DOCSLIB.ORG

Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study REVISED FINAL Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study Submitted by: June 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ES: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13 SECTION 2 MARKET ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Growth Patterns in Clark County......................................................................................................................19 2.2 Growth Patterns in Southern California...........................................................................................................20 2.4 Existing and Projected Origin-Destination Patterns .......................................................................................21 SECTION 3 PROPOSED SERVICE PARAMETERS..................................................................................... 32 3.1 Travel Mode Share ..............................................................................................................................................32 3.2 Travel Time ..........................................................................................................................................................32 3.2 Conceptual Operating Schedule........................................................................................................................32 SECTION 4 CURRENT AND FUTURE RAILROAD OPERATING CONDITIONS......................................... 36 4.1 Existing Rail Lines ..............................................................................................................................................36 4.2 Existing Freight Rail Operations........................................................................................................................40 4.3 Future Potential Growth of Freight Railroad Services.....................................................................................46 4.4 Existing Commuter Rail Operations..................................................................................................................48 4.5 Future Commuter Rail Operations.....................................................................................................................48 SECTION 5 CONCEPTUAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 49 5.1 Conceptual Route Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................49 5.2 Alternatives Eliminated or Modified ..................................................................................................................66 SECTION 6 TRAIN PERFORMANCE CALCULATOR (TPC) MODELING RESULTS.................................. 70 6.1 Passenger Train Equipment Options ................................................................................................................71 6.2 Methodology Used In Train Performance Calculator Modeling ......................................................................72 6.3 Initial Results.......................................................................................................................................................74 6.4 Refined Train Performance Calculator Results................................................................................................76 SECTION 7 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ROLLING STOCK COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 78 7.1 Approach Used....................................................................................................................................................78 7.2 Proposed Rail Improvement Projects and Costs .............................................................................................79 7.3 Station Improvement Costs................................................................................................................................88 7.4 Rolling Stock Requirements and Costs ............................................................................................................89 7.5 Summary Comparison of Capital Costs by Alternative ...................................................................................90 SECTION 8 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECAST................................................................................. 92 8.1 Corridor Study Area............................................................................................................................................92 8.2 Travel Market Size and Growth ..........................................................................................................................93 8.3 Review of Alternatives........................................................................................................................................104 8.4 Forecast Results .................................................................................................................................................107 SECTION 9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS............................................................... 110 SECTION 10 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 115 i REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 11 FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................................................. 118 APPENDIX A: TERMINAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.............. 120 ii REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION ES: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY The purpose of this study is to determine whether reestablishment of an intercity passenger rail service between the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Los Angeles, California, is feasible using existing rail lines between those two cities. The study examines alternative routes for the service, determines a range of improvement projects that will reduce travel time and address rail capacity issues, and estimates capital and operating costs and ridership potential. ES-2 PREVIOUS LAS VEGAS-LOS ANGELES RAIL SERVICE: THE DESERT WIND Passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles was for many years provided by the Union Pacific’s City of Los Angeles. Amtrak operated a similar service, the Desert Wind. This service ran from 1981 to 1997. The Desert Wind’s scheduled eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas) travel time was 6 hours, 55 minutes, and its westbound travel time was 7 hours, 15 minutes. Station stops for the Desert Wind were: • Las Vegas, NV • Barstow, CA • Victorville, CA • San Bernardino, CA • Fullerton, CA • Los Angeles, CA In addition to travel between the two metropolitan areas, the Desert Wind continued to Salt Lake City, Utah and ultimately Chicago, Illinois. The Desert Wind service faced a number of issues that caused its performance to suffer, which resulted first in a reduction of service frequency from daily to three times a week in each direction, and finally to its elimination. These issues included: • As it was considered a “long distance” train rather than a “corridor” train, the Desert Wind was not optimally configured to serve the travel needs on the Los Angeles – Las Vegas corridor. • The train only provided one daily trip. • The train was not scheduled to arrive/depart the end point markets at optimal times of day. • Inadequate rail capacity and resulting rail congestion caused frequent delays, resulting in poor on-time performance and reliability. PAGE 1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY • Adjusting its schedule time to include extra pad to address delays resulted in an average travel time of seven hours, which made the service less competitive vs. travel by automobile. In March 1997, Amtrak completed a study to identify potential improvements that could reduce the train’s travel time and make the Las Vegas – Los Angeles service more competitive with travel by automobile. The study identified a series of improvement projects and resulted in a proposal to provide a single daily roundtrip between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. An agreement with Union Pacific Railroad was reached to provide 20 miles of double track between Kelso and Cima. As part of that effort, an environmental assessment and biological opinion in the project area was completed. Additionally, a single 10-car Talgo trainset for the service was ordered (as part of a purchase of Talgo trains for the Cascades service, which operates between destinations in Oregon and Washington). Unfortunately, the service was never initiated, and the Talgo trainset ordered for the Las Vegas service was transferred to the Cascades. ES-3 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES / TECHNICAL WORKING
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorail Newsletter
    ColoRail Newsletter September, 1996 Issue #20 r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —> Don't forget! Best of times.... ColoRail meet in Boulder Saturday, September 21st and the worst of times L _ _____________ _. Inside these pages you'll find between Front Range cities and the members and members of allied news that shows that we are Southwest Chief to ease the impact of groups to study the issues, attend the indeed living in interesting loss of the Desert Wind; the Colorado meetings where decisions are Department of Transportation moves developed, and to speak up in an times: Amtrak service cuts turn back ahead with planning for regional rail informed manner. Now, turn the page the clock to the bad old days of the service and gets ski bus runs set up for a new era.... - rwr- 1970's for Denver; Amtrak shows off for this winter; and the most important the Danish-designed IC-3; ColoRail news in the long run - - the Photo of IC-3 in Denver by Jon Esty. pushes for a Thruway bus connection demonstrated willingness of ColoRail "A Voice for Colorado's Rail Passengers Page 2 Colorado loses SoCal links Wyoming - Northern Colo, cut! at destinations to improve equipment by Jon Esty utilization, and operating the South• Why these cuts now? west Chief/Capitol Limited and Em• Thomas Downs, President of Am• pire Builder/City of New Orleans This round of cuts is the result of trak, announced on August 8 that through Chicago. (A plan to run the complex interaction between rival some 3,000 miles of passenger CZ through to Boston was dropped Congressional budget cutters, Ad• routes serving the West will be elimi• because of Superliner clearance ministration budget officials, and nated on November 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorail Newsletter "A Voice for Colorado's Rail Passenger"
    ColoRail Newsletter "A Voice for Colorado's Rail Passenger" April, 1995 Issue #15 The Battle to Save Amtrak Continues: As the weather around the country turns warmer, the fight over preserving our national rail passenger system has also been heating up. The House of Representatives is now considering legislation that would eliminate the Amtrak "subsidy" along with a host of other government programs ranging from public broadcasting to solar energy research. Colorado's own Rep. Joel Hefley is leading the charge with his bill, (H.R. 259) which would end federal support for Amtrak. In prior years, similar proposals by Hefley have been overwhelmingly voted down. Neither the House proposals or Hefley's bill address the issue of federal, state, and local subsidies for highways and air transportation. There is to be no reductions for these programs. The narrow view of many of those in Congress is most unfortunate in view of worsening air pollution, costs of highway and airport construction, and growing dependence on Persian Gulf countries for petroleum to fuel autos which not only puts this country at a strategic disadvantage but is one of the main reasons why we have a balance of payments problem resulting in the falling value of the dollar against major foreign currencies. It should be noted that those countries with strong currencies such as Switzerland and Germany spend significantly more, per capita, than the United States on passenger rail development. According to the International Railway Journal, the United States ranked between Bolivia and Turkey in the per capita amount spent on passenger rail services in I994.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report June 2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2019 PREPARED FOR PlaceWorks PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants E-1 E-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 Attn: Colin Drukker Prepared by Alex Wesson, B.A., Chris Millington, M.A., RPA and Nicole Kromarek, B.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 W. Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com Contact: Chris Millington, Project Manager SWCA Project No. 31474 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 18-270 February 2019 E-3 This page intentionally left blank. E-4 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, San Bernardino County, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope: In support of the forthcoming San Bernardino Countywide Plan, PlaceWorks retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to summarize the existing conditions of cultural resources within the study area, evaluate potential impacts that could occur to these resources because of the Countywide Plan, and to provide mitigation measures for potential impacts. The study area is composed of all unincorporated lands that are subject to the County of San Bernardino’s land use jurisdiction; also referred to as the “County Control Area,” the study area is approximately 1,623,988 acres (2,537 square miles) in area, or 12.627 percent of the approximately 12,861,026-acre (20,105- square mile) county.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Inland Empire Report Card
    Table of Contents ASCE Message from the Report Card Co-Chairs . 3 Introduction . 5 Who Pays for Infrastructure? . 5 Renewing and Building the Inland Empire . 5 Grading of Our Infrastructure . 6 Transportation . 11 School Facilities . 32 Aviation . 37 Energy . 43 Flood Control and Urban Runoff . 49 Parks, Recreation and Open Space . 52 Solid Waste . 56 Wastewater . 58 Water . 61 Recycled Water . 63 What You Can Do . 66 Methodology . 68 Committee Roster . 69 About ACEC . 72 About APWA . 73 About ASCE . 74 2010 Inland Empire Infrastructure Report Card 1 2 2010 Inland Empire Infrastructure Report Card REGION 9 LOS ANGELES SECTION San Bernardino & Riverside Counties Branch FOUNDED 1953 Message from the Report Card Co-Chairs Dear Friends, Even though “infrastructure” has gotten more attention over the past few years, there are many citizens who still do not fully understand the meaning of the word and why we need to care about it . For the record, infrastructure is the large-scale public systems, services, and facilities of a region that are necessary to support economic activity and quality of life . The systems that are readily used and noticed by the general public are the highway and public transportation systems, airports, school facilities, and community parks . Other systems of infrastructure that are not readily seen by the public are the underground water, sewer, and utility pipes, flood control systems that protect us from storm water runoff, and solid waste facilities . These are the “unsung heroes” of infrastructure, and are only a concern when they do not work . For example, turning on the faucet and nothing coming out, flushing the toilet and having it back-up, or putting out your trash, and no one picks it up .
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum To
    MEMORANDUM TO: THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: JEFF SUDMEIER, CDOT CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2020 SUBJECT: MONTHLY CASH BALANCE UPDATE Purpose To provide an update on cash management, including forecasts of monthly revenues, expenditures, and cash balances in Fund 400, the State Highway Fund. Action No action is requested or required at this time. Background Figure 1 below depicts the forecast of the closing Fund 400 cash balance in each month, as compared to the targeted minimum cash balance for that month (green shaded area). The targeted minimum cash balances reflect the Transportation Commission’s directive (Policy Directive #703) to limit the risk of a cash overdraft at the end of a month to, at most, a probability of 1/1,000 (1 month of 1,000 months ending with a cash overdraft). Figure 1 – Fund 400 Cash Forecast Page 1 of 3 2829 West Howard Place, Denver, CO 80204 P 303.757.9262 F 303.757.9656 Summary Due to recent events in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, including statewide safer-at-home orders, the Department is anticipating a significant immediate impact to revenue collections, followed by a longer downturn. Reduced motor fuel tax collections, due to decreased travel along with corresponding reductions in other sources, will negatively impact the short-term revenue and associated cash forecast. The current forecast, which includes actual data for March through June 2020, appears consistent with the preliminary forecast of revenue losses – approximately $50 million between March 2020 and February 2021. The forecast reflects the Department’s anticipated cash balance based on the current budget allocation plan and associated planned project expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms 711 Rg 1 National Railroad Passenger Corporation / Amtrak : James L
    MS 711 RG 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION / AMTRAK : JAMES L. LARSON OPERATIONS AND PLANNING FILES 1971-2003, bulk 1976-2003. 16.5 linear ft. Original order has been maintained. The James L. Larson files are arranged in the following series: 1. REPORTS 2. CHRONOLOGICAL FILES 3. LAWSUITS PROVENANCE Gift of Mrs. Mary Larson (387-2090), 2011. HISTORICAL INFORMATION James Llewellyn Larson was born on March 27, 1935 in Madison, Wisconsin to Ruth (Thurber) and LeRoy Larson. While attending high school, Mr. Larson spent many hours at the Chicago and North Western Railway Company's interlocking tower in Madison, Wisconsin where he learned telegraphy. He went to work for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad in 1952 as an agent, telegrapher, and tower operator. In 1953, Mr. Larson began working for the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company as a telegrapher, then as a wire changer. During his 20-year tenure with C&NW, he worked in the Operating Department, was a Train Dispatcher from 1957 to 1959, and then spent eight years as an Assistant Trainmaster and a Trainmaster. He was a System Rules Examiner from 1966 to 1968, an Assistant Division Superintendent from 1968 to 1969, Assistant Superintendent -Transportation from 1969 to 1972, where he managed Operations Center in Chicago. From 1972 to 1973, he was an Assistant Division Master of Transportation on the Twin Cities Division. Mr. Larson was recruited by Amtrak in 1973. During his 25-year tenure with Amtrak he served as Manager of Station Operations, Director of Personnel, Assistant Vice President of Administrative Staff, and Assistant Vice President of Contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrolink AVT Palmdale
    AVT Lancaster Connections to/from Metrolink AVT Palmdale Vincent Grade/ Free Connections Acton REGIONAL SYSTEM MA P Anaheim Resort Transit Vista Canyon ART WITH FREE CO NNECTIONS AVT AVTA STC Via Princessa BPS Baldwin Park Shuttle BMT Beaumont Transit STC Santa Clarita BAS Burbank Airport Shuttle LOS ANGELES BRB Burbank Bus AVT LAC STC Newhall CO. CMB Commerce Municipal Bus VENTURA CC Corona Cruiser LMB CO. Sylmar/ LMB EMS El Monte Commuter Shuttle LDT LMB San Fernando LMB GLB FHT Foothill Transit t – BAS BRB TOR Sun Valley BAS STC GLB Glendale Beeline SAN BERNARDINO OMT LDT GCT Gold Coast Transit STC LMR CO. BMT MPS APU/Citrus College ISH iShuttle SIM Burbank Airpor LMB North (AV Line) LMB OMT Ventura – East VCT VCT LMB LMB FHT GCT OMT LAC LA County DPW Shuttle LMB LAC VCT VCT SIM LDT LDT LDT BUR RTA OxnardGCT Camarillo Moorpark Simi Valley Chatsworth Northridge CMB LMB FHT FHT LMB Van Nuys GLB FHT LA Metro Bus Burbank – Downtown AVT FHT BPS OMT FHT FHT LMR LA Metro Rail EMS OMT FHT OMT OMT Chatsworth North Hollywood Glendale LDT LADOT MBL Montebello Bus Lines LMB Cal State L.A.El Monte Baldwin ParkCovina Pomona – ClaremontNorth Montclair Upland Rancho CucamongaFontana Rialto San BernardinoSan Depot Bernardino – Downtown BRB L.A. Union Station MPS Monterey Park Spirit Bus Burbank Airport - San BernardinoRedlands – TippecanoeRedlands – Esri Redlands – Downtown – University South (VC Line) Atlantic ONT BAS NCS NCTD - Sprinter/Breeze 7th/Metro NWT Wilshire/Western MBL Norwalk Transit LMB Montebello/ OMT OCT OCTA CommerceCMB Santa Monica
    [Show full text]
  • System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley
    System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley sbX E Street Corridor BRT Project Prepared for: Omnitrans Prepared by: Parsons Patti Post & Associates October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5 1.1 SAFETEA-LU ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 2004 System-Wide Plan ............................................................................................ 7 1.3 Development of the E Street Corridor ....................................................................... 7 1.4 California SB 375 .................................................................................................... 17 1.5 San Bernardino County Long Range Transit Plan ................................................... 18 1.6 Regionally Approved Travel Demand Model ........................................................... 21 1.7 Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 21 1.8 Opportunities to Shape Development/Redevelopment ............................................ 21 1.8.1 Economic Development ............................................................................. 21 1.8.2 Transit-Oriented Developments ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ARRIVE CORRIDOR FINAL REPORT TOC:1 Table of Contents
    A DVANCED R EGIONAL R AIL I NTEG R ATED V I S ION E A S T THE A rr IVE CO rr IDO R FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 Prepared by: Gruen Associates HR&A Advisors, Inc. HDR Funding: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and the State of California Department of Conservation. In addition, the work upon which this publication is based was funded in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council under Grant Number 3010-541, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the Consultant and not necessarily those of the Strate- gic Growth Council or of the State of California Department of Conservation, or its employees. In addition, the contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SCAG or the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The Strategic Growth Council, the California Department of Conservation, SANBAG and SCAG make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1:1 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 1:2 1.1.1 Metrolink Commuter Rail – San Bernardino Metrolink Line.............................................. 1:2 1.1.2 Transit/Land Use Integration and Benefits......................................................................
    [Show full text]