936 21 89 11 52 32 141
TOTALS 1898 2270 4168 4209 4094 8303
SPLIT %45.5% 54.5%33.4%50.7% 49.3%66.6%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,107 6,364
AM Peak Hour 11:30 11:00 11:30 17:45 17:00 12:15
AM Pk Volume 447 527 948 525 506 987
Pk Hr Factor 0.860 0.948 0.912 0.944 0.951 0.942
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 483 666 1149 0 0 931 951 1882
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 259 355 614 0 0 473 506 964
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.938 0.862 0.903 0.000 0.000 0.969 0.951 0.920
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Carlsbad Village Dr Bet. Railroad Crossing & State St
Thursday
3/3/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,471
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,471
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,964 5,851
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 6 12 105 79 18400:15 6 4 10 79 70 14900:30 9 11 20 66 84 15000:45 2 23 5 26 7 49 77 327 77 310 154 63701:00 3 1 4 97 100 19701:15 4 4 8 104 81 18501:30 4 3 7 87 83 17001:45 1 12 2 10 3 22 108 396 80 344 188 74002:00 1 1 2 118 82 20002:15 3 0 3 149 77 22602:30 1 2 3 106 119 225
02:45 2 7 1 4 3 11 118 491 133 411 251 90203:00 2 0 2 122 130 25203:15 1 1 2 88 112 20003:30 1 0 1 115 138 25303:45 0 4 0 1 0 5 115 440 145 525 260 96504:00 5 0 5 125 99 22404:15 4 0 4 118 101 219
04:30 7 2 9 138 102 24004:45 7 23 4 6 11 29 123 504 123 425 246 92905:00 10 6 16 105 115 22005:15 23 20 43 121 121 24205:30 23 23 46 135 117 25205:45 27 83 43 92 70 175 149 510 85 438 234 94806:00 31 23 54 188 89 277
06:15 44 30 74 111 95 20606:30 60 68 128 109 72 18106:45 55 190 77 198 132 388 81 489 71 327 152 81607:00 71 101 172 80 66 14607:15 86 93 179 66 64 13007:30 99 132 231 62 78 14007:45 73 329 136 462 209 791 51 259 47 255 98 51408:00 91 96 187 45 47 9208:15 75 107 182 52 60 11208:30 83 115 198 34 49 8308:45 75 324 89 407 164 731 50 181 29 185 79 366
09:00 71 77 148 27 42 6909:15 105 82 187 34 37 7109:30 84 96 180 35 47 8209:45 89 349 86 341 175 690 32 128 42 168 74 29610:00 72 89 161 28 41 6910:15 73 87 160 27 41 6810:30 88 69 157 31 39 70
10:45 79 312 90 335 169 647 22 108 21 142 43 25011:00 110 93 203 19 22 4111:15 87 118 205 10 19 2911:30 114 80 194 17 6 2311:45 110 421 89 380 199 801 8 54 12 59 20 113
TOTALS 2077 2262 4339 3887 3589 7476
SPLIT %47.9% 52.1%36.7%52.0% 48.0%63.3%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,964 5,851
AM Peak Hour 11:00 07:30 07:30 17:15 15:00 17:15
AM Pk Volume 421 471 809 593 525 1005
Pk Hr Factor 0.923 0.866 0.876 0.789 0.905 0.907
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 653 869 1522 0 0 1014 863 1877
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:30 07:30 17:00 16:45 16:45
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 349 471 809 0 0 510 476 960
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.881 0.866 0.876 0.000 0.000 0.856 0.967 0.952
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:3013:45
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
16:1516:30
14:0014:1514:30
2/26/2016
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:4517:0017:15
Friday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:00
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:0019:15
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
21:3021:4522:00
Total
11,815
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
11,815
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
20:45
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,722 5,713
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 15 21 111 116 22700:15 14 12 26 118 87 20500:30 7 11 18 105 114 21900:45 13 40 10 48 23 88 107 441 124 441 231 88201:00 10 10 20 92 109 20101:15 9 5 14 100 114 21401:30 6 6 12 87 102 18901:45 10 35 6 27 16 62 99 378 96 421 195 79902:00 10 6 16 100 111 21102:15 4 4 8 110 102 21202:30 3 0 3 104 96 200
02:45 4 21 9 19 13 40 122 436 120 429 242 86503:00 1 4 5 100 95 19503:15 7 2 9 108 104 21203:30 6 5 11 105 113 21803:45 3 17 5 16 8 33 101 414 106 418 207 83204:00 1 0 1 110 86 19604:15 5 0 5 129 111 240
04:30 4 2 6 118 107 22504:45 5 15 4 6 9 21 90 447 108 412 198 85905:00 2 3 5 132 101 23305:15 9 12 21 100 110 21005:30 7 18 25 86 122 20805:45 10 28 24 57 34 85 129 447 69 402 198 84906:00 11 28 39 132 93 225
06:15 23 20 43 111 54 16506:30 26 31 57 85 57 14206:45 24 84 48 127 72 211 70 398 60 264 130 66207:00 31 48 79 64 65 12907:15 41 47 88 46 53 9907:30 49 61 110 42 51 9307:45 55 176 66 222 121 398 44 196 43 212 87 40808:00 59 78 137 48 54 10208:15 68 82 150 48 50 9808:30 90 82 172 45 51 9608:45 79 296 96 338 175 634 45 186 41 196 86 382
09:00 84 119 203 35 36 7109:15 100 105 205 40 48 8809:30 114 85 199 42 33 7509:45 110 408 107 416 217 824 45 162 45 162 90 32410:00 88 110 198 24 24 4810:15 130 111 241 23 28 5110:30 112 95 207 27 26 53
10:45 121 451 140 456 261 907 28 102 22 100 50 20211:00 119 135 254 22 19 4111:15 119 116 235 23 15 3811:30 117 103 220 19 15 3411:45 120 475 108 462 228 937 5 69 13 62 18 131
TOTALS 2046 2194 4240 3676 3519 7195
SPLIT %48.3% 51.7%37.1%51.1% 48.9%62.9%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,722 5,713
AM Peak Hour 10:15 10:45 10:45 16:15 12:30 16:15
AM Pk Volume 482 494 970 469 461 896
Pk Hr Factor 0.927 0.882 0.929 0.888 0.929 0.933
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 472 560 1032 0 0 894 814 1708
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:15 16:45 16:15
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 296 338 634 0 0 469 441 896
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.822 0.880 0.906 0.000 0.000 0.888 0.904 0.933
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
11,435
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Saturday
2/27/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
11,435
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,105 5,035
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 23 16 39 102 121 22300:15 11 7 18 104 96 20000:30 12 9 21 127 88 21500:45 11 57 6 38 17 95 87 420 125 430 212 85001:00 10 5 15 94 106 20001:15 6 10 16 88 95 18301:30 7 3 10 99 88 18701:45 12 35 7 25 19 60 90 371 85 374 175 74502:00 2 5 7 103 109 21202:15 12 7 19 112 86 19802:30 3 6 9 106 86 192
02:45 5 22 4 22 9 44 98 419 99 380 197 79903:00 4 4 8 95 112 20703:15 4 2 6 119 101 22003:30 1 2 3 94 118 21203:45 0 9 2 10 2 19 94 402 104 435 198 83704:00 5 2 7 107 98 20504:15 3 2 5 108 95 203
04:30 6 2 8 110 106 21604:45 3 17 1 7 4 24 105 430 81 380 186 81005:00 2 6 8 104 117 22105:15 3 7 10 129 85 21405:30 7 17 24 85 79 16405:45 10 22 22 52 32 74 110 428 81 362 191 79006:00 10 21 31 129 77 206
06:15 8 26 34 96 58 15406:30 16 29 45 81 52 13306:45 21 55 33 109 54 164 63 369 58 245 121 61407:00 30 39 69 59 46 10507:15 33 48 81 47 48 9507:30 39 50 89 32 51 8307:45 39 141 66 203 105 344 40 178 29 174 69 35208:00 53 49 102 40 37 7708:15 44 85 129 32 33 6508:30 63 78 141 38 33 7108:45 87 247 70 282 157 529 24 134 30 133 54 267
09:00 77 75 152 21 34 5509:15 90 77 167 29 35 6409:30 86 91 177 19 28 4709:45 74 327 92 335 166 662 21 90 23 120 44 21010:00 104 107 211 17 31 4810:15 83 86 169 18 29 4710:30 118 99 217 18 13 31
10:45 107 412 98 390 205 802 14 67 13 86 27 15311:00 107 93 200 13 12 2511:15 111 98 209 11 6 1711:30 95 109 204 4 12 1611:45 108 421 107 407 215 828 4 32 6 36 10 68
TOTALS 1765 1880 3645 3340 3155 6495
SPLIT %48.4% 51.6%35.9%51.4% 48.6%64.1%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,105 5,035
AM Peak Hour 10:30 11:15 11:45 17:15 15:00 12:00
AM Pk Volume 443 435 853 453 435 850
Pk Hr Factor 0.939 0.899 0.956 0.878 0.922 0.953
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 388 485 873 0 0 858 742 1600
7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:30 16:15 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 247 282 529 0 0 448 399 837
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.710 0.829 0.842 0.000 0.000 0.868 0.853 0.947
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,140
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Sunday
2/28/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,140
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,049 4,975
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 3 4 7 86 89 17500:15 3 4 7 81 62 14300:30 4 4 8 77 72 14900:45 5 15 4 16 9 31 75 319 76 299 151 61801:00 2 0 2 89 76 16501:15 1 1 2 86 64 15001:30 0 4 4 79 66 14501:45 2 5 2 7 4 12 81 335 66 272 147 60702:00 2 1 3 94 75 16902:15 1 2 3 117 65 18202:30 4 4 8 105 92 197
02:45 2 9 1 8 3 17 96 412 121 353 217 76503:00 1 4 5 88 85 17303:15 4 1 5 85 82 16703:30 2 1 3 86 83 16903:45 1 8 1 7 2 15 102 361 99 349 201 71004:00 2 1 3 113 77 19004:15 8 3 11 117 89 206
04:30 8 1 9 118 101 21904:45 9 27 3 8 12 35 102 450 87 354 189 80405:00 10 5 15 110 83 19305:15 17 20 37 128 95 22305:30 18 25 43 107 97 20405:45 24 69 27 77 51 146 105 450 95 370 200 82006:00 34 28 62 102 86 188
06:15 51 25 76 91 71 16206:30 55 63 118 77 74 15106:45 46 186 78 194 124 380 66 336 77 308 143 64407:00 73 123 196 54 60 11407:15 76 116 192 38 49 8707:30 93 143 236 29 48 7707:45 97 339 117 499 214 838 38 159 49 206 87 36508:00 78 111 189 38 37 7508:15 70 72 142 33 28 6108:30 82 93 175 29 29 5808:45 98 328 93 369 191 697 29 129 28 122 57 251
09:00 82 85 167 22 37 5909:15 68 63 131 25 33 5809:30 106 73 179 27 25 5209:45 77 333 85 306 162 639 29 103 26 121 55 22410:00 70 73 143 26 33 5910:15 62 70 132 17 16 3310:30 76 70 146 8 12 20
10:45 65 273 87 300 152 573 11 62 10 71 21 13311:00 66 89 155 9 12 2111:15 85 80 165 10 10 2011:30 92 80 172 11 7 1811:45 59 302 72 321 131 623 9 39 9 38 18 77
TOTALS 1894 2112 4006 3155 2863 6018
SPLIT %47.3% 52.7%40.0%52.4% 47.6%60.0%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,049 4,975
AM Peak Hour 08:45 07:00 07:00 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 354 499 838 458 380 824
Pk Hr Factor 0.835 0.872 0.888 0.895 0.785 0.924
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 667 868 1535 0 0 900 724 1624
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 16:30 17:00 16:30
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 344 499 838 0 0 458 370 824
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.887 0.872 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.895 0.954 0.924
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,024
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Monday
2/29/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,024
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,087 5,111
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 2 5 7 94 70 16400:15 6 7 13 75 71 14600:30 5 4 9 60 81 14100:45 3 16 4 20 7 36 79 308 68 290 147 59801:00 5 5 10 75 72 14701:15 3 2 5 64 72 13601:30 5 2 7 88 75 16301:45 4 17 2 11 6 28 99 326 71 290 170 61602:00 3 1 4 96 59 15502:15 3 4 7 92 82 17402:30 3 5 8 105 87 192
02:45 1 10 1 11 2 21 84 377 98 326 182 70303:00 3 1 4 86 85 17103:15 2 1 3 91 98 18903:30 5 1 6 105 92 19703:45 1 11 1 4 2 15 104 386 102 377 206 76304:00 1 0 1 108 94 20204:15 7 2 9 114 89 203
04:30 11 2 13 97 85 18204:45 17 36 8 12 25 48 97 416 102 370 199 78605:00 11 7 18 109 104 21305:15 18 14 32 119 101 22005:30 23 24 47 115 106 22105:45 21 73 37 82 58 155 127 470 89 400 216 87006:00 28 27 55 121 91 212
06:15 47 25 72 114 75 18906:30 45 68 113 74 91 16506:45 64 184 82 202 146 386 75 384 83 340 158 72407:00 71 112 183 69 72 14107:15 64 106 170 52 61 11307:30 94 125 219 50 53 10307:45 86 315 152 495 238 810 46 217 41 227 87 44408:00 65 89 154 31 51 8208:15 55 92 147 36 40 7608:30 95 94 189 29 35 6408:45 66 281 88 363 154 644 37 133 46 172 83 305
09:00 75 73 148 26 49 7509:15 74 80 154 28 38 6609:30 62 77 139 15 23 3809:45 78 289 85 315 163 604 26 95 30 140 56 23510:00 84 66 150 25 20 4510:15 74 55 129 14 19 3310:30 73 65 138 19 13 32
10:45 71 302 69 255 140 557 14 72 13 65 27 13711:00 84 77 161 8 14 2211:15 81 66 147 8 9 1711:30 89 79 168 16 11 2711:45 79 333 77 299 156 632 4 36 11 45 15 81
TOTALS 1867 2069 3936 3220 3042 6262
SPLIT %47.4% 52.6%38.6%51.4% 48.6%61.4%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,087 5,111
AM Peak Hour 11:15 07:00 07:00 17:15 16:45 17:00
AM Pk Volume 343 495 810 482 413 870
Pk Hr Factor 0.912 0.814 0.851 0.949 0.974 0.984
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 596 858 1454 0 0 886 770 1656
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:00 07:00 17:00 16:45 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 315 495 810 0 0 470 413 870
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.838 0.814 0.851 0.000 0.000 0.925 0.974 0.984
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,198
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Tuesday
3/1/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,198
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,163 5,191
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 8 4 12 104 88 19200:15 6 3 9 91 71 16200:30 2 8 10 74 78 15200:45 4 20 7 22 11 42 82 351 76 313 158 66401:00 6 1 7 64 69 13301:15 0 2 2 78 80 15801:30 1 0 1 84 80 16401:45 1 8 3 6 4 14 88 314 77 306 165 62002:00 0 1 1 87 69 15602:15 2 2 4 94 70 16402:30 2 2 4 85 109 194
02:45 1 5 1 6 2 11 97 363 115 363 212 72603:00 1 0 1 83 109 19203:15 0 3 3 113 107 22003:30 5 0 5 110 99 20903:45 2 8 0 3 2 11 98 404 83 398 181 80204:00 2 1 3 107 84 19104:15 4 2 6 103 75 178
04:30 10 2 12 118 97 21504:45 10 26 4 9 14 35 112 440 88 344 200 78405:00 7 6 13 114 105 21905:15 16 16 32 119 106 22505:30 23 27 50 115 101 21605:45 23 69 35 84 58 153 127 475 83 395 210 87006:00 40 26 66 102 84 186
06:15 42 26 68 98 62 16006:30 46 68 114 72 71 14306:45 64 192 73 193 137 385 70 342 65 282 135 62407:00 51 109 160 53 65 11807:15 86 106 192 65 61 12607:30 132 116 248 44 64 10807:45 92 361 139 470 231 831 33 195 50 240 83 43508:00 91 99 190 29 44 7308:15 89 92 181 43 44 8708:30 73 92 165 47 44 9108:45 63 316 90 373 153 689 31 150 44 176 75 326
09:00 83 72 155 29 42 7109:15 68 72 140 21 46 6709:30 66 88 154 23 48 7109:45 77 294 77 309 154 603 25 98 27 163 52 26110:00 67 81 148 20 24 4410:15 83 62 145 12 24 3610:30 84 71 155 15 15 30
10:45 86 320 74 288 160 608 10 57 20 83 30 14011:00 71 74 145 8 12 2011:15 74 74 148 14 19 3311:30 88 83 171 10 15 2511:45 83 316 83 314 166 630 7 39 5 51 12 90
TOTALS 1935 2077 4012 3228 3114 6342
SPLIT %48.2% 51.8%38.7%50.9% 49.1%61.3%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,163 5,191
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:00 07:15 17:00 14:30 17:00
AM Pk Volume 404 470 861 475 440 870
Pk Hr Factor 0.765 0.845 0.868 0.935 0.957 0.967
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 677 843 1520 0 0 915 739 1654
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:00 07:15 17:00 16:45 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 404 470 861 0 0 475 400 870
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.765 0.845 0.868 0.000 0.000 0.935 0.943 0.967
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,354
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Wednesday
3/2/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,354
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA16_4057_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,298 5,180
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 2 8 86 101 18700:15 5 8 13 99 69 16800:30 3 5 8 79 80 15900:45 2 16 3 18 5 34 70 334 82 332 152 66601:00 2 4 6 78 63 14101:15 1 3 4 98 81 17901:30 1 2 3 67 86 15301:45 4 8 3 12 7 20 79 322 90 320 169 64202:00 2 2 4 90 73 16302:15 0 1 1 76 76 15202:30 3 1 4 108 68 176
02:45 2 7 2 6 4 13 92 366 88 305 180 67103:00 4 1 5 123 95 21803:15 0 2 2 88 94 18203:30 6 3 9 106 87 19303:45 1 11 1 7 2 18 87 404 71 347 158 75104:00 2 0 2 116 84 20004:15 2 0 2 107 78 185
04:30 6 1 7 102 112 21404:45 9 19 6 7 15 26 95 420 108 382 203 80205:00 11 7 18 123 94 21705:15 13 17 30 114 109 22305:30 19 24 43 132 111 24305:45 20 63 30 78 50 141 112 481 103 417 215 89806:00 36 25 61 146 83 229
06:15 48 32 80 103 83 18606:30 57 61 118 82 95 17706:45 53 194 65 183 118 377 80 411 67 328 147 73907:00 81 110 191 60 71 13107:15 87 107 194 59 45 10407:30 107 103 210 49 55 10407:45 96 371 129 449 225 820 45 213 44 215 89 42808:00 77 111 188 49 53 10208:15 65 84 149 33 50 8308:30 86 94 180 35 40 7508:45 84 312 89 378 173 690 43 160 31 174 74 334
09:00 69 72 141 31 32 6309:15 84 70 154 36 35 7109:30 84 98 182 36 34 7009:45 76 313 70 310 146 623 30 133 35 136 65 26910:00 67 93 160 13 26 3910:15 73 71 144 16 25 4110:30 75 70 145 11 14 25
10:45 79 294 80 314 159 608 15 55 24 89 39 14411:00 76 73 149 14 22 3611:15 87 80 167 13 11 2411:30 109 79 188 19 15 3411:45 67 339 87 319 154 658 6 52 6 54 12 106
TOTALS 1947 2081 4028 3351 3099 6450
SPLIT %48.3% 51.7%38.4%52.0% 48.0%61.6%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,298 5,180
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 17:15 16:30 17:15
AM Pk Volume 371 450 820 504 423 910
Pk Hr Factor 0.867 0.872 0.911 0.863 0.944 0.936
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 683 827 1510 0 0 901 799 1700
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 17:00 16:30 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 371 450 820 0 0 481 423 898
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.867 0.872 0.911 0.000 0.000 0.911 0.944 0.924
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
VolumePk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,478
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:0023:1523:3023:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45
20:0020:1520:3020:4521:00
21:15
18:3018:4519:0019:15
19:3019:45
17:0017:1517:30
17:4518:0018:15
15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:45
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:0015:15
12:3012:4513:00
13:1513:3013:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:0012:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Tamarack Ave Bet. Railroad Crossing & Hibiscus Cir
Thursday
3/3/2016
DAILY TOTALS Total
10,478
Growth Rate
2012 2035 2050
Grand Ave 5,860 1,000 1,100 1,100 0.002511
Carslbad Village Drive 12,862 9,200 9,800 10,100 0.002459
Tamarack Ave 10,574 5,200 5,500 5,400 0.000994
Notes:
- Existing ADT based on M-F average counts from February 26 - March 3.
- Grand Ave. roadway segment between the railroad tracks and State St. was unavailable, therefore volume just east of State St. was identified.
- SANDAG Series 13 adjusted volumes were unavailable as of 4/21/2016, therefore unadjusted volumes are presented
- Grand Ave roadway segment volumes between the railroad tracks and Roosevelt St. was unavailable, therefore the volume just east of
Roosevelt St. was identified.
SANDAG Series 13
Existing ADT
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON
Series 13
2012
2035
* Link Unadjusted Volume says 5.5
*
2050
v
AMMMMMMSCMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAACACACCCCMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAMMAMAMMAAMMAAMAAMMMACMMMMAMMSMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATo Oakland/Seattleto Albuquerque/Chicagoto San Antonio/New Orleansto Oakland/SacramentoGoletaOxnardVenturaEast VenturaMoorparkCamarilloLompoc-SurfCarpinteriaPedleyUpland
TustinOrangePomonaCovinaIrvineNewhallAnaheimPalmdaleIndustrySan Diego-Old TownEl Monte
CommerceVan NuysGlendaleEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaW. CoronaMontclairOceansideSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotLancasterSanta AnaFullertonBuena ParkSun Valley E. OntarioNorthridgeChatsworthSimi ValleySolana BeachSan ClementeSanta Clarita N. MainCoronaCal State L.A.San BernardinoSorrento ValleyBurbank-Bob HopeAirportCarlsbad VillageRancho CucamongaDowntownBurbankRiverside DowntownL.A. Union StationVincent Grade/ActonSlymar/San FernandoSan Juan CapistranoNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoClaremont
Via PrincessaAnaheimCanyonDowntownPomonaSan Clemente PierRiverside-La SierraMontebello/CommerceMontebello/CommerceMontebello/CommerceGrover BeachSanta BarbaraGuadalupe-Santa MariaSan Luis ObispoRialtoFontanaBaldwin ParkEscondidoSanta Rosa IslandSan Miguel IslandC A LIFO RN IA
KernCountyVenturaCountySanta BarbaraCountySan Luis ObispoCountyLos AngelesCountySan BernardinoCountyOrangeCountyRiversideCountySan DiegoCountyBakersfield0 5 10 15 20 30Miles40NPACIFIC OCEANPassenger Rail StationAmtrak Pacific Surfliner®Amtrak Pacific Surfliner (LOSSAN Corridor)COASTERMetrolinkSPRINTER (Light Rail)Passenger Rail ServiceAmtrak Coast StarlightCOASTERMetrolink Ventura County LineMetrolink Antelope Valley LineMetrolink San Bernardino LineMetrolink Riverside LineMetrolink 91 LineMetrolink Orange County LineMetrolink Inland Empire-Orange County LineSPRINTER (Light Rail)Amtrak San Joaquin®San Joaquin Thruway BusAmtrak Southwest Chief®Amtrak Sunset Limited®AMCSAAmtrak Coast Starlight®®®Southern California Passenger RailSYSTEM MAPand TIMETABLES Schedule information for trains between• San Luis Obispo• Santa Barbara • Ventura• Los Angeles• Orange County• San Diego Effective October 5, 2015 AmtrakCalifornia.com facebook.com/AmtrakCalifornia twitter.com/Amtrak_CAGoNCTD.comfacebook.com/GoNCTD twitter.com/GoNCTDmetrolinktrains.com facebook.com/Metrolink twitter.com/MetrolinkAmtrak.comfacebook.com/Amtrak twitter.com/Amtrak 1
brbrbbbbbbrbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 1 OF 3)San Diego toSan Luis ObispoSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER681 901 201 601 101 701 103 603 20360761B5:25aB5:50aB6:35a7:35a7:48a––8:00a8:10a8:32a8:45a8:57a9:10a9:21a–9:35a10:06a10:22a10:34a11:40a12:16p12:35p1:00pPACIFICSURFLINER5 903 705 683 905 607 907 763 63205 1 685 565 107 687 633 635800 14TRAIN SERVICE NUMBERSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotDP6:00a 6:28a7:05a7:46aSan Diego-Old TownR 6:07a 6:34aR 7:12a7:52aSan Diego-Old TownSorrento Valley– 6:55a–8:15aSorrento ValleySolana Beach6:38a 7:04a7:42a8:24aEncinitas– 7:09a–8:29aEncinitasCarlsbad Poinsettia– 7:17a–8:35aCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village – 7:25a–8:42aCarlsbad Village Oceanside4:37a5:16a5:45a6:39a 6:58a 7:30a7:57a8:48aSan Clemente Pier––––– –San Clemente PierSan Clemente North Beach5:00a5:39a6:09a7:02a––San Clemente North BeachSan Juan Capistrano5:09a5:48a6:18a7:11a 7:30a8:30aSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission Viejo4:05a5:15a5:54a6:24a7:17a––8:40a 8:55a8:15a8:09a8:00a7:37aLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoIrvine4:14a5:24a6:03a6:33a7:10a7:26a 7:44a8:45a 8:49a 9:04a8:24aTustin4:22a5:31a6:10a6:40a7:17a7:34a––8:56a 9:10a8:31aTustinSanta Ana4:28a5:38a6:17a6:47a7:24a7:40a 7:55a8:56a 9:02a 9:16a8:38aSanta AnaOrange4:33a5:43a6:22a6:52a7:29a7:45a––9:07a 9:21a8:43aOrangeAnaheim4:37a5:47a6:26a6:56a7:33a7:49a 8:04a9:05a 9:11a 9:25aAnaheimFullerton4:46a5:56a •6:16a 6:35a7:05a7:41a7:58a 8:13a9:14a 9:19a 9:40aBuena Park•4:53a•6:02a •6:23a •6:41a• 7:11a•7:48a•8:05a –– •9:24aBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe Springs•5:00a•6:10a •6:31a •6:49a• 7:19a•7:55a•8:12a –– •9:31aNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerce––– •6:59a• 7:29a–•8:22a ––––CommerceLos Angeles Union StationAR5:28a6:40a 7:05a 7:20a7:50a•7:29a•7:37a•7:44a–8:18a 8:20a8:45a 8:46a7:55a8:04a8:12a8:18a8:23a8:27a8:36a•8:42a•8:50a•9:01a9:27a9:50a 10:10aDP5:38a 6:30a 6:52a 7:15a 7:30a8:00a8:30a 8:55a 9:10a10:10aGlendale•5:48a 6:41a 7:01a 7:25a 7:40a•8:10a•8:40a •9:05a 9:22a–GlendaleDowntown Burbank•5:54a 6:47a 7:07a 7:31a 7:46a•8:16a•8:46a •9:11a ––Downtown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope Airport6:01a7:12a 7:36a8:25a8:55a8:25a8:36a 8:42a9:20a 9:32aR 10:29aBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan Nuys•7:23a •7:43a9:42a R 10:40aVan NuysNorthridge•7:31a •8:00a– 9:50a10:00a10:06a10:11a•10:19a•10:28a10:35a–NorthridgeChatsworth•7:38a 8:10a9:54a–ChatsworthSimi Valley •7:52a10:06a R 11:11aMoorpark8:10a––MoorparkCamarillo10:30a–CamarilloOxnard10:43a11:44aEast Ventura––East VenturaVentura10:59a–VenturaCarpinteria11:21a–CarpinteriaSanta Barbara D 11:45a12:40pGoleta11111:58a–GoletaLompoc-Surf–Lompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa Maria2–Guadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachB1:45p–Grover BeachSan Luis ObispoARB2:15p 3:35pMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINK703•6:43a•6:50a•6:58a–7:32aMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKCOASTSTARLIGHTTRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVAL2079:40a9:50a9:56aMETROLINK8029:05a9:14a9:21a9:27a9:32aMETROLINKSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis Obispo bbar>ąąąąDP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Northbound Monday-Friday schedule continued on next page.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceanside4LOSSAN NORTHBOUND TIMETABLE metrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015
brbrbbbbbbrbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 769 639 635 109 573209 645 909 115 155211 213 579 641 651 117215 119804285 6098062179:25a 9:48a 10:42a 12:37p 1:40p 2:16pR 9:32a 9:54a R 10:49a 12:44p – 2:22p– 10:14a 11:12a 1:04p* – 2:42p*10:03a 10:23a 11:21a 1:14p 2:14p 2:55p– 10:31a 11:27a 1:23p – 3:03p– 10:37a 11:32a 1:29p – 3:08p– 10:43a 11:38a 1:36p – 3:14p10:18a 10:50a 11:46a 1:42p 2:31p 3:01p 3:20p 3:26p–– –– –– – – 3:24p 3:49p10:48a 12:18p 3:05p 3:34p 3:59p– 11:30a – – 3:40p12:30p4:10p11:03a 11:39a 12:35p 3:20p 3:49p12:39p4:19p3:34p3:25p– 11:45a – – 3:56p12:46p4:27p3:41p11:15a 11:51a 12:45p 3:30p 4:02p12:53p4:32p3:47p– 11:56a – – 4:07p12:58p4:37p3:52p11:24a 12:00p 12:53p 3:38p 4:11p 4:41p11:34a 12:15p 1:03p 3:49p 4:25p 4:49p– – – •4:57p– – – •5:03p–– – –12:10p 1:40p 4:25p 5:35p12:30p 12:50p11:20p 2:50p 3:15p 3:35p12:00p 1:55p4:33p3:45p 5:10p 5:35p4:00p12:42p 1:00p11:30p •3:00p 3:25p 3:45p12:11p 2:05p4:43p3:55p 5:20p –4:10p– 1:06p11:36p •3:06p 3:31p 3:51p12:17p 2:11p4:49p4:01p 5:26p 5:49p4:16p12:52p 1:11p 3:15p 3:36p 3:56p 4:54p 5:31p1:02p 1:18p 3:43p 4:03p 5:01p 5:38p– 1:26p 3:51p 4:11p 5:09p 5:46p1:14p 1:33p 3:58p4:10p4:27p4:20p 5:16p 5:53p1:26p • 1:45p • •5:28p •6:05p1:39p 2:05p•5:40p •6:17p1:54p5:51p 6:28p2:05p6:01p 6:38p–6:20p 6:57p2:19p2:47p D 3:05p3:18pB5:30pB5:05pB5:15pSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINK5678:20aR 8:27a8:58a8:49a9:05a9:12a9:18a9:24a––9:57a–10:13a–10:23a–10:33a10:42a–––11:19aPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINK77712:00p––12:34p–––12:53p––1:25p–1:40p–1:51p–2:00p2:10p–––2:45pPACIFICSURFLINER3:05p3:17p–3:27p3:37p–3:49p4:01p–4:27p4:38p–4:57p5:21p5:43p5:55p7:01p7:37p7:54p8:35pMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERDPSan Diego-Old TownSan Diego-Old TownSorrento ValleySorrento ValleyEncinitasEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village Carlsbad Village San Clemente PierSan Clemente PierSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente North BeachSan Juan CapistranoSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoTustinTustinSanta AnaSanta AnaOrangeOrangeAnaheimAnaheimBuena ParkBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerceCommerceARDPGlendaleGlendaleDowntown BurbankDowntown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope AirportBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan NuysVan NuysNorthridgeNorthridgeChatsworthChatsworthMoorparkMoorparkCamarilloCamarilloEast VenturaEast VenturaVenturaVenturaCarpinteriaCarpinteriaGoletaGoletaLompoc-SurfLompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa MariaGuadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachGrover BeachARMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 2 OF 3)1112metrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.com AmtrakCalifornia.comTRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVAL219METROLINK4:45p4:55p5:01pMETROLINK8084:00p4:09p4:16p4:22p4:27pSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis ObispoSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis ObispoNorthbound Monday-Friday schedule continued on next page. bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceanside5metrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN NORTHBOUND TIMETABLE
brbrbbbbbbrbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb5832:40pR 2:47p–3:20p–––3:41p–4:03p4:20p–4:35p–4:46p–4:55p5:05p–––5:40pPACIFICSURFLINER6METROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERCOASTERPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERDPSan Diego-Old TownSorrento ValleyEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village San Clemente PierSan Clemente North BeachSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoTustinSanta AnaOrangeAnaheimBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerceARDPGlendaleDowntown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan NuysNorthridgeChatsworthMoorparkCamarilloEast VenturaVenturaCarpinteriaGoletaLompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachARSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERSan Diego-Old TownSorrento ValleyEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village San Clemente PierSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoTustinSanta AnaOrangeAnaheimBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerceGlendaleDowntown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan NuysNorthridgeChatsworthMoorparkCamarilloEast VenturaVenturaCarpinteriaGoletaLompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 3 OF 3)1112121 689METROLINK812 653 123 785 655 643 657 661 70METROLINK2257810814 66 53:45p 4:00p 4:26p 4:52p 5:34p3:51p R 4:07p 4:33p 4:58p 5:40p4:12p – 4:53p 5:19p 6:02p4:23p 4:40p 5:06p 5:28p 6:12p4:29p – 5:10p 5:34p 6:18p4:35p – 5:16p 5:42p 6:27p4:42p – 5:22p 5:50p 6:33p4:48p 5:00p 5:28p 5:55p 6:39p5:22p––5:33p5:20p – 5:50p4:45p5:10p 5:29p 5:49p 5:59p4:55p5:17p 5:36p – 6:05p5:01p5:22p 5:43p 6:00p 6:11p5:07p5:27p 5:48p4:27p4:50p4:59p– 6:16p5:12p5:31p 6:08p 6:20p5:39p 6:17p 6:35p •6:49p•5:46p – •6:55p•5:53p – •7:01p–––6:20p 6:55p 7:40p5:55p 6:40p 7:15p6:05p 6:50p 7:27p6:11p6:56p –6:35p6:44p6:51p6:57p7:02pMETROLINK2215:50p6:00p6:06p7:40p7:50p7:56p6:16p 7:01p 7:37p6:23p 7:08p 7:47p6:31p 7:16p –6:38p 7:23p 7:59p•6:50p •7:35p 8:11p7:08p •7:47p –7:58p 8:35p8:14p 8:46p8:37p – D 9:50p10:03pB11:50pB12:15a227 6458:50p9:01p9:08p9:13p9:18p9:22p9:35p5959:00pR 9:07p9:29p*9:38p9:44p9:49p9:55p10:01p––10:31p–10:47p–10:58p–11:06p11:15p–––11:52p9:25pMETROLINK2236:30p6:40p9:35p6:46p9:41pTRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVALConnects from Metrolink 609 &583 Connects from Metrolink 609 &583 Connects from Metrolink 609 &583 San Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis ObispoSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis ObispoCOASTERCOASTER3666:25p 7:10p6:32p 7:16p6:52p 7:36p*7:04p 7:46p7:10p 7:53p7:16p 7:59p7:22p 8:05p7:27p 8:13p5916:45pR 6:52p–7:22p–––7:38p––8:08p–8:28p–8:39p–8:48p8:58p–––9:35pB9:50pB10:05pB10:30pB10:50pB11:10pB11:25pB11:35pB11:45pB11:59pB12:15pB12:35aB12:50aPACIFICSURFLINERNorthbound Saturday and Sunday schedule on next page. bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceansidemetrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN NORTHBOUND TIMETABLE 9117:45p•7:55pMETROLINK
brbrbbbbbbrbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.Southbound Monday-Friday schedule on next page.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceanside1761 261 763 565 14 661 567 263 769 681 663 573 265 777 665 685 267 579 858 269 583 689 860 785 6676:00a 7:05a 9:25a 9:48a 10:42a 12:27p 2:40pR 6:07a R 7:12a R 9:32a 9:54a R 10:49a 12:33p R 2:47p– – – 10:17a* 11:12a* 12:54p* –6:38a 7:41a 10:03a 10:25a 11:21a 1:02p 3:20p– – – 10:31a 11:27a 1:08p –– – – 10:36a 11:32a 1:14p –– – – 10:43a 11:38a 1:22p –6:58a 7:57a 10:18a 10:51a 11:46a 1:20p 1:28p 3:41p– – – – 1:40p––––– – 1:42p4:03p7:30a 8:30a 10:48a 12:18p 1:52p 4:20p– – 1:57p –7:44a 8:45a 11:03a 12:35p 2:06p 4:35p–––– 2:12p –B5:25a 7:55a 8:56a11:15a12:45p2:18p4:46p–––2:23p2:50p3:09p3:14p3:23p3:28p3:37p3:43p3:50p3:55p–8:04a 9:05a11:24a12:53p2:27p4:55pB5:50a 8:13a 9:14a11:34a1:03p2:35p5:05p––––2:40p–––––2:47p––––––––B6:35a 8:46a 9:50a8:15a8:34a8:37a8:46a8:51a9:00a9:06a9:12a9:17a9:21a9:29a•8:29a•8:36a•8:44a9:20a–•9:49a•9:56a•10:04a10:40a9:36a9:44a–10:30a8:20aR 8:27a8:49a*8:58a9:05a9:12a9:18a9:24a––9:57a–10:13a–10:23a–10:33a10:42a–––11:19a 12:10p11:22a11:42a11:44a11:54a12:00p12:10p12:16p12:23p12:28p12:33p12:41p12:47p12:54p–1:35p 1:40p3:35p1:40p––2:14p–––2:31p––3:05p–3:20p–––3:30p–3:38p3:49p–––4:25p5:40p5:30p5:51p5:53p6:03p6:10p6:20p6:26p6:33p6:38p6:45p6:53p7:00p7:07p–7:50p7:50a 9:10a10:10a11:40a12:30p2:15p3:50p5:25p8:02a9:22a–11:50a 12:42p2:25p4:00p5:35p–––11:57a –2:32p4:07p5:42p8:12a 9:32aR 10:29a12:52p8:21a 9:37aR 10:40a1:02p–– ––8:33a 9:49a–1:14p8:45a 10:01aR 11:11a1:26p8:57a––1:39p9:10a 10:25a–1:54p9:21a 10:38a11:44a2:05p––––9:35a 10:54a–2:19p10:06a 11:16a–2:47p10:22a D11:40a12:40p D 3:05p10:34a 11:53a–3:18p11:40a–12:16p–12:35pB1:45p–B5:30pB5:05p1:00pB2:15p3:35pB5:15p12:00p––12:34p–––12:53p––1:25p––1:40p1:51p–2:00p2:10p–––2:45p3:05p3:17p–3:27p3:37p–3:49p4:01p–4:27p4:38p–4:57p5:21p5:43p5:55p7:01p7:37p7:54p8:35p3:18p 4:00p3:25p R 4:07p3:47p* –3:56p 4:40p4:02p–4:08p–4:15p–4:20p 4:30p 5:00p4:49p–4:54p5:22p5:03p 5:33p5:08p –5:17p 5:49p5:23p –5:30p 6:00p5:35p –6:08p6:17p–––6:55p7:15p7:27p–7:37p7:47p–7:59p8:11p–8:35p8:46p–9:00p9:22p D 9:50p10:03pB11:50pB12:15a8:45a8:55a9:02aSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoMETROLINK751METROLINKMETROLINK753METROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTSTARLIGHTPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERSATURDAY & SUNDAYTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERDPSan Diego-Old TownSorrento ValleyEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village San Clemente PierSan Clemente North BeachSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoTustinSanta AnaOrangeAnaheimBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerceARDPGlendaleDowntown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan NuysNorthridgeChatsworthMoorparkCamarilloEast VenturaVenturaCarpinteriaGoletaLompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachAR1112TRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVAL271 591 693 5956:45p 9:00pR 6:52p R 9:07p– 9:29p*7:22p 9:38p– 9:44p– 9:49p– 9:55p7:38p7:10p7:16p7:36p*7:46p7:53p7:59p8:05p8:13p10:01p–––8:08p 10:31p––8:28p 10:47p––8:39p 10:58p––8:48p 11:06p8:58p 11:15p––––––9:35p 11:52p8:55p9:05p9:12pB9:50pB10:05pB10:30pB10:50pB11:10pB11:25pB11:35pB11:45pB11:59pB12:15aB12:35aB12:50aPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKCOASTERSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERSan Diego-Old TownSorrento ValleyEncinitasCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad Village San Clemente PierSan Clemente North BeachSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoTustinSanta AnaOrangeAnaheimBuena ParkNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsCommerceGlendaleDowntown BurbankBurbank-Bob Hope AirportVan NuysNorthridgeChatsworthMoorparkCamarilloEast VenturaVenturaCarpinteriaGoletaLompoc-SurfGuadalupe-Santa MariaGrover BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis ObispoSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSolana BeachOceansideIrvineFullertonLos Angeles Union StationSimi Valley OxnardSanta BarbaraSan Luis Obispometrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN NORTHBOUND TIMETABLE 7
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrbbbbbbrbrbbbCOASTERCOASTERCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERCOASTERMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKDPGrover BeachGrover BeachGuadalupe-Santa Maria2Guadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfLompoc-SurfGoleta1GoletaCarpinteriaCarpinteriaVenturaVenturaEast VenturaEast Ventura Camarillo Camarillo Moorpark Moorpark Chatsworth Chatsworth NorthridgeNorthridgeVan NuysVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope Airport Burbank-Bob Hope Airport Downtown BurbankDowntown BurbankGlendaleGlendaleARDPCommerceCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkBuena ParkAnaheimAnaheimOrangeOrangeSanta AnaSanta AnaTustinTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente PierSan Clemente Pier Carlsbad VillageCarlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitasEncinitas Sorrento ValleySorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town San Diego-Old Town San Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotARSan Luis Obispoto San DiegoSan Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER11630 634 700 636 803 200 638 640 562 100 900805 807 682 202 102 564 204 282 104 809METROLINK811 644 600 206 106 566902 1085:25a6:03a6:42a5:39a6:17a6:56a5:49a6:27a7:06a5:04a6:00a6:38a7:17a5:17a6:13a6:51a7:30a5:28a6:24a7:02a7:41a8:25a5:33a6:29a7:07a7:46a8:30a5:41a6:37a7:15a7:54a8:38a5:49a 6:13a6:45a7:23a8:02a8:35a 8:46a•5:30a•5:55a •6:17a•6:31a •6:52a •7:03a •7:25a •7:30a•7:51a •8:08a•8:39a •8:52a•5:37a•6:02a •6:23a•6:38a •6:59a •7:09a – •7:37a•7:58a •8:15a•8:45a •8:59a5:53a6:15a 6:38a6:55a 7:14a 7:26a 7:42a 7:50a8:17a 8:30a280•8:27a•8:33a8:55a 9:02a 9:17a5:45a6:15a6:45a7:25a8:00a8:30a––––––6:06a–7:06a–8:21a–6:12a–7:12a–8:27a–•6:19a6:44a7:19a7:55a8:34a9:00a6:52a•7:28a8:03a8:43a9:09a•5:57a–•6:29a•7:05a •7:33a–8:47a–•6:03a7:00a•6:35a•7:11a •7:39a8:11a8:53a9:20a•6:09a–•6:41a•7:17a •7:45a–8:59a–•6:18a7:12a6:55a•7:26a •7:54a8:26a•9:08a9:30a•6:26a–7:40a 8:15a•7:51a•7:57a•8:03a•8:12a8:25a–•9:17a–•6:32a7:25a8:42a•9:23a9:49a•6:43a––•9:33a–– –––10:00a5:13a 6:00a 6:39a 7:13a 7:18a 7:42a 8:05a9:14a9:42a 10:10a10:25a5:17a 6:05a 6:43a 7:22a 7:47a––9:47a–5:23a 6:11a 6:49a 7:28a 7:53a––9:53a–5:29a 6:17a 6:54a 7:34a 7:58a––9:58a–5:35a 6:23a 7:00a 7:40a 8:05a 8:19a9:28a10:02a10:42a5:44a* 6:32a 7:10a 7:51a 8:15a––10:12a*–6:05a 6:53a 7:32a 8:14a 8:38a–D 10:02a10:34a D 11:12a6:13a 7:00a 7:40a 8:20a 8:45a 9:00a10:10a10:43a11:25aMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 1 OF 3)TRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVAL•8:16a•8:22a•8:28a•8:37a8:50aMETROLINK9108:30p•8:35p•8:40p8:55pSouthbound Monday-Friday schedule continued on next page. bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceansidemetrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN SOUTHBOUND TIMETABLE 8
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrbbbbbbrbrbbbMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKCOASTERCOASTERMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKDPGrover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast VenturaCamarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope Airport Downtown BurbankGlendaleARDPCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente PierCarlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitasSorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town Grover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast VenturaCamarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope AirportDowntown BurbankGlendaleCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente PierCarlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitas Sorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town ARSan Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER2111648 632 768 110 210 212 572 112B3:50aB4:15a6:35a6:49a7:04a7:29a–7:43a7:54a8:08a 8:25a8:23a 8:38a8:40a 8:49a 10:50a8:54a 10:55a8:56a 9:02a 11:03a9:04a 9:10a 11:11a•9:16a •9:45a •10:36a •11:17a9:16a •9:23a •9:54a •10:42a •11:26a9:35a 9:42a 10:11a 11:00a 11:40a9:55a 11:15a––––––––10:00a 10:25a11:45a10:08a 10:36a11:54a10:12a ––10:17a 10:45a12:03p10:23a ––10:30a 10:58a12:18p10:45a ––11:13a12:34p––11:23a–11:05a 11:47a1:09p11:10a ––11:16a ––11:21a ––11:29a 12:01a1:24p11:39a* ––11:59a D 12:32pD 1:55pD 5:30p12:06p 12:40p2:03p634 214 654 656 684 580 660 602216116813686 904 662 582B12:55pB1:25pB1:50p2:25p2:38p2:49p2:54p3:02p3:10pMETROLINK817•3:51p•3:57p•4:03p•4:12p4:25p3:37p•12:16p •1:15p •3:16p •3:41p•12:22p •1:22p •3:23p •3:47p12:40p 1:40pMETROLINK2183:40p 4:00pB3:35p2:15p 3:00p 3:20p 3:50p 4:10p– – 3:34p 4:04p –2:38p – 3:44p 4:14p –2:44p – 3:51p 4:20p –1:35p 2:50p 3:30p 3:57p 4:27p 4:40p1:43p •2:55p 3:38p 4:06p •4:36p 4:48p1:47p •2:59p – 4:10p•11:21a•11:27a•11:33a•11:41a12:00p•4:41p –1:52p •3:05p 3:46p 4:16p •4:47p 4:56p1:58p •3:11p – 4:22p •4:53p –2:05p •3:19p 3:56p •4:33p 5:00p 5:07p2:20p 3:40p – •4:41p –6404:50p4:59p5:03p5:09p5:15p5:23p5:35p4:12p •4:48p 5:23p– •5:02p ––– –2:32p 3:34p 4:45p 5:04p 5:30p 5:40p 5:56p2:37p 3:40p – 5:09p 5:45p –2:43p 3:47p – 5:16p 5:51p –2:49p 3:52p – 5:21p 5:57p –2:54p 3:58p 5:02p 5:29p 6:03p 6:12p3:05p* 4:08p – 5:38p 6:17p –3:28p 4:30p 6:01p 6:42pD 6:55p3:36p 4:37p5:50p 6:08p6:49p 7:03pMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 2 OF 3)TRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVALSan Diego toSan Luis ObispoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER•2:28p•2:34p2:50pMETROLINK220• 3:10p• 3:17p3:35pSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotMETROLINK4:20p4:41p4:47p•4:54p–704–METROLINK815• 1:29p• 1:35p• 1:41p• 1:49p• 1:57p• 2:03p• 2:17p2:50pMETROLINK7023:40p–4:03p4:09p•4:15pPACIFICSURFLINER7746:50a7:10a7:26a8:00a9:08a9:22a9:37a9:59a–10:13a10:32a–10:57a11:09a–11:23a11:30a–11:40a12:10p–––1:00p1:09p–1:18p–1:29p–1:44p––2:19p–––2:33p–D 3:07p3:15p12:30p bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.Southbound Monday-Friday schedule continued on next page.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceansidemetrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN SOUTHBOUND TIMETABLE 9
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrbbbbbbrbrbbbMETROLINK7087:06p6:45p–7:12p•7:19pMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTSTARLIGHTMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKDPGrover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast VenturaCamarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope Airport Downtown BurbankGlendaleARDPCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente PierCarlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitasSorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town ARSan Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER Grover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast Ventura Camarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope AirportDowntown BurbankGlendaleCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente Pier Carlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitas Sorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town San Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBER2111604 906 688 784 150224606 118 608 642 790 226 114:15p•4:19p•4:25p4:40p4:30p4:44p4:54p5:00p5:07p5:16p5:20p5:26p5:32p•5:41p•5:49p•5:56p•6:08p–6:37pMONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY (PAGE 3 OF 3)B10:30a 1:35p 3:20pB10:55a1:55p –2:11p –2:51p –1:50p3:57p –4:12p 6:02p2:19p4:27p –2:41p4:49p ––––2:57p5:07p D 7:05p3:08p––3:20p4:57p5:36p –3:35p5:10p5:54p D 7:48p3:52p 4:40p5:27p6:12p –– 4:45p5:32p––4:14p 4:53p5:45p6:31p D 8:22p4:22p 5:05p5:53p6:39p D 8:31p– •5:10p•5:59p– •7:53p –4:32p •5:16p•5:41p•5:48p6:10p•6:06p6:50p •8:00p8:25p–4:50p 5:30p6:20p7:10pMETROLINK222• 3:56p• 4:02p4:20p9:00p5:10p 5:45p 6:35p 7:30p– 5:59p – –– 6:09p 6:58p– 6:15p 7:04p –5:40p 6:22p 7:10p 7:35p 8:00p5:49p 6:31p 7:18p 7:44p 8:11p– 6:35p 7:22p 7:48p –5:57p 6:41p 7:28p 7:54p 8:20p– 6:47p 7:34p 8:00p –6:09p •6:56p •7:42p 8:08p 8:32p– •7:04p •7:51p 8:20p6:23p •7:11p •7:58p 8:48p– •7:23p •8:08p –––––7:00p 7:51p 8:40p 9:17p7:06p 9:22p7:12p 9:28p7:18p 9:34p7:24p 9:40p7:34p* 9:52p* D 7:56p8:07p 10:25pD 10:17p2:04pB3:40pB4:10p6:45p7:15p7:37p–7:51p8:02p–8:38p8:50p–9:06p9:13p–9:23p9:45p10:10p––––10:10p 10:40p10:19p 10:49p10:23p –10:29p 10:58p10:35p –10:44p 11:08p10:53p ––10:58p 11:21p11:08p –––11:37p 11:53p11:58p12:04a12:10a12:16a12:26a* 12:52a1:00a 6:59p4:50p–5:11p5:17p5:24p•5:33p•5:38p•5:44p•5:50p•5:59p6:15p644 796TRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVALSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotMETROLINK7065:30p–5:51p5:57p•6:04pmetrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN SOUTHBOUND TIMETABLE Southbound Saturday and Sunday schedule on next page. bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceanside10
METROLINK7547:15p7:36p7:42p• 7:49p–3:15p3:36p3:42p• 3:49p–bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbar>bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrbbbbbbrbrbbbMETROLINKMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKCOASTERMETROLINKMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERPACIFICSURFLINERCOASTSTARLIGHTPACIFICSURFLINERMETROLINKMETROLINKPACIFICSURFLINERDPGrover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast VenturaCamarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope Airport Downtown BurbankGlendaleARDPCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBuena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoSan Juan CapistranoSan Clemente North BeachSan Clemente Pier Carlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitas Sorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town ARSan Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERGrover BeachGuadalupe-Santa MariaLompoc-SurfGoletaCarpinteriaVenturaEast Ventura Camarillo Moorpark Chatsworth NorthridgeVan NuysBurbank-Bob Hope AirportDowntown BurbankGlendaleCommerceNorwalk/Santa Fe Springs Buena ParkAnaheimOrangeSanta AnaTustinSan Juan CapistranoLaguna Niguel/Mission VijeoSan Clemente North Beach San Clemente Pier Carlsbad VillageCarlsbad PoinsettiaEncinitas Sorrento ValleySan Diego-Old Town San Luis Obispoto San DiegoTRAIN SERVICE NUMBERSATURDAY & SUNDAY2111562 564 260 857 566 660 684 859 768 662 572 688 774 264 664 26METROLINK7526 580 582 666 784 1790 270 11 7966:50a7:10a7:26a8:00a9:08a9:22a9:37a9:59a–10:13a10:32a–10:57a11:09a–11:23a11:30a•8:00a– •12:48p•8:07a 11:40a •12:55p8:25a 12:10p 1:15p6:15a 7:25a 8:50a 11:15a 12:30p–– – ––– – 9:11a – –– – 9:17a – –6:44a 7:55a 9:23a 11:45a 1:00p6:52a 8:03a 9:31a 11:54a 1:09p– – •8:43a 9:35a •10:08a – –7:00a 8:11a •8:48a 9:40a •10:13a 12:03p 1:18p– – •8:54a 9:46a •10:19a – –7:12a 8:26a •9:01a 9:53a •10:26a 12:18p 1:29p– – •9:10a 10:03a •10:35a – –7:25a 8:42a •9:16a 10:08a •10:40a 12:34p 1:44p– – •9:34a • 10:20a •10:55a –––– – •9:39a •10:25a •11:00a –8:05a 9:14a 10:20a 11:02a 11:07a 11:45a10:45a–11:06a11:12a11:18a11:26a11:30a11:35a11:41a11:48a11:57a12:02p•12:16p•12:19p12:55p 1:09p 1:50p 2:19p– – 11:12a – 1:55p –– – 11:18a – 2:01p –– – 11:24a – 2:07p –8:19a 9:28a 11:30a 1:24p 2:13p 2:33p– – 11:40a* – 2:23p* –– D 10:02a 12:02p D 1:55p 2:45p D 3:07p9:00a 10:10a8:30a–––9:00a9:09a9:20a––9:30a–9:49a–10:00a10:25a–––10:42a–D 11:12a11:25a 12:10pB3:50aB4:15a6:35a6:49a7:04a7:29a–7:43a7:54a8:08a8:23a8:40a–8:56a9:04a–9:16a9:35a9:55a–––10:25a10:36a–10:45a–10:58a–11:13a–11:23a11:47a–––12:01p–D 12:32p12:40p 2:03p 2:53p 3:15pB12:55pB1:25pB1:50p•2:13p•2:20p2:40pB3:35p2:00p3:00p 4:10p–––2:21p––2:27p––2:33p3:30p 4:40p2:41p 3:38p 4:48p2:45p––2:50p 3:46p 4:56p2:56p––3:03p 3:56p 5:07p3:12p––3:17p 4:12p 5:23p•3:26p ––•3:28p ––4:15p 4:45p 5:56p––––––5:02p 6:12p––D 5:30pD 6:55p5:50p7:03pB10:30a 2:00p 3:20pB3:40pB10:55a 2:20p–B4:10p2:36p–3:16p–1:50p 4:22p– 6:45p2:04p6:59p4:40p 6:02p2:19p 4:55p– 7:15p2:41p 5:21p– 7:37p––––2:57p 5:35p D 7:05p 7:51p3:08p –– 8:02p3:20p 6:04p–3:35p 6:20p D 7:48p 8:38p3:52p 6:33p– 8:50p––––4:14p 6:45p D 8:22p 9:06p4:22p 6:53p D 8:31p 9:13p–– •7:53p – –4:32p 7:04p •8:00p – 9:23p4:50p 7:20p 8:20p 9:00p 9:45p4:40p 5:10p 7:40p10:10p–– ––5:01p –––5:07p –––5:13p 5:40p 8:10p10:40p5:21p 5:49p 8:21p10:49p5:25p –––5:30p 5:57p 8:30p10:58p5:36p –––5:43p 6:09p 8:42p11:08p5:52p –––5:57p•6:07p6:23p 8:55p11:21p–– ––– –6:55p 7:03p•6:10p9:24p11:53p7:09p 9:29p11:58p7:15p 9:35p12:04a7:20p 9:41p12:10a7:26p 9:49p12:16a7:36p* 10:01p*12:26a* D 7:58pD 10:26pD 12:52a8:07p 10:34p1:00aTRANSITCONNECTIONSDEPARTURE/ARRIVALMETROLINK262•10:35a•10:42a11:00aMETROLINK268•3:59p•4:05p4:30pSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraOxnardSimi Valley Los Angeles Union StationFullertonIrvineOceansideSolana BeachSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotCOASTER6808:36a8:41a8:47a8:53a8:59a9:09a*9:30a9:36a bbar>DP Departure timeAR Arrival timea AM timesp PM timesNOTES Connecting trains: connections between Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER are not guaranteed. 1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station. 2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service. Bus Bus Rapid Transit LAX Flyaway Light Rail Transit Subway Amtrak Coast Starlight® Amtrak Pacific Surfliner® COASTER METROLINKBoarding information is available at each station.* Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection shuttle service not available for this train.B Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Advanced reservations required. Amtrak California Thruway Bus Service: Arrives/departs from Santa Barbara. There is no bus service to Goleta.Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.– Train does not stop at this stationR Stops only to receive passengersD Stops only to discharge passengers COASTER fares and passes are accepted on Pacific Surfliner for travel between San Diego and Oceansidemetrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN SOUTHBOUND TIMETABLE 11
rrrr bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbab>STATIONTRANSIT CONNECTIONS OPERATORAnaheimOCTA, ARTBuena Park Bus OCTA Burbank-Bob Hope Airport Bus MetroCamarillo Bus VISTACarlsbad Poinsettia Bus NCTDCarlsbad Village Bus NCTDCarpinteria Bus SBMTDChatsworth Bus, Bus Rapid TransitMetro, Santa Clarita Transit, Simi Valley TransitCommerce Bus Commerce BusDowntown Burbank Bus Burbank Bus, Glendale Beeline, MetroEast Ventura Bus Gold Coast TransitEncinitas Bus NCTDBus OCTAGlendale Bus Glendale Beeline, MetroGoleta Bus SBMTDGrover Beach Bus SCATBus SMOOTH Inc.Irvine Bus OCTA, Irvine ShuttleLaguna Niguel/Mission ViejoBusOCTALompoc-SurfBus, LAX Flyaway,Light Rail Transit, SubwayAVTA, Foothill Transit, LADOT, LAWA, Metro, Santa Clarita Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Torrance TransitMoorpark BusVISTANorthridgeBusLADOT, MetroNorwalk/Santa Fe SpringsBusNorwalk TransitOceanside Bus, Light Rail Transit NCTD, RTAOrangeBusOCTAOxnard BusGold Coast Transit, VISTASan Clemente North BeachBusOCTASan Clemente PierBusOCTASan Diego-Old TownBus, Light Rail Transit MTSSan Diego-Santa Fe DepotBus, Light Rail Transit,Bus Rapid TransitMTSSan Juan CapistranoBusOCTASan Luis ObispoBusSLO TransitSanta AnaBusOCTASanta BarbaraBusSBMTDSimi Valley BusSimi Valley TransitSolana Beach BusNCTDSorrento ValleyBusMTSTustinBusOCTA, Irvine ShuttleVan NuysBusLADOT, MetroVenturaBusGold Coast TransitOPERATORWEBSITEPHONEAART (Anaheim Resort Transit)VTA (Antelope Valley Transit Authority)(661) 945-9445(888) 364-2787Burbank Bus(818) 246-4258Commerce Busci.commerce.ca.us (323) 722-4805Foothill Transitfoothilltransit.org1(800) RIDE-INFO (800-743-3463)Glendale Beelineglendalebeeline.com (818) 548-3960Gold Coast Transit Districtgoldcoasttransit.org(805) 487-4222Irvine Shuttleirvineshuttle.net(949) 72-GOBUS (46287)LADOT (Los Angeles Department of Transportation)(213, 310, 323 or 818) 808-2273LAWA (Los Angeles World Airports) (310) 646-5252Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority)MTS (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System) sdmts.com(619) 233-3004NCTD (North County Transit District) gonctd.com(760) 966-6500Norwalk Transitci.norwalk.ca.us (562) 929-5700OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority) octa.net(714) 636-RIDE (7433)RTA (Riverside Transit Agency)(951) 565-5002Santa Clarita Transitsantaclaritatransit.com (661) 294-1BUS (1287)Santa Monica Big Blue Busbigbluebus.com(310) 451-5444SBMTD (Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District) sbmtd.gov (805) 963-3366SCT(South Coast Transit) (805) 541-2228Simi Valley Transit(805) 583-6700SLO Transit (City of San Luis Obispo)(805) 541-2877SMOOTH Inc. (805) 922-8476Torrance Transit(310) 618-6266VISTA (Ventura County Transportation Commission) (800) 438-1112BusFullertonGuadalupe-Santa Maria2Los Angeles Union Stationavta.rideart.orgcomburbankbus.orgladottransit.comlawa.orgmetro.net(323) GO-METRO (323) 466-3876) riversidetransit.comslorta.orgsimivalley.orgslotransit.orgsmoothinc.orgtorranceca.govgoventura.org1 Transit is within walking distance to the train station.2 On demand transit service. Call transit operator for service.11112metrolinktrains.com GoNCTD.comAmtrak.comAmtrakCalifornia.comEffective October 5, 2015LOSSAN CONNECTING TRANSITb Busb Bus Rapid Transit a LAX Flyawayr Light Rail Transit> Subway
Weekday 2035Time - Gate DownTime - Gate Down5:15 CoasterSB0:07 Pacific Surfliner SB5:56 Pacific Surfliner NB5:18Coaster SB6:03 CoasterSB5:55 Pacific Surfliner NB6:08 Pacific Surfliner SB6:08Coaster SB6:15 CoasterSB6:10 Pacific Surfliner SB6:25 CoasterNB6:20Coaster SB6:41 CoasterSB6:25Coaster NB6:56 Pacific Surfliner NB6:46Coaster SB7:07 Pacific Surfliner SB6:55 Pacific Surfliner NB7:16 Pacific Surfliner NB7:09 Pacific Surfliner SB7:20 CoasterSB7:15 Pacific Surfliner NB7:25 CoasterNB7:24Coaster NB7:28 Pacific Surfliner SB7:25Coaster SB7:36 Pacific Surfliner NB7:29 Pacific Surfliner SB7:45 CoasterSB7:35 Pacific Surfliner NB7:50 Pacific Surfliner SB7:47Coaster SB7:55 Pacific Surfliner NB7:49 Pacific Surfliner SB8:07 Pacific Surfliner SB7:54 Pacific Surfliner NB8:15 Pacific Surfliner NB8:09 Pacific Surfliner SB8:25 CoasterNB8:14 Pacific Surfliner NB8:28 Pacific Surfliner SB8:25Coaster NB8:35 Pacific Surfliner NB8:29 Pacific Surfliner SB8:42 CoasterNB8:34 Pacific Surfliner NB8:45 CoasterSB8:41Coaster NB8:50 Pacific Surfliner SB8:48 Pacific Surfliner SB8:55 Pacific Surfliner NB8:50Coaster SB9:16 Pacific Surfliner SB8:54 Pacific Surfliner NB9:18 Pacific Surfliner NB9:17 Pacific Surfliner NB9:42 CoasterNB9:18 Pacific Surfliner SB9:45 CoasterSB9:42Coaster NB10:16 Pacific Surfliner NB9:50Coaster SB10:27 Pacific Surfliner SB 10:15 Pacific Surfliner NB10:43 CoasterNB 10:29 Pacific Surfliner SB10:46 CoasterSB10:42Coaster NB11:08 CoasterSB10:50Coaster SB11:27 Pacific Surfliner SB11:13Coaster SB11:38 Pacific Surfliner NB11:29 Pacific Surfliner SB11:43 CoasterNB11:37 Pacific Surfliner NB11:49 Pacific Surfliner SB11:43Coaster NB12:08 CoasterSB11:51 Pacific Surfliner SB12:21 Pacific Surfliner NB12:13Coaster SB12:43 CoasterNB 12:43Coaster NB13:06 CoasterSB12:50 Pacific Surfliner NB13:11 Pacific Surfliner SB13:11Coaster SB13:21 Pacific Surfliner NB13:13 Pacific Surfliner SB13:36 CoasterNB13:20 Pacific Surfliner NB14:21 Pacific Surfliner SB 13:35Coaster NB14:29 Pacific Surfliner NB 14:23 Pacific Surfliner SB14:35 CoasterSB 14:28 Pacific Surfliner NB15:14 CoasterNB 14:40Coaster SB15:21 Pacific Surfliner SB15:13Coaster NB15:35 CoasterNB 15:23 Pacific Surfliner SB15:38 CoasterSB15:36Coaster NB15:39 Pacific Surfliner NB 15:38 Pacific Surfliner NB15:59 Pacific Surfliner NB 15:43Coaster SB16:01 CoasterNB15:58 Pacific Surfliner NB16:19 Pacific Surfliner NB 16:00Coaster NB16:35 CoasterSB 16:18 Pacific Surfliner NB16:40 Pacific Surfliner SB 16:39 Pacific Surfliner SB16:42 CoasterNB 16:41Coaster NB16:47 Pacific Surfliner SB16:43Coaster SB16:58 Pacific Surfliner NB 16:49 Pacific Surfliner SB17:07 CoasterSB 16:57 Pacific Surfliner NB17:18 Pacific Surfliner SB17:12Coaster SB17:20 Pacific Surfliner NB 17:17 Pacific Surfliner NB17:22 CoasterNB17:19 Pacific Surfliner SB17:38 Pacific Surfliner SB17:21Coaster NB17:40 Pacific Surfliner NB 17:38 Pacific Surfliner NB17:43 CoasterSB17:40 Pacific Surfliner SB17:50 CoasterNB 17:48Coaster SB17:58 Pacific Surfliner SB 17:49Coaster NB18:00 Pacific Surfliner NB 17:58 Pacific Surfliner NB18:18 Pacific Surfliner SB18:00 Pacific Surfliner SB18:20 Pacific Surfliner NB 18:18 Pacific Surfliner NB18:33 CoasterNB18:20 Pacific Surfliner SB18:38 Pacific Surfliner SB18:32Coaster NB18:40 Pacific Surfliner NB 18:38 Pacific Surfliner NB18:43 CoasterSB 18:40 Pacific Surfliner SB19:00 Pacific Surfliner NB 18:48Coaster SB19:04 Pacific Surfliner SB18:59 Pacific Surfliner NB19:22 CoasterNB 19:09 Pacific Surfliner SB19:36 Pacific Surfliner NB 19:21Coaster NB19:43 CoasterSB19:35 Pacific Surfliner NB20:05 CoasterNB19:48Coaster SB20:20 Pacific Surfliner SB20:04Coaster NB20:36 Pacific Surfliner NB 20:22 Pacific Surfliner SB21:20 Pacific Surfliner SB20:35 Pacific Surfliner NB21:55 Pacific Surfliner NB 21:31 Pacific Surfliner SB22:20 Pacific Surfliner SB 21:54 Pacific Surfliner NB22:55 Pacific Surfliner NB 22:22 Pacific Surfliner SB23:54 Pacific Surfliner NB 22:54 Pacific Surfliner NB23:56 Pacific Surfliner SB23:54 Pacific Surfliner NBGrand/Carlsbad VillageTamarackService Type DirectionService Type DirectionOO
Weekend 2035Time - Gate DownTime - Gate Down6:56 Pacific Surfliner NB0:01 Pacific Surfliner SB7:07 Pacific Surfliner SB6:55 Pacific Surfliner NB7:55 Pacific Surfliner NB7:09 Pacific Surfliner SB8:07 Pacific Surfliner SB7:54 Pacific Surfliner NB8:39Coaster SB8:09 Pacific Surfliner SB8:42Coaster NB8:41Coaster NB9:16 Pacific Surfliner SB8:44Coaster SB9:18 Pacific Surfliner NB9:17 Pacific Surfliner NB9:36 Pacific Surfliner SB9:18 Pacific Surfliner SB9:39Coaster SB9:38 Pacific Surfliner SB9:44Coaster NB9:44Coaster SB9:54 Pacific Surfliner NB9:42Coaster NB9:56 Pacific Surfliner SB9:54 Pacific Surfliner NB10:16 Pacific Surfliner NB9:58 Pacific Surfliner SB10:27 Pacific Surfliner SB 10:15 Pacific Surfliner NB10:36 Pacific Surfliner NB10:29 Pacific Surfliner SB10:43Coaster NB10:36 Pacific Surfliner NB10:47 Pacific Surfliner SB10:42Coaster NB10:56 Pacific Surfliner NB 10:49 Pacific Surfliner SB11:07 Pacific Surfliner SB 10:56 Pacific Surfliner NB11:10Coaster SB11:09 Pacific Surfliner SB11:16 Pacific Surfliner NB11:15Coaster SB11:27 Pacific Surfliner SB 11:17 Pacific Surfliner NB11:38 Pacific Surfliner NB11:29 Pacific Surfliner SB11:43Coaster NB11:37 Pacific Surfliner NB11:49 Pacific Surfliner SB11:43Coaster NB11:58 Pacific Surfliner NB11:51 Pacific Surfliner SB12:08 Pacific Surfliner SB 11:58 Pacific Surfliner NB12:10Coaster SB 12:11 Pacific Surfliner SB12:18 Pacific Surfliner NB 12:15Coaster SB12:29 Pacific Surfliner SB 12:18 Pacific Surfliner NB12:38 Pacific Surfliner NB 12:31 Pacific Surfliner SB12:49 Pacific Surfliner SB 12:38 Pacific Surfliner NB12:51 Pacific Surfliner NB12:52 Pacific Surfliner SB13:06Coaster SB12:50 Pacific Surfliner NB13:11 Pacific Surfliner SB13:17Coaster SB13:13 Pacific Surfliner NB13:13 Pacific Surfliner SB13:22Coaster NB13:15 Pacific Surfliner NB13:31 Pacific Surfliner SB13:21Coaster NB13:33 Pacific Surfliner NB 13:32 Pacific Surfliner SB13:51 Pacific Surfliner SB 13:34 Pacific Surfliner NB13:53Coaster SB13:53 Pacific Surfliner SB13:58 Pacific Surfliner NB13:58Coaster SB14:21 Pacific Surfliner SB13:55 Pacific Surfliner NB14:23Coaster NB14:23 Pacific Surfliner SB14:29 Pacific Surfliner NB14:21Coaster NB14:41 Pacific Surfliner SB14:28 Pacific Surfliner NB14:49 Pacific Surfliner NB 14:43 Pacific Surfliner SB14:53Coaster SB 14:49 Pacific Surfliner NB15:09 Pacific Surfliner NB 14:58Coaster SB15:20 Pacific Surfliner SB 15:09 Pacific Surfliner NB15:22Coaster NB 15:23 Pacific Surfliner SB15:39 Pacific Surfliner NB15:21Coaster NB15:41 Pacific Surfliner SB15:38 Pacific Surfliner NB15:53Coaster SB 15:43 Pacific Surfliner SB16:15Coaster NB15:58Coaster SB16:47 Pacific Surfliner SB 16:14Coaster NB16:53Coaster SB16:49 Pacific Surfliner SB16:58 Pacific Surfliner NB16:59Coaster SB17:15Coaster NB16:57 Pacific Surfliner NB17:53Coaster SB 17:15Coaster NB17:58 Pacific Surfliner SB17:58Coaster SB18:00 Pacific Surfliner NB18:00 Pacific Surfliner SB18:15Coaster NB 18:02 Pacific Surfliner NB18:36 Pacific Surfliner NB 18:15Coaster NB18:53Coaster SB 18:36 Pacific Surfliner NB19:07 Pacific Surfliner SB18:58Coaster SB19:36 Pacific Surfliner NB 19:12 Pacific Surfliner SB20:05Coaster NB 19:35 Pacific Surfliner NB20:08 Pacific Surfliner SB20:04Coaster NB20:36 Pacific Surfliner NB 20:09 Pacific Surfliner SB21:27 Pacific Surfliner SB20:36 Pacific Surfliner NB21:55 Pacific Surfliner NB 21:32 Pacific Surfliner SB22:27 Pacific Surfliner SB21:54 Pacific Surfliner NB22:55 Pacific Surfliner NB 22:29 Pacific Surfliner SB23:56Pacific SurflinerSB22:55 Pacific SurflinerNBGrand/Carlsbad Village TamarackService Type DirectionService Type DirectionOO
Time Gate is Down - Grand & Carlsbad Village1
Grand Ave Sec Min
SB Coaster 200 3.333333333
NB Coaster 70 1.166666667
Pacific Surfliner 50 0.833333333
Departure Rate2 30 veh/min/ln
Time Gate is Down - Tamarack 1
Grand Ave Sec Min
SB Coaster 40 0.666666667
NB Coaster 40 0.666666667
Pacific Surfliner 40 0.666666667
Annual Growth Rates 4
Grand Ave 0.0025
Carlsbad Village Dr 0.0025
Tamarack Ave 0.001
Notes:
1. Estimated based on field observations, rounded up to the nearest minute for analysis
2. Based on a saturation flow rate of 1,800 pc/hr/ln
3. Time Gate Goes Down - Estimated based on field observations
Grand & Carlsbad Village
NB Coaster scheduled time train is at Carlsbad Village Station
NB Surfliner -2 minutes from scheduled time train is at Oceanside Station
SB Coaster -2 minutes from scheduled time train is at Carlsbad Village Station
SB Surfliner +2 minutes from scheduled time train is at Oceanside Station
Tamarack Ave
NB Coaster - 1 minute from scheduled time train is at Carlsbad Village Station
NB Surfliner -3 minutes from scheduled time train is at Oceanside Station
SB Coaster +3 minutes from scheduled time train is at Carlsbad Village Station
SB Surfliner +4 minutes from scheduled time train is at Oceanside Station
4. Based on SANDAG Series 13 unadjusted volumes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Grand Avenue - Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Grand Avenue - Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Carlsbad Village Drive- Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Carlsbad Village Drive- Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Tamarack Avenue - Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Tamarack Avenue - Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Grand Avenue - Future 2035 Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Grand Avenue - Future 2035 Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Carlsbad Village Drive- Future 2035 Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Carlsbad Village Drive- Future 2035 Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Tamarack Avenue - Future 2035 Eastbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMQueue (veh)
Time
Tamarack Avenue - Future 2035 Westbound Vehicles in Queue (Typical Weekday)
APPENDIX 3 - CARLSBAD LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS –
NOISE AND VIBRATION EVALUATION, PREPARED BY DBF ASSOCIATES, INC.
5 9A3D!-"DAC4D C9
-6A $76-,
August 11, 2016
Hitta Mosesman
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
309 West 4th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Carlsbad LOSSAN Rail Corridor Economic Analysis
Noise and Vibration Evaluation
Ms. Mosesman:
We have evaluated the effects of trenching on rail noise and vibration from the
Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor within the City of Carlsbad. The
purpose of the evaluation was to estimate noise and/or vibration level reductions
resulting from reconfiguration of the at-grade rail / roadway crossings to grade-
separated crossings by placing the rail line(s) into a trench. Two alternatives were
evaluated: the Short Trench alternative removes at-grade crossings with Chestnut
Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Grand Avenue; the Long Trench alternative
also removes the at-grade crossing with Tamarack Avenue.
Noise Background
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel
through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is
generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and intensity.
Frequency describes the sound’s pitch and is measured in cycles per second, or
hertz (Hz), whereas intensity describes the sound’s loudness and is measured in
decibels (dB). Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. A sound level of
0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing. Normal speech has a
sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above about 120 dB begin to
be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually as pain at still higher
levels. The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an
average human ear can detect is about 3 dB. The average person perceives a
change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling (or halving) of the sound’s
loudness; this relation holds true for sounds of any loudness.
1$0 CC61"$9$ 6!
,D D$C .3,5
26 9"
Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be
added or subtracted directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle
mathematically. A simple rule is useful, however, in dealing with sound levels. If
a sound’s intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of
the initial sound level. Thus, for example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and 80 dB +
80 dB = 83 dB.
The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20
Hz to 20,000 Hz. However, all sounds in this wide range of frequencies are not
heard equally well by the human ear, which is most sensitive to frequencies in
the range of 1,000 Hz to 4,000 Hz. This frequency dependence can be taken into
account by applying a correction to each frequency range to approximate the
human ear’s sensitivity within each range. This is called A-weighting and is
commonly used in measurements of community environmental noise. The A-
weighted sound pressure level (abbreviated as dBA) is the sound level with the
“A-weighting” frequency correction. In practice, the level of a noise source is
conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter
corresponding to the dBA curve.
Because community noise fluctuates over time, a single measure called the
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is often used to describe the time-varying
character of community noise. The Leq is the energy-averaged A-weighted sound
level during a measured time interval, and is equal to the level of a continuous
steady sound containing the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time
period as the actual time-varying sound. The Lmax is the root-mean-square
maximum noise levels obtained during a measurement interval.
Noise Effects
The LOSSAN Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) /
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [September 2007] discusses noise and
vibration in Section 3.4. In Section 3.4.3.B, trenching through Carlsbad is
addressed, though quantitative benefits are not provided:
The short trench option through Carlsbad would have fewer potential
noise impacts for downtown Carlsbad than the option to leave several
crossings at grade through downtown near the Carlsbad Coaster Station.
The short trench concept would eliminate the train horn noise and
remove the warning bells at the existing at-grade crossing. It would also
place part of the alignment underground in a cut-and-cover tunnel,
reducing train noise through the center of this coastal community.
1$0 CC61"$9$ 6!
,D D$C .3,5
26 9"
Leaving several crossings at grade through the town center would result
in continued noise impacts.
Trenching using parallel non-absorptive walls conservatively provides 9 dBA of
noise attenuation [Alameda Corridor EIR, January 1993]. The transition from at-
grade to fully-trenched (approximately 18 feet deep) corresponds to a range of 0-
9 dBA of reduction. However, the range is not linear over the transition length
because train movement noise is comprised of wheel and engine noise, and a
shallow trench blocks wheel noise while engine noise has a higher acoustic
height. At the halfway point from at-grade to fully-trenched, the noise reduction
is expected to be approximately 3 dBA; from the halfway point to fully-trenched,
the noise reduction is expected to increase linearly to 9 dBA.
During passbys, train horns produce momentary maximum noise levels of 96-110
dBA at 100 feet [U.S. DOT FRA Handbook for Railroad Noise Measurement and
Analysis, October 2009]. “Trains … traveling at speeds in excess of 60 mph shall
not begin sounding the horn more than one-quarter mile in advance of the nearest
public highway-rail grade crossing, even if the advance warning provided by the
locomotive horn will be less than 15 seconds in duration.” [49 CFR §
222.21(b)(3), August 2006]
During passbys, freight trains (without horn soundings) were previously
measured by dBFA staff at 95-97 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, depending on speed.
During passbys, Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains such as NCTD COASTER
and Amtrak trains were previously measured by dBFA staff at 77-83 dBA Lmax
at 50 feet, depending on speed.
Crossing bells produce noise levels of 75-105 dBA at 10 feet [American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Communications
and Signals Manual of Recommended Practices (C&S Manual), 2013].
During a passby, elimination of horn soundings and crossing bells is expected to
result in an average noise reduction of 10 dBA Leq near crossings. Where noise
reductions associated with at-grade crossing removal coincide with those
associated with trenching, the combined effects would result in a conservative
total decrease of 12 dBA Leq. Refer to Figures 1 & 2 for details.
1$0 CC61"$9$ 6!
,D D$C .3,5
26 9 "
During a passby, elimination of horn soundings and crossing bells may also be
expected to lower momentary maximum noise levels by up to approximately 33
dBA [Canadian Transportation Agency Railway Noise Measurement and
Reporting Methodology, August 2011]. Where noise reductions associated with
at-grade crossing removal coincide with those associated with trenching, the
combined effects would result in a decrease ranging from 22-42 dBA Lmax,
depending on train type. The decrease in Lmax would be experienced generally
uniformly along the trench limits.
Vibration Effects
The Vibration Mitigation Guidelines for the California High-Speed Train Project
states:
A trench can be an effective vibration barrier if it changes the
propagation characteristics of the soil. It can be open or solid. Open
trenches can be filled with materials such as Styrofoam. Solid barriers
can be constructed with sheet piling, rows of drilled shafts filled with
either concrete or a mixture of soil and lime, or concrete poured into a
trench.
Trenching would not be unquestionably expected to alter the length of the
vibration path of travel or soil densities between the tracks and nearby structures.
No literature detailing projected or measured vibration changes from trenching
was found.
Findings
The Short Trench alternative would reduce noise levels by up to 12 dBA Leq and
22-42 dBA Lmax between approximately Pacific Avenue to Hemlock Street.
The Long Trench alternative would reduce noise levels by up to 12 dBA Leq and
22-42 dBA Lmax between approximately Pacific Avenue to Olive Avenue.
1$0 CC61"$9$ 6!
,D D$C .3,5
26 9
"
This concludes the memorandum. Please contact me at 619-609-0712 ×102 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
dBF ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steve Fiedler, INCE
Principal
Attachments
Figure 1. Short Trench Noise Reduction (Leq)
Figure 2. Long Trench Noise Reduction (Leq)
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT B:
LOCATION MAP
!
!
!OCEANSIDECARLSBADG R A N D A V E
G R A N D A V E
§¨¦5
Buena Vista
Lagoon
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
STATION
!CP Carl
(MP 229.6)
O A K A V E
O A K A V E
C A R L S B A D V IL L A G E D R
C A R L S B A D V IL L A G E D R
C H E S T N U T A V
C H E S T N U T A V
Agua Hedionda
LagoonCARLSBAD DRCARLSBAD DRCARLSBAD BLVD OH
END TRENCH
T AM A R A C K A V
T AM A R A C K A V
BEGIN SHORT
TRENCH ALT
BEGIN LONG
TRENCH ALT
MP 230
MP 229
2012 San Diego Imagery Acquisition Partnership (Flight Dates: May 20 - June 6,2012)
®
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
TRENCH ALTERNATIVE STUDY
LOCATION MAP
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT C:
RAIL MAINLINE CAPACITY AND GRADE SEPARATION EVALUATION SUMMARIES
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 4-55
Table TA 4.22 - 2050 San Diego Regional Goods Movement Strategy – Project Rankings
Throughput Relieves Freight System Bottlenecks/ Capacity Constraints and Reduces Delay Improves Freight System and/or Modal Safety Improves Freight System Management/ Efficiency Provides Critical Modal/ Intermodal Link/ Connectivity Cost-Effectiveness Minimizes Community Impacts Minimizes Environmental/ Habitat Impacts Total Points Modal Ranking System/Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions)20 20 5 10 10 15 10 10
Out
of
100 Rank
Maritime
Vesta Street Bridge Mobility Connector over Harbor Drive
at Naval Base San Diego
$60 15 13 5 0 5 4 10 10 62 1
TAMT1 Enhance Military Project Cargo Capacity, expand
open storage
$19 20 15 2 0 5 12 0 5 59 2
32nd Street Freeway Access Enhancement $119 15 16 5 5 5 3 2 5 56 3
TAMT Entrance, Rail Line Grade Separation/ Barrio Logan
Enhancement
$67 5 13 5 5 5 3 10 10 56 3
NCMT2 Wharf Extension, Vehicle Processing Facility, Berths
24-10 and 24-11
$151 20 14 2 0 5 3 0 10 54 5
NCMT Bay Marina Drive, Civic Center Freeway Access
Improvements
$7 10 10 2 5 5 3 2 10 47 6
Rail Mainline Capacity
LOSSAN3 CP San Onofre to CP Pulgas Double-Track $61 20 15 0 5 5 12 0 5 62 1
LOSSAN CP Ponto to CP Moonlight Double-Track $28 9 8 0 5 5 9 0 5 41 2
LOSSAN Sorrento to Miramar Phase II Double-Track $100 6 15 0 5 5 4 0 5 40 3
LOSSAN CP Moonlight to CP Swami Double-Track $20 3 8 0 5 5 6 0 10 37 4
LOSSAN Penasquitos Double-Track $80 6 11 0 5 5 4 0 5 36 5
LOSSAN Carlsbad Village Double-Track $28 3 9 0 5 5 6 0 5 33 6
LOSSAN San Dieguito Bridge/Double-Track $76 4 6 0 5 5 4 0 5 28 7
LOSSAN CP Tecolote to CP Friar Double-Track $44 3 4 0 5 5 4 0 5 26 8
Desert Line Basic Service, Rehabilitation $182 2 0 0 0 5 3 0 5 15 9
Rail Intermodal Capacity
National City Rail Yard $7 10 5 5 0 10 12 0 5 47 1
Logistics Center South County $180 20 5 0 0 10 3 0 5 43 2
Logistics Center Mid County $2,130 20 5 0 0 10 3 0 5 43 2
Logistics Center North County $166 20 5 0 0 10 3 0 5 43 2
LOSSANLOSSAN Carlsbad Village Double-Track $28 3 9 0 5 5 6 0 5 33 6
TA 4-64 Technical Appendix 4: Transportation Evaluation Criteria and Rankings
Table TA 4.24 – Rail Grade Separation Rankings
At Grade Crossing Location Rank
Veh.
per Day
ADT
Trains
per
Day Accidents
Total
Points
Estimated
Cost to
Grade
Separate
($2010) (mil) Assumptions
Washington, Laurel, Hawthorn, Grape, Ash,
and Broadway Streets, San Diego
1 263,945 137 8 80.8 $2,200 see note (1)
Taylor Street, San Diego 2 42,670 195 4 62.8 $110 see note (4)
Broadway/Lemon Grove Avenue, Lemon
Grove
3 40,403 144 2 57.8 $80 light rail only (4)
Palomar Street, Chula Vista 4 59,337 206 0 55.5 $40 light rail only (4)
H Street, Chula Vista 5 47,596 206 0 53.3 $40 light rail only (4)
E Street, Chula Vista 6 45,658 206 1 50.3 $40 light rail only (4)
Euclid Avenue, San Diego 7 37,000 144 0 46.3 $40 light rail only (4)
Washington St./Sassafras St., San Diego 8 30,345 206 0 46.3 $150 light rail only (4)
Vista Village Drive/Main Street, Vista 9 61,698 67 0 46.0 $60 light rail only (2)
Civic Center Drive, Vista 10 40,782 67 0 46.0 $40 light rail only
28th Street, San Diego 11 33,225 206 0 44.8 $40 light rail only (4)
Ash Street, San Diego 12 30,575 206 0 44.0 $100 light rail only
Broadway, San Diego 13 27,845 144 0 43.3 $110 light rail only
32nd Street, San Diego 14 32,470 206 0 42.5 $40 light rail only (4)
Allison Ave/University Ave/La Mesa Blvd,
La Mesa
15 24,700 144 0 40.3 $100 light rail only (4)
Severin Drive, La Mesa 16 13,611 288 2 40.3 $40 light rail only (4)
Sorrento Valley Blvd., San Diego 17 37,990 51 1 39.5 $130
Melrose Drive, Vista 18 25,921 67 0 31.8 $40 light rail only (2)
El Camino Real, Oceanside 19 35,911 67 0 31.7 $40 light rail only (2)
North Drive, Vista 20 8,793 67 0 29.5 $30 light rail only
Mar Vista Drive, Vista 21 9,665 67 0 28.8 $30 light rail only
Los Angeles Drive, Vista 22 4,291 67 0 28.8 $30 light rail only
Grand Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad
23 21,113 51 0 28.3 $110
Guajome Street, Vista 24 4,152 67 0 28.0 $30 light rail only
Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad 25 10,568 51 0 23.8 $90
Cannon Road, Carlsbad 26 12,434 51 0 22.3 $90
Leucadia Blvd., Encinitas 27 34,000 51 1 22.0 $90 see note (3)
Total $3,940
(1) Heavy rail trench only from Washington St. to Downtown San Diego estimated at $1.9 billion
(2) Included in the SPRINTER double-track project (West Mission Rd, San Marcos also is included at estimated cost of $40 million)
(3) Included in the COASTER double-track
(4) Included in Blue/Orange Lines frequency enhancements
Grand Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad
23 21,113 51 0 28.3 $110
Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad 25 10,568 51 0 23.8 $90
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT D:
SHORT TRENCH ALTERNATIVE PLAN & PROFILE
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2390+00 TO STA 2415+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2365+00 TO STA 2390+00
TEMPORARY STATION PLATFORMAS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2340+00 TO 2365+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2315+00 TO 2340+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2290+00 TO 2315+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2265+00 TO 2290+00
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT E:
LONG TRENCH ALTERNATIVE PLAN & PROFILE
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2390+00 TO STA 2415+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2365+00 TO STA 2390+00
TEMPORARY STATION PLATFORMAS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2340+00 TO 2365+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2315+00 TO 2340+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2290+00 TO 2315+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2265+00 TO 2290+00
AS SHOWN--------CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACKPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTA 2240+00 TO 2265+00
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT F:
SHORT TRENCH ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Short Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
DESIGN
Alternative Analysis and Environmental 3 %CCE $4,659,490
Design-30% Package 3 %CCE $4,659,490
Design-60% and Permits 3.6 %CCE $5,591,389
Design-90%, Final, Bid Support 3.6 %CCE $5,591,389
SANDAG Administration 3.7 %CCE $5,746,705
NCTD Administration 0.6 %CCE $931,898
Design Subtotal $27,180,361
RIGHT OF WAY
Temporary R/W, Easements 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Property Acquisition 0 AC $0 $0
R/W Contingency 35 %R/W Costs $28,000
Right of Way Subtotal $108,000
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Construction Cost Estimate (CCE)$155,400,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Design Services During Construction 2.76 %CCE $4,286,731
Construction Management and Testing 16 %CCE $24,850,616
SANDAG Const. Admin.1.7 %CCE $2,640,378
NCTD Const. Admin.0.35 %CCE $543,607
NCTD Support 4.8 %CCE $7,455,184.76
PTC Survey 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Railroad Flagging Services 10000 Hours $65 $650,000
Ancillary Construction Cost Subtotal $40,826,517
OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Coastal (Freshwater Marsh) Wetlands 3 Acre $185,000 $555,000
Offsite Mitigation Cost Subtotal $555,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $224,100,000
COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Cumulative Estimated Escalation
2016 0.00%$224,100,000 $0
2017 2.80%$230,374,800 $6,274,800
2018 5.60%$236,825,294 $12,725,294
2019 8.40%$243,456,403 $19,356,403
2020 11.20%$250,273,182 $26,173,182
2021 14.00%$257,280,831 $33,180,831
2022 16.80%$264,484,694 $40,384,694
2023 19.60%$271,890,266 $47,790,266
TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN 2016 DOLLARS $224,100,000
TOTAL COST ESCALATION $47,790,266
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $271,900,000
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
Annual %
0.00%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
Sheet 1 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Short Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Construction Cost Estimate Based on Preliminary Design
Trackwork
Track-136lb CWR, Ties, & Ballast 22960 TF $285 $6,543,600
Track-115lb CWR, Ties, & Ballast 300 TF $285 $85,500
Subballast 10,118 CY $64 $647,552
Track Removal 16489 TF $40 $659,560
Track Realignment/Shifting 6933 TF $70 $485,310
Temporary Turnout Relocation 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
Temporary Turnout 2 EA $700,000 $1,400,000
Turnout Removal 2 EA $40,000 $80,000
Temporary Shoofly Track 7100 TF $285 $2,023,500
Install Insulated Joints 8 PAIR $10,000 $80,000
Trackwork Subtotal $12,205,022
Site Civil
Clear and Grub 628540 SF $1 $628,540
Earthwork-Embankment 27459 CY $35 $961,065
Earthwork-Excavation 381453 CY $20 $7,629,060
Temporary Embankment/Removal 4000 CY $55 $220,000
Temporary Shoring 6600 SF $30 $198,000
Dewatering 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
At-grade Xing New Panel 490 LF $2,400 $1,176,000
Temporary Fencing and Controls 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Temporary Platform 8700 SF $8 $69,600
Inter-track Fence 1230 LF $50 $61,500
Platform/Parking/Street Demolition 32000 SF $2 $64,000
Station Building Demolition 1 LS $7,000 $7,000
Relocate Historic Train Depot 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Construct Station Platform 28050 SF $8 $224,400
Construct AC Pavement 126039 SF $4 $506,677
Aggregate Base 126039 SF $2 $231,911.76
Construct PCC Pavement 3400 SF $20 $68,000
Construct Sidewalk 252223 SF $6 $1,387,227
Construct Curb and Gutter 2172 LF $23 $49,956
Construct Median Curb and Gutter 1107 LF $23 $25,461
Truncated Domes 5620 SF $30 $168,600
Mini-High Platform 4 EA $25,000 $100,000
Construct Type A SD Cleanout 1 EA $4,500 $4,500
Construct Type B Curb Inlet 2 EA $5,500 $11,000
Fencing 11504 LF $22 $253,088
Storm Drain Pump Station 1 EA $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Construct Headwall (D-35A)2 EA $7,653 $15,306.82
Construct Type B SD Cleanout 18 EA $8,009 $144,162
Install 12" PVC Storm Drain 213 LF $72 $15,300
Install 18" PVC Storm Drain 19 LF $239 $4,532
Install 30" RCP Storm Drain 1959 LF $129 $251,986.17
Install 36" RCP Storm Drain 1274 LF $150 $190,820
Sheet 2 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Short Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Remove Storm Drain 487 LF $62 $30,238
Concrete Channel 3591 LF $1,157 $4,154,464
Drainage DItch 9460 LF $27 $252,582
Install 24-inch RCP 95 LF $115 $10,925
Install 30-inch RCP 830 LF $135 $112,050
Construct Headwall 3 EA $5,400 $16,200
Rip-Rap 300 CY $170 $51,000
Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
Traffic Control 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
Traffic Striping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Civil Subtotal $21,760,151
Structures
Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge 9899 SF $285 $2,821,215
Remove Existing Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge 1 LS $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Carlsbad Blvd Overpass 10200 SF $250 $2,550,000
Remove Existing Carlsbad Blvd Overpass 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
Beech Ave Pedestrian Overpass 792 SF $200 $158,400
Grand Ave Overpass 5544 SF $225 $1,247,400
Carlsbad Village Dr. Overpass 5544 SF $225 $1,247,400
Oak Ave Overpass 3036 SF $200 $607,200
Chestnut Pedestrian Overpass 792 SF $200 $158,400
Stairway Retaining Walls 1000 CY $650 $650,000
Construct Concrete Steps 101 CY $800 $80,800
Trench Structure 1 LS $51,170,000 $51,170,000
Structures Subtotal $62,640,815
Utility Relocation
UG Fiber Optic in HDPE Conduit 9565 LF $50 $478,250
12-inch HP Gas 1 LF $125,000 $125,000
10-inch VCP Sewer 1 LF $46,500 $46,500
Street Light and Pull Box 2 EA $3,000 $6,000
1-inch Irrigation Service 1 EA $2,400 $2,400
Relocate 10-inch water 240 LF $180 $43,200
Relocate 1-inch gas 160 LF $100 $16,000
Relocate Gas - through bridge 280 LF $300 $84,000
Relcoate Water-through bridge 560 LF $180 $100,800
Construct Special Case 10ft Manhole @ 48"1 EA $14,000 $14,000
Remove Sewer Pipe 381 LF $46 $17,709
Sewer Manhole (3'x5')12 EA $5,344 $64,127
Install 6-inch PVC Sewer Main 152 LF $92 $13,922
Install 8-inch PVC Sewer Main 1037 LF $108 $111,612
Install 10-inch PVC Sewer Main 1852 LF $119 $220,592
Relocate Telecom-through bridge 280 LF $300 $84,000
Relocate UG Fiber Optic 9769 LF $50 $488,450
Relocate UG Telecom 346 LF $50 $17,300
Utility Relocation Subtotal $1,933,862
Sheet 3 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Short Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Environmental
SWPPP (Temp Erosion Control)1 LS $250,000 $250,000
Permenant Erosion Control 75000 SF $1 $75,000
Onsite Coastal Wetlands 0.6 Acre $145,000 $87,000
Onsite Non-Coastal (Southern Willow Scrub)0.4 Acre $145,000 $58,000
Onsite Non-Coastal (Freshwater Marsh)0.3 Acre $145,000 $43,500
Onsite Sensative Uplands 0.2 Acre $145,000 $29,000
Monitors - Environmental/Biological 1400 Hours $150 $210,000
Monitors - Paleo/Archeology 960 Hours $150 $144,000
Environmental Mitigation Subtotal $896,500
Signal
CP Carl Removal 1 LS $130,000 $130,000
CP Longboard Removal 1 LS $130,500 $130,500
Temporary Relocation of CP Longboard 1 LS $550,000 $550,000
Installation of Temporary Control Point North 1 LS $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Installation of Temporary Control Point South 1 LS $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Carlsbad Village Ped Crossing Removal 1 LS $45,000 $45,000
Grand Ave Crossing Removal 1 LS $52,500 $52,500
Carlsbad Village Dr Crossing Removal 1 LS $52,500 $52,500
Grand Ave Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Carlsbad Village Dr Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Tamarack Ave Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Grand Ave Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Carlsbad Village Dr Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Tamarack Ave Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Intermediate Signals 2301/2304 (New)1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Intermediate Signals 2281/2284 (New)1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Intermediate Signals 2291/2293 (New)1 LS $875,000 $875,000
Cassidy St Crossing Modifications 1 LS $105,000 $105,000
Tamarack Ave Crossing Modifications 1 LS $96,000 $96,000
PTC Modifications 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
TMDS Modifications 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
NCTD Flagging Support 200 Day $1,200 $240,000
NCTD Signal Support 200 Day $1,200 $240,000
Signal Subtotal $9,266,500
Architectural
Platform Shelter 14 EA $70,000 $980,000
Platform Benches 14 LS $3,900 $54,600
Tubular Hand Rails 904 LF $75 $67,800
Signs 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Restroom Building 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Elevator 2 EA $180,000 $360,000
Platform Ammenities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Architectural Subtotal $1,837,400
Electrical
Light Fixtures 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
Wiring and Conduit 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Security Cameras and PA System 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Temporary Platform Lighting 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Electrical Subtotal $400,000
Sheet 4 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Short Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)$110,940,249
Other Construction Costs
Contractor Mobilization (once)7.5 %BCE $8,320,519
Contractor Demobilization (once)2.5 %BCE $2,773,506
Contingency 30 %BCE $33,282,075
Other Construction Cost Subtotal $44,376,100
Construction Cost Estimate (CCE)$155,316,349
COST CHANGE WITH 24-FOOT VERTICAL CLEARANCE
Earthwork-Excavation -29663 CY $20 -$593,260
Trench Structure 1 LS -$4,930,000 -$4,930,000
Contractor Mobilization (once)7.5 %BCE -$414,245
Contractor Demobilization (once)2.5 %BCE -$138,081
Contingency 30 %BCE -$1,656,978
Construction Cost Change -$7,732,564
DESIGN -$1,353,199
RIGHT-OF-WAY $0
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -$1,980,310
OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION $0
Project Cost Change -$11,066,073
Sheet 5 of 5
TRENCH COST ESTIMATE:
Short Trench Option
2' from Top of Rail to Trench Floor Average
Beg Sta End Sta Beg H End H Wall H Wall Length Tot wall L Tot Wall area # of piles Length of pile Length of pile Seal course Seal course Vol Slab Th Slab Concrete
(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(sqft)(Primary)(Primary)(Secondary)(ft)(cy)(ft)(cy)
Type I Wall 230245.2 230589.9 6 10 8 344.7 344.7 2757.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Secant Wall (With GW)230589.9 232150.8 10 28 19 1560.83 1560.83 29655.77 392 40 35 9 29656 2 6590
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 1)232150.8 232735.5 28 32 30 584.76 1169.52 35085.6 148 60.5 50.5 12.5 15431 3 3703
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 2)232735.5 233426.8 32 32 32 691.28 1382.56 44241.92 174 57.5 52.5 12.5 18242 3 4378
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 3)233426.8 234128.1 32 28 30 701.3 1402.6 42078 177 55.5 50.5 12.5 18507 3 4442
Secant Wall (With GW)234128.1 235328.8 28 10 19 1200.68 2401.36 45625.84 302 45 35 9 22813 2 5070
Type I Wall 235328.8 235699.8 10 6 8 371.06 742.12 5936.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall TypeWall Height to bottom of ballast (FT)Total Wall Length (FT)Wall Area (FT)Estimate for Walls / SQFTSlab Volume (CY)Estimate for Invert Slab / CYSeal Course VolumeEstimate for Seal Course / CYWall length with Struts (LF)Estimate for Struts / FT of wall lengthEstimated Trench Structure Cost Type I 10' max 1086.82 8694.56 $65 0 $475 0 $150 0 $900 $570,000.00
Secant Pile (No Struts)10' to 28'3962.19 75281.61 $110 11660 $475 52469 $150 0 $900 $21,690,000.00
Secant Pile + Struts 28' to 32'3954.68 121405.52 $110 12523 $475 52180 $150 1,977 $900 $28,910,000.00
$51,170,000TOTAL
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT G:
LONG TRENCH ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Long Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
DESIGN
Alternative Analysis and Environmental 3 %CCE $6,765,803
Design-30% Package 3 %CCE $6,765,803
Design-60% and Permits 3.6 %CCE $8,169,707
Design-90%, Final, Bid Support 3.6 %CCE $8,169,707
SANDAG Administration 3.7 %CCE $8,429,062
NCTD Administration 0.6 %CCE $1,426,457
Design Subtotal $39,726,538
RIGHT OF WAY
Temporary R/W, Easements 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Property Acquisition 1 LS $7,350,000 $7,350,000
R/W Contingency 35 %R/W Costs $2,600,500
Right of Way Subtotal $10,030,500
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Construction Cost Estimate (CCE)$225,600,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Design Services During Construction 2.76 %CCE $6,224,538
Construction Management and Testing 16.0 %CCE $36,084,281
SANDAG Const. Admin.1.7 %CCE $3,890,337
NCTD Const. Admin.0.35 %CCE $778,067
NCTD Support 4.80 %CCE $10,825,284
PTC Survey 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Railroad Flagging Services 14000 Hours $70 $980,000
Ancillary Construction Cost Subtotal $59,182,507
OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Coastal (Freshwater Marsh) Wetlands 3 Acre $185,000 $555,000
Offsite Mitigation Cost Subtotal $555,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $335,100,000
COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Cumulative Estimated Escalation
2016 0.00%$335,100,000 $0
2017 2.80%$344,482,800 $9,382,800
2018 5.60%$354,128,318 $19,028,318
2019 8.40%$364,043,911 $28,943,911
2020 11.20%$374,237,141 $39,137,141
2021 14.00%$384,715,781 $49,615,781
2022 16.80%$395,487,823 $60,387,823
2023 19.60%$406,561,482 $71,461,482
TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN 2016 DOLLARS $335,100,000
TOTAL COST ESCALATION $71,461,482
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $406,600,000
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
Annual %
0.00%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
Sheet 1 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Long Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Construction Cost Estimate Based on Preliminary Design
Trackwork
Track-136lb CWR, Ties, & Ballast 23223 TF $285 $6,618,555
Track-115lb CWR, Ties, & Ballast 300 TF $285 $85,500
Subballast 12,607 CY $64 $806,848
Track Removal 16752 TF $40 $670,080
Track Realignment/Shifting 4630 TF $70 $324,100
Temporary Turnout Relocation 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
Temporary No 24 Turnout 2 EA $700,000 $1,400,000
Turnout Removal 2 EA $40,000 $80,000
Temporary Shoofly Track 8600 TF $285 $2,451,000
Install Insulated Joints 8 PAIR $10,000 $80,000
Trackwork Subtotal $12,716,083
Site Civil
Clear and Grub 760432 SF $1 $760,432
Earthwork-Embankment 28401 CY $35 $994,035
Earthwork-Excavation 628526 CY $20 $12,570,520
Temporary Embankment/Removal 4000 CY $55 $220,000
Temporary Shoring 6600 SF $30 $198,000
Dewatering 1 LS $1,800,000 $1,800,000
At-grade Xing New Panel 356 LF $2,400 $854,400
Temporary Fencing and Controls 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Temporary Platform 8700 SF $8 $69,600
Inter-track Fence 1230 LF $50 $61,500
Platform/Parking/Street Demolition 32000 SF $2 $64,000
Station Building Demolition 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Relocate Historic Train Depot 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Construct Station Platform 28050 SF $8 $224,400
Construct AC Pavement 139062.6 SF $4 $559,032
Aggregate Base 139062.6 SF $2 $255,875.22
Construct PCC Pavement 3400 SF $20 $68,000
Construct Sidewalk 26775 SF $6 $147,263
Construct Curb and Gutter 2172 LF $23 $49,956
Construct Median Curb and Gutter 1107 LF $23 $25,461
Truncated Domes 5620 SF $30 $168,600
Mini-High Platform 2 EA $25,000 $50,000
Construct Type A SD Cleanout 1 EA $4,500 $4,500
Construct Type B Curb Inlet 2 EA $5,500 $11,000
Fencing 15718 LF $22 $345,796
Storm Drain Pump Station 2 EA $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Install 12" PVC Storm Drain 213 LF $72 $15,300
Install 18" PVC Storm Drain 19 LF $239 $4,532
Construct Headwall (D-35A)2 EA $7,700 $15,400
Install 30" RCP Storm Drain 1830 LF $129 $235,393
Install 36" RCP Storm Drain 1274 LF $150 $190,820
Remove 84" RCP SD 3453 LF $120 $414,360
Construct Type B SD Cleanout 30 EA $8,000 $240,000
84" RCP Storm Drain 3451 LF $640 $2,208,640
Sheet 2 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Long Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Remove Storm Drain 595 LF $62 $36,944
Remove Sewer Pipe 841 LF $46 $39,090
Concrete Channel 3595 LF $260 $934,700
Drainage DItch 12966 LF $27 $346,192
Install 24-inch RCP 95 LF $115 $10,925
Install 30-inch RCP 830 LF $135 $112,050
Construct Headwall 3 EA $5,400 $16,200
Rip-Rap 300 CY $170 $51,000
Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
Traffic Control 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Civil Subtotal $26,888,915
Structures
Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge 9899 SF $285 $2,821,215
Remove Existing Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge 1 LS $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Carlsbad Blvd Overpass 10200 SF $250 $2,550,000
Remove Existing Carlsbad Blvd Overpass 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
Beech Ave Pedestrian Overpass 660 SF $200 $132,000
Grand Ave Overpass 4620 SF $225 $1,039,500
Carlsbad Village Dr. Overpass 4620 SF $225 $1,039,500
Oak Ave Overpass 2530 SF $200 $506,000
Chestnut Ave Overpass 3080 SF $200 $616,000
Tamarack Ave Overpass 3300 SF $225 $742,500
Stairway Retaining Walls 1000 CY $650 $650,000
Construct Concrete Steps 101 CY $800 $80,800
Trench Structure 1 LS $93,700,000 $93,700,000
Structures Subtotal $105,827,515
Utility Relocation
UG Fiber Optic in HDPE Conduit 9565 LF $50 $478,250
12-inch HP Gas 1 LF $125,000 $125,000
10-inch VCP Sewer 1 LF $46,500 $46,500
Street Light and Pull Box 2 EA $3,000 $6,000
1-inch Irrigation Service 1 EA $2,400 $2,400
Relocate 10-inch water 240 LF $180 $43,200
Relocate 1-inch gas 160 LF $100 $16,000
Relocate Gas - through bridge 400 LF $300 $120,000
Relcoate Water-through bridge 560 LF $180 $100,800
Relocate Telecom-through bridge 280 LF $300 $84,000
Remove 48" RCP Sewer 3552 LF $41 $146,200
Remove Manhole 7 EA $1,390 $9,727
Sheet 3 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Long Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Construct Special Case 10ft Manhole @ 48"3 EA $14,000 $42,000
Sewer Manhole (3'x5')18 EA $5,500 $99,000
48" RCP Sewer Main 5314 LF $210 $1,115,940
Remove Sewer Pipe 841 LF $46 $39,090
Install 6-inch PVC Sewer Main 152 LF $92 $13,922
Install 8-inch PVC Sewer Main 755 LF $108 $81,261
Install 10-inch PVC Sewer Main 3542 LF $119 $421,888
Relocate UG Fiber Optic 9769 LF $50 $488,450
Relocate UG Telecom 466 LF $50 $23,300
Relocate UG Electric 120 LF $200 $24,000
Utility Relocation Subtotal $3,526,927
Environmental
SWPPP (Temp Erosion Control)1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Permenant Erosion Control 75000 SF $1 $75,000
Onsite Coastal Wetlands 0.6 Acre $145,000 $87,000
Onsite Non-Coastal (Southern Willow Scrub)0.4 Acre $145,000 $58,000
Onsite Non-Coastal (Freshwater Marsh)0.3 Acre $145,000 $43,500
Onsite Sensative Uplands 0.2 Acre $145,000 $29,000
Monitors - Environmental/Biological 1400 Hours $150 $210,000
Monitors - Paleo/Archeology 1840 Hours $150 $276,000
Environmental Mitigation Subtotal $978,500
Signal
CP Carl Removal 1 LS $130,000 $130,000
CP Longboard Removal 1 LS $130,500 $130,500
Temporary Relocation of CP Longboard 1 LS $550,000 $550,000
Installation of New Single Crossover Control Point North 1 LS $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Installation of New Single Crossover Control Point South 1 LS $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Carlsbad Village Ped Crossing Removal 1 LS $45,000 $45,000
Grand Ave Crossing Removal 1 LS $52,500 $52,500
Carlsbad Village Dr Crossing Removal 1 LS $52,500 $52,500
Tamarack Ave Crossing Removal 1 LS $52,500 $52,500
Grand Ave Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Carlsbad Village Dr Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Tamarack Ave Temporary Gate Relocation (WB Gates)1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Grand Ave Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Carlsbad Village Dr Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Tamarack Ave Gate Removal 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Intermediate Signals 2301/2304 (New)1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Intermediate Signals 2281/2284 (New)1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Intermediate Signals 2291/2293 (New)1 LS $875,000 $875,000
Cassidy St Crossing Modifications 1 LS $105,000 $105,000
PTC Modifications 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
TMDS Modifications 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
NCTD Flagging Support 200 Day $1,200 $240,000
NCTD Signal Support 200 Day $1,200 $240,000
Signal Subtotal $9,223,000
Sheet 4 of 5
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
Long Trench Alternative Estimate Design Level: Preliminary
12/6/2016 Estimated By: Philip Brand
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Subtotals
Architectural
Platform Shelter 12 EA $70,000 $840,000
Platform Benches 12 EA $3,900 $46,800
Tubular Hand Rails 904 LF $75 $67,800
Signs 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Construct New Restroom Building 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Elevator 2 EA $100,000 $200,000
Platform Ammenities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Architectural Subtotal $1,529,600
Electrical
Light Fixtures 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
Wiring and Conduit 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Security Cameras and PA System 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Temporary Platform Lighting 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Electrical Subtotal $400,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)$161,090,539
Other Construction Costs
Contractor Mobilization (once)7.5 %BCE $12,081,790
Contractor Demobilization (once)2.5 %BCE $4,027,263
Contingency 30 %BCE $48,327,162
Other Construction Cost Subtotal $64,436,216
Construction Cost Estimate (CCE)$225,526,755
COST CHANGE WITH 24-FOOT VERTICAL CLEARANCE
Earthwork-Excavation -48195 CY $20 -$963,900
Trench Structure 1 LS -$9,300,000 -$9,300,000
Contractor Mobilization (once)7.5 %BCE -$769,792
Contractor Demobilization (once)2.5 %BCE -$256,597
Contingency 30 %BCE -$3,079,170
Construction Cost Change -$14,369,460
DESIGN -$2,531,180
RIGHT-OF-WAY $0
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -$3,682,892
OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION $0
Project Cost Change -$20,583,532
Sheet 5 of 5
TRENCH COST ESTIMATE:
Long Trench Option
2' from Top of Rail to Trench Floor Average
Beg Sta End Sta Beg H End H Wall H Wall Length Tot wall L Tot Wall area # of piles Length of pile Length of pile Seal course Seal course Vol Slab Th Slab Concrete
(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(sqft)(Primary)(Primary)(Secondary)(ft)(cy)(ft)(cy)
Type I Wall 227900 228265.3 6 10 8 365.26 730.52 5844.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Secant Wall (With GW)228265.3 229075 10 28 19 809.74 1619.48 30770.12 204 40 35 9 15385 2 3419
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 1)229075 229849.9 28 32 30 774.93 1549.86 46495.8 195 55.5 50.5 12.5 20450 3 4908
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 2)229849.9 233466.4 32 32 32 3616.49 7232.98 231455.36 906 57.5 52.5 12.5 95435 3 22904
Secant Wall with Struts (Region 3)233466.4 234128.3 32 28 30 661.84 1323.68 39710.4 167 55.5 50.5 12.5 17465 3 4192
Secant Wall (With GW)234128.3 235328.9 28 10 19 1200.68 2401.36 45625.84 302 40 35 9 22813 2 5070
Type I wall 235328.9 235700 10 6 8 371.06 742.12 5936.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall TypeWall Height to bottom of ballast (FT)Total Wall Length (FT)Wall Area (FT)Estimate for Walls / SQFTSlab Volume (CY)Estimate for Invert Slab / CYSeal Course VolumeEstimate for Seal Course / CYWall length with Struts (LF)Estimate for Struts / FT of wall lengthEstimated Trench Structure Cost Type I 10' max 1472.64 11781.12 $65 0 $475 0 $150 $0 $900 $800,000.00
Secant Pile (No Struts)10' to 28'4020.84 76395.96 $110 8488 $475 38198 $150 $0 $900 $18,200,000.00
Secant Pile + Struts 28' to 32'10106.52 317661.56 $110 32004 $475 133350 $150 5,053 $900 $74,700,000.00
$93,700,000TOTAL
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study
SANDAG / City of Carlsbad / NCTD January 2017
ATTACHMENT H:
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT
14
DATE:
PREPAR
PREPAR
SUBJEC
1.0 Intro
This tech
designers
Project th
track pro
corridor
provided
considere
of the pro
2.0 Proj
The Carl
rail lines
Town Sa
the north
of an ap
Overpass
Overpass
project a
Location
The shor
approxim
structure
Drive, O
six (6) o
Avenue w
seventh (
45 Vallecitos de
RED FOR:
RED BY:
CT:
oduction
hnical memo
s in evaluat
hrough the C
ofiles betwee
below grade
d in this m
ed prelimina
oject if eithe
ject Locatio
lsbad Village
s along the L
an Diego. Th
hern end of th
pproximately
s and Tamar
s and the no
area and app
n Map (Figur
rter trench o
mately 8400
s; Carlsbad
ak Drive an
overpass stru
would be a
(7th) overpas
e Oro, Suite E,
May 23, 2
Jay Holom
Kumar Gh
Phillip Bra
Michael H
Prelimina
Carlsbad
Carlsbad,
orandum has
ting the fea
City of Carl
en Buena Vis
e to elimina
emorandum
ary. Final de
er of the tren
n and Descr
e Double Tr
LOSSAN co
he Carlsbad V
he Agua He
y 25 to 30
rack Drive fo
orthern end o
proximate lim
re 1). Design
option is app
ft in lengt
Boulevard,
d Chestnut A
uctures incl
vehicle ove
ss at Tamarac
, San Marcos, C
016
mbo / T.Y. L
hosh / TYlin
and / TYLin
Hoshiyama an
ary Geotech
Village Dou
, California
s been prepa
asibility of t
lsbad. It is o
sta Lagoon a
ate at-grade
are for th
esign recomm
nch alternativ
ription
rack is a sma
orridor betw
Village Dou
dionda Lago
ft deep tre
or the shorte
of the Agua
mits of the
n exhibits for
proximately
th. The sh
Beech Ave
Avenue (Ped
uded on the
rpass as opp
ck Drive.
CA 92069 Te
TEC
in Internatio
n
nd Eric Brow
hnical Design
uble Track –
ared to provi
trench altern
our understa
and Agua He
rail and tra
he Advanced
mendations
ves is selecte
all part of SA
ween the San
uble Track pr
oon. The two
ench that ex
er trench opt
Hedionda L
trenches fo
r the two alte
6000 ft in
horter trench
enue (Pedes
destrian). Th
e short tren
posed to ped
el: (760) 736-8
CHNICA
E
onal (TYLin)
wn / Earth M
n Report
– Trench A
ide geotechn
natives for
anding that S
edionda Lag
affic intersec
d Planning
will be prov
ed as the pre
ANDAG’s o
n Diego/Ora
roject limits
o alternative
xtends betw
tion and betw
Lagoon for t
or both optio
ernatives are
length whil
h would in
strian), Gran
he longer tre
nch option b
destrian cros
8222 Fax: (76
AL MEM
EMI PROJE
)
Mechanics, In
Alternative
nical inform
the LOSSA
SANDAG is
goon that wo
ctions. The r
Study only
vided during
ferred altern
overall proje
ange County
extend from
es under con
ween the Car
ween the Ca
the longer tr
ons are show
e included in
e the longer
nclude six (
nd Avenue,
ench option w
but the over
ssing. There
60) 736-8122
ORAND
ECT NO: 12
nc. (EMI)
ation to assi
AN Double
s considerin
ould lower th
recommenda
y and shou
g the PS&E
native.
ect to provid
y border and
m Vista Aven
nsideration c
rlsbad Boul
arlsbad Boul
rench option
wn in the P
n Attachmen
r trench opt
(6) new ove
Carlsbad V
would includ
rpass at Che
e would also
DUM
2-146
ist the
Track
g two
he rail
ations
uld be
phase
de two
d Old
nue to
onsist
levard
levard
n. The
Project
nt 1.
tion is
erpass
Village
de the
estnut
o be a
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 2
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
3.0 Site Geology
The project area is within the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province,
which comprises ranges and valleys extending southeasterly from the Los Angeles-San
Bernardino region to the Baja Peninsula in Mexico, between the San Andreas fault on the east
and the Pacific Ocean. According to the County of San Diego, the project site is also located
within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain region, ranging from
approximately 1 to 12 miles wide, is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the
Peninsular Ranges to the east. It is characterized by broad, planar mesas gently sloping to the
west, incised by deep canyons. The Peninsular Ranges are a group of northwest-southeast
trending mountains and valleys between the San Andreas fault on the east and the offshore area
called the Continental Borderland. Bedrock in the Peninsular Ranges is predominantly composed
of Mesozoic-age granitics. The region surrounding San Diego, including the offshore Continental
Borderland area, is transected by a series of long, mostly northwest-trending, strike-slip fault
systems. The site is within a series of relatively flat terraces immediately inland from the beach.
The coastal terraces are dissected by westerly flowing streams, most of which are under tidal
influences near the coast forming broad tidal flats and estuaries.
The site is underlain by a shallow section of young to old alluvial paralic deposits which consist
of gray medium dense to dense sands intertongued with dark gray, soft to stiff silts and clays. The
marine and continental paralic deposits are associated estuarine/lagoonal, alluvial, and littoral
depositional environments.
The old paralic deposits are underlain by the Santiago Formation which consists of poorly
indurated, grey to brownish grey, silty fine grained sandstone. The Santiago Formation also
consists of interbeds and lenses of siltstone and claystone.
4.0 Available Subsurface Information
EMI Borings: In January, 2013 EMI performed one boring for the Buena Vista Lagoon bridge
replacement and two borings for a pedestrian undercrossing at the Carlsbad Village Station
proposed as part of a different alternative. In October and November of 2013, EMI performed
two additional borings for the Buena Vista Lagoon bridge replacement. Log-Of-Test-Borings
(LOTB’s) for both of the bridges provided for that alternative are included in Attachment 2.
Nearby Borings: In addition to the borings performed by EMI, borings performed for the
Carlsbad Boulevard OH seismic retrofit and boring logs from the State Water Resources Control
Board “GeoTracker” website (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov) for two service stations in
the vicinity of the proposed trench alignment were reviewed.
The GeoTracker website provides environmental data for state regulated facilities in California
which often contain geotechnical boring logs as part of monitoring well installations. The first
service station where soil information is available is located at the intersection of Harding Street
and Carlsbad Village Drive and the second service station is located at the intersection of
Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street.
The LOTB for the Carlsbad Boulevard OH bridge retrofit and boring logs from the two service
stations are included in Attachment 2.
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 3
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
Groundwater Investigation by Southern California Soil Testing (SCST): SCST conducted a field
investigation for the City of Carlsbad consisting of eight (8) hollow-stem auger borings and one
groundwater monitoring well to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions along the proposed
trench alignment. The borings were drilled to depths between 15 and 45 feet below existing
grade; generally 10 feet below the proposed trench invert elevation at each location. A copy of
the memorandum prepared by SCST summarizing the investigation and groundwater
measurements is included in Attachment 3.
Regional Geology Map: A regional geology map of the area was also reviewed to evaluate the
different geologic units that will be traversed by the proposed alignments. The regional geology
map is included as Figure 2.
5.0 Subsurface Soil Conditions and Groundwater
The three borings performed by EMI for the Buena Vista Lagoon bridge were performed outside
the limits of both proposed trench options and encountered soil conditions materially different
than all of the other borings that were reviewed. The borings were excavated through the fill
carrying the railroad as it passes through the lagoon. Below the fill the borings encountered
lagoon marine deposits consisting of predominately sandy soils interrupted with occasional silt
and clay layers. This material extended more than 120 ft below grade and no formation was
encountered.
All of the other borings that were reviewed were located outside of the footprint of the Buena
Vista Lagoon and encountered a combination of fill and terrace deposits overlying Santiago
Formation. The fill is generally shallow and extends less than 10 feet below the ground surface.
Thickness of the terrace deposits vary along the alignment extending more than 30 ft below grade
in most locations. The terrace deposits consist of medium dense to dense sand, clayey sand and
sandy clay. The Santiago Formation that lies below the fill and terrace deposits consists of clayey
sandstone interbedded with layers of siltstone and claystone. The regional geologic map of the
area indicates that the Santiago Formation is the predominant geologic feature along the
alignment and no other formations are anticipated to be encountered.
The proposed trenches are anticipated to be excavated primarily through the fill and shallow
terrace deposits and potentially encountering Santiago Formation. The soil types expected to be
encountered during trench excavation will be predominately medium dense to dense clayey sand
and soft sandstone with occasional claystone and siltstone interlayering. Penetration testing in the
terrace deposits and Santiago Formation result in high blowcounts; however, they are easily
excavated with a hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and exhibit soil-like behavior during
sampling and do not require rock coring.
Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered as high as elevation +15 ft MSL (about 20 ft below
grade) in the EMI borings at the Carlsbad Village Station and is indicated as being encountered at
about the same elevation in one boring for the Carlsbad Boulevard OH. Groundwater is indicated
as being encountered at about elevation +50 ft (15 ft below grade) in borings performed at the gas
station along Carlsbad Village drive and at about elevation +44 ft (about 18 ft below grade) in the
borings performed near Tamarack Avenue.
Groundwater was encountered in six (6) of the nine (9) investigations performed by SCST in
April, 2016 as high as elevation +28 ft MSL (13 feet below ground surface). The groundwater
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 4
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
measurements from the SCST investigation are included in their investigation memorandum
included in Attachment 2. A table summarizing the results of the groundwater investigation as it
appears in the SCST memorandum is reproduced below.
Table 1. Groundwater Observation Results
Boring
ID Location Existing Elevation
Above MSL (ft)
Boring
Depth (ft)
Depth to
Groundwater
(ft)
Depth to Proposed
Railroad Trench
Bottom (ft)
B-1 Date Ave 38 25 NE 14
B-2 Juniper Ave 44 45 15.5 34
B-3 Acacia Ave 44 40 21.5 32
B-4 Pine Ave/Washington St 44 40 19.5 32
B-5 Beech Ave 36 30 19 19
B-6 Alley West of State St 27 15 NE 6
B-7 Oak Ave 41 40 13 29
B-8 Tamarack Ave 44 45 18 33
B-9 Long Pl 38 30 NE 20
Notes:
(1) Location of Monitoring Well
(2) NE = Not Encountered
Based on the proximity of the site to the Pacific Ocean and the groundwater elevations
encountered in the above described borings, shallow groundwater is anticipated along the trench
alignment. Natural grade does not vary significantly within the project limits and it is anticipated
that groundwater will be generally between 10 and 20 feet below natural grade.
Groundwater should be continually monitored if either trench alternative is selected. Seasonal
variations, variations in groundwater levels along the length of the trench should be monitored as
well as potential underground flow that might affect design and construction of the trench.
6.0 Seismic Evaluation
The site is in seismically active southern California and is subject to shaking from both local and
distant earthquakes. Large events on the nearby Newport Inglewood – Rose Canyon fault zone
control seismic design of the project.
Faults
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 5
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
Table 2 lists the nearest active faults, fault type and their maximum earthquake magnitude
according to the Caltrans Fault Database (Merriam, 2012). The site to fault distances were
determined using the Caltrans ARS Online web tool V2.2.06 (Caltrans, 2013) from the Carlsbad
Village Station.
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 6
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
Table 2. Fault Data
Fault Fault
Type (1)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude
Distance from
Site to Fault
(miles)
Surface
Fault/Blind
Fault
Rose Canyon fault zone (Oceanside section) RLSS 6.8 4.6 Surface
Newport Inglewood (Offshore) RLSS 6.9 5.5 Surface
Rose Canyon fault zone (Del Mar section) RLSS 6.8 8.9 Surface
Note:
(1) RLSS = Right Lateral Strike Slip.
Ground Rupture
No major faults are known to extend through the site area so the potential for surface rupture is
considered low. No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated by the
California Division of Mines and Geology in the project area.
Seismic Design Criteria
It is our understanding that seismic design of the trench walls and the overpass structures will be
based on the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA)
Manual (AREMA, 2013).
Utilizing AREMA methodology, three levels of seismic risk are considered in design. Per the
2013 Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA, 2013), the conservative return periods of the
design seismic event correspond to the 100 year, the 500 year, and the 2,400 year seismic events.
These events correspond to the bridge performance criteria for the Serviceability, Ultimate, and
Survivability Limit States, respectively (AREMA, 2013).
The Base Acceleration Coefficients (AR) were estimated based on data from the 2008 United
States Geological Survey (USGS, 2008) National Seismic Hazard Map, for the 100 year, 500
year, and 2400 year return period earthquakes. The Site Coefficient (S) was estimated based on
the soil conditions of the project site and AREMA manual. The ARS curve design parameters are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Geotechnical Input for AREMA (2013) ARS Curve
Average Return Period
(Yrs.)
Performance Criteria
Limit State
Base Acceleration Coefficient
(AR)
Site Coefficient (S)
100 Serviceability 0.132
1.0 500 Ultimate 0.259
2400 Survivability 0.483
7.0 Liquefaction Evaluation
Liquefaction Potential. Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation and other available
geotechnical information, site soils are anticipated to be coarse grained and very dense. Due to
the very dense nature of the coarse grained site soils, the liquefaction potential of site soils along
the proposed trench alignments is considered low.
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 7
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
Seismically-Induced Settlement: Seismically-induced settlement of dry and partially saturated
soils due to strong shaking is expected to be negligible due to the predominately very dense
nature of the on-site soils; therefore, seismically induced settlement is not expected to impact the
proposed retaining walls and overpass foundations.
8.0 Seismic Slope Instability
All of the trench walls need to be designed to meet AREMA (2013) standards and will be subject
to additional lateral seismic earth loading during the design earthquakes. However; since
liquefaction is not expected to be an issue for the native deposits, site soils are not expected to
experience a loss of strength and impose unmanageable earth pressures on the retaining walls
during the design seismic events.
9.0 Groundwater Control
Groundwater measurements indicate groundwater is likely to be encountered during excavation
for trenches and overpass structures. Groundwater will need to be controlled during construction
of retaining walls, retaining wall footings, overpass foundations and the trench base slab. Trench
walls and bridge abutment walls will have to be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Any
seepage or groundwater removed from a temporary excavation or the completed structure will
need to be tested and disposed of in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
requirements.
Waterproofing of the permanent concrete structure can be placed on the exterior side (positive),
interior side (negative) or from with the concrete itself (integral systems). In anticipation that the
most economic structure will incorporate the shoring system with the permanent structure,
positive waterproofing methods are not anticipated. While both negative and integral
waterproofing systems are feasible and can be used to severely restrict water flow, some
groundwater seepage should be anticipated. Drains and pumps necessary to control surface
drainage and stormwater should anticipate the high likelihood of groundwater seepage into the
trench.
10.0 Corrosion Evaluation
Samples recovered during the EMI investigation near the Carlsbad Village Station that are
anticipated to be representative of soils throughout the project area were tested to determine
corrosivity including minimum resistivity, pH, soluble sulfate content, and soluble chloride
content. Two soil samples were tested for corrosivity using the procedures described in California
Test Methods 417, 422, 532, and 643. The minimum resistivity ranged from 990 to 1,900 ohm-
cm. The pH ranged from 8.1 to 9.0. The soluble sulfate ranged from 160 to 300 parts per million
(ppm), and the soluble chloride ranged from 144 to 160 ppm. The soil corrosivity test results are
summarized in Table 4.
According to Caltrans criteria (Corrosion Guidelines V2.0, 2012), soils are considered corrosive
if the pH is 5.5 or less, or sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater, or chloride concentration
is 500 ppm or greater. Based on these test results and Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils are
classified to be non-corrosive. However, considering the proximity of the site to the ocean and
the exposure of structural elements to salty air, corrosion protection measures should be
incorporated into the structural design.
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 8
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
Table 4. Soil Corrosion Test Results
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Soil Type Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
pH Sulfate
Content
(ppm)
Chloride
Content
(ppm)
A-13-03 S-3 15 Silty Sand (SM) 1,900 8.1 160 160
A-13-04 S-2 10 Fat Clay (CH) 990 9.0 300 144
11.0 Retaining Wall and Overhead Structure Foundation Recommendations
For sidewall support of the trench and at the bridge abutments, both bottom-up and top-down
construction methodologies are geotechnically feasible. The most challenging geotechnical issue
will be constructing cut retaining walls below shallow groundwater.
For a conventional bottom-up construction method, it is anticipated that there is insufficient right-
of-way to lay back the excavations so some form of shoring will be required. Site soils are not
conducive to driven sheet piling due to the shallow Santiago Formation. Soil nail walls are not
suited for construction below the groundwater table; however, soil nail walls are feasible at the
ends of the trench where the excavation does not extend below groundwater. Soil nail walls can
also be used as part of a combination wall where the soil nail wall comprises the upper portion of
the wall where the nail excavation daylights above groundwater. The lower portion of the wall is
then constructed at the toe of the soil nail wall and is a wall type capable of accommodating the
groundwater. It is our understanding that a combination soil nail/secant pile wall was recently
used for trench excavation on a design-build project in Reno, Nevada.
Drilled soldier pile walls with lagging are feasible; however, lagging installation below the
groundwater will not be water-tight so the excavation will need to be continually pumped. Cut
heights are expected to exceed the practical limits for cantilever soldier piles so either ground
anchors (tie-backs), internal struts or bracing will be required to resist lateral earth loading.
For top-down construction, site soils are expected to be conducive to both secant pile wall and
slurry wall construction. Both secant pile wall and slurry walls are effective methods to seal off
water which would eliminate or reduce the expense of pumping and disposal of groundwater
from the excavation during construction.
Secant pile walls are generally more common in the western United States; however, recently
slurry walls have started to be used more frequently on the west coast. Slurry walls require a
substantial quantity of work to offset the mobilization cost of the equipment which is much larger
than conventional CIDH pile construction equipment and usually has to be transported from the
east coast. Slurry walls are generally better suited for deeper excavations where it becomes
difficult to maintain the vertical alignment of individual CIDH piles. Based on conversations with
local contractors, it is our understanding that secant pile walls are expected to be more
economical than slurry walls for the anticipated excavation depths anticipated for the subject
project.
Traditional secant pile walls are constructed with alternating primary (unreinforced) and
secondary (reinforced) piles excavated using conventional CIDH pile construction methods. In
the presence of shallow groundwater, the drilled shafts need to be stabilized with either
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 9
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
temporary casing or drilling slurry in order to allow installation of the vertical reinforcement
(structural steel section or reinforcing cage) and the structural concrete.
Recently, ground improvement techniques have been incorporated into secant pile wall design
and construction to eliminate the time and expense of shaft stabilization (casing and/or slurry).
Jet grouting, Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM), and Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) are examples of
methods that have been used to inject and mix cementous grout with native soils to create a soil-
grout column of sufficient strength to be used for temporary lateral earth support. The vertical
reinforcing in the secondary piles is stabbed into the soil-grout column while the mixture is still
wet. Due to the high relative density of the Santiago Formation, site soils are anticipated to be
more conducive to CSM and CDSM than jet grouting. Pre-drilling the soil column with a flighted
auger can also be used in advance of ground improvement techniques to facilitate grout injection
and soil mixing.
Similar to soldier pile walls, the excavation heights are expected to exceed the practical limits for
cantilever slurry or secant pile walls so ground anchors or internal bracing will be required.
Along the majority of the trench, the secant piles/slurry wall would only need to extend far
enough below the trench slab to resist the temporary lateral earth loads until the bottom slab is
poured. Once the bottom slab is poured, it can then function as a lower strut to resist the
permanent lateral earth loads.
At the bridge overpasses, the abutments will be supported on CIDH piles that will provide lateral
support for the trench and also carry the axial superstructure loads. The CIDH piles at these
locations will need to extend deeper below the trench slab to develop the necessary axial capacity
from side friction to support the structural loads. For cost estimating purposes, an average unit
skin friction of 1.5 ksf along the embedded portion of the CIDH pile below the trench invert can
be used to estimate preliminary pile lengths.
A seal course will need to be poured at the base of the trench to seal off water and facilitate
bottom slab and finished trench wall construction. A conventional seal course can be poured
under water; however, the depth of the seal course can become substantial due to the thickness
required to resist buoyancy. Recently, ground improvement techniques such as jet grouting in
combination with vertical ground anchors have been used in lieu of a tremie slab for the
temporary seal course. After installation of the CIDH pile walls and prior to performing the mass
excavation for the trench, closely spaced jet grout columns on the order of 5-10 ft in height are
installed from natural grade at an elevation just below the proposed trench invert. Tie-down
ground anchors are then installed through the improved zone to resist buoyant forces against the
bottom of the jet grout slab. The mass excavation then proceeds with the tied down jet grout slab
functioning as the seal course cutting of seepage as the excavation proceeds below groundwater.
For cost estimating purposes, jet grout columns are typically installed in a triangular grid with
approximately 4-6 ft on-center spacing. A bond stress of 7.5 kips per ft of bonded length below
the jet grout seal course can be used to estimate the length of 6-inch diameter, gravity grouted
vertical tie-down ground anchors.
12.0 Construction Considerations
CIDH Pile Construction. Groundwater will be encountered during drilling; therefore the
contractor will need to use a “wet” method of construction for secant pile walls with conventional
Carlsbad Village Drive Trench Alt - PGDR
May 23, 2016
Page 10
145 Vallecitos de Oro, Suite E, San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: (760) 736-8222 Fax: (760) 736-8122
CIDH pile construction methods. Segmental casing would be the preferred method of shaft
stabilization as it allows greater control of the vertical alignment of the pile. Site soils are
expected to be easily excavated with conventional equipment for CIDH piles and slurry walls.
Ground anchors (vertical or sub-horizontal), if used, will need to be cased due to the presence of
shallow groundwater. Due to the high relative density of the Santiago Formation, pre-drilling is
anticipated to be necessary in advance of ground improvement techniques to facilitate grout
injection and soil mixing. Site soils are not anticipated to present a rippability problem and can be
excavated using conventional earthmoving equipment.
13.0 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition., Washington, DC.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA), 2013,
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association Mannual for
Railway Engineering.
Caltrans, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0; Office of Materials Engineering and Testing
services, Corrosion and Structural Concrete Field Investigation Branch, November.
Caltrans, 2013, ARS Online Web tool, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/
Caltrans, 2013, Seismic Design Criteria, V1.7, April.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30’x 60’ quadrangle,
California: A digital database,
http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/rgm/Pages/preliminary_geologic_maps.aspx:
California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000.
Merriam, M., 2012, Caltrans Fault Database (V2b) for ARS Online, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States
National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128, 61p.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008b, USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis,
http:/earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/
Earth Mechanics, Inc.Geotechnical and Earthquake EngineeringCARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE DOUBLE TRACK – TRENCH ALTERNATIVEProject No. 12-146Date: 5-23-2016PROJECT LOCATION MAPFigure 1Project Location
Earth Mechanics, Inc.Geotechnical and Earthquake EngineeringCARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE DOUBLE TRACK – TRENCH ALTERNATIVEProject No. 12-146Date: 5-23-2016Regional Geology MapFigure 2Project Location
ATTACHMENT 1
TRENCH PLAN AND PROFILE
SEE ATTACHMENT C & D OF
TRENCH FEASIBILITY STUDY
ATTACHMENT 2
AVAILABLE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY SCST
May 11, 2016 SCST No. 150448P3.3
Report No. 1
Mr. Brandon Miles, PE, TE
City of Carlsbad
Public Works – Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE TRACK
CASSIDY STREET TO TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
References: SANDAG (2015), “Carlsbad Village Double Track, Supplemental Alternative
Analysis Report, Attachment C: Short Trench Alternative Plan & Profile”, October.
Dear Mr. Miles:
In accordance with your request SCST, Inc. (SCST) prepared this report to present the results
of groundwater level observations performed at the subject site. We understand this project may
consist of the design and construction of a double track railroad trench through the Carlsbad
Village in Carlsbad, California. The proposed trench alignment is adjacent to the existing North
County Transit District railroad tracks from Cassidy Street, Oceanside, California to Tamarack
Avenue, Carlsbad, California. Figure 1 presents a site vicinity map.
SCST explored the subsurface conditions by drilling eight exploratory borings and installing one
groundwater monitoring well in the public Right-of-Way. The borings were drilled to depths
between about 15 and 45 feet below the existing ground surface using a truck-mounted drill rig
equipped with a hollow-stem auger. Boring B-4 was constructed as a monitoring well for the
purpose of possible future groundwater observations and/or testing. The monitoring well was
installed to a depth of about 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Figure 2 shows the
approximate locations of the borings and monitoring well. An SCST engineer logged the borings
and performed groundwater measurements in general accordance with ASTM D 4750.
Groundwater measurements were performed up to 48 hours after drilling. The logs of the
borings are presented in Appendix I. Soils are classified according to the Unified Soil
Classification System illustrated on Figure I-1. Table 1 summarizes the results of our
groundwater observations with respect to the approximate bottom of the planned railroad
trench. The elevations used in Table 1 were provided in the referenced Supplemental Analysis
Report.
City of Carlsbad May 11, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track SCST No.150448P3.3-1
Carlsbad, California Page 2
Table 1: Groundwater Observation Results
Boring
ID
Location Existing
Elevation
Above MSL (ft)
Boring
Depth (ft)
Depth to
Groundwater
(ft)
Depth to
Proposed
Railroad Trench
Bottom (ft)
B-1 Date Avenue 38 25 Not
Encountered 14
B-2 Juniper Avenue 44 45 15½ 34
B-3 Acacia Avenue 44 40 21½ 32
B-4*
Pine
Avenue/Washington
Street
44 40 19½ 32
B-5 Beech Avenue 36 30 19 19
B-6 Alley West of State
Street
27 15 Not
Encountered
6
B-7 Oak Avenue 41 40 13 29
B-8 Tamarack Avenue 44 45 18 33
B-9 Long Place 38 30 Not
Encountered 20
*Location of monitoring well
Based on our field findings, groundwater was observed in six borings at or above the proposed
railroad trench bottom. It should be noted that groundwater levels may fluctuate in the future
due to rainfall, irrigation, broken pipes, or changes in site drainage. Because groundwater rise
or seepage is difficult to predict, such conditions are typically mitigated if and when they occur.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
encountered at the boring locations, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations
are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,
interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for interpretations by others
of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation
only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in
connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting
or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
City of Carlsbad May 11,2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track SCST No.150448P3.3-1
Carlsbad, California Page 3
If you have any questions, please call us at 619-280-4321.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCST, INC.
Andrew K. Neuhaus, PG, CEG 2591
Senior Geologist
EM:AKN:aw
Attachments: Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Map
Appendix I – Field Investigation
(1) Addressee via e-mail: Brandon.Miles@carlsbadca.gov
Evan Morrill Emil Rudolph, PE, GE 2767
Staff Engineer Principal Engineer
Project Site
Figure:
1Job No.:
By:
Date:May, 2016
JCU
150448P3.3
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Carlsbad, California
SITE VICINITY MAP
SCST, Inc.
B-1B-9
B-2
B-8
B-3B-4*B-7
B-5B-6
Figure:
2Carlsbad Village Double Track
Carlsbad, California
BORING LOCATION MAP
Job No.:
By:
Date: May, 2016
JCU
150448P3.3
SCST, Inc.
Approximate Location of Boring
B-9
SCST LEGEND:
NOTE: Not to Scale
Location of Monitoring Well*
NCTD Easement
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation consisted of drilling 9 borings between April 25, 2016 and April 26, 2016.
The borings were drilled to depths between about 15 and 45 feet below the existing ground
surface using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger. Figure 2 shows the
approximate locations of the borings. The field investigation was performed under the
observation of SCST engineer who also logged the borings.
The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System as illustrated
on Figure I-1. Logs of the borings are presented on Figures I-2 through I-20.
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS
AL - Atterberg Limits
CAL CON - Consolidation
CK COR - Corrosivity Tests
MS (Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulfate)
ST DS - Direct Shear
SPT EI - Expansion Index
MAX - Maximum Density
GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS RV - R-Value
SA - Sieve Analysis
UC - Unconfined Compression
By:
Job Number:
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
greater than 50)
Figure:
Date:EM
150448P3.3
May, 2016
I-1
SCST, INC.
Carlsbad Village Double Track
Carlsbad, California
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION
I. COARSE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.
OL
GROUP
SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures.
SW Well graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
GRAVELS
More than half of
coarse fraction is
larger than No. 4
sieve size but
smaller than 3".GRAVELS WITH FINES
(Appreciable amount of
fines)
CLEAN GRAVELS
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity.
PT Peat and other highly organic soils.III. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
MH
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
ML
CLEAN SANDS
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey-silt-
sand mixtures with slight plasticity.
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays.
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit less
than 50)
II. FINE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.
SM
SC
Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
SANDS
More than half of
coarse fraction is
smaller than No.
4 sieve size.
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.SP
- Modified California sampler
- Bulk Sample
- Shelby Tube
- Standard Penetration Test sampler
- Undisturbed Chunk sample
- Maximum Size of Particle
- Water level at time of excavation or as indicated
- Water seepage at time of excavation or as indicated
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):Depth to Groundwater (ft):Not Encountered
DRIVENBULKSC
SM
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-1
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carslbad Village Double Track
14
I-2150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-3.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
SILTY SAND, light yellowish brown, fine to medium grained, moist, medium dense.
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
4/25/2016
38
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) - CLAYEY SAND, orangish brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, medium dense.
Yellowish brown.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):Depth to Groundwater (ft):Not Encountered
DRIVENBULKSM
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/25/2016
38
DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) - SILTY SAND, light yellowish brown, fine to
medium grained, moist, medium dense.
34
I-3150448P3.3
39
JCUSCST, Inc.Calrsbad, California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-1 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
40
36
31
38
35
37
32
29
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):15½DRIVENBULKSM
SM
SC
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/25/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
FILL (Qf) - SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark brown, fine to medium grained,
fragments of asphalt concrete encountered, moist, medium dense.
Brown.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
9
14
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, fine to coarse grained, moist, medium dense.13
16
18
15
17
12
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, dense.
Groundwater encountered at 15½ feet on 4/27/2016.
I-4150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-5.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
20 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-2
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
11
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):15½DRIVENBULKCL
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
33
40
36
31
38
35
37
32
29 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-2 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
34
I-5150448P3.3
39
BORING CONTINUED ON I-6.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
Reddish brown and gray.
4/25/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) - SANDY CLAY, light gray brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, stiff.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diamter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):15½DRIVENBULKCL
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/25/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)50
44
45
46
47
41
42
43
48
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) - SANDY CLAY, light brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, very stiff.
BORING TERMINATED AT 45 FEET.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
54
I-6150448P3.3
59
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-2 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
53
60
56
51
58
55
57
52
49
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):21½DRIVENBULKSM
SM
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/25/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
FILL (Qf): SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brown, fine to medium grained, moist,
medium dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained,
moist, medium dense.
Brown.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
14
I-7150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-8.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
Fragments of light gray clay, dense.
Light brown, dense to very dense.
13
20
16
9 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-3
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
11
18
15
17
12
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diamter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):21½DRIVENBULKApproximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure: DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
34
I-8150448P3.3
39
BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
40
38
37 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-3 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
36
31
35
32
29
4/25/2016
44
Olive gray.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
Groundwater encountered at 21½ feet on 4/27/2016.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained,
moist, dense to very dense..
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):19½DRIVENBULKSM
SM
Groundwater encountered at 19½ feet on 4/26/2016.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium grained,
moist, dense.
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9
Light brown.DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-4
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
14
I-9150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-10.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
4/26/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
3 inches of aggregate base.
FILL (Qf): SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained, moist, medium dense.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):19½DRIVENBULKSM
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure: DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
34
I-10150448P3.3
39
BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
40
38
37 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-4 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
36
31
35
32
29
4/26/2016
44 Depth to Groundwater (ft):
Fine to coarse grained.
Very dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained,
wet, dense.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):19
DRIVENBULKSM
CL
SM
CL
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9
SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, fine to medium grained, moist, very stiff.
Groundwater encountered at 19 feet on 4/26/2016.DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-5
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
14
I-11150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-12.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
4/26/2016
36
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
5 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of aggregate base.
FILL (Qf): SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained, moist, dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SANDY LEAN CLAY, light brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, stiff.
SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained, moist, dense.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):19
DRIVENBULKCL
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
33
40
36
31
38
35
37
32
29 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-5 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
34
I-12150448P3.3
39
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, CaliforniaDEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET.
Light brown.
Light olive gray.
4/26/2016
36
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, fine to medium
grained, wet, very stiff.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diamter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):Depth to Groundwater (ft):Not Encountered
DRIVENBULK3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base.
CH
SC
Some gravel.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/25/2016
27
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SANDY FAT CLAY, dark brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, stiff.
Olive gray.
CLAYEY SAND, olive gray, fine to medium grained, moist, dense.
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
14
I-13150448P3.3
19
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad , California
BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET.DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-6
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diamter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):13
DRIVENBULKSC
SC
SM
Wet.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/26/2016
41
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, dense.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
6 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 inches of base.
FILL (Qf): CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained, moist, medium
dense.
14
I-14150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-15.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-7
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9
Groundwater encountered at 13 feet on 4/26/2016.
SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained, moist, dense.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):13
DRIVENBULKSM
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
SC
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure: DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
34
I-15150448P3.3
39
BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
40
38
37 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-7 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
36
31
35
32
29
4/26/2016
41 Depth to Groundwater (ft):
CLAYEY SAND, light brown, fine to coarse grained, wet, very dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained,
wet, dense.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):18
DRIVENBULKSM
SC
SM
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
6 inches of mulch and associated topsoil.
FILL (Qf) - SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to medium grained, moist, medium dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND, reddish brown, fine grained,
moist, dense.
SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to coarse grained, moist, dense.
4/25/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
14
I-16150448P3.3
19
BORING CONTINUED ON I-17.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-8
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
13
20
16
11
18
15
17
12
9
Groundwater encountered at 18 feet on 4/27/2016.
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):18
DRIVENBULKSM
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
CL
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, fine to medium grained, wet, very stiff.
4/25/2016
44
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, light brown, fine to coarse grained,
wet, dense.DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
34
I-17150448P3.3
39
BORING CONTINUED ON I-18.
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad , California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-8 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
40
36
31
38
35
37
32
29
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-95 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):18
DRIVENBULKCL
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
53
60
56
51
58
55
57
52
49 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-8 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
54
I-18150448P3.3
59
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
4/26/2016
44
DEPTH (ft)50
44
45
46
47
41
42
43
48
BORING TERMINATED AT 45 FEET.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, fine to medium
grained, moist, medium dense.
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-75 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):Depth to Groundwater (ft):Not Encountered
DRIVENBULKSM
SM
Approximate depth of proposed railroad trench bottom.
By:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/26/2016
38
6 Inches of lawn and associated topsoil
FILL (Qf): SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained, moist, medium dense.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, brown, fine grained, moist, dense.
Yellowish brown.
BORING CONTINUED ON I-20.
13
16
11
15
12
9 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-9
USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
14
I-19150448P3.3
19
EMSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California
20
18
17DEPTH (ft)10
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
Date Drilled:Logged by:EM
Equipment:CME-75 with 8-inch Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger Project Manager:AKN
Elevation (ft):Depth to Groundwater (ft):Not Encountered
DRIVENBULKBy:Date:
Job Number:Figure:
4/26/20163
38
DEPTH (ft)30
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
28
SW-
SM
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT, light brown,
fine grained, moist, very dense.
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET.
34
I-20150448P3.3
39
JCUSCST, Inc.Carlsbad, California DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) LOG OF BORING B-9 (Continued)USCSSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
LABORATORY TESTSDRIVING RESISTANCE (blows/ft of drive)N60MOISTURE CONTENT (%)May, 2016
Carlsbad Village Double Track
33
40
36
31
38
35
37
32
29