cc 2025 AR 08/26 vista transit center grade separation study — Vista City Council, August 26, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

ACTION:
____________________________

Clerk/Secretary
Department: Engineering Item No: D2
Prepared by:

Husam Hasenin, Traffic Engineering
Division Manager
Darra Woods, Principal Transportation
Mobility Planner Meeting Date: August 26, 2025
Approved by:

Greg Mayer, Engineering Director
John Conley, City Manager Agenda Location: Discussion
S
UBJECT: VISTA TRANSIT CENTER GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report on the Vista Transit Center Grade Separation Study.

CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: Traffic: Continue to enhance mobility safety, improve the flow of traffic for all forms of travel, reduce congestion, and improve our roads and sidewalks.

PRIOR ACTION: On January 23, 2024, approved the Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) Grant MOU with the North County Transit District (NCTD) (Vote: 5-0).

A
comprehensive list of prior City Council actions is included as Exhibit 1.

STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: The City was awarded an Areas of Persistent Poverty Program (AoPP) Grant in the amount of $254,250 from the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) for the development of a grade separation study at the Vista Transit Center. As an FTA direct recipient, the North County Transit District (NCTD) accepted the funding for the project. An MOU was executed between the City and NCTD to partner on this study, with NCTD acting as lead administering the grant and managing the overall project, and the City reimbursing NCTD for the required grant match.

The
intent of the Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study is to conduct a planning study aimed at improving transportation infrastructure and public safety in the downtown area near the Vista Village Transit Station. More specifically, the purpose of the study was to evaluate options to eliminate the at-grade railroad crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street by exploring grade separation alternatives with the objective to improve traffic mobility and circulation, enhance safety, and reduce traffic congestion.

A
s part of this effort, existing conditions within the study area including transit and vehicular crash data were analyzed to help identify project alternatives that could potentially meet the objectives of this planning effort.

Seven alternatives were initially identified and ultimately refined to the following three options based on various factors including feasibility, cost, and community impact.

1. A
lternative 1A – Aerial Track

2. Alternative 2A – Track in Trench

3. Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
AGENDA
REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT

JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
08/26/2025
D2

Page 1 of 227 ends

MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025 PAGE 2
SUBJECT: VISTA TRANSIT CENTER GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
The pl
anning study advanced these three refined grade separation alternatives for further in-depth feasibility analysis. This included preparing schematic designs of the overall concepts and layouts, which were used as a basis to perform traffic analyses, utilities and infrastructure impact summaries and planning level cost estimates. Additionally, each alternative was evaluated for its potential impacts to public safety, existing utilities and drainage, BREEZE t ransit bus operations, track and station services, roadways and streets, emergency response, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and both current and future land uses.

Tw
o public outreach workshops were held as part of this planning effort. The first workshop, held in December 2024, informed the public about the study efforts, summarized the need for and benefits of grade separation, and collected initial community input on ways to enhance safety and accessibility in the study area. The second public workshop , held in May 2025 , presented the findings of these refined alternatives , solicited evaluation feedback of these alternatives, and requested participants to rank the three alternatives. At each workshop, p articipants were given the opportunity to express concerns, ask questions and partake in interactive activities pertaining to this planning effort.

The
study also included a planning-level evaluation of community, environmental, regulatory, and funding considerations for each of the refined alternatives to help select a preferred alternative. Through this comprehensive analysis , public outreach, and stakeholder engagement, the study ultimately identified Alternative 1A – Aerial Track as the preferred alternative for grade separation as it met the project’s purpose and need, had limited adverse impacts, maximized benefits corresponding to the cost, and was supported by the community. Exhibit 2 is the conceptual site plan for Alternative 1A. This alternative proposes raising the railroad tracks over both Vista Village Drive and Main Street and would eliminate the interaction between the trains and street traffic (vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles). The preliminary estimated cost range for this alternative is between $460 million and $860 million. The complete study report is included as Exhibit 3.

T
he Vista Transit Center Grade Separation Study developed a planning-level framework for grade separation of the Vista Village Drive and the Main Street at-grade crossings. Therefore, in order for the project to move forward, further detailed feasibility analysis of the preferred alternative is necessary. It is estimated that a feasibility study for the preferred alternative will cost $1 million. At this time, no additional funding has been allocated to the project.

FI
SCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving a report on the Vista Transit Center Grade Separation Study.

E
XHIBITS:

1. List of Prior Actions

2. Alternative 1A Conceptual Site Plan

3. Vista Transit Center Grade Separation Study
08/26/2025
D2

Page 2 of 227 ends

Prior City Council Actions
Vista Transit Center Grade Separation Study
O
n January 23, 2024, approved the Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) Grant MOU with the North County Transit District (NCTD) (Vote: 5-0)
O
n September 26, 2023, adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-165, amending the Operating Budget for Fiscal Years 2023/24 and 2024/25, and amending the Capital Project Budget for Fiscal Years 2022/23 and 2023/24 (Vote: 5-0) O
n February 28, 2023, adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-21, approving the Fiscal Year 2023-24 DOT FTA AoPP program grant application and authorized the City Manager or their designee to sign the related documents (Vote 5-0).
08/26/2025
D2

Page 3 of 227 ends

EXHIBIT 1
08/26/2025
D2

Page 4 of 227 ends

EXHIBIT 2
7/17/2025

FINAL VISTA VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER

GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
July 17, 202 5
Prepared for:
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
Prepared by :
1011 Union Street, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92101
08/26/2025
D2

Page 5 of 227 ends

EXHIBIT 3

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 1 Project Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6

1.1 Introduction and Background ................................ ................................ ....................... 6

1.2 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

1.3 Project Purpose and Need ................................ ................................ ..........................10

1.4 Existing Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .....10

1.4.1 Existing Utilities and Drainage ................................ ................................ ...................11

1.4.2 BREEZE Transit Bus Operations and Routes ................................ ...........................12

1.4.3 Track and Station Facilities ................................ ................................ .......................12

1.4.4 Roadway and Streets ................................ ................................ ................................ 13

1.4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................ ................................ ...............13

1.4.6 Traffic Operations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......14

1.4.7 Collision Data and Emergency Response ................................ ................................ .16

1.4.8 Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................19

1.4.9 Future Development Plans ................................ ................................ ........................19

1.5 Public Outreach ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........20 2 Initial Study Alternatives ................................ ................................ ................................ .....21

2.1 Initial Alternatives Development ................................ ................................ ..................21

2.2 Design Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ........22

2.3 Initial Alternatives Description ................................ ................................ .....................23

2.3.1 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track ................................ ................................ ................23

2.3.2 Alternative 1B – Aerial Track (Main Street Closed) ................................ ..............25

2.3.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench ................................ ................................ ..........27

2.3.4 Alternative 2B – Track in Trench (Main Street Closed) ................................ .........29

2.3.5 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway ................................ ................................ ............31

2.3.6 Alternative 4A – Track in Tunnel ................................ ................................ ..........33

2.3.7 Alternative 4B – Track in Tunnel (Main Street Closed) ................................ .........34

2.4 Initial Alternatives Utilities and Drainage Impacts ................................ ........................34

2.4.1 Sanitary Sewer ................................ ................................ ................................ ....34

2.4.2 Domestic Water ................................ ................................ ................................ ...34

2.4.3 Electric & Gas ................................ ................................ ................................ ......35

2.4.4 SDG&E Substation ................................ ................................ .............................. 35

2.4.5 Dry Utilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........35 08/26/2025
D2

Page 6 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025

2.4.6 Miscellaneous ................................ ................................ ................................ ......35

2.5 Refined Alternative Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......36 3 Analysis of Refined Alternatives ................................ ................................ .........................37

3.1 Utilities and Drainage ................................ ................................ ................................ ..37

3.1.1 Refined Alternatives Impacts to Utilities ................................ ............................... 37

3.1.2 Flood Control & Drainage................................ ................................ .....................39

3.2 Traffic Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 42

3.2.1 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........42

3.2.2 Key Considerations ................................ ................................ .............................. 44

3.2.3 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track ................................ ................................ ................45

3.2.4 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench ................................ ................................ ..........47

3.2.5 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway ................................ ................................ ............48

3.2.6 Intersection Traffic Operations for Each Alternative ................................ .............50

3.3 Cost Estimate ................................ ................................ ................................ .............51

3.3.1 Cost Estimate Methodology ................................ ................................ .................51

3.3.2 Direct Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........52

3.3.3 Indirect Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ........52

3.3.4 Professional Services ................................ ................................ ..........................53

3.3.5 Project Contingency ................................ ................................ .............................54

3.3.6 General Assumptions ................................ ................................ ...........................55

3.3.7 General Exclusions ................................ ................................ .............................. 56

3.3.8 Statement of the Probable Cost ................................ ................................ ...........56

3.3.9 Cost Estimate Summary ................................ ................................ ......................57

3.3.10 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track ................................ ................................ ................58

3.3.11 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench ................................ ................................ ..........59

3.3.12 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway ................................ ................................ ............60

3.4 Project Sequencing and Construction Staging ................................ ............................61

3.4.1 Overview and Approach ................................ ................................ .......................61

3.4.2 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track ................................ ................................ ................61

3.4.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench ................................ ................................ ..........63

3.4.4 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway ................................ ................................ ............66

3.5 Planning Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .67

3.5.1 Planning Assessment Methodology and Criteria ................................ ..................67

3.5.2 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track ................................ ................................ ................70

3.5.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench ................................ ................................ ..........74 08/26/2025
D2

Page 7 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025

iii

3.5.4 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway ................................ ................................ ............77 4 Recommendation and Future Stages ................................ ................................ .................80

4.1 Recommendation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........80

4.2 Future Stages ................................ ................................ ................................ .............81

APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS ................................ ..........................84 APPENDIX B. CONSTRAINTS MAP ................................ ................................ ........................85 APPENDIX C. COLLISION AND CRIME DATA ................................ ................................ ........86 APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................ ................................ .........87 APPENDIX E. TRAFFIC QUEUES ................................ ................................ ............................88 APPENDIX F. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORTS ................................ ....................89 APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE ................................ ................................ ............90

97 105
139
150
161
207
08/26/2025
D2

Page 8 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025

Figures
Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 8 Figure 1.2 Location Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 Figure 1.3 Existing Vista Village Drive Traffic Congestion ................................ .........................15 Figure 1.4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Delays ................................ ................................ ....15 Figure 1.5 City of Vista Emergency Response Route Map ................................ ........................18 Figure 3.1 FEMA Flood Plain (Panel:06073C0778G) ................................ ................................ 41 Figure 3.2 SDCFCD’s Concrete Channel with Mapped FEMA Flood Plain ................................ 42 Figure 3.3 Alternative 1A Intersection Lane Configuration ................................ .........................45 Figure 3.4 Alternative 1A Intersection Volumes ................................ ................................ .........46 Figure 3.5 Alternative 3 Intersection Lane Configuration ................................ ...........................48 Figure 3.6 Alternative 3 Intersection Volumes ................................ ................................ ...........49 Figure 3.7 Cost Classification Matrix ................................ ................................ .........................51

08/26/2025
D2

Page 9 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025

Tables
Table 1-1 Collision Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....16 Table 1-2 Safety Incidents ................................ ................................ ................................ ........17 Table 3-1 Existing Utility Impact Log ................................ ................................ .........................38 Table 3-2 Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections ................................ .........44 Table 3-3 Alternative 1A Intersection Level of Service ................................ .............................. 47 Table 3-4 Alternative 1A Intersection Queues ................................ ................................ ...........47 Table 3-5 Alternative 3 Intersection Level of Service ................................ ................................ .50 Table 3-6 Alternative 3 Intersection Queue Lengths ................................ ................................ ..50 Table 3-7 Intersection Level of Service ................................ ................................ .....................51 Table 3-8. Percentage of Construction Costs ................................ ................................ ............54 Table 3-9 Additional Cost Estimating Assumptions ................................ ................................ ...55 Table 3-10 Alternatives Cost Comparison ................................ ................................ .................57 Table 3-11 Alternative 1A Cost Estimate ................................ ................................ ...................59 Table 3-12 Alternative 2A Cost Estimate ................................ ................................ ...................60 Table 3-13 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate ................................ ................................ .....................61 Table 3-14 Potential Funding Sources for All Alternatives ................................ .........................69 Table 3-15 Alternative 1A Impact Summary ................................ ................................ ..............73 Table 3-16 Alternative 2A Impact Summary ................................ ................................ ..............76 Table 3-17 Alternative 3 Impact Summary ................................ ................................ ................79 Table 4-1 Project Implementation Sequencing ................................ ................................ ..........81 Table 4-2 Alternatives Summary by Evaluation Criteria ................................ .............................82

08/26/2025
D2

Page 10 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 1 Executive Summary
The Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study (Study) represents the first planning effort to identify and evaluate possible alternatives to separate the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks from the Vista Village Drive and Main Street at-grade crossings in Vista, California. The site is located within a well-developed suburban town setting in the City of Vista, California. Vista Village Transit Center is bounded to the north by Geotting Way, to the south by Main Street, to the west by Olive Avenue, and to the east by N. Santa Fe Avenue and is centrally positioned within the city. The Vista Village Transit Center serves as a key transportation hub within this setting, facilitating connections between various transit services. The SPRINTER is an east-west rail line spanning 22 miles connecting the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido along the Highway 78 corridor. It serves 15 stations, including the Vista Village Transit Center, and operates every 30 minutes in each direction from approximately 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, with extended hours on weekends. The SPRINTER provides vital connections to other transit services, including the COASTER in Oceanside, BREEZE buses at all stations, Greyhound bus lines in Oceanside and Escondido, Metrolink commuter rail in Oceanside, Riverside Transit buses in Escondido and Oceanside, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner in Oceanside, and MTS Express buses in Escondido.

The identified grade crossings currently contribute to traffic congestion and pose safety and environmental concerns at the Vista Village Transit Center and the surrounding area. The purpose of this study is to develop a comprehensive planning-level framework for grade separation to improve the health and safety of visitors and residents of the City of Vista, as well as improve traffic conditions for passenger vehicles, public transit, emergency services, bicyclists and pedestrians. The key benefits of grade separation include improved mobility and circulation, enhanced safety, and reduced traffic congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Two public outreach workshops were held in the City of Vista to inform the public about the study efforts and collect community input on ways to enhance safety and accessibility in the study area (Vista Village Transit Center). The workshops, held in December 2024 and May 2025, summarized the need for and benefits of grade separation.

Participants were given the opportunity to express concerns, ask questions and partake in interactive activities pertaining to the design alternatives described herein.

The project team researched existing conditions and identified a range of initial alternatives that could potentially meet the objectives of this Study. For a variety of reasons, including feasibility, cost, and community impact, these outlined alternatives were narrowed down to three viable options:

1. Alternative 1A – Aerial Track

2. Alternative 2A – Track in Trench

3. Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
Schematic designs for these three refined alternatives were used as a basis to develop conceptual level of service (LOS) traffic analyses, utilities and infrastructure impact summaries and planning level cost estimates. Further, for each refined alternative, potential impacts to public safety, existing utilities, BREEZE Transit Bus operations, track and station services, roadways and streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and current and future land use were identified and evaluated.

A planning-level evaluation of community, environmental, regulatory, and funding considerations for the design alternatives was conducted using information provided by 08/26/2025
D2

Page 11 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 2 NCTD and the City of Vista to support a final recommendation for a preferred alternative. At this time, Alternative 1A has been identified as the preferred alternative because it best meets the project’s purpose and need, limits adverse impacts, maximizes benefits corresponding to cost, and is supported by the community. Further, while Alternative 2A would eliminate the two grade crossings with lowered track, the extent of improvements would result in longer construction, and based on estimated cost, would be prohibitively expensive. Alternative 3, although estimated to have a lower capital cost to raise existing roadways (not including the BREEZE bus depot relocation) compared with Alternatives 1A and 2A options, would result in a variety of unfavorable conditions, including significant right- of-way (ROW) acquisition and land use changes, redirection of access to several businesses, and loss of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in the area. Additional analysis is merited to determine the extent of project-induced benefits and impacts, both during construction and operation, of all identified alternatives.

Preliminary project sequencing was tailored for long range planning and strategic stakeholder coordination over the life of this project consisting of five (5) phases as shown in the table below. It should be noted the preferred grade separation alternative identified in this planning effort will require a more detailed feasibility study in the future before proceeding to the next stage.

Table ES.1 – Project Implementation Sequencing
Phase Status
Grade Separation Planning Study Current
Preliminary Design and
Environmental Clearance Future
Final Design (PS&E) Future
Procurement and Contracting Future
Building and Construction Future

Cost estimates consistent with AACE International, level 5 rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate, where the accuracy is limited as reflected by the broad range of the estimates, were prepared for each refined alternative (see Table ES.2). Subsequent phases shown in Table ES.1 are dependent on future funding.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 12 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 3 Table ES.2 – Summary of Project Cost Range
COST TYPE Alternative 1A Alternative 2A Alternative 3
GENERAL WORKS $4.6M - $8.6M $49.9M - $93.6M $11.2M - $20.9M RAIL WORKS $134.4M - $252.1M $173.8M - $325.8M $1.1M - $2M ROADWAY / STREETSCAPE WORK $3.2M - $5.9M $8.1M - $15.2M $87.3M - $163.7M INDIRECT COST $36.3M - $68M $63.9M - $119.8M $29.1M - $54.6M Contractor’s Contingency $35.7M - $66.9M $59.1M - $110.9M $25.7M - $48.3M CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD / PROFIT $38.5M - $72.3M $63.9M - $119.8M $27.8M - $52.1M TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $252.7M - $473.8M $418.7M - $785.1M $182.2M - $341.6M Escalation $59M - $110.6M $106.7M - $200.1M $44.1M - $82.7M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $69.1M - $129.5M $114.3M - $214.3M $49.9M - $93.5M RIGHT OF WAY N/A* N/A* $7.6M - $14.2M
UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $80.4M - $150.8M $133.3M - $249.9M $59.9M - $112.4M TOTAL PROJECT COST $461.2M - $864.7M $773.1M - $1449.5M $343.7M - $644.4M *Note: No permanent ROW costs anticipated for Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A for this planning study. Existing 100’ NCTD ROW is assumed sufficient to encompass railroad improvements and City of Vista ROW and easements are assumed sufficient for supporting utility relocations.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 13 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 4 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation  Definition
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Abut
ACI
Abutment
American Concrete Institute
ADA American with Disabilities Act
AISC
AM
American Institute of Steel Construction
Ante meridiem
AoPP Areas of Persistent Poverty
AREMA

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association
Ave.

AWW
Avenue
Absolute work window
BDDs Caltrans Bridge Design Details
BDM Caltrans Bridge Design Memos
BDP Caltrans Bridge Design Practice
BDS Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications
BMPs Best management practices
BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP/PS
CL
Cast-in-place/prestressed
Centerline
CPUC
Dr.

EBL
EBR
EBT
California Public Utilities Commission
Drive
Eastbound left turn
Eastbound right turn
Eastbound through
ESD Engineering Design Standards
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transportation Administration
GHG
HDPE
L
Greenhouse gas
High-density polyethylene
Length of Vertical Curve
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of Service
LOSSAN
ML
MP
Mph
MSE
NBL
Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo
Mainline
Milepost
Miles per hour
Mechanically stabilized earth
Northbound left turn
08/26/2025
D2

Page 14 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 5 NBR
NBT
NCTD
No.

OG
PM
PVI
TL
RCB
ROM
ROW
SANDAG
SBL
SBR
SBT
Northbound right turn
Northbound through
North County Transit District
Number
Original ground/existing ground
Post meridiem
Point of Vertical Intersection
Travel lane
Reinforced concrete box
Rough order of magnitude
Right-of-way
San Diego Association of Governments
Southbound left turn
Southbound right turn
Southbound through
SDCFD
SDG&E
SOV
St.

V
VCP
VID
VTC
WF60
WBL
WBR
WBT
San Diego County Flood Control District
San Diego Gas & Electric
Single-occupancy vehicle
Street
Design Speed
Vitrified clay pipe
Vista Irrigation District
Vista Transit Center
Wide Flange 60” girder
Westbound left turn
Westbound right turn
Westbound through
08/26/2025
D2

Page 15 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 6 1 Project Overview

1.1 Introduction and Background
The Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study (Study) represents the first planning effort to identify and evaluate possible alternatives to separate the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks from the Vista Village Drive and Main Street at-grade crossings in Vista, California.

In the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 2021 Regional Plan, the Vista Village Drive and Main Street grade separation project was identified as one of the North County Corridor SPRINTER service improvements with a 2035 horizon year for project completion.

Identified as a Transit Leap project, SANDAG’s category for creating a faster, more reliable transit system for the San Diego region, the grade separation project is listed in the Transportation Plan’s 2035 year-built phasing. Further, the Vista Village Drive and Main Street grade separation project supports SANDAG’s and NCTD’s overlying strategies to develop a multimodal mobility plan for the Vista Village Transit Center and surrounding neighborhoods.

This regional planning approach to enhance existing SPRINTER service will help increase ridership potential and reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pollution, and create a safe transportation interface for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, trains, and vehicles.

In 2022, North County Transit District (NCTD) conducted a Grade Crossing Risk Reduction and Feasibility Analysis intended to identify safety and security issues related to pedestrian and traffic behavior at several existing grade crossings, including the Vista Village Transit Center grade crossing at milepost (MP) 109.2. The NCTD goal for that analysis was to explore options to enhance the safety and security of trains, vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians using the COASTER commuter rail and SPRINTER hybrid rail grade crossings while minimizing the impacts of incidents at these locations. The analysis found high feasibility for a number of safety improvements that were proposed and low feasibility for grade separation. The 2022 report states, “A grade separation that eliminates the vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is generally considered the safest crossing but may not be feasible to implement.” This current study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of a grade separation at the Vista Village Drive and Main Street crossings.

Recognizing the history of safety concerns and mobility challenges at and around the Vista Village Transit Center’s Vista Village Drive at-grade crossing, the City of Vista was awarded a Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) Grant in 2023.

The City of Vista named NCTD as the designated FTA direct recipient to receive the grant funding on the City of Vista’s behalf, then proceeded in partnership to procure and administer the AoPP grant funded grade separation planning study. Efforts associated with this planning study commenced in August 2024.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 16 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 7 1.2 Project Location
The project site known as the Vista Village Transit Center or Vista Transit Center (VTC) is located at 240 N. Santa Fe Avenue within a well-developed suburban town setting in the City of Vista, California. The VTC is bounded to the north by Geotting Way, to the south by Main Street, to the west by Olive Avenue, and to the east by N. Santa Fe Avenue. The study area includes the VTC SPRINTER station and surrounding City of Vista and NCTD ROW, including public parking lots at 120 Olive Avenue and 240 N. Santa Fe Avenue. VTC is sited on the central section of double track on the SPRINTER hybrid line, one block north of Downtown Vista town center, and serves as the main intermediate station with bi-directional platform access, 10 BREEZE bus transfer bays, and multimodal connections. VTC is accessed via the major collector roadways of Vista Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue, and Olive Avenue (see Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2).
08/26/2025
D2

Page 17 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 8 Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map
Source: USGS and City of Vista Aerial Images

08/26/2025
D2

Page 18 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 9 Figure 1.2 Location Map

Source: City of Vista Aerial Imagery

08/26/2025
D2

Page 19 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 10 1.3 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study is to conduct a comprehensive planning study aimed at improving transportation infrastructure and public safety in the downtown area of Vista, California. Specifically, the North County Transit District (NCTD) and the City of Vista are seeking to eliminate two at-grade railroad crossings—located at Vista Village Drive and Main Street—by exploring grade separation alternatives. These crossings currently contribute to traffic congestion, safety concerns, and increased automobile emissions due to idling. Ultimately, the Study is intended to lay the groundwork for future infrastructure improvements that will enhance the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of the transportation network in the Vista Transit Center area.

The goal of this study is to outline a framework for grade separation of the two existing NCTD railroad crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street to improve mobility and circulation, enhance safety, and reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at and around VTC. Moreover, this critical infrastructure project aims to improve (1) safety and quality of life for residents and visitors and (2) traffic flow in the community to reduce the amount of time passenger vehicles, first responders, school buses, BREEZE transit buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians are required to wait for trains to pass through these intersections.

The need for a grade separation at the two existing NCTD rail crossings is well known by local government authorities, jurisdictional transportation agencies, and the community. SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan inclusion of the Vista Village Drive / Main Street grade separation project and NCTD’s initiative to seek future safety enhancements to mitigate pedestrian and vehicle incidents through engineering, enforcement, and/or educational activities at the Vista Village Drive railroad crossing confirm this necessity. The Study will provide proposed solutions to help mitigate safety concerns and promote multimodal circulation in the area, reflect community participation and input, and serve as the foundation for presenting the grade separation subject to the City of Vista City Council and the NCTD Board of Directors.

This planning study researched and developed three (3) feasible alternatives to grade separate two (2) existing railroad crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street while considering and comparing the various resulting impacts of each. In addition to the feasibility of grade separating the NCTD rail line, the evaluation of each alternative assesses key conditions and incorporates recommendations for corresponding improvements to adjacent roadways, transit facilities, and adjacent properties. Furthermore, although the planning study will advance only three (3) grade separation alternatives (refined alternatives) to a final evaluation and recommendation, other alternatives that were considered, but precluded from further consideration, are also included and defined herein for the purpose of producing a conclusive recommendation.

1.4 Existing Conditions
The Vista Village Transit Center is located within a well-developed suburban area in the City of Vista, California that is bounded to the west and southwest by City of Carlsbad, to the northwest by City of Oceanside, to the southeast by City of San Marcos and to the north and east by unincorporated areas of San Diego County.

When reconfiguring an at-grade railroad crossing to a grade-separated track, it is important to consider numerous critical factors due to the complexity of the system. In the case of VTC and the larger project area, this includes the following unique features and issues; the separation of two at-grade crossings due to their close proximity, the SPRINTER station’s location, the 08/26/2025
D2

Page 20 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 11 BREEZE bus transfer facility, pedestrian and bicycle connections, mobility routes, flood control channels, a rapidly growing dense urban setting, and challenging topography.

Site and operational constraints that impose challenges to navigate during planning, design, construction, and operation of a grade separated railroad crossing are included herein and shown graphically and summarized in APPENDIX B CONSTRAINTS MAP.

1.4.1 Existing Utilities and Drainage
Existing utilities and flood control system locations were obtained per record drawings, as-builts, utility company maps, and engineering drawings provided by the City of Vista and utility owners.

Many utilities, such as flood control and drainage, underground and overhead electrical, natural gas distribution, wastewater mains and service laterals, domestic water main lines and service laterals, communication and data lines, traffic signal power and controls, and miscellaneous utility appurtenances are found within the ROW that would have varied impacts depending on the grade separation alternative under consideration. A high-level assessment of potential utility impacts is included in Section 2.

1.4.1.1 Flood Control & Drainage
There is one existing flood control system within the project limits that crosses the rail tracks.

The concrete lined open channel flowing south receives flow from drainage area upstream to the north, including two reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culverts along N. Santa Fe Avenue and S. Santa Fe Avenue, respectively. Where the flood control channel crosses the NCTD ROW, the open channel transitions to reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert below the SPRINTER line and Olive Avenue.

1.4.1.2 Sanitary Sewer
There is an 8” sewer main carried inside a 30” steel casing that crosses the NCTD tracks at Vista Village Drive and there are two known existing sewer systems located in Vista Village Drive, S. Santa Fe Drive, and Main Street, respectively, that cross the rail tracks. ▪ 8” PVC Sewer (Encased)
▪ 10” VCP Sewer (Encased)
▪ 8” PVC Sewer

1.4.1.3 Domestic Water
Vista Irrigation District (VID) provides domestic water to the City of Vista, owning and operating water distribution within the city. There are domestic water main lines and service laterals that are found within the project limits, with one known existing water main located in Vista Village Drive that crosses the SPRINTER tracks.
▪ 10” PVC Water (Encased)

08/26/2025
D2

Page 21 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 12 1.4.1.4 Electrical & Gas
There are San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) electrical and gas utilities identified within the project limits. An existing SDG&E power pole guy line, located north of Olive Avenue and West Orange Street, crosses the NCTD ROW to an anchor point on the north side of the SPRINTER tracks. There is also one known existing electrical utility main and one gas main, both located in Vista Village Drive that cross the SPRINTER tracks.
▪ SDG&E Electrical Duct Bank
▪ 4” Gas Main
▪ Power Pole (PP) Guy Line Cable

1.4.1.5 SDG&E Substation
An SDG&E electrical substation, located on a 0.294-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Vista Village Drive & N. Santa Fe Avenue is identified per SDG&E Electric Asset Map No. 15652- 120530, with substation located on parcel 230 and Asset No. H110612.

1.4.1.6 Dry Utilities
Research of municipal record data, as-built plans, private development plans and direct field observation has confirmed there are a considerable number of dry utilities such as cable TV, fiber optic and internet lines within the City of Vista ROW and private residential and commercial properties in the vicinity of VTC.

1.4.1.7 Miscellaneous
A variety of miscellaneous utility and site related issues are applicable to this grade separation project. These features include, but are not limited to, traffic and wayfinding signs, public parking facilities, design standards, and future planned utilities.

Additional information and details for existing utilities and drainage are included in Section 2.4.

1.4.2 BREEZE Transit Bus Operations and Routes
There are current Vista Transit Center BREEZE bus operations and facilities at VTC.

Information was obtained per the NCTD BREEZE Vista Transit Center Redevelopment Existing Bus Operations and Station Access (DRAFT) Operations and NCTD BREEZE Speed and Reliability Study Recommendations - Vista Transit Center (DRAFT), both dated August 13, 2024, by WSP. VTC outfits ten (10) bus bays and serves as a transit hub for eight (8) NCTD bus routes. Additional information about BREEZE transit bus operations and routes can be found in the above referenced studies.

1.4.3 Track and Station Facilities
There is existing NCTD 100-foot-wide railroad ROW within the study area (VTC). ROW control information is per NCTD record drawings and track charts. There are also three (3) existing CPUC at-grade track crossings: Vista Village Drive, Main Street, and Guajome Street, and two (2) NCTD passenger stations: Vista Village Transit Center and Civic Center Vista Station. The Guajome Street grade crossing is south of Main Street at milepost (MP) 109.6. The Civic Center Vista Station is south of Guajome Street at MP 110.1.

NCTD’s SPRINTER and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) freight trains operate along this corridor. The SPRINTER operates approximately every 30 minutes, with a train in each direction passing within a couple minutes from each other, from approximately 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, with extended hours on weekends, through the project’s study area.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 22 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 13 1.4.4 Roadway and Streets
This section describes the characteristics of the roads within the project limits (study area).

Roadway ROW information and boundary data were acquired from the City of Vista GIS mapping and City of Vista General Plan Circulation Element.

Vista Village Drive is a 6-lane urban major roadway with a raised median west of the SPRINTER tracks, and a 5-lane arterial with a striped median east of the tracks. The roadway width ranges between 95 and 105 feet, west of the tracks, and between 80 and 95 feet-wide east of the tracks. On-street parking is not permitted. Traffic volumes on Vista Village Drive are approximately 42,000 vehicles per day west of N. Santa Fe Avenue and 27,000 east of N. Santa Fe Avenue.

Olive Avenue is a 2-lane collector with a striped two-way left turn lane north of Vista Village Drive. It is approximately 35 feet wide, widening to approximately 55 feet wide as it approaches Vista Village Drive. On-street parking is not permitted. There are approximately 8,100 vehicles per day on this roadway.

N. Santa Fe Avenue is a 4-lane major roadway with a raised median north of Main Street. It ranges between 85 and 90 feet wide and on-street parking is not allowed. Traffic volumes are approximately 24,000 vehicles per day north of Vista Village Drive. S. Santa Fe Avenue, south of Main Street, narrows to a 2-lane roadway which varies from 30-50 feet wide to accommodate diagonal on-street parking and bus bays for various NCTD BREEZE routes. There are approximately 15,000 vehicles per day on S. Santa Fe Avenue in the vicinity of the study area.

Main Street is a 2-lane local roadway with striped and raised medians that ranges from 30 to 55 feet in width. Parallel on-street parking is available along some blocks both east and west of the SPRINTER tracks and S. Santa Fe Avenue. Traffic volumes are approximately 5,200 vehicles per day.

Guajome Street is a 2-lane local roadway with a striped median that ranges in width from 20 to 35 feet. Parallel on-street parking is available between the grade crossing and S. Santa Fe Avenue. Guajome Street provides access to and from local neighborhoods and downtown Vista.

There are approximately 4,600 vehicles per day on this roadway.

Civic Center Drive is classified as a 6-lane urban major roadway between SR-78 and S. Santa Fe Avenue in the Circulation Element. The roadway, ranging from 65 feet to 75 feet in width, is currently striped with 4-lanes with raised medians and left-turn lanes and provides access to the Civic Center transit station, located south of the study area. Traffic volumes on Civic Center Drive in the vicinity of the of the Civic Center Vista Station is approximately 34,000 per day.

1.4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
This section summarizes existing study area pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Information on planned non-motorized facilities is also included in Section 1.4.9. Pedestrian and bicycle facility information was obtained from a desktop review of Google Maps. Record data and as-built drawings were also used for reference and were provided by NCTD and the City of Vista.

Vista Village Drive includes Class II bike lanes with a striped buffer in both directions. The bike lanes include green striping along segments that approach intersections with local arterials.

Pedestrian sidewalks are included on both sides of Vista Village Drive. Pedestrian crosswalks are present along all sides on the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue Vista Village Drive.

Olive Avenue does not include any bicycle facilities. Pedestrian sidewalks are present on both sides of Olive Avenue. Pedestrian crosswalks are present on the north and west legs of the 08/26/2025
D2

Page 23 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 14 intersection where Olive Avenue intersects with Vista Village Drive, and on the south and west legs of the intersection of Goetting Way.

N. Santa Fe Avenue approaching Vista Village Drive includes Class II bike lanes with green striping along segments that approach street and driveway intersections. S. Santa Fe Avenue, south of Main Street, is predominantly a Class III bike facility with painted “sharrows”.

Pedestrian sidewalks are included on both sides of N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue. Pedestrian crosswalks are present at the intersections of Vista Village Drive and Main Street.

Main Street does not include any bicycle facilities. Pedestrian sidewalks are present on both sides of Main Street. Pedestrian crosswalks are present at the intersection of S. Santa Fe Avenue.

Guajome Street does not include any bicycle facilities. Pedestrian sidewalks are present on both sides of the road between Mercantile Street and S. Santa Fe Avenue and on the north side of the road between approximately 125 feet west of the Guajome Street railroad grade crossing and Mercantile Street. At the time of this study there are currently no continuous pedestrian facilities present west of the Guajome Street grade crossing.

Civic Center Drive has class III bicycle routes with shared lane markings. There are pedestrian sidewalks present on both sides of the roadway.

Inland Rail Trail is a Class I bikeway that runs through the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido. At the time of this Study, Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and Phase 3 construction is underway. The Phase 3 Inland Rail Trail (IRT) bikeway will run parallel to the SPRINTER tracks south from the station at Civic Center Drive.

1.4.6 Traffic Operations
As previously referenced in Section 1.4.3 both NCTD and BNSF utilize this rail corridor. The SPRINTER operates approximately every 30 minutes, with a train going in each direction staggered a few minutes apart, during its hours of service. As a result of these train operations, the signalized intersections at Vista Village Drive & N. Santa Fe Avenue, Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue, and Main Street & S. Santa Fe Avenue are preempted to stop traffic to clear the railroad right-of-way, thereby allowing the trains to cross these streets. Each time a train preempts traffic, the signals on Vista Village Drive near the grade crossing, as well as the signal at S. Santa Fe Avenue and Main Street, can cause travel delays ranging from 3 to 7 minutes.

The exact delay depends on the volume and movement of vehicular traffic as the system accommodates the train. These delays create a compounding effect along the Vista Village Drive and Main Street corridors and impact adjacent roadways trying to access these roadways, especially during peak travel times (See Figure 1.3). Additionally, since the SPRINTER has trains crossing these streets within a few minutes of each other, congestion associated with these delays can take several cycles to clear.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 24 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 15 Figure 1.3 Existing Vista Village Drive Traffic Congestion

Images: (Left) Southbound Vista Village Drive approaching N. Santa Fe Avenue (Right) Northbound Vista Village Drive approaching Olive Avenue Source: City of Vista Site Photos

Not only are there vehicular delays, but there are also bicycle and pedestrian delay impacts associated with these train operations (See Figure 1.4). Similar to vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists cannot proceed through these grade crossings when the trains are crossing the streets.

Figure 1.4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Delays

Source: City of Vista Site Photos
08/26/2025
D2

Page 25 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 16 1.4.7 Collision Data and Emergency Response
Vehicle Crash Data
Collision Summary Reports were provided by the City of Vista Traffic Engineering Division for Geotting Way, Main Street, North and S. Santa Fe Avenue, Olive Avenue, Terracina Way, and Vista Village Drive. The Collision Summary Reports are the collection of crash data along roadways and streets in the vicinity of VTC from May 1, 2021, to April 30, 2024. Table 1-1 is an overview of the itemized reports which can be found in APPENDIX C. COLLISION AND CRIME DATA. This data is only for crashes outside of the railroad track ROW and crossings. Safety incidents at the railroad tracks inside the NCTD ROW are discussed separately in Table 3-4.

Table 1-1 Collision Summary

Rail Crash Data
Table 1-2 summarizes NCTD Transit Area Incidents recorded by NCTD’s Safety Division from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2024. These incidents are reported within NCTD ROW and do not represent City of Vista reports. The mileposts for the data included is from MP 108.7 (roughly where Orange Street dead ends at the tracks) to MP 109.3 (the railroad east side of Main Street).

Road
Name Location Total
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Total
Injured
Fatal
Collisions Total Killed
Vista Village
Drive
Wave Drive
to N. Indiana
Avenue
41 18 25 0 0
Main Street
Santa Fe
Avenue to
Wave Drive
0 0 0 0 0
N. Santa Fe
Avenue
Orange
Street to
Main Street
34 19 25 0 0
Olive
Avenue
Vista Village
Drive to
Plymouth
Drive
12 8 12 0 0
Terracina
Way
Vista Village
Drive to
Geotting
Way
1 0 0 0 0
Geotting
Way
Terracina
Way to Olive
Avenue
2 1 1 0 0
08/26/2025
D2

Page 26 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 17 Table 1-2 Safety Incidents
C – Attempted Suicide 9
R – Auto Accident on the ROW 2
R – Crossing Damage by Vehicle 12
R – Debris Strike 5
R – Near Miss Bicycle 2
R – Near Miss Trespasser 82
R – Near Miss Vehicle 8
R – Obstruction on the Tracks / ROW 25
R – Trespassers vs Train Fatal 3
R – Trespassing Railroad / ROW 318

Emergency Response
Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue, N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue, Main Street, and Wave Drive are some of the roadways located within the study area that are designated as emergency response routes by the City of Vista Fire Department (See Figure 1.5). Typically, traffic signals have a system which provides a green light for emergency vehicles passing through the intersection, thereby giving them the right-of-way to help shorten their response times. However, since the traffic signals at these grade crossings are preempted to stop traffic for train operations they are given priority over this emergency response system. As a result of this traffic signal preemption, corresponding railroad gate closures, and vehicular congestion emergency response times are impacted along these corridors.

Type of Incident Count of Incident Type
08/26/2025
D2

Page 27 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 18 Figure 1.5 City of Vista Emergency Response Route Map

Source: City of Vista
08/26/2025
D2

Page 28 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 19 1.4.8 Land Use
Land use surrounding the Vista Transit Center is zoned as SP-1, City of Vista’s Downtown Specific Plan. Most land parcels in the area are defined as Multi-Use (MU) in accordance with City of Vista General Plan 2030.

1.4.9 Future Development Plans
Grade separation alternatives consider what is on record with the City of Vista’s approved Tentative and Final Maps in the City of Vista. SANDAG Inland Rail Trail Phase 4, Segments 1-

4. Inland Rail Trail: Phase 4 of the Inland Rail Trail will provide a Class I bicycle facility from North Drive to Civic Center Drive, roughly paralleling the SPRINTER tracks in the study area. This portion of the Inland Rail Trail is in design and projected to be complete by the year 20301.

1 https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/bikeways-and-walkways/bikeway-and-walkway- projects/inland-rail-trail
08/26/2025
D2

Page 29 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 20 1.5 Public Outreach
The project team hosted a workshop in the City of Vista in early December 2024. The workshop (Workshop No. 1) was held from 6:00pm – 8:00pm at the Morris B. Vance Community Center.

Both the City of Vista and NCTD staff were in attendance. Approximately 40 people attended.

The workshop focused on informing the public of the study efforts, discussing grade separated options and gathering community input to enhance safety and accessibility in the transit area. It included a presentation and an open house style setting where people could speak with the project team and ask questions. Key concerns included pedestrian and bicyclist safety, traffic management, infrastructure enhancements, and environmental impacts.

The workshop emphasized the benefits of grade separation, such as enhanced safety, reduced noise and traffic congestion, reduction in GHG emissions, and improved train operations. Key issues discussed included the design and accessibility of VTC, transit and roadway infrastructure, and addressing safety and emergency services concerns in downtown Vista.

These topics reflect the community's focus on creating a safer, more efficient, and environmentally friendly transit area.

Participants asked questions regarding access to the transit center and parking lot, construction methods to reduce/minimize disruption, traffic signal timings, roadway closures, and funding options, among others. Overall, participants expressed support in separating the rail tracks to improve operations along Vista Village Drive and Main Street. They indicated the greatest support for an elevated rail crossing as included under Alternative 1A.

The project team hosted a second workshop in May 2025. Workshop No. 2 was held from 6:00pm – 8:00pm at the Morris B. Vance Community Center. Both the City of Vista and NCTD staff were in attendance. Approximately 10 people attended.

This workshop focused on presenting the three alternatives developed in the study with the goal of ensuring public involvement in the evaluation and selection of the proposed alternatives. The project team gathered feedback on the conceptual designs via participation in group discussions, written comment cards, and ranking of the three refined alternatives.

Participants were asked to rank the three alternatives using dot stickers to indicate their preferred alternative. Consistent with Workshop No. 1, Alternative 1A received the most positive feedback and was the preferred alternative of the participants at the May 2025 workshop.

See APPENDIX F. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORTS for Workshop No. 1 and Workshop No. 2 summary reports.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 30 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 21 2 Initial Study Alternatives
The principal goal of this planning study is to research and develop three (3) feasible alternatives to grade separate two (2) existing railroad crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street while considering and comparing the various resulting impacts of each.

Considerations include factors such as the NCTD station and transit center location, rail grades, double track, roadways and access to the facilities in the area, etc. Furthermore, although the planning study will advance only three (3) grade separation alternatives to a final evaluation and recommendation, other alternatives were considered. The latter were precluded from further consideration, however, are included and defined herein for the purpose of producing a conclusive recommendation. This section documents the identification and refinement of seven (7) initial alternatives to three (3) refined alternatives.

2.1 Initial Alternatives Development
The options for grade separation of the Vista Village Drive and Main Street roadways and SPRINTER line California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at-grade crossing consist of, in general:

1. Elevated tracks supported on structure(s)

2. Track in trench with side support structure(s)

3. Elevated roadway (Vista Village Drive) supported with structure(s)

4. Underground tracks supported inside tunnel(s)

5. Any combination of the above options
Seven (7) alternatives to create permanent vertical separation between the NCTD SPRINTER line and the Vista Village Drive and Main Street roadways were initially identified as potential designs for consideration and further examination in this current Study.

Three (3) of these alternatives involve the closing of the Main Street grade crossing (located approximately 300 feet to the south of Vista Village Drive) in lieu of grade separation there. As seen below, six of the seven initial alternatives are denoted with A and B variants, the former with grade separating Main Street, and the latter resulting in closure of the Main Street grade crossing. In pursuit of a reduced length of track improvements and resulting impacts to the surrounding urban features, these secondary “B” variations of alternatives 1, 2, and 4 were investigated. After an in-depth examination of site conditions, SPRINTER and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) freight train operations, traffic patterns, pedestrian and bicycle access, BREEZE bus facilities, flood control and drainage infrastructure, utilities, and all relevant factors, the following feasible grade separation alternatives were identified:

1. Alternative 1A – Aerial Track

2. Alternative 1B – Aerial Track (Main Street Closed)

3. Alternative 2A – Track In Trench

4. Alternative 2B – Track in Trench (Main Street Closed)

5. Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway

6. Alternative 4A – Track in Tunnel

7. Alternative 4B – Track in Tunnel (Main Street Closed) This Study will first assess these alternatives to determine merit for continued development and recommend advancement of the leading three (3) grade separation scenarios for future in depth feasibility analysis.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 31 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 22 2.2 Design Approach
Prior to moving forward with design considerations for the possible alternatives, public infrastructure record drawings and as-built drawings, ROW data, traffic data and studies, utility plans, aerial photographs and mapping, track record drawings, track charts, private residential and commercial development information, and other available applicable information, were reviewed to establish an up-to-date representation of VTC and the surrounding study area. This compilation of data for the existing site improvements was then used to establish a starting point for creating basic design elements for each alternative. Given the scope and resource limitations associated with this current study, a schematic-level design approach was adopted.

Further, the included alternatives designs are in accordance with the following applicable design standards and criteria:

Roadway Design Standards
▪ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ▪ City of Vista Design Guidelines and Standards (roadway typical sections) ▪ County of San Diego design guidelines and standards (roadway typical sections) ▪ Design Criteria-LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County
▪ Design speeds are determined by roadway type and existing roadway speeds. ▪ General Plan Cross Sections from the City of Vista – City of Vista General Plan ▪ Greenbook (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) standards ▪ LOSSAN Corridor-San Diego Subdivision Engineering Standard Drawings (ESD) Rail Design Standards
▪ LOSSAN Corridor – San Diego Subdivision Engineering Standards Drawings (ESD) ▪ Design Criteria – LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County ▪ AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering
▪ CPUC General Orders
▪ BNSF Standards for Grade Separations
08/26/2025
D2

Page 32 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 23 Structures Standards
▪ American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) ▪ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ▪ American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
▪ Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)
▪ Caltrans Bridge Design Memos (BDM)
▪ Caltrans Memo To Designers (MTDs)
▪ Caltrans Bridge Design Practice (BDP)
▪ Caltrans Bridge Design Details (BDDs)
▪ Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)
▪ Caltrans Structural Technical Policies (STPs)
▪ Caltrans Office of Special Funded Projects and Structures Local Assistance (OSFP/SLA) ▪ California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications ▪ Design Criteria-LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County
▪ LOSSAN Corridor – San Diego Subdivision Engineering Standards Drawings (ESD) ▪ BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects ▪ American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 – for station design ▪ California Building Code (CBC) – for station design
Track Design
The track will be designed according to the SANDAG LOSSAN Design Criteria Manual, BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation projects, and specific CPUC General Orders and AREMA criteria for Commuter and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class 5 track.

The design criteria include track speeds, clearances, and horizontal and vertical track geometry.

Design speeds within the corridor vary because of track curvature. For the northerly portion of the project limits, the speeds are 45 miles per hour (mph) for passenger trains and 30 mph for freight. Along the middle portion of the alignment near VTC, the speeds are 55 mph and 30 mph for passenger and freight respectively, then reduce to 26 mph and 20 mph within the southerly limits, respectively.

The proposed track horizontal alignments would generally follow the existing alignment to maintain the existing design speeds and confine proposed grade separation improvements to within the existing 100-foot ROW. The vertical profiles would be modified to allow for grade separation. The proposed vertical gradients would be equal to or less than the existing track grades within the project limits and would account for compensated profile gradients. The profile modifications are further described in the following sections for each alternative.

2.3 Initial Alternatives Description

2.3.1 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track
Alternative 1A would include an aerial track spanning the Vista Village Drive and Main Street grade crossings, as well as VTC. The lateral limits of work would be confined to the 100-foot NCTD ROW and would require approximately 1.0 miles of track replacement. A shoofly track (temporary operating sidetrack) would be constructed to maintain current NCTD and BNSF double track operations. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS. For Alternative 1A utility impacts, see Section 3.1.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 33 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 24 2.3.1.1 Track Design
Northerly Segment
This alternative would tie into the existing Mainline (ML) 1 and 2 tracks near MP 108.6 (approximately 2,600 feet north of VTC) and would permanently shift the tracks to the west approximately 22 feet. The horizontal curves of the new alignment would generally follow the existing tracks in the realigned location and the design speeds would match those of existing rail operations. The track center distance would be widened from 15 feet at each tie-in location (north of VTC) to 20 feet in width for most of the 1.0 miles of track replacement. The track profile would tie into the existing 0.11% track grade and would be extended to raise the track profile within the limits of new retained fill track section, north of the transit center to approximately MP 109.0.

The embankment section would be wide enough to accommodate a new 10-foot-wide access road adjacent to the new ML-1 track to the east. The embankment section would also be widened to allow for vehicles to turn around near the northerly end of a new VTC elevated station.

Transit Center Segment
The new track section would transition from retained fill to aerial guideway just north of VTC and the existing flood control box culvert (RCB) undercrossing near MP 109.0 and would extend approximately 1,200 feet to just south of Main Street. The tracks would be parallel to and offset from the existing alignment to the west by approximately 22 feet within this segment. In accordance with minimum vertical clearance requirements between track structure and roadway below, there would be a minimum 17.5-foot overhead vertical clearance from the roadway to the new track bridge soffit at both crossings per Caltrans and AASHTO design standards.

Consequently, the track profile would end up being approximately 26 feet above the existing track elevation to grade separate Vista Village Drive and Main Street.

Southerly Segment
The new track section would transition back to retained fill just south of Main Street at approximately MP 109.3. The track alignment would then continue to follow the existing alignment, offset approximately 22 feet to the west up to MP 109.5 where it would begin to shift back to the east to tie into the existing track with 15-foot track centers just north of the Guajome Street at-grade crossing near MP 109.6 (approximately 2,600 feet south of VTC).

2.3.1.2 Roadway Design
The extent of roadway improvements would be limited to modification to the medians at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street to accommodate proposed bridge columns and other incidental rehabilitation along the railroad alignment. No major roadway redesign or realignment is anticipated for Alternative 1A. Other roadway improvements include new pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalk at the trackway and new signage and pavement markings.

Page 34 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 25 shifts and reductions at Vista Village Drive. Also, short term traffic detours and nighttime road closures at Vista Village Drive, N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue, and Main Street may be necessary during the construction of the track bridge. Durations of impacts to surrounding streets can be shortened by only allowing such traffic control measures to be deployed during work to cross street locations.

Impacts to future existing Inland Rail Trail within the NCTD ROW would require temporary closure and may require permanent relocation of segments. Approximately 4,732 linear feet of bikeway would be affected for Alternative 1A. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for extent of the Inland Rail Trail impacts.

2.3.1.3 Structural Design
This grade separation alternative would be comprised of an aerial viaduct that has a total approximate length of 1,200 feet distributed over 15-equal spans, crossing over both Vista Village Drive and Main Street. The elevated spans would be grouped in several frames. The aerial viaduct approach embankments would have an approximate combined length of 4,600 feet. The two approach embankments would be composed of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls supported on a combined continuous footing on piles (“U”-shaped retaining walls). The viaduct would be comprised of two single-track structures consisting of a 6’-0” deep single-cell cast-in-place/prestressed (CIP/PS) concrete box girder superstructure supported by single-column bents. All bridge columns would be founded on Type 2 pile shafts. The spans would be continuous within each frame over intermediate bents and with integral bent caps.

This alternative would require relocating the ground-level VTC station to an elevated station located adjacent to the track alignment that meets American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. ADA ramps, stairs and elevators from ground level to the VTC elevated station would be also required. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for general footprint of station ramps.

2.3.2 Alternative 1B – Aerial Track (Main Street Closed) Alternative 1B is a variation to Alternative 1A; this alternative would include an aerial track spanning Vista Village Drive and VTC only. This design option would include the closure of the Main Street at-grade crossing between S. Sante Fe Avenue and the Vista Village Commercial Center. The lateral limits of work would be confined to the 100-foot NCTD ROW and would require approximately 1.0 mile of track replacement. A shoofly track would be constructed to maintain current NCTD and BNSF rail operations. Investigation of this alternative determined that no significant savings in costs or reduction in track work in comparison to Alternative 1A would result. The reasons are: 1) the close location of Main Street at grade crossing to Vista Village Avenue crossing (within 300 feet) and 2) the railroad track vertical geometry at VTC is a low point of a sag or vertical curve, meaning the VTC is at the bottom of two rising slopes and requires lengthy track modifications to reconnect lowered track whether Main Street is closed or remained open.

2.3.2.1 Track Design
Northerly Segment
This alternative would tie into the existing ML-1 and ML-2 tracks near MP 108.6 (approximately 2,600 feet north of VTC) and would shift the tracks to the west approximately 22 feet. The horizontal curves of the new alignment would generally follow the existing curves in the realigned location and the design speeds would be the same as existing conditions. The track center distance would be widened from 15 feet at the tie-in, to 20 feet as it approaches the VTC station. The track profile would tie into the existing approximately 0.11 % track grade, which 08/26/2025
D2

Page 35 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 26 would be extended to raise the track profile within the limits of the new retained fill track section north of VTC to approximate MP 109.0.

Transit Center Segment
The new track section would transition from retained fill to aerial guideway just north of VTC and existing box culvert undercrossing near MP 109.0 and would extend approximately 1,100 feet to just north of Main Street. The tracks would be parallel to and offset from the existing alignment to the west approximately 22 feet within this segment. In accordance with minimum vertical clearance requirements between track structure and roadway below, there would be a minimum

17.5 feet overhead clearance from the roadway to the new bridge soffit at the crossings per Caltrans and AASHTO design standards. As a result, the track profile would be approximately 26 feet above the existing track elevation to grade separate Vista Village Drive.

Southerly Segment
Under this Alternative 1B, it is assumed that Main Street would be closed at the track crossing, therefore, the new track section would transition back to retained fill just south of Vista Village Drive at approximately MP 109.2. The track alignment would continue to follow the existing alignment, offset approximately 22 feet to the west, up to MP 109.5 where it would begin to shift back to the east to tie into the existing track with 15-foot track centers, just north of the Guajome Street railroad grade crossing near MP 109.6.

2.3.2.2 Roadway Design
Roadway impacts to Vista Village Drive for this option would be similar to Alternative 1A. Main Street would be permanently closed to motor vehicles; however, bicycle and pedestrian access would be maintained via a tunnel or undercrossing structure installed below the elevated track at the Main Street location. To mitigate the loss of access to Vista Village Commercial Center, a new driveway on Vista Village Drive directly across from Olive Avenue would be introduced.

Temporary roadway impacts would, however, be necessary as part of the construction operations resulting from common methods used to build an elevated track. Staging plans, including methods to minimize traffic and community impacts, would be prepared in advance as part of bidding documents. Typical information would show traffic lane closures and/or lane shifts and reductions at Vista Village Drive. Also, short term traffic detours and nighttime road closures at Vista Village Drive, and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue, may be necessary during the construction of the track bridge. Durations of impacts to surrounding streets can be shortened by only allowing such traffic control measures to be deployed during work to install track and structure at street locations.

Impacts to future existing Inland Rail Trail would require temporary closure and/or relocation.

Approximately 4,732 linear feet of bikeway would be affected for Alternative 1A. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for extent of the Inland Rail Trail impacts. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 36 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 27 2.3.2.3 Structural Design
This alternative would be comprised of an aerial viaduct that has a total approximate length of 900 feet distributed over 11-equal spans crossing over Vista Village Drive. The spans would be grouped in several frames. The approach embankments would have an approximate length of 4,100 feet. The two approach embankments would be composed of reinforced concrete retaining walls supported on a combined continuous footing on piles (“U”-shaped retaining walls). The viaduct would be comprised of two single-track structures consisting of a 6’-0” deep single-cell CIP/PS concrete box girder superstructure supported by single-column bents. All columns would be founded on Type 2 pile shafts. The spans would be continuous within each frame over intermediate bents and with integral bent caps.

As with Alternative 1A, Alternative 1B would require relocating the VTC station to an elevated station located adjacent to track alignment that meets ADA requirements. ADA ramps, stairs and elevators from ground level to the VTC elevated station would be required.

2.3.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench
Alternative 2A would involve a depressed railroad in a below-grade trench and at-grade roadway bridge crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. The lateral limits of track work would be confined to the 100-foot NCTD ROW and would require approximately 1.9 miles of track replacement. A shoofly track would be constructed to maintain current NCTD and BNSF rail operations. This design would require a relocated below-grade platform for the Vista Village station and would result in far reaching track and roadway impacts at both the Guajome Street and Civic Center Drive at-grade crossings and Civic Center Vista Station. The reason impacted track length is nearly twice that of Alternative 1A and 1B is the railroad track vertical geometry at VTC is a low point sag. In order to lower track below surrounding roadways (Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue and Main Street) and meet track grade design constraints, the track improvements would be forced to extend further to reach tie-in points both north and south of VTC.

See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS. For utility impacts, see Section

3.1 2.3.3.1 Track Design
Northerly Segment
This alternative would tie into the existing ML-1 and ML-2 tracks near MP 108.4 and would shift the tracks to the west approximately 23 feet. The horizontal curves of the new alignment would generally follow the existing curves in the realigned location and the design speeds would be the same existing conditions. The track center distance would be widened from 15 feet at the tie-in to 20 feet center distance as it approaches VTC. The track profile would tie into the existing approximately 1.90 % track grade and would be extended to lower the track profile within the limits of the new trench section north of the VTC to approximate MP 109.0.

The trench section would be wide enough to accommodate a new 10-foot-wide access road adjacent to the new ML-1 track to the east. The trench section would also be widened to allow for vehicles to turn around near the northerly end of the new VTC lowered station.

Transit Center Segment
The new track section would continue in a trench through the Vista Village Transit Center and adjacent roadway crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. The tracks would be parallel to and offset from the existing alignment to the west approximately 23 feet within this 08/26/2025
D2

Page 37 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 28 segment. The track profile would be approximately 30 feet below the existing track to grade separate Vista Village Drive and Main Street. In accordance with minimum vertical clearance requirements between track structure and roadway above, there would be a minimum of 26.0- feet overhead vertical clearance from the top of rail to the new roadway bridge soffit above at both crossings per LOSSAN and BNSF design standards.

Southerly Segment
The new track section would continue in a trench south of Main Street. The track alignment would follow the existing horizontal alignment, offset approximately 23 feet to the west. The existing profile grading is climbing up to the south in this segment as is the proposed profile gradient. Due to strict limitations of the maximum track grades in the shared commuter rail and BNSF freight rail corridor, the tie-in to the existing track would extend beyond the Civic Center Vista Station to approximately MP 110.3. The constraints of the track profile in this alternative would significantly impact existing NCTD and City of Vista infrastructure by requiring track realignment and lowering or grade separation at the Guajome Street crossing, the Civic Center Drive at-grade crossing and potentially lowering the Civic Center Vista Station.

2.3.3.2 Roadway Design
Roadway impacts in Alternative 2A involve significant street system replacements of Vista Village Drive and Main Street with single-span roadway bridges at the NCTD ROW. Other street improvements would include new pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalk at the trackway and new signage and pavement markings.

In the southernly segment, impacts to the Guajome Street and the Civic Center Drive crossings would be anticipated. The Guajome Street crossing would possibly require a grade separation of it’s own and would require further analysis to identify resolution. The Civic Center Drive crossing would need to be lowered an estimated two feet to meet the track grade according to the Alternative 2A schematic level layout.

Temporary roadway impacts would be necessary as part of the construction operations resulting from common methods used to build track in a trench. Staging plans, including methods to minimize traffic and community impacts, would be prepared in advance as part of bidding documents. Typical information would show traffic lane closures and/or lane shifts and reductions at Vista Village Drive. Also, short term traffic detours and nighttime road closures at Vista Village Drive, and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue, may be necessary during the construction of roadway bridges. Durations of impacts to surrounding streets can be shortened by only allowing such traffic control measures to be deployed during work to install track and structure at street locations.

Impacts to future existing Inland Rail Trail would require replacement and/or relocation.

Approximately 7,226 linear feet of rail trail will be affected for Alt 2A. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for extent of rail trail impacts.

2.3.3.3 Structural Design
This alternative would be comprised of a trench that has a total length of 9,750 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet where the track would pass under Vista Village Drive and Main Street.

The trench retaining walls would be composed of four-foot diameter secant pile walls. During construction, temporary combi-sheet/king pile wall type with tiebacks would need to be constructed for staging. Superstructure crossings would need to be constructed at both the Vista Village Drive and Main Street locations. The superstructures would consist of a 3’-0” deep 08/26/2025
D2

Page 38 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 29 multi-cell PC concrete box girder superstructure supported on the exterior secant pile walls and on permanent secant pile wall between the two tracks.

This alternative would also require building station platforms at the trench level and include ADA ramps from ground level to the station. The station would require constructing secant pile walls around the station and ADA ramps layout.

2.3.4 Alternative 2B – Track in Trench (Main Street Closed) Alternative 2B would involve a depressed railroad within a below-grade trench and an at-grade roadway bridge at Vista Village Drive to cross the trench. The Main Street crossing would be closed between South Sante Fe Avenue and the Vista Village Commercial Center. The lateral limits of work would be confined to the 100-foot NCTD ROW and would require approximately

1.5 miles of track replacement, a reduction of nearly 2,000 feet of track replacement compared with Alternative 2A. A shoofly track would be constructed to maintain current NCTD and BNSF track operations. This design would require below-grade platforms at VTC and would impact the Guajome Street grade crossing. Investigation of this alternative determined the significantly shorter length of required track replacement work would be countered with necessary accommodations to permanently closed Main Street at the Vista Village Commercial Center.

2.3.4.1 Track Design
Northerly Segment
This alternative would tie into the existing ML-1 and ML-2 tracks near MP 108.4 and would shift the tracks to the west approximately 23 feet. The horizontal curves of the new alignment would generally follow the existing curves in the realigned location and the design speeds would be the same as existing conditions. The track centers would be widened from 15 feet at the tie-in to 20 feet track center distance as it approaches VTC. The track profile would tie into the existing approximately 1.90% track grade which would be extended to lower the track profile within the limits of the new trench section north of the transit center to approximate MP 109.0.

Transit Center Segment
The new track section would continue in a trench through the VTC and adjacent roadway crossings at Vista Village Drive. The tracks would be parallel to and offset from the existing alignment to the west approximately 23 feet within this segment. The track profile would be approximately 30 feet below the existing track to grade separate Vista Village Drive. In accordance with minimum vertical clearance requirements between track structure and roadway above, there would be a minimum of 26.0-feet overhead vertical clearance from the top of rail to the new roadway bridge soffit above at the Vista Village Drive crossing per LOSSAN and BNSF design standards.

Southerly Segment
Under this Alternative 2B, due to the closure of the Main Street crossing, the vertical profile would begin to transition back to the existing grade just south of the proposed Vista Village Drive overcrossing. This would allow for the southerly tie-in to occur much sooner than in the Alternative 2A scenario, near MP 110.0. This variation to the profile design would eliminate the far-reaching impacts described under Alternative 2A and the potential need to modify the existing Civic Center Drive at-grade crossing and Civic Center Vista Station. It appears from the 08/26/2025
D2

Page 39 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 30 schematic level of plan analysis, that some type of impact to the existing Guajome Street at- grade crossing would still result from this alternative that could possible require lowering that at- grade crossing by approximately two feet.

2.3.4.2 Roadway Design
Permanent roadway improvements would be similar to Alternative 2A requiring the replacement of a portion of Vista Village Drive with a bridge structure at the track trench. Also, a new driveway would be required along Vista Village Drive directly across Olive Avenue to provide Main Street replacement access to the Vista Village Commercial Center. The Guajome Street at-grade crossing would likely need to be lowered by two feet to meet the proposed track grade which would include additional roadway improvements.

Temporary roadway impacts would be necessary as part of the construction operations resulting from common methods used to build track in a trench. Staging plans, including methods to minimize traffic and community impacts, would be prepared in advance as part of bidding documents. Typical information would show traffic lane closures and/or lane shifts and reductions at Vista Village Drive. Also, short term traffic detours and nighttime road closures at Vista Village Drive, and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue, may be necessary during the construction of the Vista Village roadway bridge and Main Street pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing.

Durations of impacts to surrounding streets can be shortened by only allowing such traffic control measures to be deployed during work to install track and structure at street locations.

Impacts to future existing Inland Rail Trail would require replacement and/or relocation.

Approximately 5,100 linear feet of rail trail will be affected for Alt 2B. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for extent of rail trail impacts.

2.3.4.3 Structural Design
This alternative would be comprised of a trench that has a total length of 8,100 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet underneath the proposed Vista Village Drive roadway bridge.

The trench retaining walls would be composed of four-foot diameter secant pile walls. During construction, temporary combi sheet/king pile wall type with tiebacks would need to be constructed for staging. One superstructure crossing would need to be constructed at Vista Village Drive. The superstructure would consist of a 3’-0” deep multi-cell PC concrete box girder superstructure supported on the exterior secant pile walls and on permanent secant pile wall between the two tracks.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 40 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 31 2.3.5 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
Alternative 3 would provide an aerial roadway structure spanning the NCTD ROW at Vista Village Drive. The design would also provide connector ramps for N. Sante Fe Avenue, S. Santa Fe Avenue and Olive Avenue. Above-grade intersections would be constructed at Sante Fe Avenue and at Olive Avenue along Vista Village Drive. Due to ROW limitations, access to businesses, residential properties, and several streets would be impacted. ROW acquisition and property purchases would be necessary for the construction and operation of this alternative.

Early planning estimates at this level of design indicate approximately 4 acres of ROW acquisition would be necessary. This alternative provides sidewalks along the raised Vista Village Drive and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue structures as well as access roadway ramps for the Vista Village Transit Center. The Main Street crossing would be closed in this alternative between S. Santa Fe Avenue and the Vista Village Commercial Center. The closure of Main Street at S. Santa Fe would require permanent traffic diversions. Westbound Main Street at S.

Santa Fe Avenue would be converted to a vehicle turn-around and eastbound Main Street would be closed before the NCTD ROW. Traffic from the Vista Village Commercial Center would be diverted to Vista Village Drive. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for Alternative 3 schematic design plan, profile and section views. For utility impacts, see Section 3.1.

2.3.5.1 Track Design
There are no proposed changes to the track horizontal alignment or vertical profile under this alternative. The existing grade crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street would be eliminated. All associated grade crossing and signaling equipment would no longer be needed and therefore would be salvaged and removed.

2.3.5.2 Roadway Design
Under this Alternative 3, the western and eastern approaches to Vista Village Drive would be elevated over the tracks and utilize the entire ROW to provide the same number of lanes as currently exist along Vista Village Drive. In addition, connector roadway ramps to N. Santa Fe Drive, S. Santa Fe Drive and Olive Avenue would be implemented to provide access to the proposed roadway bridge (Vista Village Drive). There would be no frontage roads or at-grade sidewalks. As schematically designed, the Vista Village Drive viaduct (elevated roadway) would include eight (8) travel lanes, one six-foot center median, one six-foot sidewalk, two six-foot bicycle tracks and two-foot buffers. The maximum number of eight (8) travel lanes would taper to seven (7) to the east and west of the viaduct (bridge) and reduce further down to five (5) lanes near North Indiana Drive. The connector ramp from N. Sante Fe Avenue would include seven (7) travel lanes, one six-foot median, one six-foot sidewalk, one six-foot bike lane and one two-foot buffer. The connector ramp would taper to four (4) travel lanes with two bike lanes near Washington Street. The connector ramp from S. Sante Fe Avenue would include six (6) travel lanes, one six-foot median, one six-foot sidewalk and one six-foot bike lane with one two- foot buffer. The connector ramp would then taper to four (4) travel lanes once past Main Street.

Alternative 3 would provide a connector ramp at Olive Avenue with four (4) travel lanes and one four-foot shoulder. The Olive Avenue connector ramp would taper to two (2) travel lanes north of Vista Village Drive. The raised intersection at Vista Village Drive and N. and S. Sante Fe Avenue would provide left-turn, right-turn and through movements to replicate the existing conditions. The raised intersection at Olive Avenue and Vista Village Drive would provide vehicular movements from Olive Avenue to eastbound and westbound Vista Village Drive, as well as from Vista Village Drive to northbound Olive Avenue. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for intersection diagrams and lane configurations of Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue, N. Santa Fe Avenue and S. Santa Fe Avenue. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 41 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 32 This roadway alternative would require significant reconfiguration of the roadway network in the vicinity of the VTC. In this scenario, the BREEZE bus depot would be relocated to east of the tracks and the Vista Transit Center parking would be relocated to west of the tracks in order to improve bus circulation and route efficiency.

Several local roadways would be forced closed to through traffic due to the proposed retaining walls to support an elevated roadway condition for Vista Village Drive and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue. This would include N. Indiana Drive, Terracina Way, Washington Street and Main Street. The resulting Main Street closure at S. Santa Fe Avenue would require permanent traffic diversions. Westbound Main Street at S. Santa Fe Avenue would be modified to a street end with vehicle turn-around and eastbound the Main Street at S. Santa Fe Avenue segment connecting the Vista Village Commercial Center would be closed with commercial traffic access potentially relocated to Vista Village Drive. Further, driveway access to many private commercial and business facilities would be closed along Vista Village Drive. Moreover, closure of the western parking garage entrance to The Rylan Apartment Building at the corner of Vista Village Drive and S. Santa Fe Avenue due to conflicts with these retaining walls would result.

See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for all potential driveway and roadway closures that would result from Alternative 3.

Private land acquisition and real estate purchases would be necessary to provide additional permanent City of Vista ROW along Vista Village Drive, N. Santa Fe Avenue and S. Santa Fe Avenue. Alternative 3 would not be feasible without the addition of new City of Vista ROW, temporary construction access and laydown easements, and utilities easements to allow potential relocations. Planning level estimates of necessary ROW to accommodate Alternative 3 are shown graphically and labeled in APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS.

Moreover, estimated cost to acquire the approximately 4 acres of ROW are included in the Alternative 3 cost estimate. See Section 3.3 Cost Estimate for details.

In addition to separation of the at-grade crossing on Vista Village Drive, this alternative proposes to eliminate the at-grade crossing at Main Street. Sidewalks along the raised Vista Village Drive and Sante Fe Avenue structures are proposed along with access ramps for the Vista Village Transit Center.

Impacts to future existing Inland Rail Trail would require replacement and/or relocation.

Approximately 823 linear feet of rail trail will be affected for Alt 3. See APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS for extent of rail trail impacts.

2.3.5.3 Structural Design
This alternative would be comprised of a single-span roadway bridge that spanning the approximately 100-foot wide NCTD ROW. There would be two (2) approach embankments along Vista Village Drive, two (2) approach embankments along N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue and one (1) approach embankment along Olive Avenue. The earth embankments would have two elevated intersections with N. Santa Fe Avenue, S. Santa Fe Avenue and Olive Avenue.

The five (5) approach embankments would have an approximate total length of 3,090 feet. The approach embankment retaining walls would be mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls. The embankments would include seat type abutments at the end of the MSE walls. These seat type abutments would support concrete PC/PS girders at the beginning and end of the bridge.

The bridge would be comprised of precast/prestressed (PC/PS) Concrete CA WF60 girders and concrete cast-in-place deck supported on two-column bents. The columns would be founded on Type II shafts.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 42 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 33 The construction sequence of the structures in this alternative would include the following steps:
▪ Construct the approach embankment MSE retaining walls along Santa Fe Avenue. ▪ Construct the north-half approach embankment MSE retaining walls along Vista Village Drive.
▪ Construct the Type II shafts, columns, and bent caps. ▪ Place concrete PC/PS girders on top of the bent caps. ▪ Cast-in-place concrete deck and barriers on top of the PC/PS girders. ▪ Construct south-half approach embankment MSE retaining walls along Vista Village Drive
▪ Construct the Type II shafts, columns, and bent caps. ▪ Place concrete PC/PS girders on top of the bent caps. ▪ Cast-in-place concrete deck and barriers on top of the PC/PS girders.

2.3.6 Alternative 4A – Track in Tunnel
Alternative 4A would include track in two (2) single bore tunnels. To bore a tunnel, the proposed track would need to be significantly deeper below-grade in comparison to a track in trench. As a result, the limits of impact under this considered alternative would be much greater than the other alternatives due to the resultant length to meet existing track grade. As described for previous alternatives, the railroad track vertical geometry at VTC is a low point sag, which in this track in tunnel scenario, would significantly increase the length of track replacement and tunnel length required. The resulting length of track replacement would likely require reconstruction of Civic Center station as well as the VTC station. Furthermore, a tunnel in this case would not provide significant benefits compared to a track in trench as the track alignment is fully contained within the NCTD ROW. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration.

2.3.6.1 Track Design
It is assumed that this alternative would consist of two single bore tunnels for the ML-1 and ML- 2 tracks, except at the SPRINTER stations where they would likely be earth excavated cut and cover. A horizontal track alignment and vertical profile were not developed for this alternative, but to account for the twin bores, the track centers would need to be widened to a minimum of 40 feet, which could theoretically be accommodated within the existing NCTD ROW. The typical minimum depth for a bored tunnel alignment is roughly one tunnel diameter to the top of the new tunnel. That would result in tunnels that are approximately twice as deep as Alternative 2A and 2B, approximately 60 feet deep.

To maintain the maximum profile grades permitted on this shared commuter and freight rail corridor (SPRINTER and BNSF), the limits of this alternative would extend far beyond the other alternatives discussed herein. Typically, the minimum curve radius for a tunnel is 1,000 feet.

There are some existing curves at the existing Civic Center Vista Station and to the south that are less than the minimum. If the limits of tunnel were to extend to the south due to profile constraints, it is likely these curve radii would need to be increased, and the tunnel alignment would extend outside the existing ROW.

2.3.6.2 Roadway Impacts
Under this alternative, roadway improvements would be minimal. This includes new pavement, curb, and gutter, sidewalk at the trackway, and new signage and pavement markings. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 43 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 34 2.3.6.3 Structural Design
This alternative comprises of two tunnels (one for each track) for the railway that under passes Vista Village Drive and Main Street. Each tunnel structure construction would require the use of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) with an outer diameter of 31’-0”. The two tunnels would have 10’-0” in between.

This alternative would require building SPRINTER stations at the tunnel level. This would additionally require constructing ADA ramps and elevators from ground level to the subterranean stations. The VTC and Civic Center stations would require constructing secant pile walls around the station and ADA ramps layout.

2.3.7 Alternative 4B – Track in Tunnel (Main Street Closed) Alternative 4B would include track in two (2) single bore tunnels and the closure of the Main Street grade crossing. The closure of Main Street would not result in any meaningful reduction of project impact limits nor cost to a bored tunnel grade separation of Vista Village Drive.

Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration.

2.4 Initial Alternatives Utilities and Drainage Impacts The following sections provide a high-level comparison of impacts to utilities and drainage.

Alternatives 4A and 4B are not included in this analysis because they would be prohibitively expensive and were dismissed from further consideration.

2.4.1 Sanitary Sewer
Depending on the grade separation alternative under consideration, varying degrees of sewer collection pipe realignment and relocation within the City of Vista and NCTD ROW’s would be required to accommodate the proposed improvements. These wastewater facilities are found within Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue, N. Santa Fe Avenue, S. Santa Fe Avenue and Main Street, as summarized in Section 1.4. Some of these gravity sewer mains currently cross underneath the SPRINTER line tracks and would be impacted by this project.

There is an 8” sewer main in a 30- steel casing that crosses the NCTD tracks at Vista Village Drive that would likely need to be realigned to avoid conflicts with proposed aerial track and elevated roadway supporting columns for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 3. Alternatives 2A and 2B would require significantly greater sewer modifications that include the installation of pump station facilities to intercept upstream wastewater flows and pump around the alternatives proposed track trench.

There are two (2) known existing sewer systems located in Vista Village Drive, N. Santa Fe Avenue, S. Santa Fe Avenue and Main Street, respectively, that cross the rail tracks and would need to be realigned to avoid potential conflicts with the proposed trench track within the NCTD ROW.
▪ 8” PVC Sewer (Encased)
▪ 10” VCP Sewer (Encased)
▪ 8” PVC Sewer

2.4.2 Domestic Water
Coordination with Vista Irrigation District (VID) would be required for each alternative under consideration. Most of the domestic water distribution mains and service laterals that are found within the project limits for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 3 would not be significantly impacted.

Potential for moderate relocations and modifications to existing water infrastructure for these 08/26/2025
D2

Page 44 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 35 alternatives under consideration are included within the scope of work for each proposed alternative. For Alternative 2A and 2B, however, given the below grade construction required, would displace, and require rerouting at least one (1) water main located in Vista Village Drive.

There is one (1) known existing water line located in Vista Village Drive that crosses the SPRINTER tracks and would need to be reconfigured to run below potential conflicts with the proposed Alternative 2 trench track within the NCTD ROW. ▪ 10” PVC Water (Encased)

2.4.3 Electric & Gas
Initial research of existing electrical and gas utilities identified within the project limits for each alternative under consideration finds that for 1A, 1B, and 3, only a moderate level of realignment would be required. For Alternative 2A and 2B, however, given the below grade construction required, would displace, and require rerouting of at least one SDG&E electrical duct bank and one gas main in Vista Village Drive. Also, an existing SDG&E power pole guy line, located north of Olive Avenue and West Orange Street, crosses the NCTD ROW to an anchor point on the north side of the SPRINTER tracks. The relocation of this guy line to accommodate any track modification grade separation alternative is required.

There is one (1) known existing electrical utility main and one (1) gas main, both located in Vista Village Drive that cross the SPRINTER tracks and would need to be reconfigured to run below potential conflicts with the proposed Alternative 2 trench track within the NCTD ROW. ▪ SDG&E Electrical Duct Bank
▪ SDG&E Guy Line
▪ 4” Gas Main
▪ Power Pole (PP) Guy Line

2.4.4 SDG&E Substation
Coordination with SDG&E would be required for each alternative under consideration given that some degree of site modifications may be necessary to accommodate the grade separation alternative that is advanced to full design. While relocating the electrical substation would be ideal, City of Vista staff have indicated that SDG&E has not been open to this idea. Engagement with SDG&E planning staff should be initiated early in the subsequent phases of this project.

2.4.5 Dry Utilities
In general, for the purposes of this study, moderate relocations, and modifications to existing dry utility infrastructure for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 3 are included within the scope of work for each proposed alternative. For Alternative 2A and 2B, given the below grade construction required, would displace, and require rerouting of a significant quantity of the existing dry utilities.

2.4.6 Miscellaneous
A variety of miscellaneous utility and site related issues are applicable to this grade separation project. These topics address both the permanent and temporary conditions of the final grade separation. Temporary utility and site feature conditions would require consideration during design because of the expected long duration and multiple phases of construction.

For the final grade separation plan and development, the following site features will need to be incorporated into the final design documents:
▪ Traffic and Wayfinding Signs
08/26/2025
D2

Page 45 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 36 ▪ Public Parking Facilities
▪ Architectural and Visual Design
▪ Provisions for Future Utilities
During any grade separation construction period, several temporary measures and interim conditions must be planned and incorporated into the final design documents. These measures and conditions are accounted for within cost estimate contingencies at this stage. The following are a range of factors to be developed during final design:
▪ Temporary Construction Easements
▪ Designated Haul Routes
▪ Traffic Control Plans
▪ NCTD Operations (see below)
For Alternatives 1 and 2, the existing railroad signals would need to be removed and temporarily relocated to accommodate the proposed train operations during construction. It is assumed that new permanent signals would be located along the new track alignment in the same general location as the existing signals.

Existing grade crossing equipment, such as bungalows, cantilevers, and crossing arms, for Vista Village Drive and Main Street would need to be removed and relocated to accommodate the new temporary shoofly track. As described further in Section 3.4, for the alternatives that include closing Main Street during construction, the Main Street grade crossing equipment would need to be removed but would not require relocation.

2.5 Refined Alternative Recommendations
Based on the preliminary assessment of the initial alternatives identified in the sections above, this Study recommends advancement of the 1A, 2A and 3 grade separation scenarios for future in depth feasibility analysis. Alternatives 1B and 2B were ultimately eliminated from consideration due to early investigation determining that the elimination of the Main Street grade crossing would not provide significant cost reduction nor a significant reduction in length of track replacement. Alternatives 4A and 4B were eliminated from further consideration due to the comparatively high estimated cost and project impact limits, and the fact that there are no environmental constraints that require or justify the necessity for bored tunnels. Therefore, alternatives 1A, 2A and 3 were carried forward for further investigation and analyzation in this Study.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 46 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 37 3 Analysis of Refined Alternatives
To effectively identify and equally compare the three (3) grade separation alternatives advanced for further consideration, a summary of key considerations and potential impacts was developed. The following describes the major focus areas that are essential for understanding the outcome of implementing a grade separation design approach as described in Section 2.2 for Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3.

3.1 Utilities and Drainage

3.1.1 Refined Alternatives Impacts to Utilities
Impacts to utilities that result from grade separation alternatives is a crucial aspect of this project objective to define the scope, level of effort and estimated cost for each. Impacts to existing utilities is a key consideration that is discussed herein and organized in accordance with the diverse types of utilities that are present in and adjacent to the NCTD ROW and the City of Vista’s authority. Table 3-1 provides an inventory of the principal wet and dry utilities with the potential to be impacted by grade separation improvements. This focused list provides the high- level basis for assessing potential utility impacts.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 47 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 38 Table 3-1 Existing Utility Impact Log
30” RCP Storm Drain Vista Village Dr. x x
8” PVC Sewer
(Encased)
Vista Village Dr. x x x
10” ACP Domestic
Water
Vista Village Dr. x x
SDG&E Electrical Duct
Bank
Vista Village Dr. x
4” HDPE Gas Vista Village Dr. x

14.5’x6.75’ RCB
Drainage
Olive Ave. x x
18” VCP Sewer Olive Ave.

14.5’x6.75’ RCB
Drainage
Santa Fe Ave. x x
120” RCP Drainage Santa Fe Ave. x x
SDG&E Electrical Duct
Bank
Santa Fe Ave. x x
6” & 10” VCP Sewer Santa Fe Ave. x x
18” RCP Storm Drain Santa Fe Ave. x x
8” PVC Sewer Main St. x
12” PVC Domestic
Water
Main St. x
24” RCP Storm Drain Terracina Way x

Utility Log - Potential Impact / Utility Relocation
Size / Type Location Alt 1A Alt 2A Alt 3
08/26/2025
D2

Page 48 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 39 3.1.2 Flood Control & Drainage
The project’s overall drainage approach for each alternative would consider minimizing impacts to stormwater and drainage infrastructure, protect water quality, and incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to meet the required design standards set forth for this grade separation project. The existing stormwater collection systems and piping networks, in addition to current drainage patterns, would be preserved to the maximum extent practicable.

The drainage designs for the proposed alternatives of the project would follow the current County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (2003) and engineering design standards per City of Vista. Generally, 100-year and 25-year storm water discharges would be studied for sump conditions and gravity / flow-by conditions, respectively, for drainage conveyance. There are also stormwater management strategies to mitigate impacts to stormwater quality and provide treatment BMPs. Any design impacts to flood control and drainage facilities within the project limits would comply with County of San Diego Flood Control District and FEMA requirements.

Alternative 1A
Alternative 1A grade separation option is a favored alternative with respect to flood control and drainage because it would generate the least impact.

There is one (1) existing drainage system within the project limits that cross the rail tracks that would need to be realigned to avoid potential conflicts with the proposed aerial track vertical columns in Vista Village Drive:
▪ 30” RCP Storm Drain
Alternative 1A would also need drainage facilities for the proposed aerial track which would tie into the existing drainage system. Additionally, realignment and surcharge soil loading checks would be necessary for the existing flood control open channel and reinforced concrete box (RCB) that traverses the northern end of the NCTD ROW in Olive Avenue. Flood control and drainage work for existing infrastructure is expected to be relatively minor with this alternative.

Drainage relocations and realignments would be able to fit within the existing NCTD and City of Vista ROW’s. No ROW acquisitions or easement agreements would be anticipated for this alternative.

Alternative 2A
Alternative 2A is the alternative that has the highest potential for conflicts with existing flood control and drainage infrastructure. Potential conflicts with drainage systems due to the lowered track’s extensive underground disturbance envelope would be expected. This design option would require re-design and re-routing of major flood control and drainage systems. This alternative would require building pump station facilities to intercept flood control channels and drainage culverts to pump stormwater around the track trench and may require the realignment of nearby open channels and culverts along the track alignment.

There are four (4) existing primary systems located in Olive Avenue, Vista Village Drive and N. and S. Santa Fe Avenue that cross the rail tracks and would need to be realigned to avoid potential conflicts with the proposed trench track within the NCTD ROW. ▪ Two (2) 14.5’ x 6.75’ RCB and Open Channel Flood Control ▪ 30” RCP Storm Drain
▪ 120” RCP Storm Drain
08/26/2025
D2

Page 49 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 40 Drainage relocations and realignments would be able to fit within the existing NCTD and City of Vista ROW’s. No ROW acquisitions or easement agreements would be anticipated for this alternative.

Alternative 3
Alternative 3 grade separation alternative is also a favored alternative with respect to flood control and drainage because it would result in less impact.

For Alternative 3, there would be potential conflicts with storm drain systems and proposed abutment retaining wall footings. There are also two (2) existing systems within Vista Village Drive and Terracina Way, respectively, that would need to be re-aligned to avoid conflicts with the proposed roadway bridge supporting columns.
▪ 30” RCP Storm Drain
▪ 24” RCP Storm Drain
Drainage facilities that would tie into the existing drainage system would be needed for the proposed elevated roadway. Realignment and surcharge soil loading checks would be necessary for the municipal drainage systems that are within the roadway ROW. ROW acquisition and utility easement coordination would be necessary for drainage system realignments outside of the proposed roadway embankments. Flood control and drainage work for existing infrastructure would be expected to be relatively moderate under this alternative.

The proposed design alternatives would need some drainage facilities that currently discharge to FEMA mapped flood conveyance channels maintained by the San Diego County Flood Controls District (SDCFCD) to be extended and modified. Figure 3.1 below shows the location the FEMA mapped floodplain (FEMA Panel # 06073C0778G) adjacent to the proposed project. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 50 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 41 Figure 3.1 FEMA Flood Plain (Panel:06073C0778G)

Source: FEMA GIS Database, 2024

The concrete lined open channel (see Figure 3.2) flowing south receives flow from drainage areas upstream to the north, including two culverts along N. Santa Fe Avenue and Vista Village Drive, respectively. This facility may experience increased flows based on the proposed project and would need hydraulic flow analysis to estimate potential changes in runoff flows. Any increase in the runoff would require analyzing the existing channel for capacity to convey revised flows with adequate freeboard per SDCFCD/FEMA requirements. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 51 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 42 Figure 3.2 SDCFCD’s Concrete Channel with Mapped FEMA Flood Plain

Source: HNTB Site Walk Photo, 2024

There may be a need for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through FEMA based on the potential impacts to the SDCFCD’s facilities or increase in runoff. This requirement would be confirmed based on further guidance after a SDCFCD review of the selected alternative during later phases of this project. To comply with SDCFCD’s requirements, potential mitigation measures to address an increase in runoff to existing channels may require a detention facility should the existing concrete channel be found unable to convey the flow increase. Detention facilities are typically designed to be located below the ground surface to minimize visual impacts and mitigate real estate constraints. Potential detention facilities would require further investigation in later phases of the project to identify any necessary ROW acquisition.

3.2 Traffic Impact Analysis
The following section describes potential impacts to traffic operations at the intersections at and within proximity to the three (3) refined alternatives advanced for further consideration.

3.2.1 Methodology
The following describes the VTC traffic study area, data collection, and outlines the methodology of the traffic operations analysis.

Study Area
The traffic study area includes the following intersections:
▪ Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue
▪ N. Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive
▪ S. Santa Fe Avenue & Main Street
08/26/2025
D2

Page 52 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 43 Analysis Scenarios
The traffic analysis was conducted for the AM and PM peak hours using existing volumes.

Data Collection
The City of Vista provided available intersection volumes at the study intersections. The volumes from the Vista Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue Traffic Operations Study (dated April 21, 2016) were used for this traffic study.

Additionally, peak hour volumes for the Vista Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue intersection were obtained from the 2023 National Data & Surveying Services ADT reports, 2020 City of Vista Traffic Congestion Management Plan, and 2016 Turning Movements summary provided by the City of Vista.

Traffic Analysis Methodology
Traffic operations analyses were performed using the methodology included in the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (December 2020).

Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
Intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (based on vehicle delay) for the study intersections. Intersection LOS analysis was conducted using Synchro software (version 11). The following assumptions and parameters were used:
▪ Base Saturation Flow Rate – 1,900 pc/hr/ln
▪ Peak Hour Factor (PHF) – 0.92
▪ Truck Percentage – 2%
▪ Single control assumed for the intersections of Vista Village Drive/ Olive Drive and Vista Village Drive/ Santa Fe Avenue.
▪ The acceptable LOS D is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element in the City of Vista’s General Plan.
▪ Intersection movements are defined by cardinal direction (westbound, eastbound, northbound and southbound) and traffic movement (left, right, through). For example, eastbound left (EBL).

LOS criteria based on HCM methodology is provided in Table 3-2.

Intersection Queuing
Intersection queuing analysis was conducted using Synchro software (version 11), which accounts for 50th and 95th percentile queue lengths. For a conservative analysis, the queues were based on the 95th percentile queues during peak hours. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 53 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 44 Table 3-2 Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, 2016.

3.2.2 Key Considerations
This study examined elements that were considered of great importance to the City of Vista, NCTD, and the public. These considerations influenced the development and evaluation of the design alternatives in this Study. The main consideration during the Alternatives traffic analysis was to maintain or improve access for Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue, Vista Village Commercial Center, Main Street, nearby residences (such as Vista Manor and Rylan Apartments), frontage businesses, the Inland Rail Trail, emergency services, and public safety.

As a result, it was determined necessary to maintain existing lane configurations due to large traffic and turning movement volumes. Maintaining the intersections of Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue and Vista Village Drive & N. Santa Fe Avenue was found to be vital for providing access to NCTD services, passenger vehicles, emergency services, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Other key factors include impacts to SPRINTER and BNSF operations, BREEZE bus operations, and overall public safety.

LOS
Control
Delay
(sec /
vehicle)
Description
A ≤ 10
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easy and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

B > 10 – 20
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form.

C > 20 – 35 Good operation. Occasionally backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

D > 35 – 55 Fair operation. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods.

E > 55 – 80 Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches.

F > 80 or v/c > 1
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop-and-go type traffic flow. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 54 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 45 3.2.3 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track
Alternative 1A is an aerial track design that includes a track bridge spanning over the Main Street and Vista Village Drive intersections and VTC station. Alternative 1A has similar intersection configurations as the existing intersection lane configurations. Vista Village Drive and Main Steet would remain open to vehicular traffic. Intersection lane configuration for Alternative 1A is illustrated in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Alternative 1A Intersection Lane Configuration

08/26/2025
D2

Page 55 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 46 Figure 3.4 demonstrates AM and PM peak period volumes under this alternative.

Figure 3.4 Alternative 1A Intersection Volumes

Note: North arrow represents the intersection alignment in Synchro Intersection LOS
A LOS analysis for the study intersections was conducted using AM and PM peak hour volumes. As shown in Table 3-3Error! Reference source not found., all three study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are provided in APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 56 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 47 Table 3-3 Alternative 1A Intersection Level of Service Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS
Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue 23.2 C 25.2 C
N. Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive 45.1 D 32.0 C
S. Santa Fe Avenue & Main Street 14.9 B 24.0 C
Intersection Queue Lengths
Table 3-6 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at the study intersections under Alternative 1A. Queuing calculation worksheets are provided in APPENDIX E. TRAFFIC QUEUES. As Table 3-6 shows, the following intersection movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the available storage in one or both peak hours:

Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue
▪ Westbound thru
N. Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive
▪ Eastbound left
▪ Northbound left
▪ Northbound thru
▪ Southbound right
S. Santa Fe Avenue & Main Street
▪ Eastbound left
▪ Southbound left
▪ Southbound thru
Table 3-4 Alternative 1A Intersection Queues
Intersection Queue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vista Village
Drive & Olive
Avenue
Storage Length 260 675 - - 160 - - - - 590 100
95th %ile - AM 88 138 - - #588 - - - - 102 - 54
95th %ile - PM 117 368 - - #441 - - - - 95 - 51
N. Santa Fe
Avenue &
Vista Village
Drive
Storage Length 165 165 165 100 970 - 110 210 - 200 900 170 95th %ile - AM 99 75 6 55 313 - #102 172 - 59 #467 313
95th %ile - PM 202 80 3 64 213 - #219 #334 - 52 #283 251 S. Santa Fe
Avenue &
Main Street
Storage Length 70 200 200 80 250 80 165 1000 - 30 200 75 95th %ile - AM 35 46 - 43 105 0 75 256 - m14 m30 m0
95th %ile - PM 96 100 21 52 90 0 126 624 - 62 207 2
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue may be longer.

Shaded: 95th percentile queues are longer than the available storage length.

3.2.4 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench
Alternative 2A is a track in trench design that includes a trench spanning VTC, Vista Village Drive, and Main Street. Alternative 2A has a similar intersection configuration and volumes as Alternative 1A. Main Street and Vista Village Drive intersections would remain open to vehicular 08/26/2025
D2

Page 57 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 48 traffic. As such, intersection LOS and queue lengths are similar to Alternative 1A, as presented in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6, respectively.

3.2.5 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
Alternative 3 has an aerial roadway structure for Vista Village Drive that would crosss above the railway track. The N. Santa Fe Avenue leg has an aerial structure, which would make an above- grade intersection of Vista Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue. The S. Santa Fe Avenue leg would have an aerial structure, which would pass above Main Street and slope down to become at-grade near E. Broadway. Olive Avenue would have an aerial structure, which would make an above-grade intersection of Vista Village Drive and Olive Avenue. The intersection lane configurations for Alternative 3 are illustrated in Figure 3.5.

Under Alternative 3, the aerial roadway would result in the removal of some intersection movements on N. Indiana Drive, Terracina Way, and Washington Street due to the proposed retaining walls on Vista Village Drive. Additionally, the intersection of Main Street and S. Santa Fe Avenue would be permanently closed or displaced and traffic would be diverted to alternative routes . Therefore, for those movements, the following assumptions have been made for alternative routes.
▪ Traffic will use E. Broadway and N. Indiana Avenue to connect Main Street and S. Santa Fe Avenue.

Figure 3.5 Alternative 3 Intersection Lane Configuration

08/26/2025
D2

Page 58 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 49 AM and PM peak hour volumes for Alternative 3 are provided in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Alternative 3 Intersection Volumes

Note: North arrow represents the intersection alignment in Synchro

Intersection LOS
A LOS analysis for the study intersections was conducted using Alternative 3 AM and PM peak hour volumes. The intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 3-5. Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are provided in APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE. As shown in Table 3-5, all study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better).
08/26/2025
D2

Page 59 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 50 Table 3-5 Alternative 3 Intersection Level of Service Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(seconds) LOS Delay
(seconds) LOS
Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue 22.7 C 25.0 C
Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive 47.7 D 32.5 C

Intersection Queue Lengths
Table 3-6 summarizes the 95th percentile queues at the study intersection under Alternative 3 conditions. Queuing calculation worksheets are provided in APPENDIX E. TRAFFIC QUEUES.As Table 3-6 shows, the following intersection movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the available storage in one or both peak hours:
• Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue
o Westbound thru
• N. Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive
o Eastbound left
o Northbound left
o Southbound right
Table 3-6 Alternative 3 Intersection Queue Lengths
Intersection Queue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vista Village
Drive &
Olive
Avenue
Storage Length 260 - - - 160 - - - - 100 - 100
95th %ile - AM 88 138 - - #587 - - - - 102 - 54
95th %ile - PM 117 368 - - #418 - - - - 95 - 51
N. Santa Fe
Avenue &
Vista Village
Drive
Storage Length 165 - - 100 - - 110 - - 200 - 170
95th %ile - AM 99 75 6 55 #565 - #106 171 - 59 #467 313 95th %ile - PM 202 80 3 64 320 - #129 #334 - 52 #283 251 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue may be longer.

Shaded: 95th percentile queues are longer than the available storage length

3.2.6 Intersection Traffic Operations for Each Alternative This section summarizes the level of service (LOS) for the examined alternatives. Table 3-7 presents an summary of the LOS of Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3 during morning and afternoon peak hours. Based on the LOS analysis all intersections under Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3 operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM Peak Hours.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 60 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 51 Table 3-7 Intersection Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Alt
1A
Alt
2A
Alt
3 Alt
1A
Alt
2A
Alt
3 Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue C C C C C C
N. Santa Fe Avenue & Vista Village Drive D D D C C C
S. Santa Fe Avenue & Main Street B B - C C -

3.3 Cost Estimate

3.3.1 Cost Estimate Methodology
Each proposed grade separation alternative is defined by scope, cost, and time. It is important to understand the correlation among these factors as a change in any of them will stimulate variations in the other two (2) alternatives under consideration. If the scope of the project changes, that could have implications on both project duration and project cost. If the project duration is increased, it would have impact on the project cost. From planning and project development to the construction of the project, significant changes may occur.

The purpose of this cost estimate, at this level of planning, is to provide reasonable cost estimation for proposed design alternatives and to help a sponsoring agency’s decision-making process. The main objective of the cost estimation process is to provide an estimate based on recommended practices, independent from potential stakeholder bias and uninfluenced by overly optimistic tendencies or other external factors that can influence the estimations. This planning level cost estimate is provided in accordance with best practices per the U.S. GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

This Cost estimate is consistent with AACE International, level 5 Rough order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate, where the accuracy is limited and this is reflected by the broad range of the estimates, as shown in Figure 3.7 below. As the Project moves to more advanced phases of designs, the cost estimates accuracy will increase correspondingly.

Figure 3.7 Cost Classification Matrix

L: -20% to - 50%
H: +30% to +100%
Estimate Level Estimate Description Design Phase Level of Completion Methodology Accuracy Range 5 Rough Order of Magnitude Planning
Schematic Design 0% to 5%
Parametric Models
Capacity Factored
Historical Costs
L: -10% to - 20%
H: +10% to +40%
4 Concept Feasibility Planning
Schematic Design 1% to 15% Equipment Factored
Parametric Models
L: -15% to - 30%
H: +20% to +50%
3 Budget Authorization
Planning
Schematic Design
Design Documents
10% to 40% Unit Costs
Assembles
L: -2% to - 5%
H: +3% to + 15%
2 Budget Control Estimate
Preliminary Design
Engineering
Design Documents
Construction Documents
30% to 70% Detailed Unit Cost
Detailed Take-Off
L: -5% to - 15%
H: +5% to +30%
1 Bid Detailed Design Engineering
Construction Documents 50% to 100%
Detailed Unit Cost
Detailed Take-Off
Productivities
Subcontractor Quotes
08/26/2025
D2

Page 61 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 52 Therefore, an independent cost estimate was developed for Alternatives 1A, 2A and 3 as presented herein with complete versions included as APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE. As part of the necessary organizational effort, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to capture all elements of the construction and project costs has been developed. The major categories for WBS include:
▪ Direct cost
▪ Indirect cost
▪ Contractors’ markups
▪ Escalation
▪ Professional cost
▪ Project contingencies/reserves

The AACE International Recommended Practice No. 98R-18: Cost estimate classification system – as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the road and rail transportation infrastructure industries, and Recommended Practice 17R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System, outline typical ranges of accuracy as a percentage. Estimate accuracy is driven by project definition degree, design available, complexity of the project and its execution, quality of reference estimating data, quality of assumptions used in preparing the estimate, project location and conditions. It also depends on market conditions, regulatory risks, third parties such as utility owners, local jurisdictions and other external factors. As the project definition improves, and design is further developed the estimating accuracy range will narrow down to a much smaller range.

3.3.2 Direct Cost
Direct cost includes labor, material and equipment needed for the construction. Direct cost was estimated based the 2020-2025 Caltrans cost database and staff expertise and experience from previous projects with similar scope and conditions.

The majority of the estimated work is divided into following categories:
• General Works – site work including demolition, site utilities, utility relocation and miscellaneous site works.
• Rail Works – including guideways and track elements, stations and systems. • Roadway and Streetscape works – including elevated structures, retained structures, pavement, intersections and traffic lights.

3.3.3 Indirect Cost
Indirect cost captures all cost for the contractor, which cannot be directly appropriated to a single construction item. It includes all site related cost, temporary utilities, parking, laydown areas, cost for quality control and surveying. It also includes equipment mobilization and demobilization, as well as all construction related management of traffic.

At the planning phase all indirect costs are estimated as a percentage of direct cost:
▪ Indirect fixed cost – includes cost for mobilization, construction set up and demobilization – assumed in the range of 6% to 7.5% of direct cost, depending on the alternative complexity and scope.
▪ Indirect variable cost – includes all cost that is time dependent such as: Site supervision and management, general site expenses, temporary utilities, monitoring and testing, site 08/26/2025
D2

Page 62 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 53 services, traffic control and management, travel, and subsistence. This cost varies depending on the alternative.
▪ Overhead cost and Profit – 18%
▪ Bond and Insurance – 4%
▪ Estimate Contingency including both design and construction contingency required at this level of planning. Contractor’s contingency is included as 20% of total direct and indirect cost. For each alternative contingency was evaluated through application of P-70 confidence calculation using range of potential cost outcomes organized by confidence interval.

This is common industry practice and is based on previous projects, similar in size and scope, as well as estimators experience.

3.3.4 Professional Services
Professional services include all costs related to the project development. Once procurement is defined, some of the professional development costs may be allocated to the contractor. At this phase of study, all professional cost is shown as a percentage of construction cost and is included on the following Table 3-8.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 63 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 54 Table 3-8. Percentage of Construction Costs
Professional Services Percent (%) of Direct Cost
Project Study Report (PSR) & Conceptual Design 1.0%
Preliminary Design & Environmental Clearance 5.0%
Final Design: PS&E 8.0%
PM for Planning and Design Phase 1.5%
PM for Construction Procurement & Contracting 1.0%
PM for Construction Phase 2.0%
CM for Construction Phase 5.0%
Final Commissioning & Activation 0.25%
Professional Liability and other Non-construction Insurance 2.0% Legal, Permits, Agency Fees etc. 1.0%
Surveys, Testing, Investigations, Inspections 0.5%

3.3.5 Project Contingency
Overall project contingency is added to the total cost estimate as 25% of total estimated cost. It is standard industry standard practice, this early in the project development, to include this level of owner’s reserve allowance for unforeseen circumstances, including but not limited to environmental clearance, ROW issues, design and permit delays, changes in the market conditions, price escalation, risk conditions and events and many others. Later in the planning and design process, risk evaluation should be performed, and contingency should be adjusted and managed through risk management process.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 64 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 55 3.3.6 General Assumptions
This cost estimate includes the following assumptions:
▪ Cost is prepared in 2024 US dollars. Material and labor cost escalation was not included in the unit cost.
▪ Pricing shown reflects probable construction costs obtainable for the infrastructure works on the date of this estimate. This estimate is a determination of fair market value for the construction of this project. It is not a prediction of low bid. ▪ Pricing assumes competitive bidding for every portion of the construction work for all subcontractors, which is to mean 4 to 5 bids. If fewer bids are received, bid results can be expected to be higher.
▪ Escalation was added based on the proposed sequencing, to the midpoint of construction. Annual escalation is assumed at 3.5%, per current FTA recommendation.2 ▪ Railroad flaggers are included per estimated day of work, to account for all interactions with active railroad during construction.
▪ Contingency is included as a percentage, based on the level of design currently available. Risk based contingency was not estimated at this level of project development.
▪ Estimate contingency is included in the construction cost due to the level of design development. It is assumed to be 20% of contractors cost. ▪ ROW procurement or easement cost is included for Alternative 3, based on preliminary assessment of the area needed and typical market values. For Alternatives 1A and 2A, it is assumed there will be no ROW impacts.
▪ Risk contingency or owner reserve is assumed as 25% of total construction cost and professional services.
▪ Design, bid, build contracting method has been assumed. ▪ See Table 3-9 for additional cost estimating assumptions.

Table 3-9 Additional Cost Estimating Assumptions
Cost Type Percent (%) of Direct Cost
Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 2% to 4%
Railroad Flaggers Per day
Storm water, pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) 1% to 2% Construction Management and Supervision 12%
Insurance and Bond 4%

2 Construction start year is unknown at the time of the study, therefore 2030 is an assumed date for cost estimation purposes.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 65 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 56 3.3.7 General Exclusions
This cost estimate excludes the following:
▪ Handling and disposal of contaminated soil, unless otherwise stated. ▪ Automated Fare Collection System is not included in the cost estimate. ▪ Escalators or elevators at the future station or at VTC are not included in the cost estimate due to limited level of design in this planning study. ▪ Vehicles – rail or bus are not included in the cost estimate. ▪ Special insurance is not included in the estimate.
▪ Archeological finds and /or any delays that could be caused by them are not included in the cost estimate.
▪ 3rd Party utility impacts, relocation and /or delays that could be caused by them, unless explicitly mentioned in the scope of work, are excluded from the cost estimate. ▪ Unforeseen conditions due to additional borings or geotechnical information are not included in the estimate.
▪ Overhead utility relocation costs have been excluded from the cost estimate. ▪ All other costs not specifically called out in this report, or the estimate are excluded from the cost estimate at this time. Miscellaneous facilities not explicitly stated in the cost estimate are accounted for in the cost estimate contingencies at this stage.

3.3.8 Statement of the Probable Cost
HNTB has no control over the cost of labor and materials, general contractor’s, or any subcontractor’s method of determining prices, or competitive bidding and market conditions.

This opinion of probable cost of construction is made based on the experience, qualifications, and best judgment of the professional consultant familiar with the construction industry. HNTB cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from this or subsequent cost estimates.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 66 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 57 3.3.9 Cost Estimate Summary
Cost estimate summary is presented in Table 3-10 as a comparison between all proposed alternatives. Low and high-cost range, based on the accuracy range is shown in U.S. dollars (2024 dollars) and rounded to the nearest $10,000 per level 5 ROM standards. See APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE for the detailed cost estimate with raw data calculations and rounded values.

Table 3-10 Alternatives Cost Comparison
COST TYPE Alternative 1A Alternative 2A Alternative 3
GENERAL WORKS $5,710,000 $62,420,000 $13,960,000
RAIL WORKS $168,050,000 $217,210,000 $1,350,000

ROADWAY AND STREETSCAPE
WORK $3,950,000 $10,140,000 $109,160,000
INDIRECT COST $45,340,000 $79,880,000 $36,420,000
Estimate Contingency $44,610,000 $73,930,000 $32,180,000

CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND
PROFIT $48,180,000 $79,850,000 $34,750,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $315,840,000 $523,430,000 $227,820,000 Escalation $73,750,000 $133,420,000 $55,130,000
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $86,320,000 $142,890,000 $62,340,000 RIGHT OF WAY N/A* N/A* $9,480,000
RISK CONTINGENCY $100,550,000 $166,580,000 $74,910,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $576,460,000 $966,320,000 $429,680,000 Low Range Cost $461,168,000 $773,056,000 $343,744,000 High Range Cost $864,690,000 $1,449,480,000 $644,520,000 *Note: No permanent ROW costs anticipated for Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A for this planning study. Existing 100’ NCTD ROW is assumed sufficient to encompass railroad improvements and City of Vista ROW and easements are assumed sufficient for supporting utility relocations.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 67 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 58 3.3.10 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track
Alternative 1A was estimated based on the Plan, Profile and Sections provided by the project design technical leads and engineering team. See Table 3-11 for cost estimate summary.

3.3.10.1 General Assumptions and Exclusions
The following specific assumptions and exclusions are included in the scope of cost estimate for this alternative:
▪ Temporary shoofly track will need to be installed before construction can commence and will be demolished after construction is finalized. Total length of temporary track would include 1,000 feet of alignment longer than the permanent alignment, including 500 feet at the beginning and at the end of the new proposed track alignment. ▪ Existing utilities will be relocated when they conflict with proposed bridge structure. ▪ Mobilization and demobilization are assumed at 6.0% due to the multiple stages during construction.
▪ Maintenance of Traffic is assumed as 2.0% of direct construction cost assuming this alternative will have limited interaction with roadway traffic during construction. ▪ Escalation is calculated to mid-point of construction, per proposed project sequencing approach to be 23%.
▪ Construction contingency was verified using a probabilistic approach.

3.3.10.2 Design Assumptions and Exclusions
▪ New aerial stations are assumed to be on separate structures. Access is via stairs and pedestrian ramps. Escalators and elevators are excluded due to limited level of design in planning study.
▪ Station buildings are excluded from this estimate. Station and stop reconfigurations are included.
▪ Ballasted track unit cost includes construction of all required subgrades, subballast, ballast, rail ties and connections. This includes installation of special trackwork, while material, crossovers and/or turnouts are given separately.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 68 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 59 Table 3-11 Alternative 1A Cost Estimate
Description Alternative 1A
Total Cost
GENERAL WORKS $ 5,710,000
RAIL WORKS $ 168,050,000
ROADWAY AND STREETSCAPE WORKS $ 3,950,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST $ 177,710,000
INDIRECT COST $ 45,340,000
CONTINGENCY $ 44,610,000
CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT $ 48,180,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 315,840,000
ESCALATION TO MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION $ 73,750,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 86,320,000

RISK CONTINGENCY / OWNERS RESERVE / UNALLOCATED
CONTINGENCY $ 100,550,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 576,460,000
See APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE for detailed cost item calculations.

3.3.11 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench
Alternative 2A was estimated based on the Plan, Profile, and Sections provided by the project design technical leads and engineering team. See Table 3-12 for cost estimate summary.

3.3.11.1 General Assumptions and Exclusions
The following specific assumptions and exclusions are included in the scope of cost estimate for this alternative:
▪ Temporary shoofly track will need to be installed before construction can commence and will be demolished after construction is finalized. Total length of temporary track would include 1,000 feet of alignment longer than the permanent alignment, including 500 feet at the beginning and at the end of the new proposed track alignment. ▪ Existing utilities will be relocated when they conflict with trench structure. This includes relocation of the existing box culverts utilized for flood protection. ▪ Mobilization and demobilization are assumed at 8.0% due to the multiple stages during construction, especially construction of secant pile retaining walls. ▪ Maintenance of Traffic is assumed as 2.5% of direct construction cost due to more complex interaction with roadway traffic due to construction of the street overpass. ▪ Escalation is calculated to mid-point of construction, per proposed project sequence to be 25%.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 69 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 60 3.3.11.2 Design Assumptions and Exclusions
▪ New station platforms are assumed to be constructed in the trench. Access is via stairs and pedestrian ramps. Escalators and elevators are excluded due to limited level of design in planning study.
▪ Station buildings are excluded from this estimate. Station and stop reconfigurations are included.
▪ Ballasted track unit cost includes construction of all required subgrades, subballast, ballast, rail ties and connections. This includes installation of special trackwork, while material, crossovers and/or turnouts are given separately.

Table 3-12 Alternative 2A Cost Estimate
Description Alternative 2A
Total Cost
GENERAL WORKS $ 62,420,000
RAIL WORKS $ 217,210,000
ROADWAY AND STREETSCAPE WORKS $ 10,140,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST $ 289,770,000
INDIRECT COST $ 79,880,000
CONTINGENCY $ 73,930,000
CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT $ 79,850,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 523,430,000
ESCALATION TO MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION $ 133,420,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 142,890,000

RISK CONTINGENCY / OWNERS RESERVE / UNALLOCATED
CONTINGENCY $ 166,580,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 966,320,000
See APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE for detailed cost item calculations.

3.3.12 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
Alternative 3 was estimated based on the Plan, Profile, and Sections provided by the project design technical leads and engineering team. See Table 3-13 for cost estimate summary.

3.3.12.1 General Assumptions and Exclusions
▪ Temporary shoofly track will not need to be installed for this alternative. ▪ Mobilization and demobilization are assumed at 6% due to the multiple stages during construction and limited staging areas for construction. ▪ Maintenance of Traffic is assumed as 4% of direct construction cost due to complex interaction with roadway traffic at the intersection of Vistal Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue.
▪ Escalation is calculated to mid-point of construction, per proposed project sequence to be 24%.

3.3.12.2 Design Assumptions and Exclusions
▪ There is no change in existing station platforms.
▪ Station building is excluded from this estimate.
08/26/2025
D2

Page 70 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 61 Table 3-13 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate
Description Alternative 3
Total Cost
GENERAL WORKS $ 13,960,000
RAIL WORKS $ 1,350,000
ROADWAY AND STREETSCAPE WORKS $ 109,160,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST $ 124,470,000
INDIRECT COST $ 36,420,000
CONTINGENCY $ 32,180,000
CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT $ 34,750,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 227,820,000
ESCALATION TO MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION $ 55,130,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 62,340,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 9,480,000

RISK CONTINGENCY / OWNERS RESERVE / UNALLOCATED
CONTINGENCY $ 74,910,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 429,680,000
See APPENDIX G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE for detailed cost item calculations.

3.4 Project Sequencing and Construction Staging

3.4.1 Overview and Approach
The project would involve the construction of a grade separation(s) to improve safety for all roadway users, reduce congestion, and enhance overall efficiency in the transportation network.

The conceptual project sequencing is designed to provide a clear framework for project activities, from the planning phase through to final construction and testing, while allowing for flexibility to address potential unanticipated efforts as the project progresses. At this time, the project team has developed a sequenced approach for each of the three (3) refined alternatives advanced for further consideration, highlighting the major project phases and expected durations for each stage of project development and construction for analysis and estimating.

Alternatives 1A and 2A would require either raising or lowering the two existing tracks while keeping the roadways at grade. For these alternatives, the approach to construction staging is to maintain double track operations through construction to the extent possible. To facilitate this, a new temporary shoofly track would be installed east of the existing ML-1 track. Should a shoofly not be desired, construction staging, and new track alignment have been configured so that it could be eliminated, and single-track operations could be maintained during each stage of construction.

The approach to construction staging for Alternative 3, which raises the roadway over the existing tracks, would be to minimize impacts to the existing at-grade crossings and railroad operations. Most construction activities for this roadway alternative would be outside of the railroad corridor and NCTD ROW.

3.4.2 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track
This alternative proposes to elevate the two existing rail tracks onto an aerial viaduct structure spanning from north of VTC and extending south of Main Street. At the ends of the viaduct, there would be approach embankments extending north and south. It is anticipated that 08/26/2025
D2

Page 71 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 62 construction activities for the temporary and ultimate trackwork and supporting structures would be within the ROW of the railroad corridor. Roadway work, drainage improvements, and utility relocations would be within the public ROW.

Temporary lane closures and/or lane shifts would be anticipated at Vista Village Drive during the construction of the aerial bridge columns. Main Street would have relatively less traffic impacts during construction due to the bridge spanning over the entirety of the grade crossing.

Temporary traffic impacts would be mitigated by constructing the railway in phases as outlined below.

Stage 0 – Early Work Construction (Existing ML-1 and ML-2 are operational) Stage 0 will be the early work construction activities to prepare the project site for the construction of the major structural components. To improve safety for construction crews, the new track alignments would be shifted westward, and ML-2 would be removed to allow room for excavation and the construction of retaining walls in Stage 1.

Prior to the removal of the ML-2 track, the new temporary shoofly track would be installed approximately 20 feet east of the existing ML-1 track. New temporary Number 15 turnouts would be installed on each end of the new shoofly, connecting the shoofly track to the existing ML-1 track. It is assumed that one (1) absolute work window (AWW) per turnout would be required to install the temporary special trackwork.

The new shoofly would be located within the limits of the existing northbound station at VTC.

The station would need to be demolished to install the shoofly. The cost estimate assumes that a new temporary station would be installed within the limits of the existing station along the existing ML-1 track and the new shoofly track. If temporary stations are not desired, there is another option to bypass this station during construction and utilize the existing bus transit center to bus passengers to the nearby Melrose Drive Station and Civic Center Vista Station throughout the duration of construction.

The new shoofly installation and the ML-2 track removal would extend through and impact the existing at-grade crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. Modifications at these crossings would be required to maintain public safety and include new locations for railroad crossing gate arms and warning devices. A temporary station would be constructed on the westerly side of ML-1. Existing utilities and drainage facilities in conflict with viaduct column foundations or retaining structures would also be relocated.

Stage 1 – Construction of New ML-2 (Existing ML-1 and new shoofly track are operational)
Stage 1 would focus on the construction of the proposed ML-2 track. To elevate the track, “U”- shaped retaining walls are proposed. These would be constructed eight feet from the westerly railroad ROW line and would accommodate a single track. Temporary retaining structures on either side would also be installed. Construction would include temporary shoring, excavation, structural footing, a retaining wall, and fill. Across Vista Village Drive and Main Street, single- track viaducts would be constructed including CIDH columns, bent caps, and box girders. After completion, the new ML-2 would be installed in its new alignment along the embankments and viaducts. A temporary station and access to the elevated track would be constructed.

Stage 2 – Construction of Additional Structures (New ML-2 and new shoofly track are operational)
Stage 2 would be to expand the new elevated corridor to its ultimate width. Train operations would move from the existing ML-1 track to the new ML-2 track. ML-1, its temporary station and 08/26/2025
D2

Page 72 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 63 the temporary retaining structure from Stage 1 will be removed. Based on proximity to the operation shoofly, sheet piles for a new temporary retaining structure will be constructed during non-revenue hours. A third permanent retaining wall will be constructed 23’-6” from the face of the “U”-shaped retaining wall. Construction will include temporary shoring, excavation, structural footing, retaining wall and a portion of the fill between new and middle retaining walls. Across Vista Village Drive and Main Street, expansion of the single-track viaducts will be constructed to accommodate a second track and includes CIDH columns, bent caps and box girders.

Stage 3 – Construction of New ML-1 (New ML-2 and new shoofly track are operational) Stage 3 will construct the new ML-1 and a proposed maintenance road. Vehicular and train operations will remain the same. The top six feet (6’) of the middle retaining wall will be removed and the remainder of the fill will be placed. After completion, the new ML-1 will be installed in its new alignment parallel to the new ML-2 along the embankments and viaducts. A 10-foot-wide maintenance road will be constructed along the easterly edge of the newly elevated railroad corridor. The new permanent station and access will be constructed.

Stage 4 – Shoofly removal (New ML-1 and ML-2 are operational) Stage 4 would involve removal of temporary rail improvements and the at-grade crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. Train operations would move from the shoofly track to the new ML-1 track. The shoofly track, its adjacent temporary station, signal houses and track systems would be demolished. The area would be re-graded back to existing grades. In the area of the VTC, final hardscape and/or landscape improvements would be constructed. After the removal of the two at-grade crossings, the roadways would be graded, paved, and striped to their final configuration. Temporary lane closures and/or shifts would occur at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street during removal of shoofly track and supporting facilities.

General Structural Sequence
The construction sequence of the structures in this alternative would include the following steps:
▪ Construct “U”-shaped retaining walls 8' away from the ROW limit and the respective one single-track viaduct with elevated station and ADA ramps. ▪ Fill between the two installed retaining walls.
▪ Install sheet piles for temporary retaining structure during non-operational hours. ▪ Construct retaining wall 23'-6" away from face of “U”-shaped retaining walls. ▪ Fill between the new retaining wall and the “U”-shaped retaining wall. ▪ Remove top 6' of the middle retaining wall.

3.4.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench
This alternative proposes to lower the two existing tracks into a trench corridor that extends from north of VTC and extending south of Main Street. It is anticipated that construction activities for the temporary and ultimate trackwork and supporting structures will be within the ROW limits of the railroad corridor. Roadway work, drainage improvements, and utility relocations would be within public ROW.

Temporary lane closures and/or lane shifts would be anticipated during the construction of the at-grade roadway bridges and utility relocations at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street.

Impacts to Guajome Street grade crossing would require some level of roadway reconstruction and also temporary lane closures during construction. Temporary traffic impacts would be mitigated by constructing the roadway and railway in phases as outlined below. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 73 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 64 Stage 0 – Early Work Construction (Existing ML-1 and ML-2 are operational) Stage 0 will be the early work construction activities to prepare the project site for the construction of the major structural components. To improve safety for construction crews, the new track alignments will be shifted westward, and ML-2 will be removed to allow room for excavation and the construction of retaining walls in Stage 1.

Prior to the removal of the ML-2 track, the new temporary shoofly track will be installed approximately 20 feet east of the existing ML-1 track. New temporary Number 15 turnouts will be installed on each end of the new shoofly, connecting the shoofly track to the existing ML-1 track. It is assumed that one (1) absolute work window (AWW) per turnout will be required to install the temporary special trackwork.

The new shoofly will be located within the limits of the existing northbound station at the VTC.

The station will need to be demolished to install the shoofly. The cost estimate assumes that a new temporary station will be installed within the limits of the existing station along the existing ML-1 track and the new shoofly track. If temporary stations are not desired, there is another option to bypass this station during construction and utilize the existing bus transit center to bus passengers to the nearby Melrose Drive Station and Civic Center Station throughout the duration of construction.

The new shoofly installation and the ML-2 track removal will extend through and impact the existing at-grade crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. Modifications at these crossings will be required to maintain public safety and include new locations for railroad crossing gate arms and warning devices. Existing utilities and drainage facilities in conflict with the proposed trench corridor will also be relocated.

Stage 1 – Construction on New ML-2 (Existing ML-1 and new shoofly track are operational)
Stage 1 will focus on the construction of the proposed ML-2 track. To lower the track, secant retaining walls are proposed. A permanent secant pile wall will be constructed five feet (5’) from the westerly railroad ROW line and a temporary retaining wall will be constructed to accommodate a single track. Construction will include temporary shoring, excavation, secant pile wall, and temporary retaining wall with temporary tiebacks. There are approximately 2,000 piles per wall line, and it is anticipated that multiple crews will be working concurrently in a staggered fashion.

For the construction of the superstructure crossing Vista Village Drive and Main Street, the sequencing will occur in four overall steps to maintain the shoofly track and roadway operations.

To accommodate the installation of the new ML-2 in this stage, one half of Vista Village Drive will be closed to construct the trench exterior and middle secant pile walls, including pile caps, and place precast box girders and cast concrete deck. That half of the road will be re-opened, and the other half will be closed to do the same. Both sides will be open to traffic again and the soil between the two retaining walls can be excavated and ML-2 will be installed in its new alignment along the trench. A temporary station and access to the lowered track will be constructed.

Stage 2 – Construction of Additional Structures (New ML-2 and new shoofly track are operational)
Stage 2 will be to expand the new lowered trench to its ultimate width. Train operations will move from the existing ML-1 track to the new ML-2 track. ML-1 and its temporary station from Stage 1 will be removed. A third permanent secant pile wall will be constructed 21’-6” from the face of the temporary retaining wall. Construction will include temporary shoring, retaining wall 08/26/2025
D2

Page 74 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 65 and excavation between new and middle retaining walls. There are approximately 2,000 piles per wall line, and it is anticipated that multiple crews will be working concurrently.

For the construction of the expansion to the superstructures crossing Vista Village Drive and Main Street, the third and fourth steps in the sequencing will follow the same methodology for the first and second steps in Stage 1. To accommodate the installation of the new ML-1 in this stage, one half of Vista Village Drive will be closed to construct the trench exterior secant pile wall, including pile caps, and place precast box girders and cast concrete deck. That half of the roadway will be re-opened, and the other half will be closed to do the same. Both sides will be opened to traffic again and the soil between the two retaining walls can be excavated.

Stage 3 – Construction of New ML-1 (New ML-2 and new shoofly track are operational) Stage 3 will construct the new ML-1 and a proposed maintenance road. Vehicular and train operations will remain the same. The temporary retaining wall will be removed. After completion, the new ML-1 will be installed in its new alignment parallel to the new ML-2 along the trench corridor. A 10-foot-wide maintenance road will be constructed along the easterly edge of the newly lowered trench corridor. The new permanent station and access will be constructed.

Stage 4 – Shoofly removal (New ML-1 and ML-2 are operational) Stage 4 will involve removal of temporary rail improvements and the modified at-grade crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street. The shoofly track, its adjacent temporary station, signal houses and track systems will be demolished. The area will be re-graded back to existing grades. In the area of the VTC, final hardscape and/or landscape improvements will be constructed. After the removal of the two modified at-grade crossings, the roadways will be graded, paved, and striped to their final configuration.

General Structural Sequence
The construction sequence of the structures in this alternative would include the following steps:
▪ Install secant pile wall 5' away from the ROW limit.
▪ Install temporary retaining wall 24' away from the secant pile wall. ▪ Excavate between the two installed retaining walls.
▪ Install secant plie wall around the layout of one the proposed lowered station and ADA ramps.
▪ Construct one lowered station and ADA ramps.
▪ Construct secant pile wall 21'-6" away from the temporary retaining wall. ▪ Excavate between the secant pile wall and temporary retaining wall. ▪ Remove temporary retaining wall.
▪ Install secant plie wall around the layout of the other proposed lowered station and ADA ramps.
▪ Construct the other lowered station and ADA ramps.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 75 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 66 The construction of the superstructure crossing across Vista Village Drive and Main Street would take place in four steps to maintain the shoofly track and roadway operations.

This could be achieved by following the construction sequence below (the following is just presented for Vista Village Drive):
▪ Redirect Vista Village Drive traffic into two lanes only. ▪ Construct the trench exterior and middle secant pile walls within the half Vista Village Drive with no traffic.
▪ Construct pile cap on top of exterior and middle secant pile walls. ▪ Place PC box girders between the pile caps and cast concrete deck. ▪ Redirect traffic to the other half of Vista Village Drive. ▪ Construct secant pile wall within half Vista Village Drive with no traffic. ▪ Construct pile cap on top of secant pile walls.
▪ Place PC box girders between the pile caps and cast concrete deck. ▪ Excavate soil between the two secant pile walls.
▪ Construct track ML-2.
▪ Construct secant pile wall at half Vista Village Drive with no traffic. ▪ Construct pile cap on top of secant pile wall.
▪ Place PC box girders between the pile caps and cast concrete deck. ▪ Redirect traffic to the other half of Vista Village Drive. ▪ Construct secant pile wall at half Vista Village Drive with no traffic. ▪ Construct pile cap on top of secant pile wall.
▪ Place PC box girders between the pile caps and cast concrete deck. ▪ Excavate soil between the two walls.
▪ Construct track ML-1.

3.4.4 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
This alternative proposes to elevate Vista Village Drive onto an aerial viaduct structure over the existing tracks. To maintain connectivity of all traffic movements at the Vista Village Drive & N.

Santa Fe Avenue intersection, a portion of the north and south legs of Santa Fe Avenue would also be elevated and tie into Vista Village Drive. Olive Avenue would be elevated and tie into Vista Village Drive. Roadway work, drainage improvements, and utility relocations will be within public ROW to the extent possible, however ROW acquisition will be necessary for construction access, laydown area and utility easements. It is assumed that the existing track operations can be maintained throughout most of the construction. AWW’s to facilitate construction within the allowable track construction envelope may be required, but those will be limited.

Temporary traffic impacts would for significant construction durations for this alternative. Access to businesses and local roads adjacent to the roadway embankment walls would have temporary closures during construction as well. Temporary traffic impacts would be mitigated by constructing the roadway in phases as outlined below.

Stage 0 – Early Work Construction
Stage 0 would be the early work construction activities to prepare the project site for the construction of the major structural components. Main Street will remain open to facilitate detour traffic during construction within Vista Village Drive and Santa Fe Avenue. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 76 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 67 The existing utilities and drainage facilities in conflict with viaduct column foundations or the approach embankments will be relocated. Temporary road or lane closures will be needed.

Once complete, Vista Village Drive and Santa Fe Avenue would be widened, as needed, to accommodate stage construction, future frontage roads, and embankments. At the end of this stage, the center lanes in both directions of Santa Fe Avenue will be closed for Stage 1 construction. Restripe the outside lanes, as well as Vista Village Drive. The new driveway on the south side Vista Village Drive into the Vista Village Commercial Center just west of the tracks would be constructed to only allow right in, right out movements.

Stage 1 – Santa Fe Avenue Construction
Stage 1 work would primarily take place in Santa Fe Avenue for the first of three approach embankments. The MSE retaining walls and seat type abutments will be constructed for the approach embankment. The embankment fill would also be installed. Construction activities would be conducted in phases to allow for temporary lane shifts for traffic during this stage.

Stage 2 – Olive Avenue Construction
Stage 2 work would primarily take place in Olive Avue for the approach embankment. The MSE retaining walls and seat type abutment would be constructed for the approach embankment.

The embankment fill would also be installed. During this stage, BREEZE bus facilities will be moved to the east side of the VTC to allow for continued operation.

Stage 3 – Vista Village Drive Construction
Stage 3 would focus on the construction activities for the structures along Vista Village Drive.

The half of the of Vista Village Drive would be closed in both directions and the roadway would be restriped. The at-grade crossing would remail operational as it is currently. The MSE retaining walls and seat type abutments would be constructed for the remaining two approach embankments, and the embankment fill would be placed. Traffic movements will be utilizing the shifted outside lanes on both Vista Village Drive and Santa Fe Avenue, while Main Street would be closed during this phase.

Stage 4 – Viaduct Superstructure Construction
Stage 4 would involve the construction of the single-span viaduct superstructure, which would connect the three approach embankments. The viaduct would span over the existing tracks.

Construction of the viaduct would consist of installing the precast girders and pouring the cast- in-place concrete deck and barriers. The roadway pavement on the three approach embankments would be placed and final striping across the new overpass would be installed.

Temporary roadway closures may be required depending on the construction activities. At the end of this stage, traffic would be ready to be shifted to the overpass for the full closure of the Vista Village Drive at-grade crossing.

3.5 Planning Assessment
This section summarizes the planning assessment of the three (3) refined alternatives, 1A, 2A and 3.

3.5.1 Planning Assessment Methodology and Criteria
The following provides an overview of community, environmental, regulatory, and funding considerations that will need to be made as the alternatives are further refined. These considerations are more overarching and may ultimately not be applicable to all alternatives but 08/26/2025
D2

Page 77 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 68 are provided here for context. Based on information available at this time, project alternatives were evaluated against these considerations. This is provided at a high level at this time and additional analysis will be needed to fully understand the extent of potential benefits and impacts of alternatives advanced for further consideration.

Community Considerations
One of the primary goals of this study is to identify a series of alternatives that could reasonably be constructed and meet community needs of improved safety and mobility for all roadway users. The community’s support of grade separation in the project area was made clear in the City of Vista’s pursuit and award of an FTA AoPP grant and reiterated during the December 2024 and May 2025 workshops. During these workshops, participants expressed a preference for an elevated rail track such as the one that would be implemented under Alternative 1A.

While the community has expressed support for grade separation, there is also concern about a myriad of factors that will need to be further evaluated as alternatives are further refined. This includes potential visual impacts, pedestrian and bicycle connections, construction activities, and public safety, among others. The public also had comments related to the possible reuse of open space under an elevated structure to be designated open space or other public use areas.

As part of the May 2025 workshop, the project team re-introduced the alternatives that are being further advanced, betterment features associated with each and articulated how well each addresses community concerns.

In future phases of project development, it will be essential to continue to engage affected communities to make sure that community concerns are known at the earliest stages of the decision-making process, that benefits and potential impacts are understood, and that mitigation measures are identified, if needed.

Environmental Considerations
It is anticipated that any of the alternatives that are advanced for implementation would seek some level of federal funding. As such, NEPA and CEQA documents that would need to be developed would evaluate the full suite of environmental topic areas for the advanced alternatives.

There are several environmental topics that would need to be analyzed and some that have the potential to result in significant time delays, regulatory challenges, public opposition, or additional costs that could be incurred. This includes but is not limited to protected parklands, wildlife species, water bodies, archeological resources, and impacts to protected populations.

It should be noted that potential impacts to resource areas have not been assessed in detail and no determination, if any, has been made at this time. Nevertheless, it is critical to identify such impacts early in the decision-making process to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the extent possible.

Regulatory Considerations
The future design of the preferred alternative would require coordination with local, state, and federal agencies. Under NEPA, coordination is needed with cooperating and participating agencies, while CEQA requires coordination with responsible and trustee agencies. The lead agencies under NEPA and CEQA will have discretionary approval authority over the project.

Advancement of the preferred alternative would need to adhere to various state and federal laws, executive orders, and policies, including the (1) protection of parks and recreational resources (Section 4(f)), (2) consideration of impacts on environmental justice and social equity 08/26/2025
D2

Page 78 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 69 populations, (3) protection of historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources, and (4) compliance with design standards, such as those for Accessible Design.

As grade separation advances, a comprehensive list of applicable laws, executive orders, and policies, along with coordination timelines, as needed, would be developed.

Funding Considerations
While there are a number of funding sources applicable to the project alternatives, it is a highly competitive process. It is important to conduct the upfront work to fully understand anticipated project benefits and potential impacts, identify ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, and demonstrate community support, among others to develop a compelling story for funding award.

When seeking funding for grade separation projects in California, it is crucial to explore a mix of local, state, and federal opportunities. Key state programs such as the Section 190 Grade Separation Program and the State Rail Assistance provide vital resources for improving safety and traffic flow by separating rail and roadway intersections. Entities often leverage local funds from initiatives like SANDAG's TransNet Program and general fund allocations to support these critical infrastructure projects.

At the federal level, programs like the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant and the INFRA Grants play a significant role in securing the necessary financial support. Additionally, projects might align with broader grants from FTA’s Capital Investment Grants Program and the Mega Grant Program. Combining these various funding sources allows for more comprehensive and sustainable solutions to enhancing rail safety and efficiency in California.

Each program awards different amounts and some may be more applicable to some alternatives than others. Grants listed in Table 3-14 below were determined by evaluating factors such as program eligibility criteria, alignment with project goals, availability of funds, historical precedence of awarded projects, and the overall demand for the grant. The assessment of grant opportunities provided herein is based on a comprehensive review of publicly available information about each funding program. It is important to note that grant programs are subject to change, and final decisions are made by the grant-giving entities based on their specific priorities and evaluation processes. This information is intended to provide general guidance and does not guarantee funding success.

Project alternatives would require further exploration and development to be eligible and competitive for funding. As alternatives are refined, applicants are encouraged to engage directly with the Grantmakers for the most current and detailed application requirements and evaluation criteria.

Table 3-14 Potential Funding Sources for All Alternatives Funding
Level Source Eligible Projects Funding Award Amount
Federal
Railroad Crossing
Elimination Grant
Program
Highway-rail grade crossing
separation
$1 million* to $573.26 million
*Planning projects not subject to
minimum
INFRA Grants Highway-railway grade crossing
or grade separation project $5 million to $2.27 billion 08/26/2025
D2

Page 79 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 70 Funding
Level Source Eligible Projects Funding Award Amount
FTA Capital
Investment Grants
Transit capital investments (part
of larger projects)
Small Starts: Up to $150 million;
New Starts: $400 million or more;
Core Capacity: Varies
Mega Grant Program Large-scale, complex
infrastructure projects Up to $1.2 billion
State Section 190 Grade
Separation Program Grade separation construction Up to $15 million annually California State Rail
Assistance
State-funded rail improvement
projects Varies
State Transportation
Improvement
Program
Various transportation
investments, including rail
projects
Varies
Local SANDAG's TransNet
Program
Regional transportation projects
in San Diego County
Varies, can be used as local
match for federal or state funding

3.5.2 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track
The approximately 1-mile aerial track under Alternative 1A would be sited entirely within NCTD ROW. This has the potential to minimize or eliminate some potential environmental effects and need for coordination with some state and/or federal agencies. Coordination with nearby communities should continue through project delivery. The following evaluation criteria provides an overview of anticipated changes to circulation and safety under this alternative in addition to capital costs, potential environmental effects, construction activities, and regulatory considerations.

Transit Operations. A new elevated ADA-compliant SPRINTER station would be constructed at VTC. Existing BREEZE bus bays would not require relocation. Mid- and long-term bus operations may be affected and would require coordination. However, given the nature of identified improvements, no considerable operational impacts are anticipated.

Freight Rail Operations. Over the long term, BNSF operations would continue to operate on shared rail tracks and benefit from the improvements included as part of this alternative.

Traffic Circulation. Under this alternative, Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue, Vista Village Drive & N. Santa Fe, and Main Street & S. Santa Fe Avenue would have a similar configuration as under existing conditions and would remain open. Minor roadway improvements would be needed to accommodate the aerial track.

With the grade separation of the railway with an aerial track travel time delays caused by mixed transit and vehicular operations would be eliminated. The adjacent traffic signal preemptions necessary for the train operations would no longer be required thereby resulting in reduced intersection delays and more consistent traffic flows on these major corridors. Once in 08/26/2025
D2

Page 80 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 71 operation, study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Similar to improved vehicle operations there would be improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation with the removal of the at-grade crossings. With the removal of these crossings there would be more consistent access for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling these corridors.

Under this alternative, new sidewalk, signage, and pavement markings would be installed, resulting in improved safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. This alternative would require realigning a portion of the planned Inland Rail Trail Phase 4, which would need to be coordinated with SANDAG. No other changes to the pedestrian or bicycle network are anticipated under this alternative. There may be an opportunity to coordinate with the City of Vista on other pedestrian and bicycle improvements to bring more widespread benefits to these users.

Safety Benefits. Separating SPRINTER and BNSF movements from other roadway users would eliminate potential conflicts of this nature and improve public safety. It would also reduce intentional incidents within the rail ROW. Other safety improvements, such as pedestrian scale street lighting and other betterment features, would offer further safety benefits should they be implemented. Emergency response times would be improved since the traffic signal preemption would no longer be required for the train operations.

Utility Operations. This alternative would require the relocation of existing utilities to accommodate the aerial track structure and station modifications. Coordination with utility providers, including SDG&E regarding potential alterations to substation access on the northwest corner of Vista Village Drive and N. Santa Fe Avenue, would be required.

Land Use. Improvements would be sited within the existing NCTD ROW. No land use impacts are anticipated. Construction staging would also be within the NCTD ROW.

Potential Environmental Effects. Because this alternative would be sited within the NCTD ROW, potential environmental effects to resources such as wildlife and water bodies, among others are not anticipated. However, the realignment of the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 could have Section 4(f) implications. The approximately 1.2 miles of track replacement may result in light, vibration, and privacy concerns for sensitive receptors adjacent to the ROW. Noise from train horns could be reduced or eliminated with the introduction of quiet zones.

Regulatory Considerations. The siting of this alternative entirely within the NCTD ROW means that coordination needed to minimize or avoid impacts to protected wildlife species, water bodies, and historic resources, among others are greatly reduced. Coordination with the U.S. Department of Transportation may be needed should the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 be determined to be a Section 4(f) resource. Coordination with utility providers, relevant transportation agencies (e.g., SANDAG), and municipal partners to ensure consistency and concurrence across other projects within proximity to the corridor will be needed. Should archeological resources be found during excavation, coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office would be required.

Construction Impacts. Construction activities would be mostly contained within the NCTD or public ROW. It is anticipated that there would be some disruption to vehicular movements while such activities are occurring within the public ROW and heavy haul trucks are bringing materials to the staging area. Once construction within the public ROW is complete, affected roadways would be graded, paved, and striped to the final configuration. 08/26/2025
D2

Page 81 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 72 Under this alternative, the existing VTC Station would be demolished to install a new shoofly track. A temporary station could be constructed within the limits of the existing station to retain a rail stop in this location during construction activities. Should a temporary station not be installed, the stop would be bypassed, and transit users would be bused to either the SPRINTER’s Melrose Drive Station or Civic Center Vista Station. BNSF would also use the shoofly track and largely continue operations with limited interruptions. Coordination would be ongoing.

Once construction is complete, the temporary station and supporting infrastructure would be removed. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the NCTD ROW may experience noise, light, and vibration impacts when construction activities are ongoing.

A construction plan, which will include duration and measures to mitigate noise, light, vibration, and circulation impacts, among others will be developed in subsequent phases of project development.

Capital Costs. Design and construction of Alternative 1A ranges from $461,170,000 on the lower end to $864,680,000 on the higher end. This is estimated to be the second highest of the alternatives analyzed.

Funding Competitiveness. This alternative has strong alignment with multiple funding sources listed in Table 3-14.

Community Support. Participants of the December 2024 and May 2025 workshops signaled their preference of an elevated rail as compared to track in trench or an aerial roadway or as included under Alternative 2A and Alternative 3, respectively. Continued engagement will be needed as alternatives are further refined to ensure that project design advances in a way that is supported by the Vista community.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 82 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 73 3.5.2.1 Alternative 1A – Aerial Track Impact Summary Grade separation Alternative 1A is an aerial track option that results in the following table presented impacts to the project’s key considerations.

Table 3-15 Alternative 1A Impact Summary

Key Considerations Impact Description
Traffic data Reduction in delays at Vista Village Drive and Olive Ave., Vista Village Dr. and N. Santa Fe Ave., and Main Street and S. Santa Fe Ave. intersections. Additionally, improved traffic flow along these major corridors.

Public Safety Potential reduction in vehicular crashes, reduction in NCTD ROW emergency incidents, and improved emergency response times.

Existing Utilities Relatively moderate utility relocations required to accommodate aerial track structure and Station modifications.

SDG&E Substation Coordination with SDG&E required with potential alterations to substation maintenance access.

BREEZE Transit Bus The ten (10) BREEZE bus bays would not require relocation. The NCTD recommended mid-term and long-term bus operation changes affected, require coordination.

NCTD Track and Station
Facilities
SPRINTER track section at Vista Village Station is in vertical sag, requires extensive track replacement. New elevated NCTD Station.

Roadway and Streets Minor roadway improvements to accommodate aerial track.

Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities
Improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility with omission of at-grade rail crossings.

Land Use Alternative 1A option permanent improvements are within NCTD ROW.

Future Development
Plans
Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 requires path realignment.

Environmental Effects Effects to resources such as wildlife and water bodies, among others are not anticipated. Realignment of the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 could have Section 4(f) implications. Track replacement may result in light, vibration, and privacy concerns for sensitive receptors adjacent to the ROW. Noise from train horns could be reduced or eliminated with the introduction of quiet zones.

Community Interests ▪ Noise
▪ Visual Enhancements
▪ Improve Pedestrian mobility
▪ Improve Traffic Flow
▪ Clear Signage
▪ Bike Lanes
▪ Construction Phase Impacts
▪ Crime & Public Safety
08/26/2025
D2

Page 83 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 74 3.5.3 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench
Under Alternative 2A, approximately 1.9 miles of track replacement would be sited within the NCTD ROW and include trench and at-grade roadway bridges at Vista Village Drive and Main Street. This alternative would require a below-grade platform for Vista Village Station and would impact the Guajome Street grade crossing as well as the Civic Center Drive grade crossing and Civic Center Vista Station. The following provides an overview of anticipated changes to circulation and safety under this alternative in addition to capital costs, potential environmental effects, construction activities, and regulatory considerations.

Transit Operations. A new below-grade ADA-compliant SPRINTER station would be constructed at VTC. This alternative would include grade crossing improvements at Guajome Street and Civic Center Drive and would also lower the Civic Center Vista Station approximately two feet. BREEZE operations, both existing and planned, and associated coordination would be the same as under Alternative 1A.

Freight Rail Operations. Freight rail operations would be the same as under Alternative 1A.

Traffic Circulation. Under this alternative, the trench design would allow the Vista Village Drive & Olive Avenue, Vista Village Drive & N. Santa Fe, and Main Street & S. Santa Fe Avenue intersections to remain open and operate as they do under existing conditions. The intersections would have a similar intersection configuration and traffic volumes as Alternative 1A.

Similar to Alternative 1A, grade separation of the railway with a track in trench would eliminate travel time delays associated with mixed transit and vehicular operations. Traffic signal preemption for the crossing trains would no longer be required resulting in reduced intersection delays and more consistent traffic flows on these major corridors. The LOS and queue lengths at study intersections are projected to be similar to existing conditions and continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better).

Because this alternative would also include the grade separation or closure of the Guajome Street crossing, the potential exists for a further reduction in travel time delay over Alternative 1A. Additional analysis to better understand how vehicular movements may be affected would be needed in subsequent phases should this alternative be advanced for further evaluation.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Under this alternative, pedestrian and bicyclist improvements and the need to realign a portion of the planned Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 would be the same as Alternative 1A. Additionally, there would be improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

Safety Benefits. Safety-related improvements would be the same as under Alternative 1A but would also include Guajome Street because of the need to grade separate or close the crossing to accommodate the trench. This has the potential to result in more widespread safety benefits than Alternative 1A. Similar to Alternative 1A, emergency response times would be improved.

Utility Operations. Alternative 2A would require the relocation of existing utilities to accommodate the trench and station modifications. This alternative would require coordination with the same utility providers as Alternative 1A, however the scope of utility relocation would be considerably greater given the length of new track, trenched nature of the rail track, and increase in the number of grade crossings that would be eliminated.

Land Use. Improvements would be sited within the existing NCTD ROW. No land use impacts are anticipated. Construction staging would also be within the NCTD ROW.

Potential Environmental Effects. Potential environmental effects as assumed to generally be the same as under Alternative 1A. However, because of the nature of track in trench design, 08/26/2025
D2

Page 84 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 75 light and vibration would be further from sensitive receptors than they would be under Alternative 1A.

Regulatory Considerations. Regulatory considerations would be the same as under Alternative 1A.

Construction Impacts. Similar to Alternative 1A, construction activities would be limited to the NCTD and public ROW. Given the difference between an elevated rail as compared to a track in trench, there would be some variation in construction methods. BNSF operations would continue as under Alternative 1A. Construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to the NCTD ROW may be reduced in certain locations because of the trench and extend to other areas because of the length of new track.

A construction plan, which will include duration and measures to mitigate noise, light, vibration, and circulation impacts, among others will be developed in subsequent phases of project development. It is anticipated that this alternative would take longer to construct given the trench, longer extents, additional grade separation south of Main Street, and need to lower the Civic Center Vista Station.

Capital Costs. Design and construction of Alternative 2A ranges from $733,030,000 on the lower end to $1,449,430,000 on the higher end. This alternative is estimated to be the most costly of the three alternatives advanced for further consideration, in part, because of the need for additional grade crossing improvements at Guajome Street and Civic Center Drive and the lowering of the Civic Center Vista Station.

Funding Competitiveness. Alternative 2A is estimated to be considerably more costly than either Alternative 1A or Alternative 3. As such, NCTD would likely need to pursue a more limited group of larger funding sources or pool resources from multiple sources, primarily from the list identified in Table 3-14. While there are considerable resources in larger funding opportunities, securing the funding is exceptionally competitive and could delay project implementation.

Pursuit of multiple funding sources also presents risks as funding cycles may have different timelines and dependency risks could jeopardize projects if not well coordinated and managed.

Competitiveness of these funds, in part, depends on existing ridership, which will help determine funding sources to be pursued.

Community Support. Participants of the December 2024 workshop signaled their support for grade separation, however indicated their preference for Alternative 1A. Continued engagement will be needed as alternatives are further refined to ensure that project design advances in a way that is supported by the Vista community.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 85 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 76 3.5.3.1 Alternative 2A – Track in Trench Impact Summary Grade separation Alternative 2A is a subsided track in a below grade trench option that results in the following table presented impacts to the project’s key considerations.

Table 3-16 Alternative 2A Impact Summary

Public Safety Potential reduction in vehicular crashes, reduction in NCTD ROW emergency incidents, and improved emergency response times.

Existing Utilities Significant utility relocations required to accommodate track in trench and station modifications.

SDG&E Substation Coordination with SDG&E required with potential alterations to substation maintenance access.

BREEZE Transit Bus The ten (10) BREEZE bus bays would not require relocation.

The NCTD recommended mid-term and long-term bus
operation changes affected, require coordination.

NCTD Track and Station Facilities SPRINTER track section at Vista Village Station is in vertical sag, requires extensive track replacement. NCTD Station modifications required.

Roadway and Streets Roadway bridge links spanning rail trench for Vista Village Dr., Main St. others are required.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Improved pedestrian and bicycle safety with omission of at- grade rail crossings. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would be required to span the rail trench.

Land Use Alternative 2A option permanent improvements are within NCTD ROW.

Future Development Plans Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 requires path realignment.

Environmental Effects Generally, the same as Alternative 1A. However, light and vibration would be further from sensitive receptors than under Alternative 1A.

Page 86 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 77 3.5.4 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway
Alternative 3 would provide an aerial roadway structure spanning the NCTD ROW at Vista Village Drive. The design would also provide a connector ramp along North Sante Fe Avenue and an above-grade intersection at North Sante Fe Avenue and Vista Village Drive. The following provides an overview of anticipated changes to circulation and safety under this alternative in addition to capital costs, potential environmental effects, construction activities, and regulatory considerations.

Transit Operations. Under this alternative, no new rail track would be constructed, and the existing rail tracks would continue to serve SPRINTER and BNSF operations. The BREEZE bus depot would be relocated to east of the rail tracks, which would provide improved access for buses. Bus operations, both existing and planned, and associated coordination would be the same as under Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A. VTC parking would be relocated to west of the rail tracks.

Freight Rail Operations. Freight rail operations would be the same as under Alternative 1A.

Traffic Circulation. Under this alternative an aerial roadway structure would provide above- grade intersections at Sante Fe Avenue and Olive Avenue along Vista Village. However, the introduction of this aerial roadway structure would result in the removal of some intersection movements on N. Indiana Drive, Terracina Way, and Washington Street due to the proposed retaining walls required for the connector ramps on Vista Village Drive. Additionally, it would require the closure of Main Street at S. Santa Fe Avenue. (See Section 2.3.5).

Similar to Alternative 1A, an aerial roadway structure would eliminate travel time delays associated with mixed transit and vehicular operations. Signal preemption for crossing trains would no longer be required resulting in more consistent traffic flows on these major corridors.

The LOS and queue lengths at study intersections are projected to be similar to existing conditions and continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). Queue lengths at these elevated intersections would be similar to those in Alternative 1A and 2A.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Under this alternative, pedestrian and bicycle movements would be provided on the aerial structures of Vista Village Drive and Santa Fe Avenue.

Sidewalks and bike lanes would be provided to match the existing lane configurations. It should be noted, there would be changes in some street grades due to the aerial roadway intersections which could have effect on the walkability and rideability in the study area compared to the existing relatively flat conditions.

ADA ramps and/or elevators would need to be provided from the elevated Vista Village Drive to provide access to the VTC.

Safety Benefits. Under this alternative, safety benefits would be similar to Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A. Emergency response times would be improved.

Utility Operations. This alternative would require the relocation of existing utilities in support of the aerial roadway. Relocations would primarily be within the public ROW as opposed to the NCTD ROW and are anticipated to be less than those under Alternative 2A. Coordination with utility providers would be the same as under Alternative 1A.

Land Use. Land use impacts would result from ROW acquisition due to size of aerial roadway structures.

Potential Environmental Effects. This alternative would not realign the existing rail tracks and would be primarily sited within the existing public ROW. The extents of potential improvements are less than under Alternative 1A or Alternative 2A. This has the potential to result in fewer 08/26/2025
D2

Page 87 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 78 community concerns than the proceeding alternatives. The potential realignment of the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 could have Section 4(f) implications.

Regulatory Considerations. Regulatory considerations would be the same as under Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A.

Construction Impacts. During construction of this alternative, rail operations (passenger and freight) would largely be able to remain open and operate as they do under existing conditions.

Due to construction activities that would occur within the public ROW, temporary lane and/or roadway closures would result at various times throughout the construction period. Pedestrian and bicycle access would experience temporary reductions and closures throughout the construction.

A construction plan, which will include duration and measures to mitigate noise, light, vibration, and circulation impacts, among others will be developed in subsequent phases of project development.

Capital Costs. Design and construction of Alternative 3 ranges from $343,730,000 on the lower end to $644,490,000 on the higher end. This does not include the cost to relocate the BREEZE bus depot. This is estimated to be the least costly of the alternatives analyzed.

Funding Competitiveness. In addition to those funding sources identified in Table 3-14, the Caltrans Active Transportation Program could be sought for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Main Street to maintain access.

Community Support. Participants of the December 2024 workshop signaled their support for grade separation, however indicated their preference for Alternative 1A. Continued engagement would be needed as alternatives are further refined to ensure that project design advances in a way that is supported by the Vista community.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 88 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 79 3.5.4.1 Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway Impact Summary Grade separation Alternative 3 is an elevated roadway option that results in the following table presented impacts to the project’s key considerations.

Table 3-17 Alternative 3 Impact Summary
Key Considerations Description
Traffic data Fully developed Alternative 3 option would reduce delays at Vista Village Drive and Olive Ave. and Vista Village Dr. and N.

Santa Fe Ave. intersections. Main Street between S. Santa Fe Ave. and the Vista Village Commercial Center would be
impacted due to road closures. Several street connections and driveways would lose access due to roadway embankment
walls along Vista Village Drive and North and S. Santa Fe. See Section 3.2.5 Traffic Analysis.

Public Safety Potential reduction in NCTD ROW emergency incidents with removed at-grade track crossings and possible boundary
fencing. Vehicular crashes may be reduced. Improved
emergency response times.

Existing Utilities Significant utility relocations required to accommodate aerial roadway structure and improvements.

SDG&E Substation Coordination with SDG&E required with potential alterations to substation maintenance access.

BREEZE Transit Bus The ten (10) BREEZE bus bays would not require relocation.

The NCTD recommended mid-term and long-term bus
operation changes affected.

NCTD Track and Station Facilities SPRINTER track would remain as currently operating.

Roadway and Streets Major roadway improvements and traffic pattern modifications.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility with omission of at- grade rail crossings, however changes in some street grades due to aerial roadway intersections may affect walkability and rideability in the area.

Land Use Alternative 3 option would require acquisition of ROW for permanent roadway improvements and utility relocations.

Future Development Plans Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 may require moderate path realignment.

Environmental Effects Fewer than Alternatives 1A and 2A.

Page 89 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 80 4 Recommendation and Future Stages
An evaluation of the three alternatives was conducted to support a final recommendation for a preferred alternative and outline next steps for grade separation.

4.1 Recommendation
The purpose of this Study was to conduct a comprehensive planning study aimed at improving transportation infrastructure and public safety in the downtown area of Vista specifically through the elimination of the at-grade railroad crossings located at Vista Village Drive and Main Street.

These crossings currently contribute to traffic congestion, safety concerns, and increased automobile emissions due to idling.

As a result, the project team developed three (3) feasible alternatives to grade separate the existing railroad crossings at Vista Village Drive and at Main Street while considering and comparing the various resulting impacts of each. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the final conditions of the three (3) refined alternatives by evaluation criteria. Each alternative would result in safety improvements, improved SPRINTER light rail and BREEZE bus reliability, and reduced noise and GHG emissions, among other benefits. At this time, Alternative 1A has been identified as the preferred alternative because it best meets the project’s purpose and need, limits adverse impacts, maximizes benefits corresponding to cost, and is supported by the community. While Alternative 2A would separate the two grade crossings, the extent of improvements would mean it would take longer to construct and estimated costs may make it prohibitively expensive. Alternative 3 has lower estimated capital costs (not including the BREEZE bus depot relocation or providing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Main Street) but would result in profound community impacts and create a more circuitous route for some pedestrians and bicyclists. It would also include the introduction of an above-grade intersection that would require additional City of Vista ROW and result in land use impacts.

The Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study has made significant strides in identifying and evaluating alternatives to enhance mobility, safety, and accessibility in the Vista community. Through comprehensive research, public outreach, and stakeholder engagement, the project team has narrowed down the options to three viable alternatives. The preferred alternative, Alternative 1A – Aerial Track, has been selected based on its ability to meet the project's objectives, minimize adverse impacts, and maximize benefits relative to cost.

While further analysis and detailed feasibility studies are necessary, this planning effort lays a strong foundation for future improvements that will benefit the community by reducing traffic congestion, enhancing safety, and promoting sustainable transportation solutions. Continued collaboration with the community and stakeholders will be essential as the project progresses towards implementation.

08/26/2025
D2

Page 90 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 81 4.2 Future Stages
The project sequencing outlined below reflects the anticipated next steps following the completion of the Grade Separation Planning Study. Preliminary project sequencing was tailored for long range planning and strategic stakeholder coordination over the life of this project consisting of five (5) phases as shown in Table 4-1. The preferred grade separation alternative identified in this planning effort will require a more detailed feasibility study in the future before proceeding to the next stage.

Table 4-1 Project Implementation Sequencing
Phase Status
Grade Separation Planning Study Current
Preliminary Design and
Environmental Clearance Future
Final Design (PS&E) Future
Procurement and Contracting Future
Building and Construction Future

08/26/2025
D2

Page 91 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 82 Table 4-2 Alternatives Summary by Evaluation Criteria Evaluation
Criteria
Alternative
Alternative 1A – Aerial Track Alternative 2A – Track in Trench Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway Transit Operations • Eliminates two at-grade crossings
• New ADA-compliant elevated station at VTC
• No near-term impacts to bus operations
• Mid- and long-term bus operations would require
coordination but no considerable impacts are anticipated • Similar grade crossing elimination as Alternative 1A
• New ADA-compliant below-grade station at VTC
• Requires additional roadwork at Guajome Street, and Civic Center Drive grade crossing and Civic Center Vista Station would need to be lowered
• Bus operations and coordination would be the same as under Alternative 1A
• Similar grade crossing elimination as Alternative 1A
• BREEZE bus depot would be relocated to the east side of the rail tracks, which would improve access for buses
• Coordination would be the same as under Alternative 1A and Alternative 2A
• Parking would be relocated to the west side of the rail tracks
Freight Rail Operations • BNSF operations would continue to operate on shared rail tracks and benefit from improvements associated with
grade separation
• Same as Alternative 1A • Same as Alternative 1A
Traffic Circulation • Reduction in travel time delays by removal of at-grade crossings on Vista Village Drive and on Main Street
• Similar to existing conditions
• LOS projected to operate at an acceptable level

• Reduction in travel delays similar to Alternative 1A
• Acceptable LOS projected similar to Alternative 1A

• Reduction in travel delays similar as Alternative 1A
• This alternative requires the closure of Main Street between S. Santa Fe Avenue and the Vista Village Commercial
Center
• Vista Village Drive, Olive Avenue, N. Santa Fe Avenue and S. Santa Fe Avenue to operate at acceptable LOS
• Several street connections and driveways would lose
access due to roadway embankment walls along Vista
Village Drive and North and S. Santa Fe

Pedestrian and Bicycle
Circulation
• Improved infrastructure once construction is complete • Reduction in pedestrian and bicycle delays along Vista Village Drive and Main Street with at grade crossing
removal

• Same as Alternative 1A

• Pedestrian and bicycle movements on Vista Village Drive at Sante Fe Avenue and at Olive Avenue would be provided
along aerial roadway structures
• Access to the Vista Village Commercial Center from Main Street would be eliminated
• Changes in some street grades due to aerial roadway
intersections may affect walkability and rideability in the area.

Safety Benefits • Eliminates potential train-related conflicts and intentional entrance into the rail ROW
• Eliminates potential train-related conflicts and intentional entrance into the rail ROW
• Eliminates potential train-related conflicts and intentional entrance into the rail ROW
Utility Operations • Requires utility coordination and limited relocation within the NCTD and City of Vista ROW’s
• This alternative would require coordination with the same utility providers as Alternative 1A, however the scope of utility relocation would be greater given the length of new track, trenched nature of the rail track, and increase in the number of grade crossings that would be eliminated.
• Utility coordination and relocation within the NCTD and City of Vista ROW’s
• One or more pump stations required for trench drainage

• Requires utility coordination and relocation within
Alternative 3 project footprint
• Limited utility relocations within NCTD ROW
• Significant utility relocations within City of Vista ROW • Not as widespread as under Alternative 2A
Land Use • Improvements would be limited to the NCTD ROW, no land use impacts would result
• Same as Alternative 1A • Land use impacts due to required ROW acquisition

08/26/2025
D2

Page 92 of 227 ends

Final Vista Village Transit Center Grade Separation Study July 2025 83 Evaluation
Criteria
Alternative
Alternative 1A – Aerial Track Alternative 2A – Track in Trench Alternative 3 – Aerial Roadway Potential Environmental
Effects
• Limited potential environmental effects to protected
resources
• Potential Section 4(f) implications because of the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 realignment
• Potential light, vibration, and privacy concerns for sensitive receptors adjacent to the ROW
• Generally the same as under Alternative 1A
• Light and vibration would be further from sensitive
receptors than under Alternative 1A
• Significantly longer project limits
• Potentially less than under Alternative 1A or Alternative 2A because of improvement siting in a more localized area
Regulatory Considerations • Significant coordination with agencies overseeing protected resources is not anticipated
• Coordination with the U.S. Department of Transportation may be required if the Inland Rail Trail Phase 4 realignment triggers Section 4(f)
• Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office should archaeological resources be discovered during
construction
• Coordination with utility providers
• Same as Alternative 1A • Same as Alternative 1A
Construction Impacts • Contained within the NCTD and public ROW • Some disruption to vehicular movements and
pedestrian/bicycle access
• Closure of existing VTC Station
• Potential temporary station or bussing of passengers to alternate stations
• Noise, light, and vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors
• Lane closures, shifts and/or detours required during
construction phases
• Same as Alternative 1A but potential impacts to sensitive receptors may be reduced in some locations given the
trenched nature of the rail and extend to others because of the increased length of new track
• Longer duration than other alternatives of analysis
• More utility relocations
• Requires Vista Village Drive detours during construction of the trench
• Rail operations would largely be able to remain open and operate as they do under existing conditions
• Temporary lane and/or roadway closures would be needed • Frontage businesses would lose street access due to
construction of embankment walls
• Pedestrian and bicyclist operations would be temporarily impacted during construction phases
Capital Costs • Ranges from $461.2 million to $864.7 million • Second most expensive

• $773.1 million on the lower end to $1.45 billion
• Most expensive, in part, because of the need for additional grade crossing improvements and lowering of Civic Center Vista Station
• $343.8 million on the lower end to $644.5 million
• Least expensive
• Does not include relocation of the BREEZE bus depot or providing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Main Street to maintain access
Funding Competitiveness • Alignment with multiple state and federal programs like the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, INFRA
Grants, Section 190 Grade Separation Program and
California State Rail Assistance
• Similar to Alternative 1A but programs with larger awards are likely to be sought
• Amount of funding coupled with annual awards may make this alternative cost prohibitive
• Same as Alternative 1A

Community Support • December 2024 workshop participants stated preference of an aerial track
• December 2024 workshop participants support grade
separation but indicated they prefer Alternative 1A
• December 2024 workshop participants support grade
separation but indicated they prefer Alternative 1A
08/26/2025
D2

Page 93 of 227 ends

APPENDIX A. PLAN, PROFILE & TYPICAL SECTIONS

84 08/26/2025
D2

Page 94 of 227 ends

ALT 1 LIMIT OF WORK
ALT 2 LIMIT OF WORK
ALT 3 LIMIT OF WORK
N
0 500 1000500
1 INCH = 500 FEET
78 COVER SHEET
GN-001
5/25A. LANGTRY
A. LANGTRY
N. JEFFERY
H. HASENIN

GRADE SEPARATION STUDY

VISTA VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER

NORTH COUNTRY TRANSIT DISTRICT

VISTA VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
GU A
JO
M
E ST

CIVIC CENTER VISTA TRANSIT STATION

N SA NT E FE AVE

EX ML-1

EX ML-2
LEGEND:

CIVIC CENTER DR
5/25
5/25
5/25

VISTA VIL L
AGE DR
S SA N

TE FE A V
E

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$ $TIME$ $USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25

AS SHOWN
08/26/2025
D2

Page 95 of 227 ends

GN-002
1/25A. LANGTRY
A. LANGTRY 1/25
N. JEFFERY 1/25
H. HASENIN 1/25

TRACK GEOMETRY DATA

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$ $TIME$ $USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street
06/25
06/25
06/25
06/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 96 of 227 ends

COVER: NOT AVAILABLE
6" HP GAS, CASING: 10"
DWG GP99-019-19
6 "
C
L
W
A
T
E
R
,
D
-
7 10
-
1955

(F
14 )
F
IR
E

HY
D
R
AN
T
V
ER
IFY
H
P
G
A
S
LO
C
A
TIO
N

ELECTRICAL VAULT
24" RCP SD PER DWG GP99-019-19
1 8
" R C
P SD PER DWG GP99-0 1
9-19
2 1
" R C

P SD (ABAN D
)

EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE

EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE
24" RCP SD PER DWG GP9 9
-019-1 9
18" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD12" HDPE SD
DWG. 3506-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
1 8" RCP SD PER DWG. 35 06-6
30 "
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
35 06
-
6 24
"
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3506
-
6 2
4 "
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3 50
6 -
6 18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 350 6-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 35 06-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-10
30 "
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3 5
0 6
-
6 18" R CP SD PER DWG. 3 50 6-6
1 8
"
RC
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G

G
P
9 9
-
01 9
-
19 18" RCP
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS AP
BK NO. B-1 2, SHT. N O. 19_1 2

SEWER ABA N DONED, SEWER AT LAS AP
B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
1 9
_
1 2
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T L
A
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
20_1
2 2
7 "
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
UNK
LIN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

S
D
G
&
E D
W
G
P
LA
T 43
-
649
4 " H
P
GA
S
LIN
E W
ITH
8 " C
A
S
IN
G
P
ER
3" HP GAS LINE (4 3-6 4 9
)
S
DG
&
E

D
W
G

P
LA
T
43 -
636

(C
OV
E
R

5 .5
')
6 "
H
P

GA
S

LIN
E

W
ITH

1 2
"
C
A
S
ING

P
E
R
8"x6" HP GAS
6" HP GAS6" HP GAS6" HP GAS
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
3 -
6 3
6 )
MAP NO. 15652-120525 ;COVER: N/A
6" HP GAS; CASING: NONE 6" HP GAS (43-636)
(49-106)
8" HP GAS
4" HP GAS (43-632)
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
3 -
6 3
2 )
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
3 -
6 32
)
6" HP GAS (49-1 06)
B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ;C
A
S
ING
:

N
/
A
;
C
O
V
E
R
:

N
/
A
A
B
AND
O
N
E
D

S
E
W
E
R
LIN
E

V
IS
TA

S
W
R

A
TLA
S

19 _
12 AP BK NO
. B-1 2, SHT. NO
. 1 9_1 2
18" VCP TRUNK
LINE, SEWER ATLAS AP BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS
19_1 2 CASING: N/A CO VER:N/A
1 8" PVC TRU N KLINE, VISTA SWR AT LAS
B
-
12 , S
H
T.

NO
. 19
_
12 ; C
A
S
ING
: N
/
A
; C
OV
ER
: N
/
A
18 " P
V
C
TR
U
N
K
LIN
E, V
IS
TA
S
W
R
A
TLA
S
19 _
12 ; B
K
N
O
.

CA
SING
: N
/
A
,
CO
VER: N
/
A
A
BA
N
DON
ED 18" VCP TRU
NK
LIN
E, SEW
ER A
T L
A
S 1 9_1
2 BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12
18" PVC SEWER TRUNK, SEWER ATLAS AP
C
A
S
IN
G
:
3 0
"
S
TL
C
O
V
E
R
:
10 '
M
IN
.
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
19 _1
2 NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
19 _
12 8
"
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

NO
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
1 9_
1 2
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

BK N O. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12 & 20_12
18" VCP TRU N KLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12 & 20_12
18" VCP TRUNKLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP
N O. B-12, SHT. NO. 1 9_1 2 & 2 0_126" VCP TRU NKLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP BK B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T.

NO
.
1 9_1
2 &

20_1 2
6 "
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

NO
.

A
P

B
K

NO
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
2 0
_
12 27
"
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
U
N
K
L
IN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

S
H
T
.

NO
.
1 9_
12 &

2 0
_
1 2
6 "
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
L
A
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
1 2
,
BK N O. B-12, SHT. NO. 2 0_1 2
8" VCP, SEWER AT LAS AP
B
K

NO
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

NO
.
20 _
12 8
"
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
LA
S

A
P

BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 20_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS AP
S
H
T
.

NO
.
1 9
_
1 2

C
A
S
IN
G
:
16 "
C
O
V
E
R
:
6 '
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

B
K

NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
B
K

NO
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
20_1
2 8
"
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

18" RCP SD
AP BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS
C
O
V
E
R
:

N
O
T

AV
A
IL
A
B
L
E
2 "
H
P

G
A
S
,
C
A
S
ING
:
4 "
1 8
" RC
P SD PER DWG 3303
-6B
24" RCP SD PER DWG.
33 03-
6B
24 " RCP SD PER DWG.
3303-
6B
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
SD

COMMS MH
1 8" RCP SD PER
B
K
N
O
. B
-
1 2
D
3584; C
A
SIN
G
: N
/
A
; C
O
VER
:N
/
A
18" P
VC
TR
U
NK
LIN
E, SEW
ER
A
TLA
S A
P
19_1
2 PLACE; PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN
PLACE; PER DWG. NO. 3303
.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDON
ED IN
PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN PLACE
6" AC WATER, D-82 7-1 958 (F1 4)
I -
2 349
-
1 9
84 (F1 4
)
8 "
A
C

W
A
T E
R
,
18" RCP SD
1 2
" HDPE SD
18" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD
18" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD12" HDPE SD
18" RCP SD PER
24" RCP SD PER DWG
1 8" RCP SD PER DWG GP99-0 1 9-19
18" RCP SD PER
18" RCP SD
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12
18" PVC SEWER TRUNK, SEWER ATLAS AP
19_12SEWER ATLAS AP

ABANDONED SEWER ,
AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
O
V
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
O
V
ER
:
1 8
"
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

G
D
-
123
1 C
O
N
EC
TIO
N
TO
C
U
LV
ER
T
CH
ECK LO
CA
TIO
N
O
R O
TH
ER M
H
s IN
IN

TERSECTIO
N
C
H
EC
K
LO
C
A
TIO
N
O
F IN
LETS
SDSD
B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T
.

NO
.
2 0_
12 (36
"
S
T
E
EL

C
A
S
ING
)
S
E
W
E
R

A
B
ANDON
E
D
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

B
K

NO
.

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
20 _1
2 2
7 "
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
U
N
K
LIN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

6" HP GAS (49-106)
VISTA
SW
R A
T L
A
S 1 9_
12 CA
SING
:N
/
A
; CO
VER:N
/
A
1 8
" SEW
ER A
BA
N
DO
N
ED
D
W
G
.

N
O
.
3 5
0 6
10 "
V
C
P

S
E
W
E
R

(A
B
A
N
DO
N
E
D
)
AP BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 20 _
12 27" SEWER TRUNKLINE, SEWER ATLAS
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 20_12
8" VCP, SEWER ATLAS AP
C
OV
E
R
:

NO
T
AV
A
IL.

C
A
S
ING
:

N
O
N
E
378
-
169
5 A
378-1695A
378-1695A & 1695C
3 78
-
16 9
5 C
TEL E
P
HON
E

LIN
E

C
A
S
ING
:

NON
E
,
C
O
V
E
R
:
4 '
E
L E
C
TR
IC
A
L
LIN
E

C
A
S
ING
:

N
O
N
E
,
C
OV
E
R
:

NO
T
A
V
A
ILA
B
L E
C
A
TV

C
A
S
IN
G
:

NO
N
E
,
C
OV
E
R
:
1 2
KV

C
A
S
ING
:

N
O
N
E
,
C
O
V
E
R
:
39 '
3 78-1 695C
DWG. NO. 3506
10" VCP SEWER (ABANDONED)
376
-
1 695
B
37 6
-
1 695
B
37 6
-
1695
B
376-1695B
3 7 6
-16 9 5
B
376-1695B

OH EL ECTRICAL

O H ELECTRICAL
O H

ELECTRICAL
OH
EL E
C
TR
IC
A
L

R/R SIGNAL VAULT

ELECTRICAL VA ULT
T E L E. PEDESTAL
T

SL PBOX
T

TS PBOX
BLUE CONDUITS; COVER: 4' AVERAGE
RR COMMS UG; CASING:WHITE, ORANGE, &
C
O
V
E
R
:

1.5 '
C
A
S
IN
G
:

S
L
U
R
R
Y
TELE

L
IN
E
,
3033-7W
12" PVC WATER DWG
10 "
P
V
C

W
A
TE
R

S
H
T.

E
13 D
W
G
.
35 0
6 10
"
P
V
C

W
A
T E
R

D
W
G
.
35 06
21 " R
C
P
SD
,
P
ER
1096-
2 &
11 3
1 O
H
ELEC
TR
IC
A
L
PP218127
EX
IS
T C
U
R
B
IN
LET
8 " G
A
S
H
S
L-
4 9
-
10 6
M
A
P
N
O
. 156
5 2
-
120
5 2
5 8
" G
A
S
H
S
L-
4 9
-
10 6
M
A
P
N
O
. 15
65 2
-
12 0
5 2
5 4
" G
A
S
LIN
E
C
A
S
ING
: 8
" C
S
P
M
A
P
NO
. 15
6 52
-
12052
5 C
O
V
ER
: N
/
A
4" GAS LINE ;MAP NO. 15652-120525
COVER: N/A
6" HP GAS LINE; CASING: NONE
MAP NO. 15652-120525; COVER: N/A
8 "
S
T
R
M

S
E
W
E
R

(A
B
ND
)
N
C
T
D

U
T
-
14 6

S
H
T
.
371
;
C
OV
E
R
:

N
/
A
A
VA
ILA
B
LE; C
O
V
ER
: N
O
T AV
A
ILA
B
L E
W
A
T E
R
A
B
A
ND
O
N
ED
; C
A
S
IN
G
: NO
T
COVER" 5'
CASING: 18" STL
10" AC
DWG 303 3-7W
1 2" PVC WATER
8" PVC D-661-1954
ICV
FCV
QC
WMBFP
GTD

GTD GTD
GTD
36" RC
P
SD
36" RC
P
SD
3 0
" R
C
P
S
D
3 0
"
R
C
P

S
D
1 8" RCP SD PER DWG GP9 9-0 1 9-1 9
1 5 6 5 2-1 2 0 5 2 5; CO VER: N/A
4" HP G AS; CASIN G: N O NE; MAP NO.

PLACE PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN
M
A
P

NO
.
15 6
52 -
12 0
525
;
C
O
V
E
R
:

N
/
A
4 "
H
P

GA
S

C
A
S
ING
:

N
O
N
E
30 " SD CONC PIPE
30 " SD CONC PIPE
6 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
9 -
1 06
)
20_1 2

AP BK N O
. B-12, SHT. N O
.

SEWER ABA N D

ONED, SEWER ATLAS
4" HP GAS CASING: NONE MAP NO.
15652-120525, COVER: N/A
A
T&
T ln0301
ba.dg
n
CR
O
W
N
CA
ST L
E A
-
1 UG

FIBER O

PTIC LIN
E

ABANDONED
EXISTIN G 6" HP G AS

FIRE HYD
RAN
T
33 0.1 TC
32 9.6 FL
325
.36
EG
EX. DWY
~
~
(331.69 TC)
325
.1 1 EG
3 0
8 .2
3 0
9 .2
3 16
.2
3 16
.5
E
lev 317.49
E
6256846
.65
N
20 17
385
.72
31 4
3 17
.5 31
8 .5
319
.2
3 19
.2
319
.2
3 18
.7
3 19
.2
3 19
.4
3 19
.6
3 19
.5
3 19
.7
3 19
.5
3 19
.5
3 20
.2
3 2
0 .3
3 2
0 .4
3 2
0 .5
3 2
0 .5
3 2
0 .5
3 2
0 .7
3 2
0 .8
321
.3
3 2

1.33 2

1.5 3
2 1.5
3 2

1.5 3
2 1.9
3 2
2 .3
32 2
.2
3 2
2 .2
R
R
32 2
.6
3 2
2 .6
3 2
2 .6
3 2
2 .5
ASP
H
R
R
BRUSH
RR
RR
RR
3 2
3 .6
3 2
3 .5
3 2
3 .3
3 2
3 .7
3 2
3 .4
3 2
3 .6
32 3
.3
3 2
3 .6
3 2
3 .3
3 23
.7
3 2
3 .6
32 3
.3
3 23
.3
3 2
3 .4
RR
3 2
3 .7
3 2
3 .8
3 2
3 .8
3 2
3 .8
3 2
3 .8 3
2 3
.8
GNV
324
.43
2 4
.3
3 2
4 .3
3 2
4 .4
3 2
4 .1
324
.4
3 2
4 .3
RR
3 2
4 .5
3 2
4 .5
32 4
.5
324
.5
3 2
4 .6
3 2
4 .5
3 2
4 .7
3 2
4 .5
3 2
4 .7
32 4
.5
3 2
4 .4
3 2
4 .6
3 2
4 .7
BRUSH
R
R
R
R
RR
324
.8
32 4
.8
RR
RR
RR
RR RR
3 2
5 .3
3 2
5 .4
3 2
5 .4
3 2
5 .4
RR
3 2
5 .5
3 2
5 .5
32 5
.7
3 2
5 .5
3 2
5 .6
E
X
.

F/
C
GN
V
3 2
5 .8
BRUSH
3 2
6 .4
3 2
6 .3
3 2
6 .3
EX. F/C
326
.4
3 2
6 .6
3 2
6 .5
3 26
.4
3 26
.5
3 2
6 .5
3 2
6 .4
3 27
.4
3 2
7 .2
3 2
7 .4
ASPH
3 2
7 .5
3 2
7 .5
3 27
.9
3 2
7 .7
3 27
.5
3 2
7 .6
3 27
.5
3 2
7 .7
3 2
7 .5
3 2
7 .6
3 27
.7
3 2
7 .6
3 2
7 .8
3 2
7 .5
ASPH
3 2
8 .4
3 2
8 .2
328
.5
3 28
.4
328
.6
3 2
8 .6
3 2
8 .5
328
.7
3 2
8 .5
3 2
8 .6
3 2
8 .7
ASP
H
BRUSH
3 2
9 .4
3 2
9 .4
ASPH
BRUSH
32 9
.5
32 9
.5
3 2
9 .5
3 2
9 .5
E
lev 330.20
E
62 58073
.18
N
2018
28 5.07
31 5
3 3
0 .4
3 3
0 .4
3 3
0 .4
3 3
0 .4
3 30
.5
3 3
0 .7
3 3
0 .6
BRUSH
3 3

1.3 331
.2
3 3

1.2 ASPH
3 3

1.7 3
3 1.6
33 1.6
33 1.5
3 3

1.6 3
3 1.5
3 3
2 .3
3 3
2 .4
BRUSH
3 3
2 .5
3 3
2 .6
3 3
2 .6
3 3
2 .5
33 2
.5
3 3
2 .6
3 3
3 .1
3 3
3 .5
3 3
3 .5
3 34
.4
3 3
4 .2
ASPH
3 3
4 .6
3 3
4 .6
3 3
4 .5
3 3
4 .5
ASPH
33 5
.4
33 5
.5
3 3
6 .5
3 37
.4
3 3
7 .5
STAIRS
3 3
7 .7
3 3
8 .5
3 38
.5
3 39
.4
3 3
9 .4
3 4
0 .5
RR-ARM
BRUSH
3 40
.8
3 4

1.6 3
4 1.6
3 4

1.6 3
4 2
.5
3 4
2 .5
3 4
2 .5
34 2
.6
RR-ARM
3 4
3 .2
34 3
.5
34 3
.6
3 4
4 .4
3 4
4 .5
3 4
4 .6
345
.4
3 4
5 .3
3 4
5 .3
3 4
5 .3
345
.4
3 4
5 .8
ASPH
R
R
E
lev 346.30
E
625648

9.63 N
2019
78 7.58
316
3 4
6 .5
3 46
.5
R
R
3 4
6 .6
34 6
.8
3 4
6 .6
3 4
7 .2
3 47
.5
3 4
7 .8
3 4
7 .6
ASPH
3 4
8 .6
ASPH
34 9
.5
3 4
9 .5
34 9
.4
34 9
.7
3 50
.6
3 5
0 .3
STAIRS
350
.6
3 5
0 .6
3 5

1.4 3
5 1.6
35 1.8
BRUSH
35 2
.6
3 5
2 .3
CONC
GNV
3 5
2 .7
35 3
.2
3 5
3 .3
3 53
.3
3 5
3 .3
3 5
3 .5
35 3
.5
GNV
GNV
35 3
.7
3 5
3 .7
3 5
3 .6
3 5
3 .7
3 5
4 .8
35 5
.3
35 5
.3
DECK
35 5
.6
3 55
.6
35 5
.6
3 5
5 .6
DECK
RR
35 5
.7
3 5
5 .7
35 6
.2
3 5
6 .2
3 5
6 .2
3 5
6 .3
GNV
RR
35 6
.4
3 5
6 .5
3 5
6 .5
3 5
6 .6
3 5
6 .8
STAIRS
35 7
.3
35 7
.6
3 5
7 .7
STAIRS
STAIRS
3 58
.2
3 5
8 .5
35 8
.2
35 8
.2
358
.4
3 5
9 .2
35 9
.5
36 0
.3
3 6
0 .7
GNV
3 6
3 .5
3 6
3 .8
ASPH
GNV
STAIRS
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
550+00 555+00 560+00 565+00 570+00 575+00 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 600+00 605+00 610+00

EX BOX CULVERT30" SD
(351.1 3)
(357.00)
(356.89)
(356.77)
(356.66)
(356.55)
(356.44)
(356.32)
(356.08)
(355.58)
(354.82)
(353.81)
(352.53)
(349.73)
(348.32)
(346.92)
(345.51)
(344.1 1)
(342.68)
(341.08)
(339.28)
(337.30)
(335.30)
(333.30)
(331.30)
(329.35)
(327.74)
(326.52)
(325.69)
(325.26)
(325.1 6)
(325.1 2)
(325.07)
(325.02)
(324.95)
(324.85)
(324.76)
(324.67)
(324.65)
(324.64)
(324.50)
(324.24)
(324.1 2)
(324.23)
(324.56)
(324.98)
(325.40)
(325.88)
(326.80)
(328.1 6)
(329.68)
(331.58)
(333.51)
(335.43)
(337.1 4)
(338.64)
(340.1 6)
(341.73)
(343.33)
(345.21)

VILLAGE DR

CL VISTA

CL MAIN ST

STATION

VISTA TRANSIT CENTER

EX BOX CULVERT

EX RCP

EX BOX CULVERT
1 7
.5
' M
IN
17 .5
' M
IN
ST

CL GUAJOME
PVI 555+00.00
EL 356.44
PVI 572+25.00
EL 354.50
PVI 590+30.00
EL 349.25
PVI 602+74.00
EL 335.00
PVI 606+75.00
EL 341.34
L = 690.00'
356.44
356.32
356.21
356.1 0
355.99
355.87
355.76
355.65
355.54
355.43
355.31
355.20
355.09
354.98
354.86
354.75
354.64
354.50
354.28
353.99
353.70
353.41
353.1 2
352.83
352.54
352.25
351.95
351.66
351.37
351.08
350.79
350.50
350.21
349.92
349.63
349.23
348.43
347.30
346.1 6
345.01
343.87
342.72
341.58
340.43
339.28
338.24
337.57
337.30
337.42
337.94
338.85
340.1 6
(Vp/Vf = 55/30)
Vp/Vf = 60/35
(Vp/Vf = 50/30)
Vp/Vf = 55/35
(Vp/Vf = 26/21)
Vp/Vf = 31/26
EX 10" WATER IN 24" CASING
EX 8" SS IN 30" CASING

EX SDGE ELECT
EX 30" SD
L=200.00'
L=200.00'

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$ $TIME$ $USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street

TO SAN DIEGOTO LOS ANGELES
101
102
103 104
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A C C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
5 5 0+0 0 5 5 5+0 0
5 6 0
+0 0
5 6
5+0 0
5 7 0
+0 0
575+0 0 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 6 0 0+0 0 605+00
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A C C
A
A
C
C
A
A B
55 0+0 0 55 5+00
5 6 0
+0 0
5 6
5+00
57 0
+0 0
5 7 5+0 0 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 60 0+00 605+00
109
N
PROFILE ML-1
PLAN
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
H:
200 400200 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
20 20 40
A. LANGTRY
A. LANGTRY
N. JEFFERY
05/25
H. HASENIN CT-101

EX TOR ML-1
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390VIADUCT SUPERSTRUCTURE

EMBANKMENT RETAINING WALLS

EMBANKMENT RETAINING WALLS
ABUTMENT 15
ABUTMENT 1
PROPOSED TOR ML-1

PLAN AND PROFILE
ALT 1A - AERIAL TRACK

MEET EXIST TRACK

TOR
290
(EX TOR)
20' TC
610+00
390
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
(15' TC)
(15
' TC)
100
'

EX GROUND
550+00

MEET EXIST TRACK

EX TORPROP TOR
4 0 0' PLATFORM

N SA NTA FE A VE

NCTD ROW

REPLACE

TEMPORARY REMOVE AND

FUTURE EX RAIL TRAIL

CL SHOOFLY
CL ML-1
CL ML-2

MEET EXIST TRACK
V
ISTA V
ILLA G
E DR

GUAJOME ST

MEET EXIST TRACK

VISTA VILLAGE DR

BREEZE BUS BAYS

POTENTIAL FUTURE

PROTECT IN PLACE

EX BOX CULVERT
ABUTMENT 1

PROTECT IN PLACE

EX SUBSTATION

STATION

TRANSIT CENTER

VISTA VILLAGE

BREEZE BUS BAYS

VIADUCT SUPERSTRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-2

TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-1MAIN ST

PROTECT IN PLACE

EX BOX CULVERT
ABUTMENT 15

ADA RAMPS

05/25
05/25
05/25

RETAINING WALL

07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 97 of 227 ends

17'-6"
8'-6"

20.0'
17'-6"
8'-6"

20.0'

PLATFORM
RAMPS
ADA

ROADWAY CLEARANCE
MIN.

17.5'
1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25
H. HASENIN 1/25
. CARBUCCIA
OG

CLOSURE POUR
STAGE 3: BUILD

CIDH PILE

NORTH BRIDGE
STAGE 1: CONSTRUCT

SOUTH BRIDGE
STAGE 2: CONSTRUCT

WALKWAY
ML-1
CL
ML-2
CL

NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK
CT-001
OG

CIDH PILE
ML-1
CL
ML-2
CL

NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK - AT STATION
1 OF 3
ALT 1A - AERIAL TRACK

TYPICAL SECTIONS
ROWROW
ROWROW
20'

PLATFORM
12'

ADA RAMPS

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$$TIME$$USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 98 of 227 ends

100'
15'40' 45'
20' 20'
10' 5'-6" 10'5'-6"
7' 3'
24'
3'
36'
100'
15'
20'
38'-6" 23'-6" 12'
62'-6"
12'-6" 3'
12'20'
3'
WALL.

2. FILL BETWEEN THE PERMANENT RETAINING WALL AND THE MIDDLE RETAINING RETAINING WALL.

1. CONSTRUCT PERMANENT RETAINING WALL 23'-6" AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE

4. CONSTRUCT THE BASE AND TRACK TIES FOR THE PROPOSED ML-2 TRACK.

3. FILL BETWEEN THE TWO INSTALLED RETAINING WALLS.

RETAINING WALL.

2. INSTALL PERMANENT RETAINING WALL 24' AWAY FROM THE PERMANENT

1. INSTALL PERMANENT RETAINING WALL 8' AWAY FROM THE R/W LIMIT.

VARIES VARIES
VARIES
**
* REFER TO AREMA CHAPTER 28 SECTION 1.1(b) FOR CURVED SEGMENTS. 1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25
H. HASENIN 1/25
M. CARBUCCIA

ROW ROW(OPERATIONAL)

NEW SHOOFLY
(OPERATIONAL)
TRACK
EXISTING ML-1
(OUT OF SERVICE)
TRACK
EXISTING ML-1
ML-2 TRACK

PROPOSED
OG
DITCH

EXISTING

WHERE EXISTS

TEMP STATION

WHERE EXISTS

TEMP STATION

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

TEMPORARY

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

TEMPORARY

ROW ROW
OG

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

TEMPORARY
(OUT OF SERVICE)

NEW SHOOFLY
(OPERATIONAL)
ML-2 TRACK

PROPOSED
ML-1 TRACK

PROPOSED

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT
TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK (STAGE 1 RETAINING STRUCTURE) TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK (STAGE 2 RETAINING STRUCTURE) CT-002
2 OF 3
ALT 1A - AERIAL TRACK

TYPICAL SECTIONS

STRUCTURAL FOOTING

FOOTING

STRUCTURAL
NOTE:

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$$TIME$$USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 99 of 227 ends

100'
32'-6"
62'-6"
8'
3'
12'20'
62'-6"
8'-6"10'
5'
3'
100'
32'-6"
62'-6"
8'
3'
12'20'
62'-6"
8'-6"10'
5'
3'

3. CONSTRUCT 10' WIDE MAINTENANCE ROAD.

2. CONSTRUCT THE BASE AND TRACK TIES FOR THE PROPOSED ML-1 TRACK.

1. REMOVE TOP 6' OF THE MIDDLE RETAINING WALL.
* REFER TO AREMA CHAPTER 28 SECTION 1.1(b) FOR CURVED SEGMENTS. * *
1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25A. LANGTRY
1/25
H. HASENIN 1/25
M. CARBUCCIA

ROW ROW
OG
(OPERATIONAL)
ML-2 TRACK

PROPOSED
ML-1 TRACK

PROPOSED
ROAD

MAINTENANCE

PROPOSED

ROW ROW
OG
(OPERATIONAL)
ML-2 TRACK

PROPOSED
ML-1 TRACK

PROPOSED
ROAD

MAINTENANCE

PROPOSED

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT

STRUCTURE

RETAINING

PERMANENT
TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK (STAGE 3 RETAINING STRUCTURE) TYPICAL SECTION - ALT 1 AERIAL TRACK (FINAL RETAINING STRUCTURE) CT-003
3 OF 3
ALT 1A - AERIAL TRACK

TYPICAL SECTIONS

STRUCTURAL FOOTING

STRUCTURAL FOOTING
NOTE:

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$$TIME$$USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 100 of 227 ends

COVER: NOT AVAILABLE
6" HP GAS, CASING: 10"
DWG GP9 9-019-19
CO
VER: 5' (to verify)
CA
SIN
G: 18" STL (to verify)
SEW
ER A
T L
A
S 18_
11 8" PVC
S
S
CO
VER: 5'
CA
SIN
G: 18" STL
DRA
W
IN
G D3771
SEW
ER A
TLA
S 18_
11 8" PVC
S
S

ELECTRICAL VAULT
24" RCP SD PER DWG GP99-019-19
18" RCP SD PER DWG GP99-01 9
-19
21" RCP SD (ABA N
D)

EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE

EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE EARTHEN DITCH FLOWLINE
2 4
" RCP SD PER DWG GP9 9
-0 1 9
-19
1 8" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD12" HDPE SD
DWG. 3506
-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 35 06-6
18" R CP SD PER DWG. 35 06-6
3 0
"
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3 5
06 -
6 24
"
RC
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3 5
06 -
6 2
4 "
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
3 5
0 6
-
6 18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3 5 06-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 350 6-6
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-10
30 "
RC
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G
.
35 0
6 -
6 18" R CP SD PER DWG. 35 06-6
18 "
R
C
P

S
D

P
E
R

D
W
G

G
P
9 9
-
0 19
-
19 18" RCP
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS AP
BK NO. B-1 2, SHT. N O. 1 9 _1 2

SEWER ABA N D ONED, SEWER ATLAS AP
B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
1 9
_
1 2
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
K

NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T
.

NO
.
20 _
12 2
7 "
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
UNK
LIN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
LA
S

A
P

S
D
G
&
E D
W
G
P
LA
T 43
-
64 9
4 " H
P
G
A
S
LIN
E W
ITH
8 " C
A
S
IN
G
P
ER
3" HP GAS LINE (43-6 4 9
)
S
D
G
&
E

D
W
G

P
LA
T
43 -
636

(C
OV
E
R

5 .5
')
6 "
H
P

GA
S

LIN
E

W
ITH

1 2
"
C
A
S
ING

P
E
R
8"x6" HP GAS
6" HP GAS
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
3 -
63 6
)
MAP NO. 15652-120525 ;COVER: N/A
6" HP GAS; CASING: NONE 6" HP GAS (43-636)
(49-106)
8" HP GAS
B
K

N
O
.

B
-
1 2

;C
A
S
IN
G
:

N
/
A
;
C
OV
E
R
:

N
/
A
A
B
ANDON
E
D

S
E
W
E
R
LIN
E

V
IS
TA

S
W
R

A
T L
A
S

19 _1 2

AP BK NO
. B-12, SHT. NO
. 19_1 2
18" VCP TRUN
KLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19 _12

SEWER ABAN DONED, SEWER ATLAS
19_1 2 CASIN G: N/A CO VER:N/A
18" PVC TRU NKLINE, VISTA SWR ATLAS
B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
. 19
_1
2 ; C
A
S
IN
G
: N
/
A
; C
O
V
ER
: N
/
A
18 " P
V
C
TR
UNK
LIN
E,
V
IS
TA
S
W
R
A
T L
A
S
19 _
1 2
; B
K
NO
.

CA
SIN
G: N
/
A
,
COV
ER: N
/
A
A
BA
N
DON
ED 18" VCP TRUN
KLIN
E, SEW
ER A
TLA
S
19_1 2
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12
18" PVC SEWER TRUNK, SEWER ATLAS AP
C
A
S
IN
G
:
3 0
"
S
TL
C
O
V
E
R
:
10 '
M
IN
.
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
19 _
1 2
N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
1 9
_
1 2
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T.

NO
.
19_
1 2
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19 _12 & 2 0_12
1 8" VCP TRU N KLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12 & 20_12
18" VCP TRUNKLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP
NO. B-1 2, SHT. NO. 1 9_1 2 & 20_126" VCP TRUNKLINE, SEWER ATLAS AP BK B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T.

N
O
.
19 _1
2 &

2 0_1
2 6
"
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TLA
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

A
P

B
K

NO
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
2 0
_1
2 2
7 "
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
U
N
K
L
IN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

S
H
T
.

NO
.
19 _
12 &

20 _
1 2
6 "
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
L
A
S

A
P

B
K

NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
18" RCP SD
AP BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS
18" RCP SD PER DWG 3303
-6B
24 " RCP SD PER DWG. 330
3-
6B
24 " RCP SD PER DWG. 330
3-
6B
18" RCP SD PER DWG. 3506-6
SD
1 8" RCP SD PER
B
K
N
O
. B
-
12 D
35 84
; C
A
SIN
G
: N
/
A
; C
O
VER
:N
/
A
18" P
VC
TR
UN
K
LIN
E, SEW
ER
A
TLA
S A
P
19_1 2
PLACE; PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN
PLACE; PER DWG. NO
. 33
03 .

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDON
ED IN
PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN PLACE
1 8" RCP SD
12" HD
PE SD
18" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD
18" RCP SD
12" HDPE SD12" HDPE SD
18" RCP SD PER
24" RCP SD PER DWG
1 8" RCP SD PER DWG GP99-01 9-1 9
1 8
" RC

P SD PER
1 8
" RC
P SD
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 19_12
18" PVC SEWER TRUNK, SEWER ATLAS AP
19_12SEWER ATLAS AP

ABANDONED SEWER ,
AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

A
G
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
O
V
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZE
:

C
A
S
ING
:

C
OV
ER
:

AG
EN
C
Y
:

S
IZ
E:

C
A
S
IN
G
:

C
OV
ER
:
1 8
"
RC
P

S
D

P
E
R

GD
-
123
1 C
ON
EC
TIO
N
TO
C
U
LV
ER
T
CH
ECK LO
CA
TIO
N
O
R O
TH
ER M
H
s IN
IN
TE

RSECTION
C
H
EC
K
LO
C
A
TIO
NO
F IN
LETS
SDSD
B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
20 _
12 (3
6 "
S
TE
E
L
C
A
S
IN
G
)
S
E
W
E
R

A
B
A
ND
O
N
E
D
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
2 0_
12 27
"
S
E
W
E
R

T
R
U
NK
LIN
E
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
LA
S

VISTA
SW
R A
T L
A
S 1 9_1
2 CA
SING
:N
/
A
; COV
ER:N
/
A
1 8
" SEW
ER A
BANDO
N
ED
D
W
G
.

N
O
.
35 0
6 10
"
V
C
P

S
E
W
E
R

(A
B
AND
ON
E
D
)
AP BK NO. B-1 2, SHT. NO. 2 0_1 2
27" SEWER TRUNKLINE, SEWER ATLAS
C
O
V
E
R
:

NO
T
AV
A
IL.

C
A
S
IN
G
:

NON
E
3 7
8 -
169
5 A
378-1695A
378-1695A & 1695C
378
-
1 695
C
TEL
E
P
H
O
N
E

LIN
E

C
A
S
IN
G
:

NO
N
E
,
C
O
V
E
R
:
4 '
E
L E
C
TR
IC
A
L
LIN
E

C
A
S
IN
G
:

N
ON
E
,
C
OV
E
R
:

N
O
T
A
VA
ILA
B
L E
C
A
TV

C
A
S
IN
G
:

N
O
N
E
,
C
O
V
E
R
:
1 2
K
V

C
A
S
ING
:

NON
E
,
C
O
V
E
R
:
3 9
'
3 7 8-1 6 9 5C
DWG. NO. 3506
10" VCP SEWER (ABANDONED)

OH EL ECTRICAL

OH EL ECTRICAL
O H

ELECTRICAL
O
H
EL E
C
TR
IC
A
L

R/R SIGNAL VAULT

E LECTRICAL VAULT
T E L E. PEDESTAL
T

SL PBOX
T

TS PBOX
C
OV
E
R
:

1.5 '
C
A
S
ING
:

S
L
U
RR
Y
T
EL
E

LIN
E
,
3033-7W
12" PVC WATER DWG
10 "
P
V
C

W
A
TE
R

S
H
T.

E
13 D
W
G
.
35 0
6 10
"
P
V
C

W
A
TE
R

D
W
G
.
350
6 21" R
C
P
SD
, P
ER
1096
-
2 &
1 1 3
1 OH
ELEC
TR
IC
A
L
PP21 8
127
8 " G
A
S
H
S
L-
49 -
10 6
M
A
P
NO
.
15 6
5 2
-
12 0
525
8 " GA
S
H
S
L-
49 -
10 6
M
A
P
N
O
. 1 5652
-
12 0
5 2
5 4
" G
A
S
LIN
E
C
A
S
IN
G
: 8
" C
S
P
M
A
P
N
O
. 15
6 5
2 -
12 0
5 2
5 C
O
V
ER
: N
/
A
4" GAS LINE ;MAP NO. 15652-120525
COVER: N/A
6" HP GAS LINE; CASING: NONE
MAP NO. 15652-120525; COVER: N/A
8 "
S
T
R
M

S
E
W
E
R

(A
B
N
D
)
N
C
T
D

U
T
-
146

S
H
T
.
371
;
C
OV
E
R
:

N
/
A
AV
A
ILA
B
L E
; C
O
V
ER
: N
O
T A
V
A
ILA
B
L E
W
A
T E
R
A
B
AN
D
O
N
ED
; C
A
S
IN
G
: N
O
T
COVER" 5'
CASING: 18" STL
10" AC
DWG 303 3-7W
12" PVC WATER
8" PVC D-661-1954
ICV
FCV
QC
WMBFP
GTD

GTD GTD
GTD
36 " R
C
P
SD
36" R
C
P
SD
30 " R
C
P
S
D
3 0
"
R
C
P

S
D
1 8" RCP SD PER DWG GP9 9-0 19-1 9
1 5 6 5 2-1 2 0 5 2 5; CO VER: N/A
4" HP G AS; CASIN G: N O NE; MAP N O.

PLACE PER DWG. NO. 3506.

EXIST. 8" AC ABANDONED IN
M
A
P

N
O
.
15 65
2 -
12 052
5 ;
C
OV
E
R
:

N
/
A
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

C
A
S
ING
:

N
ON
E
2 0 _1 2

AP BK N O
. B-1 2, SHT. N O
.

SEWER ABA N

DONED, SEWER ATLAS
4" HP GAS CASING: NONE MAP NO.
15652-120525, COVER: N/A
A
T&
T ln0301 b
a.dgn
CR
O
W
N
CA
ST L E
A
-
1 UG

FIBER O

PTIC LIN
E

FIRE HYD
RAN
T
330.1 TC
329.6 FL
325
.36
EG
EX. DWY
~
~
(331.69 TC)
32 5.1 1 EG
3 0
8 .2
3 0
9 .2
3 16
.2
31 6
.5
E
lev 317.49
E
625684

6.65 N
201
7385
.72
31 4
3 17
.5
319
.2
319
.2
319
.2
3 18
.7
3 19
.4
319
.6
3 19
.5
3 19
.7
319
.5
31 9
.5
3 2
0 .2
3 2
0 .3
3 2
0 .4
32 0
.5
32 0
.5
3 2
0 .5
3 2
0 .7
320
.8
32 1.3
321
.3321
.5
321
.5
321
.5
321
.9
322
.3
32 2
.2
322
.2
R
R
32 2
.6
322
.6
32 2
.6
322
.5
ASP
H
R
R
BR
USH
RR
RR
RR
32 3
.6
323
.5
3 23
.3
32 3
.7
3 2
3 .4
323
.6
323
.3
323
.6
323
.3
3 23
.7
3 23
.6
3 2
3 .3
3 2
3 .3
323
.4
RR
3 2
3 .7
323
.8
32 3
.8
32 3
.8
323
.8 3
2 3
.8
GNV
3 24
.43
2 4
.3
32 4
.3
32 4
.4
3 24
.1
324
.4
3 2
4 .3
RR
32 4
.5
32 4
.5
32 4
.5
32 4
.5
32 4
.6
324
.5
324
.7
3 2
4 .5
3 2
4 .7
3 24
.5
324
.4
32 4
.6
3 2
4 .7
BR
USH
R
R
R
R
RR
3 2
4 .8
324
.8
RR
RR
RR
RR RR
3 2
5 .3
32 5
.4
325
.4
325
.4
RR
325
.5
3 2
5 .5
325
.7
32 5
.5
3 2
5 .6
E
X
.

F/
C
GNV
32 5
.8
BRUSH
326
.4
32 6
.3
3 26
.3
EX. F/C
32 6
.4
3 26
.6
326
.5
326
.4
326
.5
326
.5
32 6
.4
32 7
.4
3 27
.2
3 2
7 .4
ASPH
327
.5
32 7
.5
327
.9
32 7
.7
327
.5
327
.6
327
.5
327
.7
3 2
7 .5
3 2
7 .6
3 27
.7
32 7
.6
3 27
.8
3 2
7 .5
32 8
.4
3 28
.2
3 28
.5
328
.4
3 2
8 .6
328
.6
3 2
8 .5
32 8
.7
32 8
.5
3 2
9 .4
3 2
9 .5
329
.5
3 2
9 .5
E
lev 330
.20
E
625
80 73.18
N
2018
285.07
315
3 30
.4
330
.4
330
.5
330
.7
330
.6
331
.3
331
.2
331
.2
33 1.7
331
.6
331
.6
331
.6
331
.5
332
.3
332
.4
332
.5
332
.6
332
.6
332
.5
3 3
2 .5
332
.6
33 3
.1
334
.4
33 4
.2
ASPH
3 3
4 .6
3 3
4 .6
334
.5
335
.4
337
.4
STAIRS
338
.5
339
.4
340
.5
BRUSH
340
.8
341
.6
34 2
.5
342
.5
342
.6
3 4
3 .2
34 3
.5
343
.6
344
.4
344
.5
344
.6
345
.4
345
.3
34 5
.8
R
R
E
lev 346.30
E
625
6489.63
N
201
9787
.58
316
346
.5
346
.5
R
R
3 4
6 .6
34 6
.8
34 6
.6
347
.5
3 4
7 .8
34 7
.6
348
.6
349
.5
349
.5
34 9
.4
34 9
.7
350
.6
STAIRS
3 50
.6
3 50
.6
3 51
.4
351
.6
3 5

1.8 BRUSH
3 5
2 .6
3 52
.3
CONC
GNV
352
.7
35 3
.2
3 5
3 .3
353
.3
3 5
3 .3
3 5
3 .5
353
.5
GNV
GNV
3 5
3 .7
3 5
3 .7
35 3
.6
35 3
.7
35 4
.8
3 5
5 .3
35 5
.3
DECK
3 5
5 .6
35 5
.6
355
.6
35 5
.6
DECK
RR
3 5
5 .7
35 5
.7
3 5
6 .2
3 5
6 .2
35 6
.2
3 5
6 .3
GNV
RR
35 6
.4
3 5
6 .5
3 5
6 .5
3 5
6 .6
35 6
.8
3 5
7 .3
3 5
7 .6
35 7
.7
STAIRS
3 5
8 .2
35 8
.5
35 8
.2
3 5
8 .2
35 8
.4
3 5
9 .2
3 5
9 .5
35 9
.7
3 6
0 .3
3 6
0 .7
3 6

1.6 36
2 .1
E
lev 362
.46
E
62 5464

9.97 N
2021408
.79
317
36 2
.4
3 6
2 .6
36 3
.3
36 3
.6
36 4
.5
36 4
.5
3 6
5 .3
36 6
.5
36 7
.4
GNV
36 9
.4
3 6
9 .4
3 6
9 .6
37 0
.3
370
.6
37 1.5
37 1.2
37 1.8
37 1.4
3 7

1.4 3
7 2
.4
373
.5
3 7
4 .4
374
.3
374
.5
375
.1
376
.4
GNV
E
lev 385
.39
E
625
5493
.17
N
202
1994
.04
318
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390

VILLAGE DR

CL VISTA

CL MAIN ST

STATION

VISTA TRANSIT CENTER
26 .0' M
IN
540+00 545+00 550+00 555+00 560+00 565+00 570+00 575+00 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 600+00 PVI 547+00.00
EL 357.34
PVI 589+90.00
EL 296.25
L = 200.00'
L = 525.00'
L = 815.00'
PVI 575+00.00
EL 299.00
(351.1 3)
(357.00)
(356.89)
(356.77)
(356.66)
(356.55)
(356.44)
(356.32)
(356.08)
(355.58)
(354.82)
(353.81)
(352.53)
(349.73)
(348.32)
(346.92)
(345.51)
(344.1 1)
(342.68)
(341.08)
(339.28)
(337.30)
(335.30)
(333.30)
(331.30)
(329.35)
(327.74)
(326.52)
(325.69)
(325.26)
(325.1 6)
(325.1 2)
(325.07)
(325.02)
(324.95)
(324.85)
(324.76)
(324.67)
(324.65)
(324.64)
(324.50)
(324.24)
(324.1 2)
(324.23)
(324.56)
(324.98)
(325.40)
(325.88)
(326.80)
(328.1 6)
(329.68)
359.24
357.29
355.26
353.1 7
351.09
349.00
346.92
344.84
342.75
340.67
338.59
336.50
334.42
332.34
330.25
328.1 7
326.09
324.00
321.92
31 9.84
31 7.75
31 5.67
31 3.58
31 1.50
309.42
307.33
305.25
303.24
301.56
300.25
299.29
298.70
298.45
298.26
298.08
297.89
297.71
297.52
297.34
297.1 5
296.97
296.99
297.29
297.89
298.78
299.96
301.44
303.21
305.27
307.47
309.67
31 1.87
31 4.07
31 6.26
31 8.46
(366.84)
(364.94)
(363.04)
(361.1 4)
(359.47)
(358.23)
(357.45)
(357.1 1)
26 .0' M
IN
(EL 361.1 4)
545+00.00

MATCH EX TRK

RELOCATE EX RCP

CULVERT

RELOCATE EX BOX

RELOCATE EX BOX CULVERT
30" SD

SDGE ELECT
CASING
8" SS IN 30"
CASING
IN 24"
10" WATER
(Vp/Vf = 55/30)
Vp/Vf = 60/35 (Vp/Vf = 55/35)
Vp/Vf = 60/40

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$ $TIME$ $USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street

TO SAN DIEGO

TO LOS ANGELES
201
202
203
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A C C
A
A
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A C C
A
A
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A C C
A
A
5 5 0+0 0 5 5 5+0 0
5 6 0
+0 0
5 6 5
+0 0
57 0
+0 0
575+0 0 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 6 0 0+00
5 50+0 0 5 55+00
5 6
0+00
5 6 5
+0 0
57 0
+0 0
5 7 5+00 580+00 585+00 590+00 595+00 600+00
109
N
PROFILE ML-2

MAIN ST
PLAN
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
H:
200 400200
MATCH LINE STA. 600+50 - SEE DRAWING CT-202
A. LANGTRY
A. LANGTRY
N. JEFFERY
H. HASENIN CT-201
390
600+00
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
0 20
V:

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
40 20 40

MEET EXIST TRACK
PROPOSED TOR ML-1

EX TOR ML-1
(SHEET 1 OF 2)

PLAN AND PROFILE
ALT 2A - TRACK IN TRENCH
20' TC
(15' TC)
545+00.00

MATCH EX TRACK
100
'
4 00' PLATFORM

TEMPORARY REMOVE AND REPLACE

FUTURE EX RAIL TRAIL

NCTD ROW

TO BE REPLACED

EX BOX CULVERT

BREEZE BUS BAYS

POTENTIAL FUTURE

PROTECT IN PLACE

EX SUB-STATION

TO BE REPLACED

EX BOX CULVERT

TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-2

BREEZE BUS BAYS

STATION

TRANSIT CENTER

VISTA VILLAGE TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-1

CL SHOOFLY TRACK
CL ML-1
CL ML-2

MEET EXIST TRACK

N SANTA FE AVE
V
ISTA V
ILLAG
E DR

VISTA VILLAGE DR
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25

PUMP STATION

PLATFORM ACCESS

UNDERGROUND
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 101 of 227 ends

(4 3-67 2 & 0 4713 5-2 90)
6" HP G A

S ABANDONED
6" HP GAS (4 9-1 0 6)
(4 3-672 & 0 47 135-290)
6" HP GAS ABANDONED
" HP GAS (43-672)
4 3
3" H
P GA
S (49-
106)
3" H
P
GA
S (43-
672
)
(49-1 06
)
6" HP G A
S
(43
-
673
)
6" H
P GA
S
(43-673)
4" HP GAS
(43-
67 3)
4" H
P
G
A
S
18 "
R
C
P

S
D

(1 3
50 -
D

3 4
41 )
1 8" R CP SD
18" RCP SD
6 "
C
L
W
A
T
E
R
,
D
-
7 10
-
19 55

(F
1 4
)
F
IR
E

H
YD
R
A
N
T
WV
WV
WV
W
V
W
V
W
V
W
V
W
V
6" HP GAS
(395.26 RIM
)
(387.21 IE)
(393.11 RIM
)
(388.7 6
IE)
6 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
9 -
106
)
V
ER
IFY
H
P
G
A
S
LO
C
A
TION
6" HP GAS
6" HP GAS
(49-10 6)6" HP GAS
6" HP G AS (49-1 06)
6" HP GAS
6" HP GAS (49
-1 06
)
6" HP GAS6" HP GAS
4" HP GAS (4 3-6 3 2)
4 "
H
P

G
A
S

(4
3 -
6 3
2 )
4 "
H
P

GA
S

(43
-
632
)
6" HP GAS (4 9-1 06)
6" HP GAS (49-
106)
6" HP GAS (49-106)
BK N O. B-1 2, SHT. NO. 20_12
8" VCP, SEWER ATLAS AP
B
K

NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T
.

NO
.
2 0_
12 8
"
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
TL
A
S

A
P

BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 20_12

SEWER ABANDONED, SEWER ATLAS AP
S
H
T
.

N
O
.
19 _1
2 C
A
S
IN
G
:
1 6
"
C
O
V
E
R
:
6 '
8 "
P
V
C
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
L
A
S

A
P

B
K

N
O
.

B
-
12 ,
B
K

NO
.

B
-
1 2
,
S
H
T
.

NO
.
2 0_1
2 8
"
V
C
P
,
S
E
W
E
R

A
T
L
A
S

A
P

BK NO
.

B-
1 2
,
SHT.

NO
. 21 _1 3
8" VCP,
SEW

ER AT L
AS AP
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO
. 21_13
8" VCP, SEWER AT L
AS AP
S
H
T.

N
O
. 2
1 _1 3
; C
OV
ER
: 1 4
', C
A
S
ING
:
8 " V
C
P
,
S
EW
ER
A
T L
A
S
A
P
B
K
N
O
.

B
-
1 2
,
BK NO
.

B-
12,
SH
T.

NO
.
21_
1 3
8" VCP, SEW
ER A
TLA
S A
P
BK N O. B-1 2, SHT. N O. 21_1 3
6" VCP, SEWER ATLAS AP
BK NO.

B-
1 2
,
SHT.

NO
.
21_13
8" VCP, SEWER ATLAS AP
B-1 2, SHT. NO. 2 1 _1 3
& 2 2_13
8" VCP, SEWER AT LAS AP BK NO.

BK NO
.

B-
1 2
,
SH
T.

N
O
.
21 _1 3
8" VCP,
SEW
ER A
T L
A
S A
P
B
K
N
O
. B
-
12 , S
H
T. N
O
. 2
1 _
1 3
8 " V
C
P
, S
EW
ER
A
T L
A
S
A
P

NO
. 22_
1 3
BK NO
. B-1 2
, SHT.

AT L
AS AP
8" VCP, SEWER
NO. 22_
13 BK NO.

B-1 2
,
SHT.

AT L
AS AP
8" VCP, SEWER
C
OV
E
R
:

NO
T

AV
A
IL
A
B
LE
2 "
H
P

GA
S
,
C
A
S
ING
:
4 "

COMMS MH

COMMS MH
6" AC WATER, D-82 7-1 9 58 (F14)
I -
2 349
-
198
4 (F14
)
8 "
A
C

W
A
TE
R
,
WV
WV
WV
WV
WVWV
WV
WV
WV
WV
8" VCP (7 6 0 7
) (aban d o n
ed)
(372
-1698)
(372-
1 6
95)
(374
-695
)
(3 74-6 9 5)
(37 4
-
695)
(374-
6 9 5
)
8" VCP (7 607)
8" VC
P
(7607
)
8" VCP (7607
)
8" VCP (7 6 0 7
)
(37
4-695)
(3
7 4
-
6 9
5 )
(3 7 2
-
6 9
5)
(372-1698)
(374-1698)
8" PVC -17 9.0'
12 "
S
T
EE
L
C
A
S
IN
G
6" HP GAS (49-106)
BK NO. B-12, SHT. NO. 20_12
8" VCP, SEWER ATLAS AP
(388.06 I.E.)
(3 9 6.76 RIM)
(384
.94 I.E.)
(394
.89
R
IM
)
(3 9 0
.89 I.E.)
(3 9 9
.70 RIM)
S
(3 8 6
.7 5 I.E.)
(396.4 5 RIM)
S
37 6
-
16 95
B
37 6
-
16 95
B
3 7
6 -
16 95
B
376-16 95B
376-1695B
376-1 695B
6" VCP 21_13 OVERLAY
(380.50 IE)(385.57 RIM)
374-1698
374-1698
374
-
169
5 374-1 6
95 374-1695
374-
1 6
98 374-
1698
37 2
-
169
8 3
7 2
-
1 6
9 8
3 72
-
16 98
372
-
1 698
O
H
EL E
C
TR
IC
A
L
OE
OE
OE
BLUE CONDUITS; COVER: 4' AVERAGE
RR COMMS UG; CASING:WHITE, ORANGE, &
EX
IS
T C
U
RB
IN
LE
T
12 " S
D
P
IP
E
N
C
TD
A
S
-
B
U
ILTS
C
S
-
1 1 0
C
A
S
ING
: U
/
K
C
O
V
ER
; U
/
K
TO
V
ER
IFY
1 2
" S
D
P
IP
E
N
C
TD
A
S
-
B
U
ILT
S
C
S
-
110
C
A
S
IN
G
: U
/
K
C
OV
ER
; U
/
K
TO
V
ER
IFY
EX
IS
T D
I
36" SD PIPE; CASING: U/K;
CO V
ER; U/K TO VERIFY
1 8
" SD PIPE; CASING
: U/K
COV
ER; U/K; TO VERIFY
36 "
S
D

P
IP
E
,
C
A
S
ING
:

U
/
K
C
OV
E
R
;
U
/
K

T
O

V
E
R
IF
Y
2 4" SD PIPECASING: U/K
COVER; U/K; TO VERIFY
EX
IS
T D
I18" SD PIPE; CASING: U/KCO VER: U/K; TO VERIFY
COV SEWER AT LAS 22 _1 3
S
H
T.

A
-
1 C
R
O
W
N
C
A
S
TLE
24" PVC (19 9
2)
24 " PVC (199
2)
24" PVC (1992)
3 6
"
P
V
C

(NO

R
E
C
O
R
D
)
(4 0 1
.09 RIM
)
(3 9 1
.5 7
IE)
1 8
" RCP (NO RECORD)
1 8
" RCP (N
O
RECO
RD)
2 4" RCP (N O RECORD)
(3 8 8
.3 7
RIM)
(38 0
.5 2
IE)
18" RCP
2% MIN
18" RCP
18" RCP
36 "
S
D

P
IP
E
1 8
"
S
D

P
IP
E
1 8
" SD PIPE
24" SD PIPE
3 6" SD PIPE
18 "
S
D

P
IP
E
36" SD PIPE
30" SD CON
C PIPE
30" SD CON
C PIPE
6 "
H
P

GA
S

(49
-
1 06
)
(4 0 3
.2 9
RIM
)
(3 9 7
.0 9
IE)
18" RCP (3019)
4" HP (43-
672)
1 0" AC (3 4 4 1
)
10" A
C (F15)
8" AC (3 0 1 9
)
2" PE (4 4 3 7 9 0
-0 90)
2" H
P (4 4
3790-
090)
3" H
P (44 3 7
90-
0 9
0)
4" A
C (30 1
9)
4" A
C (30 1
9)
8" VCP (7607)
8" AC (F1 5
&
W
OI29 6
7-
01)
6" HP (0 4 7135-2 90)
8" A
C (F15)
8" AC (F1 5
&
W
OI2967-
01)
8" A
C (F15)
ABA NDONED (WOD-211 3-01)
ABAN
DONED (WOD-2 113-01)
4" PVC (391.31 TOP)
10" AC (F15 VID)
10" AC (34 4 1
)
8" AC ABA N D
O NED (3 0 1 9
, N O AS-BUILT A VAIL.)
30" R C
P (N
O
A
S-
BU
IL T
AV
A
IL.)
18" RCP (3441)
18" RCP (344 1
)
W
A
TER VA
LVE
U
TIL VA
U
L T

ABANDONED
EXISTING 6" HP GAS
8" PVC
(39 0
.08 TOP)
(438.61 RIM
)
(4 1

4.9 3
IE)
FIRE H
YDRA
N
T
FIRE H
YD
RA
N
T
U
TIL BO
X
U
TIL BO
X
3 18
.5 3
19 .2
ASPH
32 8
.6
3 2
8 .7
ASPH
BRUSH
32 9
.4
ASPH
BR
USH
3 2
9 .5
3 3
0 .4
3 3
0 .4
BRUSH
ASPH
33 1.5
BRUSH
3 3
3 .5
3 3
3 .5
3 3
4 .5
ASPH
3 3
5 .5
3 3
6 .5
3 3
7 .5
3 3
7 .7
3 3
8 .5
3 3
9 .4
3 3
9 .4
RR-ARM
E
lev 341.55
E
6259738.33
N
201582

5.28 31
2 34

1.6 3
4 1.6
3 4
2 .5
3 4
2 .4
RR-ARM
3 4
5 .5
3 4
5 .4
3 4
5 .5
3 45
.4
34 5
.3
3 4
5 .3
345
.4
ASPH
3 46
.4
ASPH
3 4
7 .2

DIRT PILE
34 7
.5
3 4
7 .5
3 48
.5
ASPH
ASPH
3 5
0 .5
3 5
0 .3
3 5

1.3 3
5 1.5

DENSE BR
USH
GNV
3 5
2 .5
35 3
.4
3 53
.5
35 4
.4
3 5
5 .5
3 5
6 .5
STAIRS
3 5
7 .5
35 7
.5
STAIRS
3 59
.4
3 5
9 .6
3 5
9 .4
35 9
.7
36 0
.5
361
.3
3 6

1.5 GNV
362
.3
3 6
2 .5
36 2
.8
3 6
2 .6
3 6
3 .1
363
.5
36 3
.8
GNV
ASPH
STAIRS
3 6
4 .5
3 6
5 .5
365
.4
3 66
.5
GNV
36 7
.5
STAIRS
GNV
3 6
8 .5
3 6
9 .4
GNV
37 0
.4
37 1.4
DECK
3 73
.4
373
.5
374
.4
3 74
.7
GNV
GNV
3 7
5 .6
3 7
5 .5
3 7
6 .5
GNV
GNV
37 8
.4
3 78
.4
3 7
8 .2
3 79
.5
STAIRS
3 8
0 .4
381
.4
38 2
.5
GNV
ASPH
383
.5
GNV
384
.4
3 8
4 .4
STAIRS
38 6
.5
3 8
6 .3
38 7
.5
38 8
.8
389
.2
ASPH
3 90
.5
DECK
39 2
.5
3 92
.7
RR
DECK
RR
39 4
.5
39 5
.2
3 9
5 .5
MISC
MISC
396
.5
GNV
MISC
3 9
7 .3
3 97
.7
3 97
.4
39 8
.3
GNV
3 9
8 .4
GNV 39
9 .5
39 9
.5
3 9
9 .5
GNV
4 0
0 .4
GNV
MISC
ASPH
401
.4
402
.3
40 2
.3
4 02
.5
4 02
.3
MISC
ASPH

RR
4 04
.2
POOL
GNV
STAIRS
40 8
.1
BR
USH
STAIRS
ASPH
GNV
4 11.4
DECK
DECK
DECK
4 12
.5
STAIRS
4 13
.3
41 4
.4
STAIRS
ASPH
GN
V
ASPH
BRUSH
GNV
GNV
G
N
V
4 22
.6
DECK
GNV
4 2
3 .5
STAIRS
MISC
GNV
E
lev 426.72
E
625
809

8.51 N
2015675.33
313
4 26
.8
ASPH
428
.6
DECK
BRUSH
PALMS
GNV
BRUSH
4 37
.4
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
PVI 640+40.50
EL 407.33
L = 200.00'
EL (41 1.41)

CENTER DR

CL CIVIC

STATION

CIVIC CENTER VISTA
ST

CL GUAJOME
642+50.00

MATCH EX TRACK
(Vp/Vf = 26/21)
Vp/Vf = 31/26

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

DATEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY
$FILEL$
$DATE$ $TIME$ $USER$

VISTA VILLAGE GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
VISTA PRJ. ENG.

San Diego, CA 92101
Suite 301
401 B Street

TO SAN DIEGO

TO LOS ANGELES
204 205
206
207A
207B
207C
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
6 0 0+00 6 05+0 0 6 1 0+0 0
6 15+00
62 0+00
62 5
+0 0
6 3 0
+0 0 6 3 5
+0 0
6 4 0
+
00 600+00 6 0 5+0 0 6 10+0 0
6 1 5+0 0
6 20+0 0
6 2 5
+0 0
6 3 0
+0 0 63 5+00
6 4 0
+
0 01 10
N
PROFILE ML-1
PLAN
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
H:
200 400200
MATCH LINE STA. 600+50 - SEE DRAWING CT-201
A. LANGTRY
A. LANGTRY
N. JEFFERY
H. HASENIN CT-202

MEET EXIST TRACK
PROPOSED TOR ML-1

EX TOR ML-1
(SHEET 2 OF 2)

PLAN AND PROFILE
ALT 2A - TRACK IN TRENCH
605+00 610+00 615+00 620+00 625+00 630+00 635+00 640+00 645+00 650+00

450
0 20
V:

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
20 40
78 310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450

NCTD ROW
TC V A
RIES
338.26
344.86
320.66
322.86
325.06
327.26
329.46
331.66
333.86
336.06
340.46
342.66
347.06
349.26
351.45
353.65
355.85
358.05
360.25
362.45
364.65
366.85
369.05
371.25
373.45
375.65
377.85
380.05
382.25
384.45
386.64
388.84
391.04
393.24
395.44
397.64
399.84
402.04
404.24
406.42
408.48
41 0.44
(331.58)
(333.51)
(335.43)
(337.1 4)
(338.64)
(340.1 6)
(341.73)
(343.33)
(345.21)
(347.37)
(349.55)
(351.73)
(353.90)
(356.08)
(358.26)
(360.43)
(362.61)
(364.79)
(366.94)
(368.95)
(370.84)
(372.72)
(374.60)
(376.48)
(424.08)
(378.36)
(380.24)
(382.1 2)
(383.99)
(385.87)
(387.75)
(389.63)
(391.51)
(393.39)
(395.27)
(397.1 5)
(399.03)
(400.91)
(402.79)
(404.67)
(406.56)
(408.48)
(41 0.43)
(41 2.38)
(41 4.33)
(41 6.28)
(41 8.23)
(420.1 8)
(422.1 3)
(EX TOR)
TOR
100
'
20 ' TC
(1 5' TC)

TEMPORARY REMOVE AND REPLACE

FUTURE EX RAIL TRAIL
C
IV
IC

C
ENT E
R DR

MEET EXIST TRACK

CIVIC CENTER VISTA STATION

CL SHOOFLY TRACK

TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-1

TO BE REMOVED
CL EX ML-2
CL ML-2
CL ML-1
GU A

JOME ST

S SANTE FE A VE
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
07/25
08/26/2025
D2

Page 102 of 227 ends

Vista City CouncilAugust 26, 2025

Vista City Council
August 26, 2025