Girand and Nelson: Coastal Conflict, Trains or Beaches?

(Part I of VI) OCTA plans to spend $200M this summer in an effort to get ahead of landslide and erosion “surprises” which have plagued railroad tracks owned by the agency since 2021. During its March 11^th Board meeting, OCTA officials presented an “Emergency Coastal Rail Project Update”, acknowledging that following 130 years since inception with only 3 environmentally-related service interruptions, the railroad has spent over $40 million (so far) grappling with 5 major events in just over two years.  The update outlines seven specific threats along the 7-mile segment between San Clemente and Dana Point, using alarming verbiage such as “steep slope subject to undermining”, “riprap appears undersized”, “poor drainage”, “potential track bed movement” and even “potential for liquefaction”. The bluff landslides and devastating coastal erosion that are squeezing the railroad from both sides are hardly a “surprise” to railroad interests.  As early as 1993, SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments)  issued a Shoreline Preservation Strategy Report authored by the US Army Corps of Engineers, clearly outlining serious sand starvation issues in the Dana Point/San Clemente littoral cell–a section of coastline that cycles through shared sand depletion and deposition. And in 2003, The Lossan Corridor Strategic Plan acknowledged the problems of unstable bluffs and soils and considered relocation alternatives. Since OCTA is the Managing Director of the LOSSAN Corridor Agency, there can be no doubt that it was fully aware of these issues. Now, after 2 to 3 decades of inaction, taxpayers will be tapped for another $200 million “short term fix” (essentially tons of riprap boulders and revetments) to help them preserve the tracks “in place” for 10 years while they contemplate an inevitably more expensive “intermediate term” solution to keep them “in place” for 30 years.  Never mind that current Ocean Protection Council projections of sea level rise were recently revised to predict 3.5 feet of rise by 2050 vs. the .8 feet contemplated by 2050 in San Clemente’s 2019 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (which already contemplated significant railroad impacts.)

Willful Blindness?

Coastal advocates and the general public are increasingly concerned that OCTA seems to be blind to reality. It’s pretty obvious that the San Clemente segment, squeezed between sodden, sliding bluffs and an ever-encroaching ocean, is doomed. How much damage will be done, and at what costs (both financial and environmental) between now and the date of the inevitable disaster that convinces even diehard railroad fans that it’s time to move trains off the coast? 

In that same March 11^th meeting, Professor Brett Sanders, PhD, an eminent UCI coastal engineer, firmly stated “without ambiguity” that it is “firmly established within the field of coastal engineering that armoring of the coastline leads to increased erosion.”  He warned that the OCTA plan, if implemented “would worsen the problem of beach loss and will undermine future efforts to restore the coast.” Coastal advocates from Capo Cares and Save our Beaches San Clemente echoed that sentiment as Fifth District Supervisor Foley repeatedly insisted from the dais that the plan must include sand nourishment.

OCTA seems to be intent on exacerbating erosion by using more riprap, apparently the only hammer in its toolbox.  Its 2024 Coastal Rail Resiliency Study Initial Assessment Technical Memo refers to riprap 54 times.

More expensive first aid and likely major surgery lie ahead in both San Clemente and Del Mar. SANDAG is planning to armor the base of failing bluffs in Del Mar to protect tracks that are as little as 30 feet from cliff’s edge in some areas, while simultaneously attempting to fund a $4B tunnel to eventually relocate 1.7 miles of endangered tracks. OCTA is similarly moving glacially toward the idea of eventual track relocation as a possible long-term solution. Unfortunately, both of these relocations will cost billions and involve untold years of red tape if they ever happen at all.

It is doubtful that either of these entities will get serious about relocation until they are forced off the coast by an environmental disaster. By then, it will be much too late for the millions who loved the once beautiful beaches buried under tons of rip rap.  A loud and growing public constituency feels this is too high a price to pay– and for what?– a railroad that runs well below capacity most days and has lost more than 50% of its ridership (according to Senator Blakespeare’s  letter to the CA State Transportation Agency)  and carries a fraction of one percent of the San Diego region’s $274B annual estimated freight load?

Environmental Impacts/Costs vs. Benefits

Two studies are needed before more armoring endangers South County Beaches:

1. A thorough study of environmental impacts of additional armoring. The OCTA plan is explicit that the agency will seek exemptions from environmental impact studies. CEQA, CA Coastal Commission and other environmental oversight cannot be sacrificed to OCTA’s almost 3-year “emergency”. After all, the agency had 20 if not 30 years to prevent the “emergency” by preserving a beach buffer to protect its tracks, and the current “emergency” has been going on since 2021.
2. A comprehensive analysis of the costs (both financial and environmental) and benefits associated with preserving the tracks in San Clemente and Dana Point. Before state and federal taxpayers are put on the hook for another $200 million for repairs, with inevitably more to come, the public deserves a thorough airing of what it’s getting (and losing) with that investment. 

South Orange County faces an existential dilemma – do we want to save our beaches, or the railroad? It is becoming increasingly clear that these are mutually exclusive. And we certainly shouldn’t make such a tough decision without a thorough examination of the facts.

Through effective marketing efforts, OCTA, SANDAG, LOSSAN and other railroad interests have convinced many if not most public officials that the Southern LOSSAN segment is “vital” and “essential”, but is it as precious as the beautiful beaches enjoyed by millions?  We urge these interests to examine this underlying paradigm, fearlessly and honestly. 

This is the first in a six-part series which will examine the supposed “essential” benefits of the line – public mass transit, freight, military use and potential future nuclear waste movement –  in light of the imminent threat to the coastal environment. Stay tuned for part 2.

Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.

Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.