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 GROUP

This study had the active involvement and participation of a broad-range of agencies and stakeholders. This group consisted of representatives from federal, state, regional, and local entities (from both Nevada and California), as well as the private sector. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met in Las Vegas regularly throughout the study to review and comment on tasks and deliverables. The TAC members also provided direction on the alternatives studied, and refined the list of alternatives, focusing on the three deemed most feasible. Table ES-1 lists the Technical Advisory Committee members.

PAGE 2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table ES-1 Technical Advisory Committee Members

Name/Organization Name/Organization Paulette Carolin, FAICP (RTC Project Manager) David Valenstein Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Federal Railroad Administration John Cikota Elizabeth O’Donoghue Federal Railroad Administration National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) James L. Williams Anna Wharton Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management James Mallery William Bronte Nevada Department of Transportation California Department of Transportation – Division of Rail Rick Depler Joanna Capelle California Department of Transportation – Division of Rail Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) Deadra Knox Darrell Johnson Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) Orange County Transportation Authority Sheldon Peterson Cathy Bechtel Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission Stephanie Wiggins Patricia Chen Riverside County Transportation Commission Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Rich Macias Marcus Majors Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Clark County – Planning Department Scott Hagen Jim Bell Clark County – Department of Air Quality and Environmental City of North Las Vegas Protection Clete Kus Douglas Selby City of North Las Vegas City of Las Vegas M. Margo Wheeler Mayor Lawrence E. Dale City of Las Vegas City of Barstow Councilmember Mike Rothschild Marquita Ogilvie-Harper City of Victorville City of Victorville Terri Rahhal Mayor Pro Tem Alan D. Wapner City of San Bernardino City of Ontario Erika Yowell Peggy Temple Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority City of Corona Somer Hollingsworth Dennis Mewshaw Nevada Development Authority McCarran International Airport D.J. Mitchell Jerry Wilmoth BNSF Railway Union Pacific Railroad Andrew Mack Tom Stone Transmax Transmax Mr. Michael Jensen Older Americans/Disabilities Committee, RTC

PAGE 3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUMMARY OF MARKET ASSESSMENT

A very strong market exists for travel between the Las Vegas and Los Angeles/Southern California metropolitan areas. While much of the current travel is by automobile or airplane, there is sufficient demand that restoration of passenger rail service could attract a significant share of passengers, and factors would indicate that share would grow over time. These factors include current and future strength and potential for growth in:

• Population

• Employment

• Travel demand and patterns

Las Vegas is the largest city in Clark County, Nevada. Clark County has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing urbanized areas of the country. From 1990 to 2000, the resident population grew 86 percent from 706,750 to 1,313,450. During the same period, the number of jobs added to the local economy grew by 124 percent. By 2010, Clark County is estimated to have a population of 2,281,340, by 2020 2,999,953 and by 2030 a population of 3,410,332. The number of vehicles traveling on the roadways in the Las Vegas area also increased substantially.

Southern California is the most heavily-populated portion of the state. Roughly half (49 percent) of all Californians live in the six counties that make up the SCAG region. On the national level, about one in every seventeen people living in the United States in 2000 calls this region home. Looking to 2025, the Southern California region may add another six million new residents, or 34 percent relative to year 2000.

Employment levels in Southern California are also anticipated to increase by 34 percent between the years 2000 and 2025. This growth will translate to severe roadway congestion. By 2025 it is estimated that 26 percent of the freeway system in the SCAG system will be extremely congested, and 25 percent of the driver’s time will be spent in stop and go traffic1. Similar to Southern California, employment growth in Clark County, Nevada, is expected to continue.

Travel demand and patterns for travel between the two regions is also strong. In 2004, 32 percent of all visitors to Las Vegas were from California, 81 percent were repeat visitors, and 67 percent of the visitors were for pleasure/gaming. Southern California visitors, of all visitors to Las Vegas, were least likely to have traveled to Las Vegas by air; conversely, Southern California visitors were most likely to have traveled to Las Vegas by automobile.

Southern California visitors tend to stay in Las Vegas for shorter periods of time than other domestic or foreign visitors, a mean of 2.6 nights and 3.6 days in 2004. Southern California visitors were more likely to arrive on a Friday than other domestic or foreign visitors. 25 percent of Southern California visitors arrived on a Friday. Southern California visitors were least likely to arrive in Las Vegas on a Tuesday or Saturday.

1 Environmental Planning Studies Data Collection Report, The California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission; SCAG Compass Background Reports, 2002

PAGE 4 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

As part of the study, five route alternatives, consisting of three primary alternatives and two variations were developed.

The initial alternatives included:

• Alternative A1 (A1) – Would operate between Los Angeles Union Station and downtown Las Vegas, with intermediate stops at Montclair, San Bernardino, Victorville, Barstow, and Primm. The service would run over a Metrolink commuter rail corridor, then through the Cajon Pass and over the High Desert to Las Vegas over BNSF and UP-owned rail lines.

• Alternative A2 (A2) – This alternative was a truncated version of A1. It would begin at Victorville, instead of Los Angeles, avoiding the most congested portions of the rail corridor.

• Alternative B (B) – This alternative would operate over the same route as the previous Desert Wind. Its station stops between Los Angeles and Las Vegas would include Fullerton and Riverside before joining the A1 route at San Bernardino.

• Alternative C1 (C1) – This novel alternative sought to avoid the rail congestion issues of the Cajon Pass by instead traveling to Las Vegas by way of Santa Clarita and Palmdale, then cross over to Barstow for the remainder of the trip to Primm and Las Vegas.

• Alternative C2 (C2) – Like Alternative A2, this route would have offered a shortened service between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area, but would begin in Palmdale.

After being reviewed and discussed by the Technical Advisory Committee, the alternatives were screened, with three advanced for further analysis and consideration. Figure ES-1 shows the routing options of the final three alternatives considered in this study.

After being reviewed and discussed by the Technical Advisory Committee, the alternatives were screened. Two alternatives were eliminated from further analysis, and two were modified. Three alternatives were advanced for more detailed analysis and consideration, including identification of improvement projects needed, and ridership and revenue forecasting. The three alternatives were:

Alternative A1

Alternative A3 (A3) – This alternative was a modification of A2. Rather than operating between Victorville and Las Vegas, the TAC suggested that the alternative begin closer to the Los Angeles basin, noting that it was less likely that potential passengers for the proposed service would drive through the Los Angeles metropolitan area and up the Cajon Pass (often the most congested portion of the journey) before starting their rail trip. Instead, the alternative would begin at Riverside.

Alternative C1 – This alternative was modified to begin at Montclair.

PAGE 5 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89106 ALTERNATIVES JUNE 2006 TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm Rail Corridor Improvement Study Corridor Improvement Rail NEV Angeles Los to Vegas Las CAL 15 ADA I FORNIA

Mojave BNS F Mojave Su Cima bd iv n ision io Barstow Dunn is div Sub Cima n Yermo isio Kelso iv Daggett d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPRR Mojave N Sub eed divi les Subdivision 14 sion Santa Clarita n isio div Valley Sub Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 l Subdivisi San Gabrie on Union 10 Montclair 10 Station 60 West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY Alternative A1 105 u 90 215 ma 5 Riverside S Alternative A3 91 91 ubdivis 57 ion 60 (E l P 10 Alternative C1 as 1 39 o Line) Station 22 405 SpeedAlternative Bottleneck C1A1A3 ORANGE55 COUNTY www.rtcsouthernnevada.com REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 7 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

RIDERSHIP FORECASTS

Ridership and revenue forecasts were assessed for each alternative. The following assumptions were used:

• The proposed service would provide seven day per week service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

• A range of departure times would provide for the travel needs of different submarkets, including business and recreational travel.

A fleet of five trainsets, and an appropriate level of spare equipment, would be used to provide this service level.

Fares would range from $55 to $95 for a one-way ticket, with premium service fares priced $10-15 higher.

Table ES-2 provides a comparison of the ridership and revenue forecasts for each of the three alternatives studied.

Table ES-2: Summary of Ridership and Revenue Forecasts – Year 2010

Alternative A1 Alternative A3 Alternative C1 Year 2010 Forecasts Ridership 362,200 119,000 195,300 Revenue (2006$) $18,730,000 $5,790,000 $10,420,000 Average Riders per Train 145 48 78 Major Stations Served Las Vegas X X X Los Angeles X X Montclair X X Riverside X San Bernardino X X Santa Clarita X Average Travel Time between Las Vegas and: Los Angeles 5:30 - 6:38 Montclair 4:46 - 7:31 Riverside - 4:50 - San Bernardino 4:22 4:22 - Santa Clarita - - 5:49 Average Daily Round Trips Monday 3 3 3 Tuesday 3 3 3 Wednesday 3 3 3 Thursday 3 3 3 Friday 4.5 4.5 4.5 Saturday 3 3 3 Sunday 4.5 4.5 4.5

The key findings of the Ridership Forecasting assessment were:

• Alternative A1 would generate the highest ridership, revenue, and rate of farebox recovery, using criteria from the California Department of Transportation’s Division of Rail.

PAGE 8 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• While Alternative A3’s travel time would be 40 minutes less than that of Alternative A1’s, the ridership forecast for A3 was only one-third of that for A1, resulting in the lowest rate of farebox recovery of the three alternatives considered.

• Alternative C1 – Despite its increased length and travel time, the forecast ridership for Alternative C1 was higher than that for Alternative A3. However, its farebox recovery rate was still less than half that of Alternative A1.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ROLLING STOCK NEEDS

Rail congestion as a result of inadequate infrastructure capacity was one of the factors which lead to the discontinuation of the previous Desert Wind service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This issue has been actively investigated and discussed during this study and has involved input from the study’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) including the Union Pacific railroad.

The improvement projects developed as part of this study would address this capacity shortfall, and their construction would be an important component of the negotiations with the host railroads necessary before initiating service.

A program of rail improvement projects for each alternative was developed. Two levels of improvement provide a range of options, and could allow for phased improvement of the rail corridor. These levels are:

• Low-Build – This option would provide “spot” improvements, such as increasing the length of some sidings to accommodate longer freight trains and provide additional opportunities for train meets, changing the “superelevation” of some curves to allow for faster operating speeds, and, where appropriate, upgrading the track class from FRA Class 4 to Class 5, which could allow increased maximum operating speeds (for passenger trains, from 80 mph to 90 mph, and for freight trains from 60 mph to 80 mph). This change could reduce travel time and improve on-time performance and operational efficiency. On some alternatives, additional main tracks were suggested to address capacity constraint issues.

• High-Build – This option would incorporate all of the improvements suggested in the Low-Build option, and generally provide full double-tracking of entire subdivisions at FRA Class 5 standard. On some alternatives, additional main tracks, beyond those proposed in the Low-Build option, were recommended for construction.

Improvement projects recommended in this study are aimed at either reducing the travel times by upgrading track conditions or at decreasing schedule recovery requirements by providing additional capacity on the ‘host’ railroads.

Three types of train technology were considered in this study:

• Bi-level passenger cars, such as used on Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner service (Surfliner),

• Talgo passive-tilt trains, such as used on the Amtrak Cascades service (Talgo), or

• A non-electric version of the Acela locomotive (JetTrain) with Acela active-tilt coaches.

Depending on the type of train equipment selected for the service, rolling stock costs would range from $123M to $186M, for five trainsets and spare equipment.

Table ES-3 shows the total estimated costs for all the Low-Build and High-Build improvement projects, as well the costs for station improvements.

PAGE 9 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table ES-3 Estimated Improvement Costs By Alternative

Alternative OPTIONS Alternative A1 A3 Alternative C1 Low-Build Option Rail Improvements $1,093,350,000 $1,316,500,000 $621,500,000 Station $24,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Improvements Total Costs $1,117,350,000 $1,336,500,000 $641,500,000 Low-Build Costs per $3.4M $4.7M $1.5M Mile (Length) (321.8 miles) (275.1 miles) (338 miles)

High-Build Option Rail Improvements $3,472,000,000 $2,546,000,000 $1,327,000,000 Station $24,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Improvements Total Costs $3,496,000,000 $2,566,000,000 $1,347,000,000 High-Build Costs per $10.8M $9.3M $4M Mile (321.8 miles) (275.1 miles) (338 miles)

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, POTENTIAL REVENUES AND FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO

Operations and Maintenance Costs (O&M) were developed. These costs include the labor costs, fuel, and maintenance of equipment and the track and signal system. The farebox recovery ratio is determined by dividing the revenues by the operations and maintenance costs. Table ES-4 provides a comparison of the O&M costs, and the farebox recovery ratio for the three alternatives studied.

Table ES-4 Comparison of 2010 Ridership and Revenues by Alternative

Alternative A1 Alternative A3 Alternative C1 Forecast Annual Ridership 362,200 119,000 195,300 Total Annual O&M Costs $36,000,000 $32,500,000 $41,000,000 Forecast Revenue $18,730,000 $5,810,000 $12,030,000 Net Operating Loss $15,270,000 $22,190,000 $28,970,000 Fare Recovery Percentage 52.03% 17.88% 29.34%

PAGE 10 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS

The major findings of this study and recommendations as to appropriate next steps for the development of this service include:

Feasibility

• Restored intercity service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles is feasible, given investment in rail improvement projects to reduce travel time and provide additional rail capacity

• This service could represent an important addition to the transportation system between the Las Vegas and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

• Of the three alternatives studied, Alternative A1 provides the most viable service, when all factors (travel time, ridership, revenue and rate of farebox recovery) are taken into consideration.

¾ The other alternatives (A3 and C1) are less feasible, given their forecast ridership and revenue and consequently lower rate of farebox recovery.

• Given the growth in rail traffic, including increased commuter rail and freight rail service levels, improvement projects to reduce travel time and add rail capacity will be needed.

• It is possible that improvements can be phased over time. The extent to which this phasing will be possible and the prioritization of projects could be further determined in future phases of the project, through rail capacity modeling.

• Regardless of the train equipment selected, the proposed service using Alternative A1 would meet an accepted standard for rate of farebox recovery. This could allow for establishment of the service using existing Pacific Surfliner-class equipment, with a later upgrade to either Talgo or JetTrain equipment.

Coordination

• Continued coordination and discussion between Federal Railroad Administration, Caltrans’ Division of Rail, Nevada Department of Transportation, and RTC, including discussion of how costs associated with the service might be allocated, for both capital and on-going O&M costs.

Next Steps

There are a number of steps necessary before the Las Vegas – Los Angeles service can be initiated. These next steps include:

• Rail Capacity Modeling – This study developed a train travel time based on TPC modeling, which included an estimate of the schedule recovery time for interactions with other trains. Rail capacity modeling would show how this service would interact with all other rail services. It would use existing and forecast train volumes, and would identify areas of concern and delays based on track infrastructure and operations. This modeling would validate the rail improvement projects needed, as well as assist in establishing the priority in which improvements needed to be made. RTC has included this task as part of its Unified Planning Work Program for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.

PAGE 11 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Conceptual Engineering – There are several locations along potential routes from Las Vegas to Los Angeles for which conceptual engineering (CE) could be performed, such as the Cajon Pass or Cima Grade, the best way to interconnect the UPRR’s line to the BNSF’s line near Mojave, and the required upgrades identified in the rail capacity modeling noted above. This level of effort would identify potential engineering solutions and refine cost estimates, as well as identify other issues (such as the need for Right-of-Way acquisition or potential environmental concerns) early in the next phase of the project. RTC has included this task as part of its Unified Planning Work Program for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.

• Environmental Assessment – Given a project of this length and scope, it would be necessary to determine the level of environmental review and clearance needed.

• Development of an Implementation and Financing Plan – Once the elements described above were completed, an Implementation Plan which detailed the tasks and timeline for the implementation of the service, including preliminary and final engineering, selection and acquisition of rail vehicles, and construction and improvement of station facilities. This plan would also detail the refined project costs, and would identify potential funding sources.

PAGE 12 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

The Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study examines issues associated with the potential re-establishment of intercity passenger rail service between the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Los Angeles, California.

These issues include:

• Defining the service, based on market assessment and travel demand patterns;

• Identifying routing alternatives over which the service could operate;

• Evaluating issues associated with those alternatives that might impact travel time, such as track conditions and rail capacity;

• Identifying and costing projects to provide improvements to the rail corridor that would address infrastructure and capacity issues, as well as station improvements and rolling stock needs;

• Forecasting the ridership that would be attracted to the proposed service, and the revenues this ridership would generate;

• Determining estimated operations and maintenance costs, as well as the potential farebox recovery ratio; and

• Describing needed future steps in order to implement the service.

This section provides a background on the rail corridor, including a description of the project’s vision and objectives. It includes a brief summary of past passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, notes on other rail-related projects under consideration between the same markets, and an overview on how this report is laid out.

DEFINITION OF PROPOSED SERVICE

The proposed service studied in this project would provide a reliable, frequent intercity passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, with limited intermediate station stops. Service would be offered daily, with a range of frequencies based on established travel demand that will provide an attractive alternative to travel by automobile. The fare structure would allow for dynamic pricing to maximize ridership and revenue and would be comparable to travel by other modes, including air travel.

PROJECT VISION AND OBJECTIVES

The vision for this project is the reestablishment of passenger rail service between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Los Angeles, California (and Southern California). This service would provide a travel time competitive with the automobile and sufficient service frequency to provide a viable transportation alternative.

The objectives of this study were to:

• Assess the feasibility of this proposed service;

PAGE 13 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Identify associated issues associated, such as improvement projects to reduce travel time and provide additional rail capacity;

• Compare alternatives for the service, such as route options and/or train technologies;

• Forecast potential ridership for each alternative; and

• Estimate the capital, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the service.

PREVIOUS LAS VEGAS – LOS ANGELES PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles for many years was provided by the Desert Wind. This service ran from 1981 to 1997. Its scheduled eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas) travel time was 6 hours, 55 minutes, and its westbound travel time 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 also provided service to Salt Lake City, Utah, and ultimately to 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 in elimination of the service. These issues included the following.

• The train only provided one daily trip.

• The train was not scheduled to arrive/depart the end point markets at optimal times of day.

• The average travel time in the corridor was about seven hours since the timetable included extra pad to improve the reliability of the train over longer distances, which made it 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. At that time, the scheduled eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas) travel time was 6 hours, 55 minutes, and the westbound time as 7 hours, 15 minutes.

PAGE 14 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

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.

Unfortunately, as a result of budget constraints and other issues, the service was never initiated, and the Talgo trainset ordered for the Las Vegas service was transferred to the Cascades.

OTHER LAS VEGAS – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION

This study’s focus is the feasibility of restored intercity passenger rail service using existing rail corridors that link Las Vegas and Los Angeles and operating with non-electrified conventional rail equipment.

A Las Vegas-Los Angeles rail connection has been long-studied by a number of groups. In addition to this study, two other rail projects have been proposed to serve the Las Vegas to Los Angeles travel market. These projects are the:

• California-Nevada Super-Speed Train, and

• The DesertXPress

A brief summary of each project is provided in the paragraphs below.

California-Nevada Super-Speed Train. For over twenty years, this project has proposed using Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) technology to carry passengers between Southern California and Las Vegas, traveling at speeds of up to 300 mph. The 269-mile alignment would largely follow the I-15 Freeway. Station stops tentatively include:

• Anaheim

• Ontario

• Victorville

• Barstow

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas (2)

Travel time between Anaheim and Las Vegas via this service is estimated to be less than 90 minutes. Work on this project has been suspended at this time, though scoping for a program-level EIR/EIS and project-specific EIS for the segment between Las Vegas and Primm have been completed. There is continuing Nevada interest in providing an initial segment between Las Vegas and Primm. Such a segment might also serve the planned Ivanpah Airport east of Primm.

PAGE 15 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The DesertXPress

The DesertXPress would be a steel-wheel on steel rail high-speed rail service that would operate between Victorville, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Project proponents suggest that the service could either run within the median of Interstate I-15, or adjacent to it. This project is in preliminary discussions and an initial environmental review process is beginning shortly. According to the Victorville Daily Press2, scoping meetings were scheduled for June 2006, but these have been pushed back to July 2006.

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ON THIS STUDY

The Las Vegas – Los Angeles Rail Feasibility Study had the active involvement and participation of a broad-range of agencies and stakeholders. This group consisted of representatives from Federal, State, Regional, and Local entities (both Nevada and California), as well as the private sector. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met in Las Vegas regularly throughout the study to review and comment on tasks and deliverables. TAC members unable to attend meetings in person were able to join via teleconference. The TAC members also provided direction on the alternatives studied and identified changes and eliminations of alternatives, focusing on the three alternatives deemed most viable.

TAC members included:

• Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC)

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

• National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

• California Department of Transportation – Division of Rail (Caltrans)

• California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)

• Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)

• Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)

• Southern California Association of Governments

• Clark County, Nevada

• Orange County Transportation Authority

• City of North Las Vegas (Nevada)

• City of Las Vegas (Nevada)

• City of Henderson (Nevada)

2 http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/114943559339989.html

PAGE 16 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• City of Barstow (California)

• City of Victorville (California)

• City of San Bernardino (California)

• City of Ontario (California)

• City of Corona (California)

• Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA)

• Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

• BNSF Railway (BNSF)

• DesertXPress

In addition to the TAC, RTC committees and the Commission itself were provided with presentations on the study and its findings. These committees (and their RTC descriptions3) included the:

• Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC). “The CAC is comprised solely of members from the community. This group meets monthly and discusses and makes recommendations on transportation issues that affect the entire Southern Nevada community. This committee provides citizen input to the commission ensuring that a cross- section of the valley’s population is represented”.

• Older Americans/Disabilities Transportation Advisory Committee (OA/DTC) “The OA/DTAC provides public input on the special transportation concerns and needs of the elderly and disabled members of the community pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)”.

• Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) “The EAC’s responsibilities include the formulation of recommendations to the Commission on all non-personnel related administrative, planning, technical, transit, street and highway funding, operational matters, and other items as requested by the Commission.”

REPORT STRUCTURE AND FORMAT

This report is organized as follows:

Section 2, Market Assessment, estimates the total potential demand for travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, based on the growth in population and employment in both regions, as well as the demand for recreational and business travel. Following the definition of the travel markets, the study estimates the percentage of the travel demand that could reasonably be met with a higher speed conventional rail service operating within the existing rail corridor.

Section 3, Service Parameters, examines the optimal train travel times, operating schedule, and train frequencies necessary to support the market assessment.

Section 4, Summary of Current Railroad Operating Conditions, provides an overview of the rail corridors between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, from both an infrastructure perspective, as well as from an operating perspective. This summary

3 http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rtc/committees.htm

PAGE 17 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

discusses the growth in freight and goods movement in the Los Angeles Basin, and how increased rail traffic might impact passenger rail service.

Section 5, Conceptual Route Alternatives, lays out the potential alternatives for routing the passenger rail service and discusses the pros and cons of each. It also discusses the alternatives eliminated by the project‘s Technical Advisory Committee, as well as changes to the original alternatives.

Section 6, Train Performance Calculation Modeling Results, outlines the work done to identify the travel time possible for trains in each alternative. The initial travel time provides the minimum time possible between two points, and includes acceleration, deceleration, and dwell time at stations. This time is refined to adjust for the average performance of train crews, as well as takes into consideration additional time necessary for train meets. The result is the schedule time which is used for ridership forecasting purposes.

Section 7, Proposed Improvement Projects and Costs, discusses the infrastructure improvements and new projects within the corridor that would be required in order to provide reduced travel time and increased rail capacity to support the passenger rail service and provides an estimate of the cost for these projects.

Section 8, Ridership Forecasts and Revenues, provides an estimation of each alternative’s potential ridership, as well as the revenues and projected operating expenses for each.

Section 9, Operations and Maintenance Costs, provides an estimate of the ongoing expenses for crew, track and equipment maintenance, fuel and other factors.

Section 10, Summary Comparison of Alternatives, brings all the information from previous discussion of alternatives to provide a summary of ridership and O&M costs, to reach a farebox recovery ratio.

Section 11, Findings and Next Steps, presents the key findings of the study, and outlines follow-on actions to advance the project beyond the scope of this study.

An appendix, which provides additional detail beyond that noted in various sections of this report, completes this report.

PAGE 18 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 2 MARKET ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this section is to provide background information on population growth and travel characteristics between Las Vegas and Southern California. It examines origin-destination patterns and volumes between the Los Angeles area (including Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside and San Bernardino), San Diego and Central California (including all central valley cities, Palmdale and Lancaster) and the Las Vegas Valley using existing demographic data obtained from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and other similar sources. Projected origin-destination patterns are also examined for forecast year 2030 where available. For areas where 2030 forecast data was not yet easily available, 2025 forecast data is presented.

2.1 GROWTH PATTERNS IN CLARK COUNTY

Clark County, Nevada, has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing urbanized areas of the country. From 1990 to 2000, the resident population grew 86 percent from 706,750 to 1,313,450. During the same period, the number of jobs added to the local economy grew by 124 percent. The number of vehicles traveling on the roadways in the Las Vegas area also increased substantially. As measured in terms of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), total daily VMT increased by 81 percent from 1990 to 1999. Increases in population and employment are fueling corresponding increases in travel demand for the Las Vegas area (RTC, 2001)4.

Since the year 2000, the estimated population of Clark County has climbed to 1,715,337. This reflects the continued rapid growth of the gaming/hospitality industry in Las Vegas.

In its Midyear Economic Outlook for 2005, the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (June, 2005) noted that Nevada’s economy surged ahead with renewed employment growth. Job growth is stronger than anywhere else in the nation, and in Southern Nevada it has exceeded 2004’s rapid first quarter growth. The rosy economic environment has attracted record migration, leading to population estimates topping 1.8 million by April, 2005. The 2 million mark is on the horizon already, representing a 100 percent increase in population in a little more than 10 years. Population growth, fueled by migration, continues strong.

HOTEL OCCUPANCY

Generally, hotel occupancy has risen from 2003 to 2004 and then to 2005 (Year to date figures are to July, 2005), based on occupancy rates and room taxes received. Hotels typically experience higher occupancies on the weekends than on the weekdays. Lowest hotel occupancy occurs in the week leading up to Christmas, Christmas week and early January. Highest hotel occupancy typically occurs in March, April and October.

CONVENTIONS

Estimated attendance at and economic impact from conventions continues to grow yearly in Las Vegas. The biggest months for conventions, in order, are: October, February and March. The fewest are held in August, December and July, in that order. This reflects a similar trend to hotel occupancy usage and shows the importance of conventions in attracting visitors to the Las Vegas area.

4 Environmental Planning Studies Data Collection Report, the California- Nevada Super Speed Train Commission

PAGE 19 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

GROWTH PROJECTIONS

The population of Clark County is predicted to grow at a rate of 4.9 percent in both 2005 and 2006. Growth is estimated to taper off thereafter as the economy matures. By 2010, Clark County is projected to reach a population of 2,281,340, by 2020 2,999,953 and by 2030 3,410,332.

Employment growth, both in terms of the percent and number, is projected to be fairly low in the long run. The employment growth forecasts start out at 2.8 percent in 2005, rise to 3.6 percent growth in 2008, and then fall to 1.4 percent by 2013. Thereafter, employment growth is projected to continue to fall, reaching 0.2 percent annual growth by 2035. Currently, there are an estimated 1,020,597 jobs in Clark County. By 2010, this is estimated to grow to 1,171,764; by 2020, 1,311,416 and by 2030, 1,362,9455.

2.2 GROWTH PATTERNS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

The Southern California region encompasses ten counties, 217 cities, and approximately 63,000 square miles. The region is broken into four primary Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), the largest of which is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is made up of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial. Other Southern California MPO’s include the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG), and the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). All demographic and economic data for Southern California is provided by the MPO’s.

In addition to being the largest MPO, the SCAG region is also the most heavily populated. Over the past 50 years, the population living in the six-county SCAG region has more than doubled, with roughly half (49 percent) of the State of California’s population living in the SCAG planning area. On the national level, about one in every seventeen people living in the United States in 2000 calls this region home.

In the SCAG region, the greatest percentage growth in the population has been in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Los Angeles County is the largest county population-wise and it has added the most residents in this time period. But, its percentage share of the regional population has fallen sharply over the last half century from 83 percent in 1950 to 58 percent in 2000.

Looking to 2025, the region may add another six million new residents, or 34 percent relative to year 2000. The Inland Empire counties will see the greatest percentage growth in population. By 2025, one in four SCAG residents will live in the Inland Empire. In 1950, one in ten Southlanders lived in the inland valleys and desert areas.

The 2000 Census shows a continued decentralization of the SCAG population as Los Angeles County grew the least between 1990 and 2000 and Riverside, Imperial and San Bernardino Counties grew the fastest. The percentage growth during this time period is only half as great as the rapid growth experienced in previous decades. However, even with the low percentage increase, the region still added almost two million new residents.

The major observation as one looks forward to the 2025 projections is the continued distribution of the population to areas outside the historic core of the region. Not only is Los Angeles County losing its percentage share of the regional population, but Orange County is projected to lose two percentage points of its share of the region’s population and Ventura County is projected to lose one percentage point. The Inland Empire is the recipient, gaining a greater share of the region’s population. Riverside County is projected to pass San Bernardino County in population by 2025. Riverside County will represent 13 percent of the regional population, and San Bernardino County will equal 12 percent of the regional population. In 2025, a quarter of the region will live in the Inland Empire.

5 Population Forecasts: Long Term Projections for Clark County, Nevada, 2005-2035, The Center for Business and Economic Research, July 2005

PAGE 20 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Employment is also anticipated to increase by 34 percent between year 2000 and 2025. This growth will translate to severe roadway congestion. By 2025 it is estimated that 26 percent of the freeway system in the SCAG system will be extremely congested, and 25 percent of the driver’s time will be spent in stop and go traffic6.

San Diego County, which is not a part of the six county SCAG region, saw a population increase between 1990 and 2000 of 12 percent, from 2.5 million to 2.8 million residents. The largest growth occurred in North San Diego County in Cities along Interstate 5 and Interstate 15. As is the case with Los Angeles, San Diego is showing signs of decentralizing with the City of San Diego showing a one percent drop in the percentage of total population between 1990 and 2000.

Growth projections by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) show a projected population increase of 39 percent between 2000 and 2030, when the population is expected to reach 3.9 million residents. Employment is also expected to increase almost 29 percent between 2000 and 2030, from 1.4 million jobs to 1.8 million.

With these population and job increases, congestion in the major east-west corridors will worsen by year 2020. By year 2020 all major east-west corridors are expected to experience travel delay (as a percentage of total travel time) of 50 to 100 percent and average travel speed will only be 23 miles per hour.

In summary, both the Las Vegas/Southern Nevada metropolitan area and that of Los Angeles and Southern California are large, growing regions with significant population and employment. The next section will provide an overview of travel between these two regions.

2.4 EXISTING AND PROJECTED ORIGIN-DESTINATION PATTERNS

Recognizing the size and importance of the Las Vegas and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, as discussed in the previous pages, this section discusses the patterns of travel between them, as well as the transportation mode used:

• Automobile,

• Bus, or

• Airplane

OVERALL TRAVEL PATTERNS

Travel from Southern California to Las Vegas constitutes a major portion of visitor activity and is a financial foundation for the economy of the Las Vegas region. About a third of all Vegas visitors are Californians, according to a survey of 3,300 people conducted by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority in 2004. Statistics collected by the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV show that of 37.4 million annual visitors that drove into the Las Vegas Valley in 2004, 27 percent arrived from Southern California.

VISITORS FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS

VISITOR ORIGIN

In 2004, 32 percent of all visitors to Las Vegas were from California, 81 percent were repeat visitors, and 67 percent of the visitors were for pleasure/gambling. Southern California visitors, of all visitors to Las Vegas, were least likely to have traveled to Las Vegas by air; conversely, Southern California visitors were most likely to have traveled to Las Vegas by

6 Environmental Planning Studies Data Collection Report, The California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission; SCAG Compass Background Reports, 2002

PAGE 21 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

automobile. Figure 2-1 illustrates the current breakdown of visitor origins in Southern California for 2004, based on survey information obtained from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.

The travel market between Southern California and Las Vegas is projected to continue growing. By 2030, the number of visitors from Southern California is estimated to increase an additional 27 percent, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2. The following sections present visitor information by travel mode and analyze existing and projected travel volumes between Southern California and Las Vegas.

VISITORS FROM LAS VEGAS TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES AREA

With just over 800,000 annual domestic overnight visitors, Las Vegas ranked as Los Angeles’s sixth largest visitor origin in 2003. This figure excludes persons traveling from Las Vegas to Los Angeles for day trips. The top five markets are:

San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, Los Angeles/Long Beach (excluding Los Angeles County), San Diego, Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto, and Phoenix. Visitors from Las Vegas stayed an average of 3.3 nights in Los Angeles, over one-half night shorter than the “typical” domestic overnight visitor (3.9 nights).

Given its proximity to Los Angeles, it is not surprising to find that a majority of domestic overnight visitors from Las Vegas (76 percent) traveled to Los Angeles by private vehicle. Thirteen percent of these private vehicles were rental cars. 14 percent traveled from Las Vegas to Los Angeles by airplane and nine percent by “other” (i.e. bus)

The number of visitors from Las Vegas varies by season:

22 percent travel in winter (December – February), 38 percent travel in spring (March – May), 15 percent travel in summer (June – August), and 25 percent travel in fall (September – November). Visitors from Las Vegas are best characterized as older and more affluent than the typical domestic overnight visitors. These two factors are reflected in other differences shown below and in the summary table.

PAGE 22 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Comparisons with all Domestic Overnight Los Angeles Visitors7

Compared to all domestic overnight travelers, visitors from Las Vegas are more likely to:

Travel by private vehicle, Visit Los Angeles during the March – May travel season, Travel for entertainment purposes, Shop, Be between the ages of 55-64, Be employed on a part-time basis or retired, Have an annual household income of $75,000 or more, and Be an older parent of at least 45 years of age and at least one child at home.

Visitors from Las Vegas are less likely to:

Travel by air, Visit Los Angeles during the summer months of June – August, Stay in a private home, Experience a theme or amusement park, Be under the age of 45 years, Have never married, Work full-time, Have average household income of $50,000 - $74,999, and Be a young single person of under 35 years of age.

LAS VEGAS TO SAN DIEGO

The percentage of visitors from Las Vegas to San Diego is not large enough to factor into the top 10 visitor origins published by the San Diego Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. Nevada, including Las Vegas, falls under the category of “Other Western States” that combined total only five percent of leisure and overnight trips to San Diego.

7 Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau

PAGE 23 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89106 TOTAL TRIPS TO LAS VEGAS - 2004 OCT.31.05

�� Rail Corridor Improvement Study �� Las Vegas to Los Angeles

��

www.rtcsouthernnevada.com DRAFT Figure 2-1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 25 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89106 TOTAL TRIPS TO LAS VEGAS - 2030 OCT.31.05

�� Rail Corridor Improvement Study �� Las Vegas to Los Angeles

��

www.rtcsouthernnevada.com DRAFT Figure 2-2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 27 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Automobile Travel

Approximately 43 percent of visitors to Las Vegas travel to the city by automobile. This figure remained the same for 2003 and 2004. Based on 2004 information, the highest average daily auto traffic (ADT), on all major highways and on the I-15 at the Nevada/California border, occurs in July and August as summarized in the table below.

Table 2-1 Highest Average Traffic Volumes on Highways to Las Vegas

July Traffic Volume August Traffic Volume Location (ADT) (ADT) All Major Highways to Las Vegas, including Interstate 15 91,039 90,947 (I-15) I-15 at Nevada/California 44,831 45,381 Border

The corresponding 2004 figures for lowest average daily auto traffic, on all major highways and the I-15 at the Nevada/California border, occurs in January and February, summarized in the following table.

Table 2-2 Lowest Average Traffic Volumes on Highways to Las Vegas

January Traffic Volume February Traffic Volume Location (ADT) (ADT) All Major Highways to Las 72,359 72,867 Vegas, including I-15 I-15 at Nevada/California 34,204 34,576 Border

The monthly average daily auto traffic for all of 2004 for the I-15 Nevada/California border is 38,799. This is a five percent increase from 2003. For 2005 (January – July figures only), the corresponding figure is 39,161, showing a continuation in the increase. However, it is unknown how the increased cost of gasoline in the latter half of 2005 would have influenced these numbers.

The major connector between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Interstate 15 (I-15) is becoming increasingly congested, with motor vehicle travelers experiencing substantial delays during peak travel times (e.g., Friday and Sunday afternoons). Average daily traffic (ADT) on I-15 just south of Las Vegas is calculated to be around 60,000 vehicles; through Primm, ADT is around 30,000. By the year 2020, traffic is projected to increase by more than 100 percent, with the respective ADTs projected to be 126,000 and 63,000. The segment of I-15 between the I-215 interchange in Las Vegas and the state line at Primm is programmed for widening from four to six total lanes. This will lessen peak congestion in the near term, but substantial congestion is expected to recur by 2020 with continuing growth in roadway traffic demand.

PAGE 28 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Documented automobile travel times between California and Las Vegas are increasing as a result of the congestion in the Cajon Pass. Information obtained from Automobile Association of America (AAA) reveals current travel times from California areas are as follows:

Table 2-3 Average Driving Times between Southern California Cities and Las Vegas

Origin Destination Distance Average Travel (miles) Time Los Angeles Las Vegas 269 3 hrs. 51 min. Santa Ana Las Vegas 267 3 hrs. 52 min. Burbank Las Vegas 271 3 hrs. 53 min. Ventura Las Vegas 330 4 hrs. 41 min. San Bernardino Las Vegas 225 3 hrs. 15 min. San Diego Las Vegas 330 4 hrs. 44 min. Bakersfield Las Vegas 284 4 hrs. Palmdale Las Vegas 237 3 hrs. Source: Automobile Association of America

These times represent a typical travel time between Southern California and Las Vegas, and assume minimal traffic congestion. On weekends or during holiday periods when travel between Southern California and Las Vegas is typically higher, the travel time can vary significantly, and delays are common.

Costs for traveling by automobile vary depending on a travelers’ origin, vehicle type and gas prices. Using standards established by Congress8 and the Automobile Association of America, the cost of driving to Las Vegas in September of 2005 ranged between $150.00 and $220.00 in each direction. These costs assume average fuel economy, fuel capacity and maintenance costs. A breakdown of these costs is provided in Appendix 2A.

The increasing cost of gasoline may lead to a travel mode shift away from the automobile for some trips. As recently as September of 2005, new research indicates that the increasing cost of gasoline may finally have reached a point where it is impacting travel plans. Although consumers will likely still travel, where they travel and how much they spend may change.

According to a recent study, 46 percent of respondents said that the high cost of gas at the pump would not impact future travel. Among the 54 percent reporting some impact on travel, changes include taking shorter trips closer to home, specifically either traveling in state (29 percent) or to an adjacent state (16 percent), reducing the length of the trip (21 percent) or cutting back on trip expenses (28 percent).

Air Travel

Travel times by air currently average about 63 minutes9 between airports in the Los Angeles basin and Las Vegas. However, door-to-door travel times by air also include airport access and significant waiting times before flight departures, plus ground access time between the arrival airport and the final destination. For short air trips, the access and waiting

8 Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks established by Congress in Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 9 United States Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics

PAGE 29 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

times are actually longer than the in-flight component, and the entire trip by air between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is likely to range from 3 to 4 hours, depending on where the traveler starts with respect to the airport.

Over time, travel by air continues to grow. McCarran International Airport experienced a 14.3 percent increase in total passenger traffic from 2003 to 2004. This has continued to increase in the first six months of 2005. Average daily flights also increased 14.3 percent from 2003 to 2004, from 853 scheduled flights in 2003 to 975 in 2004.

Airline passengers, as a percentage of total visitor market in Las Vegas, are approximately 46.7 percent, a 1.4 percent increase from 2003. This has consistently risen from 29 percent in 1972 to where it is today. Table 2-4 shows the number and frequency of flights between Southern California airports and Las Vegas’ McCarran International Airport during September 2005.

Table 2-4 Flight Frequencies between Southern California Airports and Las Vegas, September 2005

Summary of Flights between Las Vegas and Southern California - September 2005

Al Org Dst Miles Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Deps/Week Seats/Week Seats/Dep ASM/Week HPLASBUR221Sep053333333 211,75083.33386,750 WN LAS BUR 221 Sep05 12 11 12 12 12 11 11 81 11,097 137.00 2,452,437 AALASLAX235Sep053333333 213,122148.67733,670 HP LAS LAX 235 Sep05 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 76 10,142 133.45 2,383,370 NWLASLAX235Sep051111111 7 1,036148.00243,460 UALASLAX235Sep058888888 568,176146.001,921,360 WN LAS LAX 235 Sep05 14 14 14 14 14 11 13 94 12,788 136.04 3,005,180 HPLASONT197Sep055555545 343,00088.24591,000 WN LAS ONT 197 Sep05 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 68 9,301 136.78 1,832,297 HPLASSAN258Sep057777767 485,786120.541,492,788 WN LAS SAN 258 Sep05 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 96 13,077 136.22 3,373,866 HPLASSNA226Sep056666656 415,346130.391,208,196 WNLASSNA226Sep054444444 283,836137.00866,936 Source: McCarran International Airport

According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) the average air travel times between Los Angeles and Las Vegas have increased from 56.77 minutes in 1995 to 63.06 minutes in 2002, the last year that information is available. This represents an 11.1 percent increase in actual flying time between the two cities, which could be the result of increased holding time as the air space between Los Angeles and Las Vegas becomes more congested.

Security measures implemented after September 11, 2001 have increased the amount of time passengers must allow in order to travel by air. This time is not included in the flying time.

Using flight information obtained from the airlines in September of 2005, the average cost to fly to Las Vegas ranged between $70.00 and $205.00 in each direction. These costs varied based on departure airport and connections. A breakdown of these costs by airline and airport is provided in Appendix 2B.

PAGE 30 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Bus Travel

In 2004, approximately eight percent of Las Vegas visitors arrived by bus, down from nine percent in 2003. If the total number of visitors in 2004 was 37,388,781, then that would mean 2,991,102 people traveled to Las Vegas over the course of the year by bus.

Due to the congestion in the Cajon Pass, the USDOT reports that intercity bus travel times have increased, from 6 hours and 37 minutes in 1995, to 6 hours and 23 minutes in 2002, the last year for which information is available. This represents a 13.5 percent increase in seven years, the third highest increase of any bus route tracked by the USDOT in the United States.

The low cost of travel by bus can be tied to the long length of time it takes to travel to Las Vegas. The cost to travel by bus to Las Vegas ranges between $41.00 and $70.00, depending on the origin of each traveler. These costs were obtained for Greyhound services only, and do not incorporate costs of individual tour bus carriers. A breakdown of these costs by origin point is provided in Appendix 2C.

In summary, the market for travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles is very strong. At detailed above, the factors for the strength of this market, now and in the future, include:

• Population,

• Employment, and

• Strong business and recreational attractions.

There is sufficient demand for travel that an intercity passenger rail service could be an important additional transportation mode choice. In order to be competitive, particularly with travel by automobile and bus, requires that the service parameters are reflective of traveler’s need.

PAGE 31 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 3 PROPOSED SERVICE PARAMETERS

This section outlines conceptual service parameters for the proposed passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The service parameters defined in this section were based on an assessment of the travel market, as discussed in Section 1, and they identify the ranges of improvements that would be needed in order to support the service. These parameters include:

• Travel mode share,

• Travel time,

• Frequency, and

• Fare structure. 3.1 TRAVEL MODE SHARE

The annual vehicle-traffic along Interstate 15 at the California-Nevada border is 16.5 million vehicles per year10. Applying the assumed occupancy rate, the annual person-traffic at the California-Nevada border is approximately 24.8 million people per year. Assuming that 3.0 percent of drivers would choose the rail option if available, the estimate of the potential market for intercity train ridership in the corridor is 700,000 to 800,000 passengers annually.

3.2 TRAVEL TIME

In order to make the proposed service competitive with other modes of transportation, particularly automobile or bus, requires a competitive door-to-door travel time. The scheduled travel time of the previous Desert Wind service was 7 hours and 15 minutes from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, and 6 hours and 50 minutes from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Delays as a result of freight traffic often added up to two hours to these times. With the volume of other rail traffic in the corridor, such travel times were not competitive with other modes of travel to and from Las Vegas, especially travel by automobile.

The proposed new service would have an average travel time between Los Angeles and Las Vegas of 5 hours and 30 minutes, a savings of 90 minutes over the previous Desert Wind service.

3.2 CONCEPTUAL OPERATING SCHEDULE

In developing a conceptual operating schedule, a number of factors were taken into consideration. These factors, discussed below, include:

• Potential ridership market, and

• Travel demand by day and time of departure

10 Source: Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority

PAGE 32

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Potential Ridership Market

As noted in Section 2.1, an intercity passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles capturing three percent of the total travel market carry approximately 700,000-800,000 passengers per year. Conservative forecasts for a 2010 service, described in Section 8, suggest that market share is possible, and show a first-year ridership could be between 322,000 and 406,000 passengers, depending on the train technology used.

Travel demand by day and time of departure

As part of the assessment of service frequency, existing travel patterns were reviewed. Figure 3-1 shows the distribution of trips to Las Vegas from Southern California by day of week. As shown, Friday is the busiest travel day, and Tuesday the least busy. According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the average stay for those visiting from Southern California is three days.

Figure 3-1 Distribution of Trips to Las Vegas by Day of Week

Using the travel frequency by day and the average length of stay, a conceptual weekly operating schedule was developed. This schedule recognizes the increased weekend travel demand. Table 3-1 shows the estimated number of trains anticipated each day and in each direction.

Table 3-1 Train Frequencies by Day

ORIG DEST SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Los Angeles Las Vegas 4 3 2 3 3 5 3 Las Vegas Los Angeles 5 3 2 3 3 4 3 TOTAL 9646696

The conceptual schedule would provide 46 train departures a week. This number may increase or decrease depending on more detailed estimates and coordination with other rail services in future phases of this project’s development.

PAGE 33

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

This schedule was further developed to show potential departure times, in order to provide a broad range of frequencies. Table 3-2 shows how train frequencies might be spaced throughout the day. This schedule is intended to present a general idea of what an operating schedule might look like, and does not reflect actual arrival and departure times. More refined departure times will be developed in later phases of the study, in coordination with other rail services.

Table 3-2 Train Departures by Time of Day

Los Angeles to Las Vegas Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Early Morning zzz Mid-Morning zz zz Late Morning zz zzz Early Afternoon zz Mid-Afternoon zz Late Afternoon zz Evening zzzz z

Las Vegas to Los Angeles Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Early Morning zzz Mid-Morning zz zz Late Morning zz zzz Early Afternoon zz Mid-Afternoon zz Late Afternoon zz Evening zzzz z

In summary, based on the information obtained in the Market Assessment and the assumptions taken from service on the Pacific Surfliner, the ideal operating time for the proposed passenger rail service would be between 4 and 4.5 hours. Ridership forecasts will be based on refined trip time, determined as a result of the alternatives’ individual characteristics, proposed improvement projects, and operational factors. In order to provide sufficient frequency of service to meet differing travel needs (business and leisure/recreational) 46 train departures a week would be required, with the potential to add additional trains during holiday weekends and special events.

Fare Structure

A conceptual fare structure was developed, based on a 2003 study AECOM Consult performed in the corridor for Amtrak. Amtrak, like many other transportation providers, uses dynamic pricing to maximize its revenues. Essentially, this means that a ticket purchased significantly in advance of the travel date will be less expensive than one purchased immediately prior to the travel date. This variable pricing structure also allows for discounting to attract additional riders in off-peak periods, etc. Four different coach-fare price points were developed for this service, consistent with other Amtrak fares for similar trip lengths:

$55 $65 $80 $95

PAGE 34

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

A Premium service (like the Pacific Business Class on the Pacific Surfliner) would be offered, with an additional charge of $10-15 per price point. This premium service would offer a reserved seat and other amenities. For ridership and revenue forecasting purposes, an average fare of $58 for service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas was used.

PAGE 35

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 4 CURRENT AND FUTURE RAILROAD OPERATING CONDITIONS

This section provides a summary of current railroad operating conditions for both freight and passenger rail services over the available routing options studied. The railroad Rights-of-Way (ROW) over which passenger train service could operate between Las Vegas and Los Angeles include privately and publicly owned segments.

The privately-held portions are owned either by BNSF Railway (BNSF) or by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The publicly-owned portions belong to Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) member agencies. SCRRA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) consisting of the regional transportation agencies or MPO’s within each SCRRA member county. The JPA operates Metrolink commuter rail services.

• The Valley Subdivision, which runs from Los Angeles to Palmdale is owned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro).

• The San Gabriel Subdivision connecting downtown Los Angeles with San Bernardino is jointly owned by Metro and the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), with the segment in each county being owned by that particular government entity.

Metrolink also has routes outside the study area, some of which are operated on rights-of-way owned by BNSF or UPRR. Figure 4-1 shows ownership of rail lines within the study area.

4.1 EXISTING RAIL LINES

UPRR is the owner of the right-of-way that connects Las Vegas to the Transcontinental Line (Transcon) of BNSF. UPRR has operating rights on the Transcon between Daggett, immediately east of Barstow, California, and West Riverside. At West Riverside, the UPRR diverges from the Transcon onto a line it owns, referred to as the Los Angeles Subdivision (LA Sub). The LA Sub is the primary link for the UPRR from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to West Colton and Riverside.

Near the Cajon Pass Summit, (Summit) UPRR has a connecting track between the Transcon to a line it owns that connects West Colton to Palmdale, California (referred to as the Palmdale Cutoff). All carload trains of UPRR operating into the carload classification yard of West Colton use the UPRR-owned route from Summit.

From Barstow, passenger trains could operate on four different routes across the high desert into the Los Angeles Basin. They could, (1) operate on the Transcon, (2) crossover at Summit to the UPRR owned line and go west towards San Bernardino on the Palmdale Cutoff, (3) operate east on this route from Summit to Palmdale or (4) operate over the BNSF-owned Valley Line from Barstow to Mojave, then south to Palmdale. At Mojave, trains would operate over UPRR-owned track to Palmdale and then into Los Angeles on the Metrolink-owned Santa Clarita Line.

DISCUSSION OF RAIL ROUTES

As detailed above, there are four routes that the proposed passenger service could operate over across the high desert to and from Los Angeles. At the base of the Cajon Pass there are four routing options that connect San Bernardino with Los Angeles. One of these is owned by Metrolink.

PAGE 36

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The BNSF Cajon Subdivision linking Barstow to San Bernardino connects to the San Gabriel Valley Metrolink line. This Metrolink service is operated between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The rail distance between Barstow and Los Angeles on this combination of rail lines is about 131 miles. This is the shortest routing to Las Vegas, though the Palmdale Cutoff from Summit to a point where the Metrolink line crosses under the track at Bench is competitive. The difference between the suitability of one routing over the other is that there is no station at San Bernardino on the UPRR line whereas there is one on the BNSF. Also, there is no connection track at Bench between the UPRR Palmdale Cutoff and the Metrolink line.

PAGE 37

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada RAILROAD OWNERSHIP 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89106 DEC.05

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm Rail Corridor Improvement Study NE Las Vegas to Los Angeles CALIFORVA 15 DA N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

BNSF San Bernardino UPRR Metrolink 405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y 105 u RIVERSIDE COUNTY 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 ORANGE55 COUNTY www.rtcsouthernnevada.com Figure 4-1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 39

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

All three lines owned by the freight railroads are heavily congested with freight traffic. In addition, commuter trains operate on one of the UPRR Lines from Riverside to Los Angeles. UPRR has limited capacity since the merger with Southern Pacific in 1996. The UPRR operating scheme is to operate eastbound trains on the LA Sub and westbound on the Alhambra Line. Both connect to downtown Los Angeles and the Alameda Corridor, which accesses the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The two ports combined are the largest rail load center in the United States.

The BNSF Transcon Line is heavily populated with both freight and passenger trains. Commuter trains operate over the line between San Bernardino and Orange County and to Los Angeles. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner service between Los Angeles and San Diego operates on the Transcon between Fullerton and Los Angeles. Amtrak’s Southwest Chief route between Los Angeles and Chicago, Illinois, operates on the Transcon between Los Angeles and Barstow. A recent sample of train density west of Fullerton shows the operation of 58 passenger and 47 freight trains daily. BNSF estimates that the line will be at capacity by 2010 unless a third track is constructed. If the current growth trend continues from the Ports, along with planned expansions of the existing passenger rail services, a fourth main track will also be required.

Rail capacity is a major issue for both UPRR and BNSF. It is unlikely that they would permit passenger train operations on these lines without significant capacity improvements. An example Metrolink’s Agreement with BNSF, which describes a capacity improvement program required for the operation of additional trains.

The following subsections will further describe existing and future operations for both freight and passenger rail services.

4.2 EXISTING FREIGHT RAIL OPERATIONS

CAJON PASS OPERATION OF BNSF

The Cajon Pass is the most direct routing option for moving trains between Southern California and Las Vegas. The rail lines moving through the pass are heavily populated with trains and it is a difficult railroad operating environment as it crosses up the mountains to the plateau of the High Desert.

BNSF’s line is operated as Multiple Main Track, which means that all its tracks are signaled for train movements in either direction. The dispatching system is Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). Normally, a double track rail system is only signaled for train movements in one direction on a given track. Until recently the route was two main tracks. However, BNSF is making a $100 million investment to add a third main track between San Bernardino and Summit. Construction of the third track will be completed by the end of 2008. Though varying by day of the week, the daily train traffic can be over 100 trains each day. This is near capacity for a two track operation where the rule of thumb is 100 trains on such a system. The additional track (third) will provide increased capacity, and will support traffic of 150 trains or so a day. However, due to the remaining sections of double-track, the system will reach its capacity east of Summit long before reaching this number of trains.

One of the major operating constraints over the Cajon Pass between Summit and Los Angeles is the matter of train separation. At Summit, trains stop and make a “summit air brake test” to determine if the train braking system is intact. By operating rule, trains do not thereafter depart Summit unless provided with a Clear (green) signal. This means that a preceding train must clear three blocks before a following train can depart. The signal sequence is Clear (green), Advance Approach (flashing yellow), Approach (solid yellow) and Stop (red) for a following train. The distance between signals varies, but this procedure would mean that the preceding train is several miles ahead of the following train.

PAGE 40

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

BNSF operating personnel estimate that westbound trains can be operated at 30 minute intervals. This would limit the number of westbound trains to 48 each day. The fact that more than that number operate on a given day is a function of downhill train speeds. Downhill speeds are often governed by “tons per operative brake”. The more tons per brake, the lower the trains speed. This calculation is a function of the effect that mass and friction have on heat. If mass is high, more friction is required to slow or stop a train for any given speed. When heat is too great, solid objects, such as brake shoes, will liquefy. Obviously, this condition would cause a “run-away” train.

Freight railroads have experience with “run-away trains” in the Cajon Pass. Normally, trains are able to follow other trains on any signal indication other than red. The fact that BNSF requires a Clear signal (green) before a following train may leave Summit is a precaution that helps compensate for the possibility of human error. The BNSF operating policy separates trains more than is required by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) signal regulations.

Figure 4-2 shows train passing times at Summit on the BNSF Transcon, using train data from autumn 2004. Train traffic is heaviest in this season because of holiday merchandise passing through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. As noted above, the “summit air brake test” and BNSF’s operational procedures create a bottleneck east of Summit, where westbound trains back up. It is likely, that passenger trains would be amongst those trains backed up, absent rail improvement projects that would add additional capacity and allow for service agreements with the “host” freight railroads.

PAGE 41

Figure 4-2 - Trains at Cajon Pass Summit September 30, 2004

0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200

West Bound

East Bound

0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200

1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

West Bound

East Bound

1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

BNSF UPRR Amtrak Grand Total BNSF Trains East Bound 39 14 2 55 West Bound 39 13 1 53 UPRR Trains Total 78 27 3 108 AMTRAK Trains REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 43

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

DIFFERENCES IN PASSENGER AND FREIGHT TRAIN HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS

Another issue for railroad operations is the difference between passenger trains and freight trains. Each train type has unique handling characteristics, which makes integrating their joint operation over a rail line more complex. These differences include their comparative weight and the resulting impacts on operating speeds, as well as their respective abilities to accelerate and decelerate.

Passenger trains are generally lighter than freight trains. Loaded passenger rail cars are not as heavy as loaded freight cars.

Given this fact and taking into consideration the relationship between train speeds, mass and friction discussed above; it is certain that passenger trains can operate at higher speeds downhill. Railroad operating rules do not permit the use of engine braking in heavy grade territory by freight trains that are employing dynamic braking. Dynamic braking is an action that can be performed by diesel-electric locomotives that slows the train by reversing the electric current from the drive motors, effectively retarding the ability of the train to gain momentum. This concept would be similar to an automobile being put into reverse while traveling forward downhill. The extra air braking friction when coupled to dynamic braking elevates the risk of sliding the locomotive wheels. In addition, engine braking marginally influences freight train stopping characteristics. Trailing tonnage on a freight train renders engine braking relatively ineffective, whereas it is extremely effective on light weight passenger cars (trains).

Passenger trains may operate more than twice the speed of freight trains. On heavy grades, passenger trains will overtake freight trains ahead. Going uphill, passenger trains can rapidly overtake freight trains. This is because passenger trains are usually powered to make maximum track speed at any location, whereas freight trains are operated to satisfy customer service requirements. The length and tonnage of each type of train is also a factor, in that passenger trains are typically much shorter and haul less tonnage than freight trains.

Track curvature also is important in setting train speeds. Passenger trains can negotiate sharp curves at much higher speeds than long freight trains. Part of this is because of curve resistance and the string lining potential. Locomotives at the head end of a train may pull cars in a straight line, rather than around the curve as the track is designed. Railroads compensate for this phenomena by the use of helper engines entrained further back in the train. Helper engines also allow for heavier train weights that drawbar tensile strength would not otherwise accommodate by pushing and pulling on the train other than from the head end.

Because of overtaking speed issues as described in this section, railroads are reluctant to permit passenger train operations in heavy grade territory. And even though some contractual agreements between railroads and passenger train operators provide that certain freight trains have precedent over passenger trains, such an operation is not practical for long. Freight line owners are frequently assailed for delaying passenger trains, regardless of contract language. Freight railroads are also faced with a public relations issue if they do not allow passenger trains to operate at maximum speed and go around freight trains.

PAGE 44

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The operating practice of allowing passenger trains to pass freight trains practically causes the stoppage of freight train operations in the track segment where the passing occurs. For example, a downhill passenger train following a slow moving freight train on track number one will require use of track number two to pass. This means that an uphill freight train may need to be stopped at the crossover track ahead and the downhill freight train may be required to stop short of the crossover for the passing to occur. All of this is an absorber of rail capacity, and beyond the pale of normal freight operation absorption. Further, the revenue generation of freight trains is substantial relative to passenger trains. Railroads have high fixed costs that require the generation of enormous amounts of cash before profit is realized. Thus, railroads are inclined to use capacity for freight operations.

However, railroads have entered into agreements to permit passenger train services to operate over their lines, provided investment in infrastructure is made such that they are “made whole”, and do not lose operating flexibility as a result of the additional trains. Agreements can also include provisions for additional payments to host railroads for taking steps to insure on-time performance for passenger trains.

PAGE 45

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.3 FUTURE POTENTIAL GROWTH OF FREIGHT RAILROAD SERVICES

Both BNSF and UPRR operate into the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach via the Alameda Corridor, constructed as a public/private partnership. Combined, these two Ports dominate all port activity in the United States. Forty-two percent of all imported loaded containers to the United States in 2003 came through these two Ports. The area has grown by more than double digit rates each year for more than a decade.

Railroads haul about 52 percent of all the containerized cargo coming through the Ports. Forty percent of these containers go directly from ship to rail. About 12 percent of the container cargo is transported by rail after going through a transloading or warehousing process in the Los Angeles area. These processes transfigure the waterborne container contents into a restuffed “domestic” box. Waterborne containers are 20, 40, and 45 feet in length, whereas a domestic container is generally 53 feet in length. Using composite numbers, the average, mean length of a waterborne container is 37 feet. Ports measure container volumes by the use of twenty foot equivalents (t.e.u.s). Thus, the average waterborne container is 1.85 t.e.u.s.

Railroads dominate the transport market for the containers coming from the Ports with destinations east of the Rocky Mountains. The economics of double stack costs are a small fraction of truck costs. Unless the waterborne cargo is extremely time sensitive, a railroad will likely haul it east. Not much waterborne container cargo is time sensitive to the point that a truck needs to be employed for haulage.

In calendar year 2004, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Bach processed 13.2 million t.e.u.s. That translates into 7,135,000 containers. With 52 percent of those moving by rail, the Ports generated about 3,710,000 containers for the railroads. Each double stack train carries about 240 containers which convert to 15,458 trains annually or an average of 42 each day.

A recent study conducted by the Port of Long Beach projects that Port growth will peak at 44 million t.e.u.s in 2025. That means the railroads will have a growth increase of 333 percent in container train traffic relative to the present time, assuming no change in other market dynamics. Therefore, the estimate of 42 trains in 2004 grows to 140 trains in 20 years. These numbers do not account for the growth the Los Angeles area economy will enjoy independent of the Ports, which will also accelerate rail haulage. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) predicts the local economy will grow at a 3 percent rate of increase for the foreseeable future. Assuming the BNSF and UPRR share growth equally, the Cajon Pass route will be volume-strained and a fourth track will be required before 2025.

The UPRR operating and commercial plan is to use the former Southern Pacific, El Paso Line for intermodal trains into and out of Los Angeles rather than the Cajon Pass Line of BNSF. That is because the route is shorter to major markets in the east. The El Paso Line is currently at capacity, but UPRR management has Board approval to complete construction of a second main track at a cost of $1.5 billion. Currently, about 350 miles of the 850 mile distance from Los Angeles to El Paso has two main tracks.

Given what the rail freight market portends for growth, and the lucrative nature of such haulage relative to passenger train operations, it is likely that the freight railroads will require capital investment to offset the capacity absorbed by passenger trains.

PAGE 46

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SANTA CLARITA LINE ROUTING OPTION

Though circuitous relative to the Cajon Pass route, operating over the Valley Line of BNSF or UPRR’s West Colton to Palmdale Line to access the Metrolink owned Santa Clarita Line is another option.

Compared to UPRR’s lines, BNSF’s Valley Line is more capacity-constrained. The Valley Line connects to the San Joaquin Valley, Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest. Thus, significant numbers of trains from those regions operate on the route including the BNSF share of Port of Oakland container traffic.

The West Colton to Palmdale line of UPRR does not carry time-sensitive traffic to the extent the BNSF Valley Line does. The time-sensitive Pacific Northwest intermodal trains of UPRR operate from downtown Los Angeles to Palmdale on the Santa Clarita Metrolink line.

UPRR operates four intermodal trains each day on the Metrolink line, a rather limited freight use. In addition, of course, there is a commuter train operation.

Of significant note is that very little Port container traffic moves north of Los Angeles by rail. Thus the Port growth previously written of will not impact the capacity of north/south rail lines such as the Santa Clarita line. The flow of Port containers is east/west. The Port of Oakland is utilized by shipping companies to access Northern and Central California markets. Thus, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have little traffic destined north of Bakersfield and any container traffic destined for markets south of Bakersfield is a truck haul.

A description of the physical plant and operating information, such as permitted train speeds and grades relative to the various rail lines owned by UPRR and BNSF, is provided as Appendix 4

PAGE 47

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.4 EXISTING COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS

At the time of this report (June 2006), Metrolink provides commuter rail services on two routes under consideration for the Las Vegas-Los Angeles service. These routes are:

• The Antelope Valley Line, which operates between Lancaster and Los Angeles and

• The San Bernardino Line, which operates between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.

Each of these routes and their service levels are described in the following paragraphs.

Antelope Valley Line

The Antelope Valley Line provides a connection between downtown Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Lancaster. The line operates six days per week (there is no service on Sundays). The weekday service level is 18 trains, with eight trains on Saturdays.

San Bernardino Line

The San Bernardino Line provides service between downtown Los Angeles and San Bernardino, with intermediate stops at California State University Los Angeles, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Covina, Pomona, Claremont, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Rialto. This line operates seven days per weeks, with 34 trains weekdays, 16 trains on Saturdays, and eight trains on Sundays.

4.5 FUTURE COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS

Metrolink is currently developing a Strategic Assessment (expected release Fall 2006). This as-yet unreleased document will be SCRRA’s long-term vision for future growth on its routes. Service levels for all Metrolink lines will see significant increases. The proposed increased service levels for the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino Lines respectively are shown below11.

Table 4-1 Existing and Proposed Metrolink Service Levels

Line Existing (2005) 2010 2015 2020 2030

Antelope Valley 24 Weekday 24 Weekday 32 Weekday 42 Weekday 46 Weekday 8 Saturday 8 Saturday 12 Saturday 16-20 Saturday 24-36 Saturday 0 Sunday 0 Sunday 8 Sunday 12-16 Sunday 16-20 Sunday San Bernardino 34 Weekday 34 Weekday 48 Weekday 56 Weekday 88 Weekday 16 Saturday 16 Saturday 36 Saturday 36 Saturday 36 Saturday 8 Sunday 8 Sunday 20 Sunday 20 Sunday 20 Sunday

11 The Strategic Assessment is a conceptual planning document. No commitment is implied for any SCRRA member agency. Service levels may be advanced or delayed depending on funding availability.

PAGE 48

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 5 CONCEPTUAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

This section provides an overview of route alternatives developed for providing intercity rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, as well as those alternatives eliminated or modified by the project’s Technical Advisory Committee.

5.1 CONCEPTUAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

Five route alternatives (three primary routes and two variations) have been developed. The alternatives are described below, with information about station stops, advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, and other relevant details, as well as graphic figures showing each route.

Each of the alternatives would provide good opportunities for connecting with other rail services that could act as feeders, as well as Amtrak California Thruway bus and local transit services.

ALTERNATIVE A1 – LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS VIA METROLINK SAN GABRIEL SUBDIVISION, BNSF CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative would provide service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas via the Metrolink San Gabriel Subdivision, BNSF Cajon Subdivision, and UPRR Cima Subdivision.

Station stops in this alternative would include:

• Los Angeles Union Station,

• San Bernardino,

• Victorville,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

As noted in Section 4, the San Gabriel Subdivision is one of three routes used by Metrolink to provide service between Los Angeles and the cities in the Inland Empire, including San Bernardino. Currently, this route is approximately 61 percent single track, with 11 percent of this single track comprised of passing sidings. The steepest grade along the right- of-way is three percent, located near San Bernardino on the approach to the flyover that crosses the BNSF right-of-way. The steepest natural grade along the subdivision is two percent eastbound at the Covina passenger station. The right-of- way is limited on the west end of the subdivision for approximately seven miles as it approaches Los Angeles as a result of being located in the median of the San Bernardino (Interstate 10) freeway.

Metrolink, as part of its Draft Strategic Assessment (currently under development), plans for the San Gabriel Subdivision to be completely double tracked by 2030, though capital improvement costs have not yet been programmed.

The alternative would leave the San Gabriel Subdivision at San Bernardino and continue up the Cajon Pass via the BNSF Cajon Subdivision before joining the UPRR Cima Subdivision near Daggett. The alternative would continue on the Cima Subdivision to Primm and Las Vegas.

PAGE 49

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

As discussed in Section 4, BNSF’s Cajon Subdivision is arguably the most heavily used and congested rail line in California. This right-of-way is BNSF’s only access to and from the markets in Southern California and is shared via a trackage rights agreement with several UPRR trains traveling to and from the Midwest. This subdivision travels between San Bernardino and Barstow via Cajon Pass and Victorville, and roughly parallels Interstate 15 (I-15).

Though varying by day of the week, the daily train traffic on the Cajon Subdivision can be more than 100 trains each day. Currently, this volume of trains along the route is handled by two main tracks along the length of the subdivision. One hundred trains is about the maximum volume for a double track system (a general assumption is the maximum capacity of a single track segment is 50 trains each day). Approximately 95 percent of the subdivision is double track; the remaining five percent consists of three track segments. However, due to the enormous demand, BNSF is presently making a $100 million investment to triple track additional segments of the subdivision, specifically between San Bernardino and Summit (approximately 23 miles). This improvement will allow for over 30 percent of the subdivision to be triple tracked. Construction of the third track in this segment will be completed by the end of 2008.

Operations through Cajon Pass traverse the San Bernardino Mountains and operating grades slow train traffic significantly. The steepest grade along the subdivision is over 3 percent eastbound on the Southern track (Track 2), located between Cajon station and Summit. As a result of the severity of the grade, freight trains traveling downhill through Cajon Pass are restricted to 20 or 30 mph depending on the tonnage of the train. The heavier the train, the greater the speed restriction is through the pass.

Limited passenger service operates along this subdivision. Amtrak currently operates its Southwest Chief along the Cajon Subdivision, which travels between Chicago and Los Angeles.

The Cima Subdivision is the only existing railroad right-of-way that provides access to the Las Vegas Valley. The subdivision travels between Las Vegas and Daggett (east of Barstow) where it joins with the BNSF. Any passenger rail service operating along an existing railroad right-of-way to and from Las Vegas would have to travel along the Cima Subdivision. This route is approximately 84 percent single track, with 17 percent of this single track comprised of passing sidings. The steepest grade along the right-of-way is 2.2 percent eastbound along Cima Hill, located between Kelso and Cima.

The UPRR has identified the section between Kelso and Cima as one of the most significant bottlenecks to operations as a result of the steep grades, slow speeds, and the single track segments. Improvements to this subdivision were the focus of previous improvement studies and attempts to reintroduce passenger rail service to Las Vegas.

The advantage of this route alternative is that it could offer a relatively quick connection between Los Angeles and San Bernardino and the San Gabriel Subdivision is less heavily trafficked than are either the UPRR or BNSF routes that essentially parallel it from west to east. This alternative offers potential for a future additional stop somewhere in the San Gabriel Valley (such as Montclair or Claremont) that could better serve passengers from that area. Additionally, improvements to the San Gabriel subdivision, such as advancing the double tracking of this line, would have a significant positive impact on the Metrolink San Bernardino Line commuter rail service.

Disadvantage: The primary disadvantage of this route is the need to traverse the Cajon Pass, with its incumbent freight volumes and capacity constraints.

PAGE 50

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is Dunn iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

STATION

San Bernardino SPEED BOTTLENECK

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative A1 ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 52

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE A2 – VICTORVILLE TO LAS VEGAS VIA BNSF CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This variation of Alternative A1 would eliminate the Los Angeles to Victorville portion of the route, beginning the service instead at Victorville. This alternative would operate over the BNSF Cajon Subdivision through Victorville and Barstow, before joining the UPRR Cima Subdivision near Daggett. The alternative would continue on the Cima Subdivision to Primm and Las Vegas.

Station stops for this alternative would include:

• Victorville,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

The advantage of this alternative is that it could offer the potential for early introduction of the Las Vegas to Los Angeles service, especially while needed improvements to the San Gabriel and Cajon Subdivisions are under construction. Passengers would arrive at Victorville by automobile or Amtrak connecting bus service. This alternative would eliminate, for automobile passengers, the portion of the trip between Victorville and Las Vegas via the I-15 Freeway, which can be very congested, especially during peak travel periods such as weekends and holidays.

The disadvantage of this alternative is that ridership would be significantly lower, as many travelers would not wish to make a transfer from automobile to rail at what would be essentially the “midpoint” of their trip. This need to transfer could possibly be mitigated by a lower fare structure and the potential for increased frequencies that would continue to make the rail service an attractive travel option.

PAGE 53

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative A2 ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 55

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE B – LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS VIA BNSF TRANSCON, BNSF CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative would provide service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas via the BNSF Transcontinental Line from Hobart Yard through Fullerton to San Bernardino, BNSF Cajon Subdivision to Daggett, and UPRR Cima Subdivision to Primm and Las Vegas.

Station stops in this alternative would include:

• Los Angeles Union Station,

• Fullerton,

• Riverside,

• San Bernardino,

• Victorville,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

An advantage to this alternative includes a potentially higher ridership by comparison with other alternatives, as the route would pass through four Southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino) enroute to Las Vegas.

The BNSF Transcontinental Line in Los Angeles runs from Hobart Yard, which is currently BNSF’s primary intermodal yard serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. On top of the 47 freight operations along this segment each day, an additional 58 commuter and intercity passenger trains also operate along this segment between Riverside, San Diego and Los Angeles. Existing projections shows that without a planned third track all operations along this line will stop by 2010 due to lack of capacity. Beyond this, a third main track is being constructed in eastern Orange County between Riverside and Atwood (in the City of Anaheim). In addition, planning is being done to grade separate the UPRR and BNSF crossing at West Colton, minimizing the delay to both railroads. This junction is where UPRR’s Yuma Subdivision crosses BNSF’s Cajon Subdivision, two of the most heavily traveled freight corridors in Southern California.

As implied, the disadvantage of this alternative’s route is that it would be located on some of the most heavily used rail lines in the nation, so track capacity and rail congestion would be major issues. This service would share the line with two Amtrak intercity passenger rail services (the Pacific Surfliner and the Southwest Chief), as well as Metrolink commuter rail and BNSF freight trains.

PAGE 56

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative B ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 58

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE C1 – LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS VIA METROLINK VALLEY SUBDIVISION, UPRR MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, BNSF MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative would provide service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas by way of a routing that would avoid the Cajon Pass altogether, instead traveling from Union Station to Palmdale via the Metrolink Valley Subdivision and then continuing on the UPRR Mojave Subdivision to Mojave. At Mojave, this alternative would turn onto the BNSF Mojave Subdivision between Mojave and Daggett. The segment between Daggett and Las Vegas would be via the UPRR Cima Subdivision

Station stops for this alternative would include:

• Los Angeles Union Station,

• Santa Clarita,

• Palmdale,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

As mentioned in the technical memorandum for Task 3.2A, the Valley Subdivision is the Metrolink connection to the Antelope Valley, splitting from the Ventura Subdivision (or UPRR Coast Line) at Burbank Junction. This subdivision travels north from Los Angeles to Lancaster providing service to the communities and cities of Glendale, Burbank, Sun Valley, San Fernando, Newhall, Santa Clarita, and Palmdale. Currently, this route is approximately 79 percent single track, with 17 percent of this single track comprised of passing sidings. The steepest grade along the right-of-way is over 2.5 percent northbound, located in Soledad Canyon between Santa Clarita and Palmdale. Realignment or double-tracking of the right-of-way would be difficult between San Fernando and Palmdale due to the mountainous terrain the corridor traverses through Soledad Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains and the numerous tunnels that exist on this segment of the subdivision. As a result speeds through the canyon are limited. This right-of-way connects with the UPRR Mojave Subdivision at Palmdale Junction in the City of Palmdale.

The BNSF Mojave Subdivision travels between Barstow and Mojave, where is joins the UPRR Mojave and Caliente Subdivisions over Tehachapi Pass to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. This right-of-way roughly parallels California State Route 58 (SR-58). This is BNSF’s only connection between Southern and Northern California and, as a result, a significant number of trains operate on the subdivision, including container traffic originating or terminating at the Port of Oakland.

This route is 100 percent single track, with about 17 percent of this single track having passing sidings. The steepest grade along the corridor is just over one percent northbound, located just south of Mojave at the junction with the UPRR Mojave Subdivision.

The advantages for this alternative include avoiding the Cajon Pass and its existing rail capacity constraints, as well as attracting a potentially different ridership group from the other alternatives under consideration. This ridership group would be largely drawn from the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, Palmdale/Lancaster, Ventura County and potentially even Santa Barbara areas, as well as transfers from Amtrak’s San Joaquin service.

PAGE 59

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

A disadvantage would be that this alternative might not attract the same total ridership, because it would not directly serve other Southern California population centers.

PAGE 60

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative C1 ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 62

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE C2 – PALMDALE TO LAS VEGAS VIA METROLINK VALLEY SUBDIVISION, UPRR MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, BNSF MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This variation of Alternative C1 would provide service between Palmdale and Las Vegas traveling from Palmdale via the Metrolink Valley Subdivision, then continuing on the UPRR Mojave Subdivision to Mojave. At Mojave, this alternative would turn onto the BNSF Mojave Subdivision between Mojave and Daggett. The segment between Daggett and Las Vegas would be via the UPRR Cima Subdivision

Station stops for this alternative would include:

• Palmdale,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

As in Alternative A2, the advantages for this alternative include avoiding the Cajon Pass and its existing rail capacity constraints, as well as attracting a potentially different ridership group from the other alternatives under consideration. This ridership group would be largely drawn from the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, Palmdale/Lancaster, Ventura County and potentially even Santa Barbara areas, as well as transfers from Amtrak’s San Joaquin service.

A disadvantage to this alternative is the possibility of reduced ridership by comparison with other alternatives, not only because the Palmdale-based service would not directly serve other Southern California population centers, as well as because travelers might opt to drive to Las Vegas rather than travel “out of direction” to access the service at Palmdale.

PAGE 63

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative C2 ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 65

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

5.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED OR MODIFIED

The project TAC, at its April, 2006, meeting, made changes to the list of conceptual route alternatives, determining that two alternatives be modified, and two others eliminated from further study.

TAC members directed that Alternative A2 be modified. Rather than operating between Victorville and Las Vegas, the TAC suggested that the alternative begin closer to the Los Angeles basin, noting that it was less likely that potential passengers for the proposed service would drive through the Los Angeles metropolitan area and up the Cajon Pass (often the most congested portion of the journey) before starting their rail trip. Instead, the alternative would begin at Riverside. This alternative was renamed A3.

ALTERNATIVE A3 – RIVERSIDE TO LAS VEGAS VIA BNSF TRANSCON, BNSF CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative would provide service between Riverside and Las Vegas, via the BNSF Transcontinental Line from Riverside to San Bernardino, BNSF Cajon Subdivision to Daggett, and UPRR Cima Subdivision to Primm and Las Vegas.

Station stops in this modified alternative would include:

• Riverside,

• San Bernardino,

• Victorville,

• Barstow,

• Primm, and

• Las Vegas.

As mentioned, an advantage of this modified alternative would be that it would still provide a terminus in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and would allow for transfer opportunities from Metrolink services at Riverside and San Bernardino.

PAGE 66

TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY Las Vegas

KERN COUNTY Jean Proposed Ivanpah Airport Primm

NE CALIF VA 15 DA OR N IA Mojave BNS F Mojave Cima Su bd iv n ision io is Dunn iv Barstow bd a Su Yermo Cim n Daggett Kelso isio iv d

o 15

Palmdale Jct. a 40 Lancaster C Palmdale Victorville UPR N R Mojave Sub ee div dles Subdivisio 14 ision n Santa Clarita ion ivis Valley Subd Summit / Silverwood LOS ANGELES COUNTY Cajon

San Bernardino

405 Ontario 210 Bench 215 210 el Subdivisio San Gabri n Union 10 10 60 Station West West SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Los Angeles 60 Colton Riverside 110 19 710 605 142 15 Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY 105 u 90 215 m 5 a 91 91 Riverside Subdiv 57 isio 60 n (E l P 10 as 1 39 o Line) 22 405 Alternative A3 ORANGE55 COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

PAGE 68

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Alternatives Modified

Alternative B, which would use the same alignment as the former Desert Wind service, was eliminated because it uses the BNSF Transcon Line throughout the Los Angeles Basin. The heavy levels of rail traffic on this line would make achieving an attractive travel time difficult, and the potential for operational delays would be significant.

Alternative C1 was modified to add a station stop at Montclair.

Alternative C2 was eliminated for the same reason as Alternative A2: beginning the route outside the Los Angeles metropolitan area, necessitating a drive or transfer in order to reach the service, was not seen as viable from a ridership perspective

PAGE 69

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 6 TRAIN PERFORMANCE CALCULATOR (TPC) MODELING RESULTS

This section describes the results of simulation modeling for intercity train service between the Los Angeles Basin and Las Vegas. Train Performance Calculator (TPC) simulations were used to estimate the best travel times that would be technically possible using the present horizontal and vertical alignments of existing railroads between these two metropolitan areas. In addition to these minimum ‘TPC times’, allowances were made for other factors to estimate realistically achievable ‘timetable times’ between the same points for both eastward and westward operation. The results in this section represent three different rail routes, each operated by three specific sets of passenger train equipment. Following identification of potential rail improvement projects, the model was revised to incorporate the proposed additional “low-build” and “high-build” infrastructure. The modeling was run again in order to estimate “improved” travel times. Complete results of the TPC modeling can be found in Appendix 6A.

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES EXAMINED

The three routes examined between the Los Angeles Basin and Las Vegas were Alternatives A1, A3 and C1. The definitions of each route were as follows.

• Alternative A1 extends 321.8 miles from Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) to Las Vegas Station, passing between the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains via the Cajon Pass It includes three major segments: LAUPT to San Bernardino on the Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA’s) San Gabriel Subdivision; San Bernardino to Barstow over the BNSF Cajon Subdivision; and Barstow to Las Vegas via the BNSF Needles and UPSP Los Angeles and Cima Subdivisions. For the purposes of travel time estimation, passenger stations were assumed at: LAUPT (SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, MP 0.0), San Bernardino, CA (SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, MP 56.5), Victorville, CA (BNSF Cajon Subdivision, MP 36.8), Barstow, CA, (BNSF Cajon Subdivision, MP 0.55), Primm, NV (UPSP Cima Subdivision, MP 287.95), and Las Vegas, NV (UPRR Cima Subdivision, MP 334.3).

• Alternative A3 extends 275.1 miles between Riverside Station and Las Vegas Station. Like Alternative A1, it uses the Cajon Pass. Its three major segments are: Riverside to San Bernardino over the UPSP San Bernardino Subdivision; San Bernardino to Barstow on the BNSF Cajon Subdivision; and Barstow to Las Vegas via the BNSF Needles, UPSP Los Angles and Cima Subdivisions. Stations would be at: Riverside (UPSP San Bernardino Subdivision, MP 9.8), San Bernardino, CA (UPRR San Bernardino Subdivision, MP 0.0), Victorville, CA (BNSF Cajon Subdivision, MP 36.8), Barstow, CA, (BNSF Cajon Subdivision, MP 0.55), Primm, NV (UPRR Cima Subdivision, MP 287.95), and Las Vegas, NV (UPRR Cima Subdivision, MP 334.3). Alternative A3 is, in effect, a shorter version of Alternative C1; rail passengers from LAUPT and other western points in the Los Angeles Basin could make connections from SCCRA’s Metrolink trains to intercity trains at San Bernardino or Riverside.

• Alternative C1 extends 338 miles from Montclair to Las Vegas via LAUPT and Palmdale, crossing the Tehachapi Mountains via the Soledad Canyon. Its four major segments are: Montclair to LAUPT over SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision; LAUPT to Palmdale on SCRRA’s Valley Subdivision; Palmdale to Barstow via the UPSP Mojave Subdivision and the BNSF Mojave Subdivision; and Barstow to Las Vegas via the BNSF Needles, UPSP Los Angles and Cima Subdivisions. The stations assumed along Alternative C1 were: Montclair, CA (SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, MP 34.2), LAUPT (SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, MP 0.0), Santa Clarita, CA (SCRRA Valley Subdivision, MP 34.2), Palmdale, CA (UPRR Mojave Subdivision, MP 416.5), Mojave, CA (UPSP Mojave Subdivision, MP 380.7), Barstow, CA, (BNSF Cajon Subdivision, MP 0.55), Primm, NV (UPRR Cima

PAGE 70

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Subdivision, MP 287.95), and Las Vegas, NV (UPRR Cima Subdivision, MP 334.3). The present track configurations at LAUPT and Mojave, California, will require trains to ‘change ends’ at both of these points, so that the ‘head’ end of the train between LAUPT and Mojave would be the ‘trailing’ end over the rest of the route.

6.1 PASSENGER TRAIN EQUIPMENT OPTIONS

For consideration in this study, and for use in simulation modeling for both eastbound and westbound trains between the Los Angeles Basin and Las Vegas, three different passenger equipment options exist:

• A conventional train similar to present Amtrak intercity corridor services in California, consisting of two F59PHI locomotives (58:21 gear ratio), one at each end of a train of four bi-level ALSTOM ‘California’ cars (Surfliner) identical to those furnished to Caltrans in 2000-2001. The use of two locomotives is intended to provide better times over the long and steep grades over the mountains between Las Vegas and the Basin.

• A Talgo tilt train consisting of two F59PHI locomotives, one at each end of train, with ten Talgo TPUTM passenger coach and food service units. Between each of the two locomotives and the passenger units, an additional ‘transition unit’ would be placed, similar to the Talgo trains used in Amtrak’s Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest. Talgo’s ‘passive tilt’ mechanisms allow it to operate at higher speeds in curves than conventional equipment by allowing the coach body’s vertical axis some freedom to move relative to the perpendicular from the trackbed.

• A Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ consisting of two Bombardier/US FRA/Allied Signal 2000 TF-40 turbine locomotives, one at each end of train, with six Bombardier/ALSTOM Acela Express cars as delivered to Amtrak between 1999 and 2002. The ‘active tilt’ suspension in these trains, as implemented on the Northeast Corridor’s high-speed rail service between Boston and Washington, permits even higher speeds in some curves than Talgo’s passive-tilt technology. Equipment on the trains determines the train’s location and speed, and makes real-time determination of a level of tilt, which is actively managed by on-board equipment.

All three of these train technologies are already in service in the U.S., with the exception of the JetTrain’s locomotive, which has been prototyped and tested extensively in the U.S. and Canada.

PAGE 71

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

6.2 METHODOLOGY USED IN TRAIN PERFORMANCE CALCULATOR MODELING

The TPC module from RAILSIM Simulation Software Suite Version 7, developed by SYSTRA Consulting, Inc., was selected to estimate minimum travel times for intercity service between Los Angeles Basin and Las Vegas. The full RAILSIM software suite also includes signal design software, network capacity analysis tools, and a number of rolling stock libraries. For this task only the TPC module and rolling stock libraries containing the specific passenger train equipment required were used.

Like all TPCs, RAILSIM models the performance of trains over an alignment specified in terms of horizontal curvature, superelevation, grade, and maximum authorized speed (MAS). Acceleration and deceleration occur based on the specified train consist’s characteristics, such as mass, dimensions, tractive effort capability.

An optional feature allows the user to calculate safe curve speed limits above the MAS that might be operated by tilting train equipment, and to use those in lieu of the MAS. This was done for the two tilt-train technologies. For Talgo tilt trains, a maximum unbalanced superelevation (Eu) of five inches was permitted in calculating new speed limits on curves; for Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ the maximum Eu was set at nine inches.

Passenger station locations and required station stop times (‘dwell times’) can also be specified. Dwell times at intermediate stations were scheduled for two minutes, with the exception of Los Angles Union Passenger Terminal, where 8 minutes was provided for Alternative C3, and at Mojave for 6 minutes in Alternative C3. These additional times include train and engine crews ‘changing ends’ at these locations.

For the simulations described, alignment characteristics were coded from railroad track charts and information in the railroads’ employees’ timetables. Simulations based on these data yielded basic ’TPC times’, the shortest practical travel times between each alternative’s termini, making no allowance for variations in operator technique or equipment condition, passenger-related delays, or possible delays from other trains on the railroad segments.

For each type of train, a speed calculation run was also made to estimate the minimum time that could be achieved if trains were allowed to exceed the designated MAS where it would be safe for them to do so, up to the track class speed limit of 80 mph. This made it possible to estimate the time savings that could be achieved solely by using different types of train equipment.

In order to achieve reliable operation, timetables for passenger train service need to include provisions for both an operating margin (sometimes called a ‘pad’) and schedule recovery time to account for delays from route conditions, equipment problems, passenger delays, and other train traffic along their routes.

PAGE 72

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

OPERATING MARGIN

The operating margin is an allowance for the difference between the minimum ‘all-out’ TPC time and the time that would be required for most of the population of train and engine crews to move the specified consist between the two points in the absence of other train traffic. It is intended to allow for statistical variation in both operating technique and equipment performance among trains and crews in service. This allowance was estimated as:

0.5 0.5 Station-to-station operating margin (in minutes) = 0.0175 Ttpc + 0.14 Ttpc + 4.0(D-0.8)

Where Ttpc was the TPC time between stations as described above in minutes; and D was any station dwell time (in minutes) between arrival at the ‘upstream’ station and arrival at the ‘downstream’ station.

The estimated operating margin can be expressed as a fraction of the sum of the TPC time plus scheduled station dwell time. These values (6.0-6.2 percent) are within the range often assumed for North American passenger train operation (5- 10 percent depending on station stop frequency). FRA has used 7 percent as a benchmark for Amtrak services, which average about 40 miles between stops. The average station spacing for the Los Angeles-Las Vegas alternatives is somewhat longer, so a consistent margin should be somewhat less than 7 percent.

SCHEDULE RECOVERY TIME

In addition to allowing for variation in equipment-specific operating characteristics and differences in operating techniques among train and engine crews, timetable schedules usually include schedule recovery allowances to account for:

• Territory-specific conditions such as temporary slow orders for track maintenance or other activities; • Traffic-related delays from routing conflicts with freight trains, other intercity passenger trains, or commuter trains; and • Train-specific delays attributable to such things as equipment problems and crew scheduling.

Allowances for these factors are often made on a basis of time per unit distance traveled. According to Amtrak’s June 1995 Monthly Performance Report, both of the railroads (BNSF and UPRR) on the proposed route experienced relatively low levels of these delays in comparison to other routes used by Amtrak trains.

For the purposes of estimating timetable times, the following schedule recovery provisions were made for the existing infrastructure:

• For eastward departures from LAUPT, 3 minutes for delays in train readiness, passenger boarding, and other non-’host’ factors; • For other origin stations except LAUPT, 2 minutes for delays in train readiness, passenger boarding, and other non-’host’ factors; • Between LAUPT and San Bernardino via Metrolink San Gabriel Subdivision, 5 minutes of ‘host’ railroad delay per 100 miles; • Between San Bernardino and Las Vegas, via BNSF Cajon Subdivision and UPRR Cima Subdivision, 8.9 minutes of ‘host’ railroad delay per 100 miles traveled; • Between Riverside and San Bernardino via BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, 12.8 minutes of ‘host’ railroad delay per 100 miles; • Between LAUPT and Palmdale via Metrolink Valley Subdivision, 5 minutes of ‘host’ railroad delay per 100 miles;

PAGE 73

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Between Palmdale and Barstow via UPRR and BNSF Mojave Subdivisions, 12.8 minutes of ‘host’ railroad delay per 100 miles traveled; and • Over the entire route, three minutes of delay per 100 miles traveled for delays related to the train operator (e.g. Amtrak), including train-related mechanical failures, passenger-related delays (e.g. sickness and connections), and crew-related delays (e.g. late reporting)

6.3 INITIAL RESULTS

This section presents the results of the TPC and travel time analyses for the alternative routes without any improvements to the existing infrastructure.

TPC TRAVEL TIME

The ‘TPC travel time’ estimates come directly from the RAILSIM model. They represent the minimum achievable time over the road with the specific train consist, obeying all defined speed limits (i.e. the present MAS or speed limits in curves made possible by tilt-train equipment) and making all station stops, without considering any delays or unusual occurrences

ALTERNATIVE A1

Trains would require between 4 hours 56 minutes and 5 hours 20 minutes to make the trip from Los Angeles to Las Vegas in the eastbound direction, depending on the train equipment used. Because the elevation in Las Vegas is much higher than in Los Angeles, westbound trains are going downgrade more of the time. Therefore the same train traveling westward from Las Vegas saves 3-5 minutes for the whole trip compared to traveling eastward from Los Angeles. The Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ is the fastest of the three tested train compositions for both directions, and the conventional ‘California’ train is the slowest.

ALTERNATIVE A3

TPC times for eastward trains for Alternative A2 ranged from around 4 hours 15 minutes to 4 hours 35 minutes between Riverside and Las Vegas. Because Alternative A3 is basically a sub-route of alternative A1, the relative performance of all trains and directions of travel are the same as for Alternative A1.

ALTERNATIVE C1

Trains operating over Alternative C3 need approximately 6 hours 27 minutes to 6 hours 43 minutes to finish the trip from Montclair to Las Vegas in eastbound direction. Because of the elevation difference between the LA Basin and Las Vegas, the eastward trains are slower than those going west. Bombardier JetTrain is the fastest and the conventional ‘California’ train is the slowest of all three tested train compositions for both directions.

ALTERNATIVE A1 WITH A STATION STOP AT MONTCLAIR

Considering the anticipated travel demand from Ontario airport and its vicinity, we also tested the addition of Montclair as a station stop in route alternative A1. The TPC travel times ranged from 4 hours 48 minutes to 5 hours 25 minutes starting from Los Angles to Las Vegas, which are 3 minutes longer than standard A1 route. The westbound trains spend 3-5 minutes less than their counterparts traveling eastbound.

PAGE 74

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

VELOCITY PROFILES

Velocity profiles versus distance provide a way of visualizing the differences in performance among different trains operating on the same alignment, or of rail geometry or track class changes along the same alignment for similar trains. They show the speed estimated by the TPC versus the distance along the alignment; station stops can be identified as points where the speed is zero.

The figures in Appendix 6B show the estimated performance of the three tested train consists over each alternative in each direction. They make apparent the locations where the passive tilting capability of the Talgo and the active tilting capability of the JetTrain would be able to permit increased speeds over the existing track. The mileages shown are total track miles, and do not correspond directly to railroad mileposts. Areas where the improvement is most pronounced include (with approximate references to the ‘Eastbound’ charts in the Appendix):

• Cajon Pass, miles 70-90 for A1 and miles 25-45 for A3; • Afton Canyon, miles 175-185 for A1,130-140 for A3, and 240-250 for C1; • ‘Cima Hill’, miles 225-240 for A1 and 180-195 for A3, and 290-305 for C1. The differences here are related more to train power-to-weight ratios than to curve-handling ability. • Soledad Canyon, miles 65-105 for C1.

ESTIMATED TIMETABLE TIMES

This section presents the results of the timetable travel time estimates (including operating margin and schedule recovery) for the alternative routes without any improvements to the existing infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE A1

The Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ was the fastest of all three tested train consists for both eastbound and westbound travel between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Scheduled times of 6 hours 3 minutes eastbound and 5 hours 59 minutes westbound direction could be maintained reliably. The slowest of the trains tested (the conventional ‘California’ trains) would require 6 hours 26 minutes westbound and 6 hours 29 minutes eastbound. These times can be compared against the most recent scheduled time of Amtrak’s Desert Wind, which was 7 hours 15 minutes; the longer, heavier Amtrak long- distance trains required some additional time than even the ‘California’ consists.

ALTERNATIVE A3

The Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ was the fastest of all three tested trains for both directions between Riverside and Las Vegas. It would be scheduled at 5 hours 17 minutes from Riverside in the eastbound direction, and 5 hours 13 minutes westbound. The ‘California’ consist could achieve a 5 hour 38 minute schedule eastbound, and 5 hours 35 minutes westbound.

ALTERNATIVE C1

The Bombardier ‘JetTrain’ had the shortest schedule requirement of all three tested train consists along this route: 8 hours 6 minutes from Montclair in eastbound direction, 8 hours 1 minute from Las Vegas westbound. The ‘California’ consist could achieve an 8 hour 22 minute schedule eastbound and 8 hours 21 minutes westbound.

PAGE 75

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUMMARY COMPARISONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Table 6-1 summarizes the TPC travel time and estimated timetable times for Alternatives A1, A3, and C1 without any infrastructure improvements. The operation of the three different train consists was modeled in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The detailed station-to-station travel time information for both TPC times and estimated timetable times can be found in the Appendix.

Table 6-1 Summary of TPC and Estimated Timetable Times without Infrastructure Improvements

Estimated Timetable (with operating TPC time (Minimum) margin and schedule recovery)

Train Surfliner Talgo JetTrain Surfliner Talgo JetTrain A1 EB 5:22 5:06 4:56 6:29 6:12 6:03 A1 WB 5:19 4:59 4:53 6:26 6:05 5:59 A3 EB 4:35 4:21 4:15 5:38 5:22 5:17 A3 WB 4:33 4:15 4:11 5:35 5:17 5:13 C1 EB 6:43 6:32 6:27 8:22 8:11 8:06 C1 WB 6:42 6:34 6:22 8:21 8:14 8:01

Alternative C1 appears to be at a clear disadvantage in terms of overall travel time. Alternative A1 offers the shortest times. However, these results do differ somewhat when travelers’ specific origins in the LA Basin are taken into account. The table below shows estimated total travel times from various Metrolink stations in the Basin to Las Vegas under each alternative for the conventional ‘California’ trains. For stations that would not be served directly by Las Vegas trains, times are shown via Metrolink connections, assuming a 15-minute connection is provided between trains. On an average basis over three stations (Santa Clarita, LAUPT, and San Bernardino), times by A3 are about half an hour longer than by A1, with an additional 45 minutes required by C1. The differences are similar, but slightly smaller, for the Talgo and JetTrain technologies.

6.4 REFINED TRAIN PERFORMANCE CALCULATOR RESULTS

Alternative A1 was remodeled in TPC simulation, using the Low-Build and High-Build combinations of possible infrastructure improvements, to further assess the achievable timetable times with each option. Alternatives A3 and C1 were not remodeled.

The refined TPC results for Alternative A1 with both Low-Build and High-Build improvement options are shown in Table 6- 2 and Table 6-3 respectively.

PAGE 76

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 6-2 Alternative A1 Travel Times with Low-Build Improvements

Timetable Travel Times

Train Surfliner Talgo JetTrain A1 EB 6:00 5:46 5:27 A1 WB 5:57 5:33 5:27

Table 6-3 Alternative A1 Travel Times with High-Build Improvements

Timetable Travel Times

Train Surfliner Talgo JetTrain A1 EB 5:52 5:39 5:21 A1 WB 5:51 5:27 5:21

PAGE 77

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 7 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ROLLING STOCK COSTS

This section provides an overview of proposed rail improvement projects, by route alternative and railroad subdivision, needed to provide intercity rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and meet the performance standards as laid out in Section 3, Service Parameters.

7.1 APPROACH USED

In developing the rail improvement projects for each alternative, the Consultant Team used the following guidelines to focus on what should be proposed:

• Improvement projects should benefit both passenger and freight rail operations

• Improvement projects should (to the greatest extent possible) be located within the existing rail Right-of-Way (ROW)

Two ranges of improvement projects have been developed, a “Low-Build” option and a “High-Build” option. These two ranges will bookend what is achievable in terms of performance improvement and the costs of those improvements. These options will allow decision makers to assess the comparative cost-effectiveness of a particular project. These ranges are for comparative purposes – it is likely that a combination of low-build and high-build projects would be combined in a preferred alternative, should the project be advanced. Overall elements of the Low-Build and High-Build options are described in the following paragraphs.

Low-Build – This option would provide “spot” improvements in each subdivision, such as increasing the length of some sidings to accommodate longer freight trains and provide additional opportunities for train meets, changing the superelevation of some curves to allow for faster operating speeds, and, where appropriate, upgrading the track class from FRA Class 4 to Class 5, which could increase maximum allowable operating speeds (for passenger trains, from 80 mph to 90 mph, and for freight trains from 60 mph to 80 mph) to reduce travel time and improve operational efficiency. On some alternatives, additional main tracks would be provided to address capacity constraint issues.

High-Build – This option would incorporate all of the improvements suggested in the Low-Build option and generally provide full double-tracking of entire subdivisions at FRA Class 5 standard. On some alternatives, additional main tracks, beyond those proposed in the Low-Build option, would be constructed.

PAGE 78

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

7.2 PROPOSED RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND COSTS

The following subsections provide a detailed description of the rail improvement projects proposed for each alternative, by subdivision and milepost (MP), where applicable. Appendix 7 provides detailed unit costs for each subdivision.

ALTERNATIVE A1 – LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS VIA METROLINK SAN GABRIEL SUBDIVISION, BNSF CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative traverses three different subdivisions. The proposed projects for each, in Low-Build and High-Build ranges, are described on the following pages. Table 7-1 provides a summary of this alternative’s costs.

Metrolink San Gabriel Subdivision (Los Angeles to San Bernardino)

Low-Build:

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Double-track between the siding east of Montclair station and west of Pomona station (from CP Fulton – MP 30.8 to just east of CP Vista – approximately MP 34.1),

• Double-track from the siding east of Covina to the siding at approximately MP 20.5,

• An one-mile eastward extension of the siding from CP Locust (MP 10.7),

• A new siding from MP 6.9 to MP 7.6, and

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA Class 5:

o MP 7 to 11

o MP 37 to 41.

High-Build

High-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Double-tracking of San Gabriel Subdivision, from CP Marengo (MP 2.4) to San Bernardino (MP 81.50) and

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA class 5:

o MP 7 to 11

o MP 37 to 41.

PAGE 79

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

BNSF Cajon Subdivision (San Bernardino to Daggett)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Increase superelevation (Ea) to 5 inches on selected curves:

o DOC 5 at about MP 62,

o DOC 5 at MP 62, and

o DOC 5.83 at MP 37.3;

• Upgrade to FRA track class 5 from MP 7 to MP 30; and

• Extend 3rd Main track from Summit/Silverwood to Daggett. This track would be constructed to FRA Track Class 4 standard.

High-Build

The High-Build option in this subdivision would include all the projects in the Low-Build, to which would be added a 4th Main track throughout the subdivision. This track would be constructed to FRA Track Class 4 standard.

UPRR Cima Subdivision (Daggett to Las Vegas)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Increase Ea to 5 inches on selected curves:

o DOC 2.84 at MP 190.2,

o DOC 2 at MP 194.8,

o DOC 3 at about MP 194,

o DOC 6+ at MP 314.7,

o DOC 6+ at MP 315.6,

o DOC 5+ at MP 316.3,

o DOC 6+ at MP 319.5, and

o DOC 5.17 at MP 318.6;

• Construct “run-around” track at Yermo Yard, MP 160.5 to MP 164.5 – a single track of 4.5 miles;

PAGE 80

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Reconfigure Daggett interlocking to provide a #24 turnout for passenger train movement;

• Double-track over Cima Hill (MP 222 to MP 282);

• Extend sidings (to 3 mile length) at CP Dunn, CP Crucero, and CP Jean;

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA track class 5:

o MP 164 to MP 186,

o MP 197 to MP 244, and

o MP 255 to MP 308.

High-Build

High-Build projects in this subdivision would add the following projects to those in the Low-Build option:

• Full double-tracking of Cima subdivision (MP 158.8 to MP 334.3), 175.5 miles (though with existing and proposed new projects, this is a net increase of 135.5 miles of new double-track.

Table 7-1: Alternative A1 – Summary of Costs by Subdivision

Subdivision “Low”-Build Option “High-Build” Option Metrolink San Gabriel $ 158,500,000 $ 1,477,000,000 BNSF Cajon $ 777,500,000 $1,164,500,000 UPRR Cima $ 300,000,000 $830,500,000 Total Costs $1,093,350,000 $3,472,000,000 Cost Per Mile (321.8 miles) $3.4M $10.8M

PAGE 81

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE A3 – RIVERSIDE TO LAS VEGAS VIA BNSF SAN BERNARDINO SUBDIVISION, CAJON SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative traverses three different subdivisions. The proposed projects for each, in Low-Build and High-Build ranges, are described on the following pages. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the projects and their costs.

San Bernardino Subdivision (Riverside to San Bernardino)

Low-Build:

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Complete 3rd Main track from Riverside to San Bernardino, CP Highgrove (MP 6.1) to approximately CP 29 (MP 2.9) and

• Complete Rail-to-Rail flyover connecting UP Main lines over BNSF lines.

High-Build

High-Build projects in this subdivision would add to projects in the Low-Build option:

• Construct 4th Main track from Riverside to San Bernardino, CP Highgrove (MP 6.1) to approximately CP Rana (MP 2.2).

BNSF Cajon Subdivision (San Bernardino to Daggett)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Increase superelevation (Ea) to 5 inches on selected curves:

o DOC 5 at about MP 62,

o DOC 5 at MP 62, and

o DOC 5.83 at MP 37.3;

• Upgrade to track class 5 from MP 7 to MP 30; and

• Extend 3rd Main track from Summit/Silverwood to Daggett. (This track would be constructed to FRA Track Class 4 standard.)

PAGE 82

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

High-Build

The High-Build option in this subdivision would include the projects in the Low-Build, to which would be added a 4th Main track throughout the subdivision. This track would be constructed to FRA Track Class 4 standard.

UPRR Cima Subdivision (Daggett to Las Vegas)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Increase Ea to 5 inches on selected curves:

o DOC 2.84 at MP 190.2,

o DOC 2 at MP 194.8,

o DOC 3 at about MP 194,

o DOC 6+ at MP 314.7,

o DOC 6+ at MP 315.6,

o DOC 5+ at MP 316.3,

o DOC 6+ at MP 319.5, and

o DOC 5.17 at MP 318.6;

• Construct “run-around” track at Yermo Yard, MP 160.5 to MP 164.5 – a single track of 4.5 miles;

• Reconfigure Daggett interlocking to provide a #24 turnout for passenger train movement;

• Double-track over Cima Hill (MP 222 to MP 282);

• Extend sidings (to 3 mile length) at CP Dunn, CP Crucero, and CP Jean;

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA track class 5:

o MP 164 to MP 186,

o MP 197 to MP 244, and

o MP 255 to MP 308.

PAGE 83

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

High-Build

High-Build projects in this subdivision would add the following projects to those in the Low-Build option:

• Full double-tracking of Cima subdivision (MP 158.8 to MP 334.3), 175.5 miles – with existing and proposed new projects, this is a net increase of 135.5 miles of new double-track.

Table 7-2: Alternative A3 – Summary of Costs by Subdivision

Subdivision “Low”-Build Option “High-Build” Option BNSF San Bernardino $ 239,000,000 $ 551,000,000 BNSF Cajon $ 777,500,000 $1,164,500,000 UPRR Cima $ 300,000,000 $830,500,000 Total Costs $1,316,500,000 $2,546,000,000 Costs per Mile (275.1 miles) $4.7M $9.3M

PAGE 84

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE C1 – LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS VIA METROLINK VALLEY SUBDIVISION, UPRR MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, BNSF MOJAVE SUBDIVISION, UPRR CIMA SUBDIVISION

This alternative traverses four different subdivisions. The proposed projects for each, in Low-Build and High-Build ranges, are described on the following pages. Table 7-3 provides a summary of the projects and their costs.

Metrolink Valley Subdivision (Los Angeles to Lancaster)

Low-Build:

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Double-track between MP 39.85 and CP Lang (about MP 43.3);

• Extend the existing siding southward from MP 23.6 to near the Sylmar Metrolink station (about MP 22.1);

• Double-track between MP 32.77 and MP 27.95;

• Upgrade to the following sections of track to FRA track class 5:

o MP 5 to MP 9, and

o MP 68 to MP 73.

High-Build

In addition to the projects in the Low-Build option, High-Build projects in this subdivision would add the following:

• Double-tracking from CP Brighton (MP 12.78) to MP 27.95 and

• Extend existing siding at CP Lang from MP 41.6 to MP 44.8.

UPRR Mojave Subdivision (Lancaster to Mojave)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Extend north end of existing siding at CP Oban from MP 399.27 to MP 387.7 and

• Upgrade to FRA track class 5 MP 401 to MP 387.7.

PAGE 85

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

High-Build

In addition to the Low-Build projects identified, the High-Build option in this subdivision would include:

• Double-tracking (at FRA track class 5) from N. Lancaster (MP 404.2 to MP 401 to form continuous double- tracking to MP 398.27 and

• Extend the north end of Ansel siding from MP 399.27 to MP 387.7.

BNSF Mojave Subdivision (Mojave to Daggett)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Extend existing siding at CP Edwards (MP 797.1) from 8,007 feet to 17,000 feet;

• Extend existing siding at CP Jim Grey (MP 772.9) from 8,034 feet to 17,000 feet;

• Add new “Y” track to connect UPRR Mojave Subdivision with BNSF Mojave Subdivision (assume this extends 5,270 feet between MP 813.7 and MP 380.0 on the UPRR) a simple circular curve with DOC 2.69 and 1.5 inches of Ea;

• Add 2nd Main track from east end of “Y”(MP 813.7) to MP 809 (present west end of siding at CP Sanborn); and

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA track class 5:

o MP 788 to MP 796,

o MP 775 to MP 780, and

o MP 752 to 757.

High-Build

The High-Build option in this subdivision would include the projects in the Low-Build, to which would be added:

• Double-tracking from CP Silt (MP 788.76) to MP 781,

• Double-tracking from extended siding at CM Jim Grey to MP 766,

• Double-tracking between sidings at CP Sanborn and CP Bissell (MP 809.17 to MP 804.42), and

• Extend existing siding at CP Hinckley to the east from MP 756.3 to MP 755.15.

PAGE 86

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

UPRR Cima Subdivision (Daggett to Las Vegas)

Low-Build

Low-Build projects in this subdivision include:

• Increase Ea to 5 inches on selected curves:

o DOC 2.84 at MP 190.2,

o DOC 2 at MP 194.8,

o DOC 3 at about MP 194,

o DOC 6+ at MP 314.7,

o DOC 6+ at MP 315.6,

o DOC 5+ at MP 316.3,

o DOC 6+ at MP 319.5, and

o and DOC 5.17 at MP 318.6;

• Construct “run-around” track at Yermo Yard, MP 160.5 to MP 164.5 – a single track of 4.5 miles;

• Reconfigure Daggett interlocking to provide a #24 turnout for passenger train movement;

• Double-track over Cima Hill (MP 222 to MP 282);

• Extend sidings (to 3 mile length) at CP Dunn, CP Crucero, and CP Jean;

• Upgrade the following sections of track to FRA track class 5:

o MP 164 to MP 186,

o MP 197 to MP 244, and

o MP 255 to MP 308.

High-Build

High-Build projects in this subdivision would add the following projects to those in the Low-Build option:

• Full double-tracking of Cima subdivision (MP 158.8 to MP 334.3), 175.5 miles; with existing and proposed new projects this is a net increase of 135.5 miles of new double-track.

PAGE 87

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 7-3: Alternative C1 – Summary of Costs by Subdivision

Subdivision “Low”-Build Option “High-Build” Option Metrolink Valley $127,500,000 $ 621,500,000 UPRR Mojave $ 7,500,000 $ 29,000,000 BNSF Mojave $ 54,500,000 $ 146,000,000 UPRR Cima $ 300,000,000 $830,500,000 Total Costs $489,500,000 $1,327,000,000 Costs per Mile (338 miles) $1.5M $4M

7.3 STATION IMPROVEMENT COSTS

Additional capital costs would be required for station improvements at each stop on the route. These costs would provide for:

• New platforms and/or platform extensions, as necessary,

• Additional parking,

• Ticket vending machines and electronic messaging signs, and

• General station improvements, as required.

For planning purposes, it is assumed that terminal stations would be located at Las Vegas, and either Los Angeles or Riverside. There is currently no terminal in Las Vegas. It is estimated that a facility there would likely cost approximately $8M, which would include the cost of land acquisition, platforms and trackwork, and terminal building. For Los Angeles or Riverside, $4M would be adequate to make necessary improvements to platforms, parking, and station improvements.

For intermediate stations, a cost of $4M is assumed for new stations, and $2M for improvements to existing stations. Intermediate stations include:

• Montclair (Alternatives A1, C1) – existing station,

• San Bernardino (Alternatives A1, A3) – existing station,

• Victorville (Alternatives A1, A3) – existing station,

• Barstow (Alternatives A1, A3, C1) – existing station,

• Primm (Alternatives A1, A3, C1) – new station,

• Santa Clarita (Alternative C1) – existing station, and

• Palmdale (Alternative C1) – existing station.

The placeholder costs for station improvements assumed in this phase are order-of-magnitude only. Refined costs would be developed in a future phase of the project.

PAGE 88

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

7.4 ROLLING STOCK REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS

As described in Section 6.1, there are three options for rail rolling stock, locomotives and passenger cars:

• Surfliner-type equipment,

• Talgo, and

• JetTrain

A maximum of five trainsets will be needed to provide service during peak periods. In addition to the equipment needed for regular operations, an appropriate level of spare equipment will be required for maintenance purposes. This would represent one additional trainset of passenger cars and two locomotives.

Table 7-4 provides the costs for each of the train equipment types.

Table 7-4 Rolling Stock Costs

Units Train Technology Cost per Unit Required Total cost Surfliner F59 PHI Locomotives $4,300,000 12 $51,600,000 Surfliner cars $3,000,000 24 $72,000,000 Total Surfliner $123,600,000

Talgo F59 PHI Locomotives $4,300,000 12 $51,600,000

Talgo cars $2,000,000 60 $120,000,000 Total Talgo $171,600,000

JetTrain JetTrain $5,000,000 12 $60,000,000

Acela cars $3,500,000 36 $126,000,000 Total JetTrain $186,000,000

PAGE 89

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

7.5 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Table 7-5 provides a comparison of each alternative’s Low-Build and High-Build costs, as well as a breakdown of improvement costs per track mile, and the costs for station improvements.

Table 7-5 Summary Comparison of Costs by Alternative

PAGE 90

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 7-1 Comparison of Travel Time Reduction by Level of Improvement

Comparison of Schedule Times

7.5

7.0

6.5 $1.09B $3.5B

6.0

5.5 Schedule Hours, Las Vegas to LAUPT via A1 via LAUPT to Vegas Las Hours, Schedule

5.0 Unimproved Low Improvements High Improvements

Amtrak 1997 Surfliner Talgo JetTrain

Figure 7-1 provides a visual representation of the schedule time difference between the previous Desert Wind service and the proposed service, as well as the magnitude of travel time reduction possible through implementation of all the projects contained in the “Low-Build” and “High-Build levels of rail improvement. As can be seen from the difference in costs, there is a declining marginal return in terms of travel time reduced. However, the addition of the High-Build level of projects would add a significant amount of additional track capacity.

PAGE 91

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 8 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECAST

This section describes the methodology and results of the ridership and revenue forecasting analysis for the proposed intercity rail service between Los Angeles, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. The ridership and revenue forecasts were created based on travel demand models previously developed by AECOM Consult for use in California and applied throughout the country. The model is based on data collected through the local entities within the corridor, supplemented by data from national sources where required. The data includes socio-economic data and projected growth, base and future travel volumes within the corridor, and travel service characteristics through the corridor.

This section also describes the corridor study area, socioeconomic data and forecasts, travel market analysis and estimates, the travel demand model, key assumptions and inputs to the model, a summary of ridership and revenue estimates for future scenarios, and a series of sensitivity analyses.

8.1 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA

The Southern California – Las Vegas corridor, stretching approximately 270 miles between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, is comprised of the following census-defined metropolitan statistical areas:

• Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada;

• Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, California;

• Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, California;

• Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California;

• San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, California; and

• Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, California.

Currently, the corridor is served by highway (primarily via Interstate 15), direct air service between multiple Southern California airports and Las Vegas, and intercity bus.

For the purposes of the analysis, a common geographic zone system was developed for the study area. This zone system defines the level of geographic detail at which the forecasting process was applied. Socio-economic data, travel market data, and network/service characteristics were all defined for this zone system.

A total of twenty four (24) zones were defined. In California, the zones are based on a combination of county boundaries, aggregation of 2000 census tracts, and key urban areas within the corridor. The key urban areas include important cities and central business districts along the proposed rail corridor. In Nevada (Clark County is the only county represented), the zones are based on a combination of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada’s transportation analysis zones (TAZs) and county boundaries. The map in Figure 8-1 provides an overview of the zone system, color coded by county.

PAGE 92

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 8-1: Study Area Zones by County

8 5 24 4 21 20 6 23 19 16 18 17 7 11

13 15 12 10

Legend

Clark, NV Orange, CA San Diego, CA Kern, CA Riverside, CA Santa Barbara, CA Los Angeles, CA San Bernardino, CA Ventura, CA Outside Study Corridor

8.2 TRAVEL MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH

The analysis and prediction of future travel demand begins with quantifying existing travel by mode, geography, and other key dimensions. Current person travel volumes within the corridor were estimated using existing available sources; no new travel surveys were conducted. The key sources and the corresponding methods used to develop the existing travel market estimates are described below.

EXISTING PERSON TRIPS

Estimated existing person travel volumes were developed from two sources:

• 2004 visitor survey conducted by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and

• 1995 American Travel Survey (ATS).

The 2004 visitor survey provides an estimate of the total number of visitors, arriving by auto and air, to Las Vegas originating from Southern California. The data provides estimated person trips originating from each of the Southern California counties represented in the study area, and was allocated to the study area zone system. In counties represented by more than one study area zone, the person trips were allocated to study area zone based on population.

PAGE 93

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

For example, according to the 2004 survey there were approximately 4.2 million one way trips originating in Los Angeles County and ending in Las Vegas. The trips were allocated to study area zones on the Los Angeles County end according to the following table. Since the trips in the survey are one-way trips, they were multiplied by two to account for total travel in both directions (under the assumption that all visitors return to Los Angeles).

Table 8-2: Allocation of 2004 Las Vegas Visitor Trips originating in Los Angeles County

LA County 2004 % of County's Total 2004 Visitor Zone Population Population Trips (Two-Way) 10 108,467 1% 91,487 16 4,450,750 45% 3,754,030 17 668,903 7% 564,193 18 4,176,871 42% 3,523,024 19 68,833 1% 58,058 20 125,845 1% 106,145 21 323,741 3% 273,063 Total 9,923,409 100% 8,370,000

Similarly, these trips were allocated to the three zones in Clark County based on population of the Clark County study area zones. About 95 percent of all trips to Las Vegas from Southern California were allocated to the Las Vegas metro zone (See Zone #2 – see map in Figure 8-1).

All trips in the 2004 survey were allocated to the study area zone system using this methodology. The result was a person trip table, allocated to the study area zone system, corresponding to 2004 visitors from Southern California to Las Vegas.

The data from the 2004 survey represent a portion of the total travel market, they do not account for travelers originating in Las Vegas traveling to Southern California, and they do not account for business travel in the corridor. In order to account for these remaining trips, data from the 1995 American Travel Survey was used.

The ATS provides an estimate of total travel between markets 100 miles or longer in 1995. The data was used to estimate total trips for the following three markets:

• Non business trips to Southern California originating in Las Vegas,

• Business trips to Southern California originating in Las Vegas, and

• Business trips to Las Vegas originating in Southern California.

The ATS provides one way person trips by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) pair, by direction. Using the same methodology used to allocate the visitor survey, the ATS trips were allocated to the study area zone system.

Since the ATS trips represent 1995 activity, socio-economic growth factors were used to “grow” the trips to 2004 in order to match the trips from the 2004 Las Vegas visitor survey. The growth factors are a function of population and employment growth by study area zone pair between 1995 and 2004 (the socio-economic data and forecasts used are described in more detail in the “Market Growth” section of this report).

PAGE 94

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The result of the two sources is an estimated 2004 trip table by study area zone for business and non-business trips between Southern California and Las Vegas. Table 8-3 summarizes the estimated 2004 person trips between Clark County and Southern California by purpose.

Table 8-3: Estimated 2004 Person Trips between Clark County (Las Vegas) and Southern California

Estimated 2004 Person Trips between Clark County (Las Vegas) and Southern California Southern California Business Non Business Total Trip End: Los Angeles County 1,852,227 9,468,606 11,320,832 Orange County 574,301 2,841,135 3,415,436 San Diego County 2,650,966 2,792,778 5,443,744 Ventura County 63,667 835,629 899,296 Santa Barbara County 0 335,609 335,609 Riverside County 389,233 2,060,305 2,449,537 San Bernardino County 129,975 2,028,485 2,158,460 Kern County 0 468,716 468,716 Total 5,660,368 20,831,262 26,491,630 * Based on data provided by Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and the 1995 American Travel Survey

TRIPS BY MODE

There are three primary modes of travel between Southern California and Las Vegas: private automobile, air, and bus. Since the distance between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is relatively short, about 270 miles, automobile is the primary mode used.

McCarran International Airport provided average passenger per day data for travelers traveling from Las Vegas to airports in Southern California during the 3rd quarter of 2005. Table 8-4 summarizes the data. Assuming that the 3rd quarter is representative of the whole year, the passenger per day values were multiplied by 365 to calculate average annual passengers. Also, assuming that traffic is similar in the opposite direction (Southern California to Las Vegas), the values were multiplied by two to show the estimated annual air trips in both directions between Las Vegas and Southern California in 2005.

PAGE 95

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 8-4: Estimated 2005 Air Passengers between Las Vegas and Southern California

Estimated 2005 Air Passengers between Las Vegas and Southern California Estimated 2005 Estimated 2005 Destination Average Daily Origin Airport Annual Trips Trips (both Airport Pa sse nge rs (one-way) directions)

Las Vegas Los Angeles 2,018 736,497 1,472,994 Las Vegas San Diego 1,311 478,333 956,665 Las Vegas Burbank 1,139 415,699 831,397 Las Vegas Orange County 766 279,444 558,888 Las Vegas Ontario 652 237,834 475,668 Las Vegas Long Beach 320 116,910 233,819 Las Vegas Palm Springs 19 6,862 13,724 Total 6,224 2,271,578 4,543,155 Source: McCarran International Airport

Comparing the air passenger estimates (4,543,155 annual trips) with the total trip estimate (26,491,630 annual trips) yields an approximate 17percent air share in the Las Vegas/Southern California market.

According to data provided by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, approximately 8percent of visitors to Las Vegas in 2004 arrived by bus. For the purposes of this study, the bus market was not included in the analysis. There are two major reasons the bus market was ignored.

• A significant portion of bus traffic to Las Vegas is via tour buses, rather than intercity bus. The tour bus market is a unique market which is not likely to switch to rail.

• In the past, Greyhound has been unwilling to provide their bus passenger origin/destination data. Without actual bus passenger data from Greyhound, it’s difficult to estimate the bus market in the study area.

PAGE 96

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRIPS BY DAY OF WEEK

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority provided a distribution of visitor travel to Las Vegas by day of week. This distribution was used to allocate the total trip table into a trip table by day of week for non-business travel. For business travel, 90 percent of business trips were assumed to be completed during the week, with the remaining 10 percent spread over the weekend. Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 present the allocation of trips by day of week and the resulting trip table.

Table 8-5: Allocation of Trips by Day of Week

Allocation of Trips by Day of Week Busine ss Non Busine ss * Monday 18% 12% Tuesday 18% 8% Wednesday 18% 15% Thursday 18% 15% Friday 18% 25% Saturday 5% 10% Sunday 5% 15% Total 100% 100% * Provided by Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority

Table 8-6: Estimated 2004 Person Trips between Clark County (Las Vegas) and Southern California by Day of Week

Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday Total Thursday Los Angeles County 6,067,906 2,700,552 1,039,472 1,512,902 11,320,832 Orange County 1,834,064 813,658 312,829 454,885 3,415,436 San Diego County 3,305,084 1,175,368 411,826 551,465 5,443,744 Ventura County 463,655 220,367 86,746 128,528 899,296 Santa Barbara County 167,804 83,902 33,561 50,341 335,609 Riverside County 1,310,400 585,138 225,492 328,507 2,449,537 San Bernardino County 1,107,825 530,517 209,347 310,771 2,158,460 Kern County 234,358 117,179 46,872 70,307 468,716 Total 14,491,096 6,226,682 2,366,145 3,407,708 26,491,630

PAGE 97

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

MARKET GROWTH

Socio-economic data and forecasts were used to estimate market growth. The key indicators used in this study include:

• Population,

• Total Employment, and

• Per Capita Income.

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) provided population and employment data and forecasts for the Las Vegas metro area. Economy.com, a national vendor of socio-economic data and forecasts, provided population and employment data for the portion of Southern California included in the study area, population and employment data for the portion of Clark County not covered by the RTC data, and per capita income for the entire corridor.

The data provided by Economy.com is county level and was allocated to the study area zone system based on 2000 Census tract data. The data provided by the RTC is represented by one complete zone in the study area zone system; all RTC data and forecasts were allocated to that zone (Zone #2 – see map in Figure 8-1).

Socio-economic forecasts were prepared for 2010, the forecast year of the analysis. Table 8-7 provides a summary of the socio-economic data and forecasts for the zone system.

Table 8-7: 2004 and 2010 Population and Employment by Zone

Population Employment Avg. Avg. 2004 2010 Annual 2004 2010 Annual Zone Description Growth Growth 1 Clark County - North 23,212 30,659 5% 10,664 14,263 5% 2 Clark County - Las Vegas 1,640,842 2,167,273 5% 769,119 1,028,649 5% 3 Clark County - South 69,621 91,957 5% 31,992 42,788 5% 4 San Bernadino County - East 407,791 464,958 2% 125,548 139,939 2% 5 San Bernadino County - Barstow 36,646 41,784 2% 11,282 12,576 2% 6 San Bernadino County - Victorville 115,645 131,857 2% 35,604 39,685 2% 7 San Bernadino County - San Bernardino 290,580 331,316 2% 89,462 99,716 2% 8 San Bernadino County - West 819,792 934,717 2% 252,392 281,323 2% 9 San Bernadino County - Montclair 247,907 282,660 2% 76,324 85,073 2% 10 Los Angeles County - Montclair 108,467 114,277 1% 43,636 45,745 1% 11 Riverside County - Riverside 230,151 281,089 3% 68,833 82,179 3% 12 Riverside County - West 1,607,706 1,963,535 3% 480,830 574,054 3% 13 Riverside County - East 31,394 38,343 3% 9,389 11,210 3% 14 San Diego County 2,927,487 3,208,757 2% 1,258,599 1,385,834 2% 15 Orange County 2,983,283 3,203,295 1% 1,459,949 1,599,630 2% 16 Los Angeles County - East 4,450,750 4,689,188 1% 1,790,544 1,877,075 1% 17 Los Angeles County - Downtown 668,903 704,738 1% 269,101 282,106 1% 18 Los Angeles County - West 4,176,871 4,400,637 1% 1,680,362 1,761,568 1% 19 Los Angeles County - Santa Clarita 68,833 72,520 1% 27,692 29,030 1% 20 Los Angeles County - Palmdale 125,845 132,587 1% 50,628 53,074 1% 21 Los Angeles County - North 323,741 341,085 1% 130,242 136,536 1% 22 Kern County 733,786 807,484 2% 210,694 229,628 1% 23 Ventura County 796,549 863,879 1% 285,044 307,048 1% 24 Santa Barbara County 401,272 428,546 1% 168,840 185,044 2%

PAGE 98

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Travel Demand Model and Inputs

The travel demand modeling approach used in this study is based on a model system developed by AECOM Consult and used in many previous applications to evaluate proposed high-speed rail and intercity rail services for several states and Amtrak throughout the country. The travel demand model was originally developed from extensive market research and observed travel volumes and service characteristics by mode, conducted/assembled in study corridor markets in California12 and other regions. For application in this study area, data describing travel within the Southern California – Las Vegas corridor was used, including existing person trips by mode and purpose, and population/employment market growth, as described above.

Model Structure

The travel demand forecasting approach utilizes a two-stage model system. The first stage forecasts the growth in the total number of person trips in each market and the second stage predicts the market share of each available mode in each market. Both stages are dependent on the service characteristics of each mode and the demographic characteristics of the corridor population. The key markets addressed in the forecasting model system are defined by geographical location (i.e., origin-destination zone pair) and trip purpose (i.e., business or non-business).

The first stage addresses the growth in the total intercity person travel volumes. This includes “natural” growth and “induced” demand. The “natural” growth component is measured by the growth in population and total non-farm employment. The “induced” component is captured by including a measure of the composite level of modal service, represented by the sum of the exponentiated utilities of all available modes as expressed in the mode share model, within the total travel model.

The second stage of the model is the mode share component, which estimates the share of total person travel by mode. Three different modes of travel are considered in this corridor: auto, rail, and air. The key variables in the mode share model include:

• Line haul travel time for all modes,

• Access/egress time for rail and air,

• Travel cost or fare,

• Frequency of service for rail and air,

• Income differences to account for differences in value of time, and

• Mode specific constants reflecting all differences between modes which are not accounted for in the other independent variables.

A number of different functional forms of travel characteristics were developed for the model, including:

• Damped frequency of rail and air,

12 Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, Ridership and Revenue Forecasts in Support of the Amtrak Cascades Plan for Washington State 2003-2023 Update (July 2003); California intercity passenger rail forecasting in the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol, and San Joaquin corridors for Amtrak and California (1996-date); Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) and other corridor studies for North Carolina and adjacent states in the southeast (1997-date)

PAGE 99

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• A non-linear transformation of travel time and cost, and

• Time-of-day weighting.

“Damped” frequency refers to the incrementally smaller benefit of an additional frequency. For example, one additional frequency when the base is only one frequency has a much larger contribution than one additional frequency on a base of ten frequencies.

The model includes a number of different non-linear, distance based transformations of travel time and cost. The transformations help counter the trip length scaling of time and cost elasticities in the model. For example, a simple linear representation of time and cost would yield elasticities that are perfectly correlated with distance, i.e., a 200-mile trip will have twice the sensitivity to time and cost as compared to a 100-mile trip. With a non-linear representation, time and cost elasticities increase at a decreasing rate as the trip length increases.

In addition to total time, access, egress, and terminal time were included in a second variable to account for the added valuation of this time to travelers. Most intercity choice models exhibit greater sensitivity to access and terminal times than to line haul times. This sensitivity has distinct variations as follows:

• As access/egress and terminal times increase, the disutility increases at an increasing rate and

• As overall trip length increases, access/egress and terminal time disutility decreases.

Total market-to-market frequencies were scaled based on arrival and departure times of each train serving the market. These scaling factors are based on the observed performance of trains in different departure/arrival time slots within rail corridors throughout the U.S.

A train’s utility and market share is determined by the combination of arrival and departure factors along with the time to the previous and subsequent trains, travel time, cost, and access/egress times.

Networks and Service Characteristics

Service characteristics are the key independent variable for the mode choice modeling process. The model in this study uses the following characteristics:

• Travel time (minutes),

• Travel cost (dollars),

• Frequency (departures per day), and

• Time of day of service.

Auto travel characteristics were developed using an intercity highway network including interstate highways, primary arterials, and other highway facilities connecting all zones in the corridor to all other zones, rail stations, and airports. The intercity highway network is based on the Oak Ridge Laboratory’s exiting national highway network and was provided via the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2005 National Transportation Atlas Database. Speeds were assigned based on facility class and location. Highway facilities located within the immediate Los Angeles and Las Vegas metro areas were assigned slower speeds to account for congestion inherent to the urban areas. In order to estimate future congestion, the urban highway facilities were slowed down in the 2010 future highway network by 20 percent, while the non-urban facilities had the same speed in both the base and future networks.

P A G E 100

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Auto zone-to-zone travel times and distances were obtained from the highway network using ARC View’s Network Analyst extension which builds minimum time paths between all the zones in the study area. Auto operating costs were then computed by applying the following average costs per mile to the zone-to-zone distance:

• $0.405 per mile for business travel

• $0.15 for non-business travel

The former represents a fully allocated cost, including fixed costs reflected in typical business travel reimbursement policies, while the latter reflects only incremental out-of-pocket costs. These values, expressed in 2006 dollars are consistent with those used in recent studies by AECOM Consult referenced above. The $0.405 per mile rate represents the 2005 reimbursement rate used by the IRS.

Table 8-8 and Table 8-9 below summarize the estimated highway travel time, average speed, and cost for a few key Southern California – Las Vegas markets for the base (2004) and forecast (2010) years.

Table 8-8: Estimated Auto Times and Costs - Base Year 2004

Distance Travel Time Avg. Speed Travel Cost (2006 $) Market (miles) (minutes) (mph) Business Non-Business Los Angeles - Las Vegas 301 295 61 $121.90 $45.15 Anaheim - Las Vegas 304 300 61 $123.22 $45.64 Riverside - Las Vegas 268 257 63 $108.69 $40.26 San Bernardino - Las Vegas 257 242 64 $104.22 $38.60

Table 8-9: Estimated Auto Times and Costs – Forecast Year 2010

Distance Travel Time Avg. Speed Travel Cost (2006 $) Market (miles) (minutes) (mph) Business Non-Business Los Angeles - Las Vegas 301 324 56 $121.90 $45.15 Anaheim - Las Vegas 304 330 55 $123.22 $45.64 Riverside - Las Vegas 268 276 58 $108.69 $40.26 San Bernardino - Las Vegas 257 258 60 $104.22 $38.60

Travel characteristics for air and proposed intercity rail were prepared based on published timetables and the highway network. The key characteristics include line haul time, frequency of service, fares, terminal times, and access/egress times and costs. McCarran International Airport provided 2005 flight operation data which provided the basis for calculating the air line haul time, frequency, and fare for service between Las Vegas and Southern California. For the purposes of analysis, the same air service characteristics were assumed in the base and forecast years.

Proposed future rail timetables for the rail alternatives (there is no intercity rail service in the corridor in the base year) were developed based on travel times provided by IBI Group through a set of train performance calculator (TPC) runs, and a conceptual operating plan provided by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. Future fares in the corridor were developed based on a 2003 study AECOM Consult performed in the corridor for Amtrak. Amtrak, like many other transportation providers, uses dynamic pricing to maximize its revenues. Essentially, this means that a ticket purchased significantly in advance of the travel date will be less expensive than one purchased immediately prior to the travel date. This variable pricing structure also allows for discounting to attract additional riders in off-peak periods.

P A G E 101

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Another factor in developing the model was the access/egress times and costs for rail and air including:

• Time/cost traveling from the origin zone to the boarding rail station/airport,

• Time/cost spent at the station/airport including waiting times, boarding times and parking costs, and

• Time/cost traveling from the arrival rail station/airport to the destination zone.

Access/egress time and cost for travel between zones and stations/airports were developed using the same network procedure and cost per mile rates used for the auto zone-to-zone travel characteristics.

Model Calibration

The mode choice model was calibrated to match 1994 ridership data from Amtrak’s Desert Wind. This service was chosen for the calibration because it is the most recent daily rail service providing service in the Los Angeles – Las Vegas corridor. Though the Desert Wind continued running until 1997, after 1994 it only ran three days a week. For the purposes of calibrating a model designed to analyze corridor service, it is more appropriate to calibrate to a daily train, rather than a train running three times a week, as trains running less than daily frequencies provide limited corridor service.

The 1994 Desert Wind was a daily long distance train running between Chicago and Los Angeles, making the following stops in the Las Vegas – Los Angeles corridor:

• Las Vegas, Nevada,

• Barstow, California,

• Victorville, California,

• San Bernardino, California,

• Fullerton, California, and

• Los Angeles, California.

Since it was a long distance train, the Desert Wind was not designed to optimally serve to the Los Angeles – Las Vegas corridor.

• The train only provided one daily round trip.

• The average travel time in the corridor was about seven hours since the timetable included extra pad to improve the reliability of the train over longer distances.

• The train was not scheduled to arrive/depart the end point markets at optimal times of day.

The model forecasts reflect all the improvements the proposed alternatives offer compared to the calibrated Desert Wind, including improved travel time, increased frequency, improved scheduling by time of day, and also the benefit of travel market growth between 1994 and the 2010 forecast year.

P A G E 102

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The calibration process involved running the model using the appropriate time and cost characteristics of the 1994 Desert Wind and the appropriate socio-economic data for the calibration year (1994). The travel times of the Desert Wind were provided through an Amtrak timetable, and the fares were provided though actual 1994 ridership and revenue data of the Desert Wind. The mode specific constants for intercity rail were then adjusted so that the model output corresponded to the actual observed ridership.

The model was calibrated to exactly match total 1994 ridership between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, and ridership by distance across three distance categories:

1. Trips shorter than 150 miles,

2. Trips between 150 and 250 miles, and

3. Trips longer than 250 miles.

In addition to actual rail ridership, the model was calibrated to match actual air passenger ridership in the corridor. The model was run using the actual air characteristics of the corridor and then the mode specific constants for air were adjusted so that the model output corresponded to the actual 2005 air passenger data provided by McCarran International Airport.

Rail Service Alternatives

Ridership and revenue forecasts were prepared for three proposed future intercity rail scenarios connecting Southern California and Las Vegas. Each alternative was analyzed based on the same frequency, fare, and train technology assumptions. The frequency of service differs by direction and day of week according to the following table.

Table 8-10 – Conceptual Schedule of Service Frequencies by Direction and Day of Week

Origin Destination Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat. Los Angeles Las Vegas 4 3 3 3 3 5 3 Las Vegas Los Angeles 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 Total 9 6 6 6 6 9 6

The fare structure for the proposed alternatives would use four different price points, with the fares being dynamically managed. For the purposes of modeling, an average fare between Las Vegas and Los Angeles of $58 was used. The fares for intermediate stations were scaled down based on distance.

The travel times for each alternative are based on Talgo tilt train technology. The travel times between stations were developed by IBI Group using a series of train performance calculator (TPC) runs. The unimpeded travel times were increased (“padded”) by about 20 percent to add schedule reliability.

P A G E 103

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

8.3 REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES

The following paragraphs summarize the three alternatives, and the average one-way travel time used for the ridership forecasting.

Alternative A1

For ridership forecasting, the travel time between Los Angeles and Las Vegas using Talgo tilt technology was assumed to be 5 hours and 30 minutes (5:30). Figure 8-2 shows the alignment and station stops for this alternative.

Figure 8-2: Alternative A1 Alignment and Stations

Las Vegas

Primm

Barstow

Victorville

Montclair San Bernardino Los Angeles

P A G E 104

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Alternative A3

Alternative A3 uses Riverside instead of downtown Los Angeles as its Southern California endpoint.

For ridership forecasting, the travel time between Riverside and Las Vegas using Talgo tilt technology was assumed to be 4 hours and 50 minutes (4:50). Figure 8-3 shows the alignment and station stops for this alternative.

Figure 8-3: Alternative A3 Alignment and Stations

Las Vegas

Primm

Barstow

Victorville

San Bernardino

Riverside

P A G E 105

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Alternative C1

Alternative C1 provides service to Montclair, downtown Los Angeles and northern Los Angeles County enroute to Las Vegas.

For ridership forecasting, the travel time between Montclair and Las Vegas using Talgo tilt technology was assumed to be 7 hours and 31 minutes (7:31). Figure 8-4 shows the alignment and station stops for this alternative.

Figure 8-4: Alternative C1 Alignment and Stations

Las Vegas

Primm

Barstow

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Montclair Los Angeles

P A G E 106

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

8.4 FORECAST RESULTS

Ridership and revenue forecasts were prepared for each of the three alternatives. Ridership was estimated by multiplying the estimated rail mode share by the total person trips in the market. The revenue was estimated as the product of ridership by station pair and fare. Table 8-11 below summarizes the forecast results for year 2010, with revenue expressed in 2006 dollars. The average riders per train were calculated by dividing the annual ridership by the total number of annual trains.

Table 8-11: Summary of Ridership and Revenue Forecasts – Year 2010

Alternative A1 provides the highest ridership and revenue because it serves Los Angeles most effectively. Though Alternative A3 follows the same alignment east of Los Angeles county as Alternative A1, its ridership and revenue are much lower because it does not serve downtown Los Angeles directly. Passengers in Los Angeles County who want to use the service in Alternative A3 must drive at least 30 minutes to access the Riverside station.

Despite the indirect alignment between Southern California and Las Vegas, Alternative C1 performs better than Alternative A3 because it provides service to downtown Los Angeles. It still provides less ridership and revenue than Alternative A1, because the travel time to Las Vegas is over an hour longer in Alternative C1 and because it does not serve important markets in Riverside and San Bernardino.

Approximately 50 percent of the population in the Southern California portion of the study area is located in Los Angeles County. Therefore one of the most important differentiators among alternatives is their ability to serve Los Angeles.

P A G E 107

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 8-12 compares the total trip time and costs for auto, air, and the three rail alternatives for a trip between downtown Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 2010.

Table 8-12: 2010 travel characteristics by mode for travel between Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Las Vegas

Auto Air Alt A1 Alt A3 Alt C1 Line Haul Station/Airport Pair 1 LAS-LAX LAX-LVS LVS-RIV LAX-LVS Distance (miles) 272 235 340 278 350 Travel Time 4:45 1:06 5:30 4:50 6:38 Highway Cost 2 $41 One-way Fare $85 $58 $49 $58 Average Daily Round Trips 36 3.3 3.3 3.3 Southern California Access Distance (miles) 20 1 54 1 Highway Time 0:30 0:05 1:22 0:05 Station/Airport Time 0:45 0:10 0:10 0:10 Highway Cost 2 $3.01 $0.15 $8.06 $0.15 Las Vegas Egress Distance (miles) 7444 Highway Time 0:14 0:07 0:07 0:07 Station/Airport Time 0:30 0:10 0:10 0:10 Highway Cost 2 $1.07 $0.56 $0.56 $0.56

1 Airport codes: LAS - Las Vegas; LAX - Los Angeles Station codes: LAX - Los Angeles; LVS - Las Vegas; RIV - Riverside 2 Auto cost displayed for Non-Business travel $0.15 per mile

As the table shows, the reason for the lower ridership in Alternative A3 is the over one hour access time to the Riverside station from Los Angeles, compared with an under ten minute access time in the alternatives that serve Los Angeles directly. Since passengers are much more sensitive to out-of-vehicle travel time than any other travel characteristic, the ridership in Alternative A3 is the lowest of all alternatives despite the shortest line haul (in-vehicle) time and cheapest fare for passengers traveling between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

The comparison between line haul (in-vehicle) and out-of-vehicle time is evident in the comparison between Alternatives A3 and C1. Alternative C1 has an hour and fifty (1:50) minute longer line haul time, but the access time on the Los Angeles end is about an hour and fifteen (1:15) minutes faster. The total travel time in Alternative A3 is shorter (line haul plus access time) than C1, but the ridership is lower because the percentage of out-of-vehicle time is much higher in Alternative A3.

P A G E 108

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ALTERNATIVE A1 – IMPACTS OF TRAIN EQUIPMENT ON RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE

For comparative purposes, an assessment was made of the impacts on ridership and revenue for Alternative A1, using the three different train technologies: Talgo, JetTrain, and Surfliner. Table 8-13 provides the results of that assessment.

Table 8-13 Ridership and Revenue Forecasts for Alternative A1 – Year 2010

Talgo Jet Train Surfliner Year 2010 Forecasts Ridership 362,200 406,200 322,900 Revenue (2006$) $18,730,000 $20,980,000 $16,720,000 Average Riders per Train 145 163 129 Average Travel Time between Las Vegas and: Los Angeles 5:30 5:15 5:45 Montclair 4:46 4:34 4:59 San Bernardino 4:22 4:10 4:34

Use of the Talgo technology was assumed in the base ridership forecasting analysis. Operating the service with the JetTrain would provide a 15 minute shorter trip between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, while use of the Surfliner provides a 15 minute longer trip than the Talgo. As the table shows, the train technology ultimately selected for the service could have an impact on both ridership and revenues, with JetTrain offering the highest potential ridership and revenues, followed by Talgo and Surfliner respectively.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

In order to provide a representative assessment for the potential growth in ridership for the proposed service over a twenty-year period, two sets of sensitivity analyses were performed. The first set analyzed each of the three alternatives for forecast years 2020 and 2030. In the second set, the effects of different train technologies (i.e. travel times) were evaluated. In both cases, use of Talgo equipment, and its travel times was assumed. Analysis of the JetTrain and Surfliner technologies was not performed.

Tables 8-14 and 8-15 respectively provide the ridership and revenue results for the years 2020 and 2030.

Table 8-14: Ridership and Revenue Forecasts - Year 2020

Alternative A1 Alternative A3 Alternative C1 Year 2020 Forecasts Ridership 449,600 152,500 243,400 Revenue (2006$) $23,320,000 $7,420,000 $13,000,000 Average Riders per Train 180 61 98

Table 8-15: Ridership and Revenue Forecasts - Year 2030

Alternative A1 Alternative A3 Alternative C1 Year 2030 Forecasts Ridership 508,400 174,600 275,100 Revenue (2006$) $26,370,000 $8,500,000 $14,690,000 Average Riders per Train 204 70 110

P A G E 109

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS

In this section, estimated Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs for each alternative are provided.

O&M costs are the expenses relating to: wages for train crews and on-board staff, fuel, other wage and materials costs for transportation, Maintenance of Equipment (MOE), i.e., the rolling stock, and the costs of maintaining the track and signal equipment on the rail corridor itself, i.e., Maintenance of Way (MOW). MOW includes inspection and maintenance of the track, signal and communications equipment, structures on the rail line, such as bridges and culverts, vegetation control, and rail flaw detection. This section provides a preliminary estimate of these categories for each alternative, assuming the use of equipment similar to the Pacific Surfliner.

Preliminary O&M Costs with Pacific Surfliner Equipment

The estimated O&M costs for each alternative assume that Amtrak would operate the Las Vegas-Los Angeles service. Amtrak, under the guidelines which established it in 1971, has a Right of Access, and is therefore obligated to pay host railroads over whose lines it travels only the incremental MOW expense for its trains, which is determined by the number of train-miles operated. Should the service not be operated by Amtrak, the share of MOW costs could be higher, depending on the allocation of total MOW costs between the host railroad and the operator.

The O&M unit costs for wages, transportation, and MOE are based on Amtrak’s average experience for 2003 with Surfliner-type trainsets, adjusted to year 2006 dollars. Talgo trainset for previously proposed Las Vegas Service Based on the structure of the FRA’s O&M cost model in under construction (Photo credit: TrainWeb.com) High Speed Ground Transportation for America, some of the train-mile based expenses have been reallocated to a train-hour basis, to capture the effects of differing average speeds among the alignments. Fuel costs are based on the consumption estimated by the Train Performance Calculator, at a cost of $2.94 per gallon. Tables 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3 provide estimated Operations and Maintenance costs for each of the three alternatives in their Low-Build configurations.

P A G E 110

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 9-1 Alternative A1 – Estimated O&M Costs

Estimated Annual Operating Costs – A1 Low-Build

Allocated Allocated Cost per Cost per Train Mile Train Hour Item (2006$) (2006$) Total Costs Wages Train and Engine Crews $320.82 $4,585,000 On-Board Services – Labor $114.58 $1,638,000

Average Daily Operations Fuel @ $2.94 per gallon1 $7,600,000 Transportation $7.23 $125.90 $7,359,000 Maintenance of Equipment $3.89 $226.64 $6,233,000 Total Train Miles Traveled 769,746 Class V Train Miles Traveled 317,939 Total Train Hours 14,292 Fuel consumed (million gallons) 2.6 Subtotal Annual Operating Costs $27,405,000 Maintenance of Way – Incremental* Class IV and lower $10.00 $7,697,000 Incremental* MOW Class V $3.00 $954,000 Total Costs w/MOW $36,056,000

Source: Amtrak California 2003 (updated to 2006$ by adding 9.25% for inflation) 1 Fuel consumption and costs for Surfliner equipment. Costs would be approximately $1M lower for Talgo, $600K higher for JetTrain. (* Costs to be negotiated – Estimated Amtrak access costs per mile. Non-Amtrak operated service could be higher)

P A G E 111

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 9-2 Alternative A3 – Estimated O&M Costs

Estimated Annual Operating Costs – A3 Low-Build

Allocated Allocated Cost per Cost per Train Mile Train Hour Item (2006$) (2006$) Total Costs Wages Train and Engine Crews $320.82 $3,709,000 On-Board Services – Labor $114.58 $1,325,000

Average Daily Operations Fuel @ $2.94 per gallon $8,600,000 Transportation $7.23 $125.90 $6,215,000 Maintenance of Equipment $3.89 $226.64 $5,183,000 Total Train Miles Traveled 659,039 Class V Train Miles Traveled 298,478 Total Train Hours 11.561 Fuel consumed (million gallons) 3.0 Subtotal Annual Operating Costs $25,032,000 Maintenance of Way – Incremental* Class IV and lower $10.00 $6,590,000 Incremental* MOW Class V $3.00 $895,000 Total Costs w/MOW $32,517,000

P A G E 112

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 9-3 Alternative C1 – Estimated O&M Costs

Estimated Annual Operating Costs – C1 Low-Build

Allocated Allocated Cost per Cost per Train Mile Train Hour Item (2006$) (2006$) Total Costs Wages Train and Engine Crews $320.82 $5,768,000 On-Board Services – Labor $114.58 $2.060,000

Average Daily Operations Fuel @ $2.94 per gallon $8,600,000 Transportation $7.23 $125.90 $8,103,000 Maintenance of Equipment $3.89 $226.64 $7,220,000 Total Train Miles Traveled 808,496 Class V Train Miles Traveled 367,787 Total Train Hours 17,979 Fuel consumed (million gallons) 2.6 Subtotal Annual Operating Costs $31,751,000 Maintenance of Way – Incremental* Class IV and lower $10.00 $8,085,000 Incremental MOW Class V $3.00 $1,103,000 Total Costs w/MOW $40,939000

The Low-Build option for each alternative would include maintaining the track in key places to FRA Class V standards, which allows for passenger train speeds up to 89 MPH, though trains would continue operating at a maximum authorized speed of 79 mph consistent with Class IV standards. The advantages to maintaining track to the higher standard would be improved ride comfort for passengers and reduced operating delays. The share paid by Amtrak for the additional costs of maintaining the track to the higher FRA standard would be negotiated with the host railroads and is here assumed to be $10.00 per train-mile for Class IV and lower with a $3.00 per train-mile increment for Class V.

P A G E 113

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Preliminary O&M Costs with Talgo or Jet Train Equipment

Comparable unit maintenance costs were not available for the Talgo or Jet Train equipment. However, a preliminary idea of the likely differences can be developed by considering the relative cost performance in each of the categories from the available Surfliner basis and combining these as shown for Alternative A1 in Table 9-4.

Wages for train crews and on-board staff will likely be the same as for Surfliner consists, because the planned number and distribution of passenger seats would be similar. Fuel costs can be presumed to differ along the lines of the TPC calculations: the lightweight Talgo trainsets would consume less and the heavier JetTrain consists would consume more. With similar stations and passenger activity, transportation costs would be generally similar. The lighter Talgo equipment might cost less to maintain, while Jet Train would almost certainly be more expensive because of its active tilt suspension. Because of the structure of Amtrak’s MOW arrangements, it can be assumed that these costs would be similar.

Table 8-4 suggests that there could be an overall O&M savings for Talgo, and a premium for Jet Train. A more thorough assessment of the two train technologies’ maintenance costs relative programmed maintenance, the achievable time savings, and concomitant changes in fare revenue would need to be made prior to a selection of rail equipment.

Table 9-4 Preliminary Relative O&M Costs for Talgo and JetTrain

Fraction of Total Talgo Cost Jet Train Item Costs Ratio Cost Ratio Train and Engine Crews 13.6% 100% 100% On-Board Services – Labor 4.9% 100% 100% Fuel 15.5% 90% 115% Transportation 21.8% 100% 100% Maintenance of Equipment 18.5% 95% 125% Maintenance of Way 25.7% 100% 100%

Total Costs w/MOW 100% 96 % 107%

P A G E 114

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 10 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation Criteria Used

In evaluating the feasibility of a Las Vegas – Los Angeles intercity passenger rail service, the factors used by the State of California and outlined in the 2005-06 2015-16 California State Rail Plan provide an excellent set of representative evaluation criteria.

California has one of the most robust passenger rail programs in the nation. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), through its Division of Rail, currently provides support for three passenger rail services in the state. These include:

• The Pacific Surfliner service, which operates between San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo;

• The San Joaquin service, which operates between Los Angeles (with a bus connection to Bakersfield), Bakersfield, Sacramento and Oakland; and

• The Capitol Corridor service, which operates between Auburn, Sacramento, Oakland, and San Jose.

The Las Vegas – Los Angeles service could constitute another potential corridor for state-supported service13.

When considering new rail services, such as the proposed Las Vegas – Los Angeles service, Caltrans weighs such factors as:

• Ridership demand “based on bus ridership and overall travel demand in the corridor”;

• “Positive cost-effectiveness”;

• “Feasibility of service based on route capacity, equipment availability, and infrastructure quality”; and

• “Local support”.

Each of these factors, as well as how each of the three alternatives meets them, is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Ridership Demand

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the travel demand in the Las Vegas – Los Angeles corridor is very strong. A 3 percent share of the 24.8 million person trips made annually between the two regions would yield 800,000 to 900,000 passengers. Ridership forecasts for the three alternatives show that in the first year of the service, ridership could range from 119,000 to 362,000, depending on the Alternative selected.

Positive Cost-Effectiveness

Caltrans sets a cost-effectiveness standard in which a service generates revenues that will cover at least 50 percent of its operating expenses.

13 Along with the Coast Corridor, over which would operate the Coast Daylight, an intercity service between Los Angeles and San Francisco by way of the Coast Line.

P A G E 115

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 10-1 shows the ridership and revenue forecasts for the three alternative.

Table 10-1 Comparison of 2010 Ridership and Revenues by Alternative

Alternative A1 Alternative A3 Alternative C1 Forecast Annual Ridership 362,200 119,000 195,300 Total Annual Costs 36,000,000.00 32,500,000.00 41,000,000.00 Forecast Revenue 18,730,000 5,810,000 12,030,000 Net Operating Loss 15,270,000.00 22,190,000.00 28,970,000.00 Fare Recovery Percentage 52.03% 17.88% 29.34%

By this standard, Alternative A1 meets the 50 percent threshold. Alternatives A3 and C1 would not generate the ridership and revenues sufficient to meet the 50 percent farebox recovery ratio.

Route Capacity

TAC members include the owners of the rail lines that constitute the alternative routes: Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (on behalf of its member agencies). They indicate that rail capacity would need to be increased in order to ensure that the additional train volume of the new Las Vegas – Los Angeles service would not negatively impact their current and foreseeable rail operations.

The improvement projects developed as part of this study, and detailed in Section 6 would provide this capacity. Their construction would be an important component of the negotiations with the host railroads that would be necessary before initiating service.

Rail capacity modeling done in the next phase of this project, would take the existing and forecast train volumes for freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail services and would identify the location of delays, both operational and as a result of infrastructure. This modeling would further refine the projects needed for service implementation.

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness by Train Equipment Used

The choice of train equipment selected will have an impact on ridership. The faster speeds offered by the Talgo and JetTrain over the speed of the Surfliner equipment would attract more passengers. As well, the lighter weight of the single-level Talgo and JetTrain cars results in lower operating costs, as a result of reduced fuel costs. Table 10-2 shows a comparison of forecast ridership by train equipment type.

P A G E 116

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 10-2 Comparison of Future Ridership Growth Potential Alternative A1 by Train Equipment Type

Target Year Train Equipment 2010 Surfliner Talgo1 JetTrain2 Forecast Annual Ridership 322,900 362,200 406,200 Total Annual Costs $34,000,000.00 $35,700,000.00 $37,400,000.00 Forecast Revenue (2006$) $16,720,000 $18,730,000 $20,980,000 Net Operating Loss $17,280,000.00 $16,970,000.00 $16,420,000.00 Fare Recovery Percentage 49.18% 52.46% 56.10%

2020 Surfliner Talgo JetTrain Forecast Annual Ridership 400,144 449,600 503,522 Total Annual Costs $40,600,000.00 $42,630,000.00 $44,660,000.00 Forecast Revenue $24,788,921 $27,852,720 $31,193,188 Net Operating Loss $15,811,079.20 $14,777,280.00 $13,466,812.10 Fare Recovery Percentage 61.06% 65.34% 69.85% Assumes 2% annual increase in costs and revenue

2030 Surfliner Talgo JetTrain Forecast Annual Ridership 452,476 508,400 569,408 Total Annual Costs $48,500,000.00 $50,925,000.00 $53,350,000.00 Forecast Revenue $34,143,839 $38,363,864 $42,967,528 Net Operating Loss $14,356,161.04 $12,561,136.00 $10,382,472.32 Fare Recovery Percentage 70.40% 75.33% 80.54% Assumes 2% annual increase in costs and revenue 1 Talgo maintenance costs assumed to be 5% higher than Surfliner costs 2 JetTrain maintenance costs assumed to be 10% higher than Surfliner costs

P A G E 117

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

SECTION 11 FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS

This section outlines the major findings of this study, and makes recommendations as to appropriate next steps for the development of this service.

Feasibility

• Restored intercity service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles is feasible, given the investment in rail improvement projects to reduce travel time and provide additional rail capacity.

• This service could represent an important addition to the transportation system between the Las Vegas and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

• Of the three alternatives studied, Alternative A1 provides the most viable service, when all factors (travel time, ridership, revenue and rate of farebox recovery) are taken into consideration.

¾ The other alternatives (A3 and C1) are less feasible, given their forecast ridership and revenue and consequently lower rate of farebox recovery.

• Given the growth in rail traffic, including increased commuter rail and freight rail service levels, improvement projects to reduce travel time and add rail capacity will be needed.

• It is possible that improvements can be phased over time. The extent which this is possible can be further determined in future phases of the project, such as through rail capacity modeling.

• Regardless of the train equipment selected, the proposed service would meet Caltrans’ standards for farebox recovery. This could allow for establishment of the service using existing Pacific Surfliner-class equipment, with a later upgrade to either Talgo or JetTrain equipment.

Coordination

Next Steps

There are a number of steps necessary before the Las Vegas – Los Angeles service can be initiated. These next steps include:

• Rail Capacity Modeling – This study developed a train travel time based on TPC modeling that included an estimate of the schedule recovery time for interactions with other trains. Rail capacity modeling would show how this service would interact with all other rail services. It would use existing and forecast train volumes and would identify areas of concern and delays based on track infrastructure and operations. This modeling would validate the rail improvement projects needed as well as assist in establishing the priority in which improvements needed to be made. RTC has included this task as part of its Unified Planning Work Program for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.

P A G E 118

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Conceptual Engineering – There are several locations along potential routes from Las Vegas to Los Angeles for which conceptual engineering (CE) could be performed, such as the Cajon Pass or Cima Grade, the best way to interconnect the UPRR’s line to the BNSF’s line near Mojave, and the required upgrades identified in the rail capacity modeling noted above. This level of effort would identify potential engineering solutions as well as identify other issues (such as the need for Right-of-Way acquisition or potential environmental concerns) early in the next phase of the project. RTC has included this task as part of its Unified Planning Work Program for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.

• Environmental Assessment – Given a project of this length and scope, it would be necessary to determine the level of environmental review and clearance needed.

P A G E 119

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX A: TERMINAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

P A G E 120

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study

ASSESSMENT OF LAS VEGAS TERMINAL NEEDS AND ADDITIONAL RIDERSHIP/REVENUE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

June 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Introduction

There has not been passenger rail service between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Los Angeles, California, since the discontinuation of Amtrak’s Desert Wind service in 1997. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and a wide group of agencies and stakeholders, oversaw a feasibility study to assess the viability of a new passenger rail service between the two metropolitan areas. The study, completed in September, 2006, included a wide range of tasks:

• A market assessment, to determine the potential travel demand; • Development of service parameters, to create a conceptual schedule; • An examination of existing and forecast rail operations and infrastructure; • Identification of five conceptual route alternatives, later refined to three alternatives for more-detailed analysis; • Rail improvement projects necessary to provide sufficient rail capacity and to reduce travel time; • Forecasts of ridership and revenue for each of the route alternatives; • Estimated costs for rail improvement projects, needed rolling stock, and for Operations and Maintenance associated with the new service; and • Determination of next steps required for the advancement of the project.

Previous Service

From 1981 to 1997, Amtrak’s Desert Wind service provided a passenger rail connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, with continuing service to Salt Lake City, Utah, and ultimately to Chicago, Illinois. The Desert Wind service faced a number of issues that caused its performance to suffer, resulting in a decline in service frequency, from daily service to three times per week. These issues included the following.

• A “long distance” train, rather than a corridor train, the Desert Wind was not optimally configured to serve the travel needs on the Las Vegas-Los Angeles corridor. The train provided sleeper compartments, which added weight and reduced passenger capacity. Examples of the trains and amenities that would be more applicable to this market are those used on Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner and Cascades routes. These trains provide comfortable cars with coach and business seating, as well as a café to provide snacks and beverages. The Cascades service also features a Bistro car which provides additional meal options in a casual sit-down environment for passengers to enjoy their meals. • The train provided only one daily trip. Just as with other transportation mode choices, a range of travel times to accommodate differing schedules is needed to attract and maintain ridership and patronage. • The train was not scheduled to arrive and depart from the end point markets (Las Vegas and/or Los Angeles) at optimal times of the day. As

Page 1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

with the previous observation, a successful service would provide arrival times at both locations that would meet the needs of a broad range of business and recreational travelers. • The average travel time for the Desert Wind was about seven hours, as the schedule needed to accommodate potential delays that impacted its reliability over the longer distance it traveled, making it less competitive with other travel options, particularly travel by automobile. A successful passenger rail service would need to provide a reduced travel time in order to draw passengers from other modes.

The Desert Wind’s Las Vegas station stop was located downtown, near the Plaza Hotel, as shown in the photo at right1.

In 1999, discussions were held between Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and others to restore service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Rather than the downtown station, as previously used, a new stop was considered adjacent to the Rio Hotel and Casino, located on the west side of the I-15 freeway, near Flamingo Road. A number of Las Vegas casinos agreed to support the rail service by purchasing tickets for resale. A number of improvement projects, chiefly providing additional capacity by double tracking the Cima grade, were discussed. Unfortunately, the service was not reestablished as part of that effort.

Results of Feasibility Study

The feasibility study completed this past year for RTC determined that there is a strong current and future demand for travel, based on growth in employment and population for both the Las Vegas/Greater Southern Nevada region as well as for Southern California. This demand includes travel for both business and recreational purposes.

Of the three alternatives, Alternative A1, running between Union Station in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, would provide the highest potential ridership and revenue, and best meet commonly-accepted standards for farebox recovery (the difference between revenue and costs).

1 Photo Credit: USA Rail Guide. www.trainweb.com/usarail/lasvegasnv.html (Used with permission)

Page 2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Alternative A1 would provide service from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, with intermediate station stops at Primm, Nevada, and Barstow,; Victorville, San Bernardino, and Montclair, California. It would travel over tracks owned by Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, and member agencies of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, which operates Metrolink commuter rail service throughout six counties in Southern California. Figure 1 shows Alternative A1’s proposed alignment.

Page 3

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Annual ridership (based on a forecast for 2010 service) is forecast to be 362,000 passengers, based on a service that would operate 365 days a year, with from four to nine trains per day operating between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The number of roundtrips each day would vary, reflecting existing travel patterns, with higher ridership on weekends, holidays and during peak travel periods (from a few hundred to several thousand passengers per day). Travel time between the two areas would depend on the rail equipment used. Five hours 30 minutes was the midrange travel time.

One-way fares would vary between $55 and $95, based on a number of factors2, with a premium service priced $10 - $15 higher.

In order to provide sufficient rail capacity, as well as improvements to increase passenger train speed and reduce travel time, a program of rail improvement projects was developed. In order to “bookend” the potential impacts of these projects, “Low-Build” and a “High-Build” range of project options were created. The Low-Build range would provide spot improvements needed for the service’s establishment and operation. Improvement projects would include adding new sidings and lengthening existing sidings to provide for efficient train meets, track improvements, and additional sections of main track in congested areas. The High-Build range would provide for additional capacity, recognizing future increased rail volumes for both passenger and freight services. Under the High- Build option, extensive sections of double track would be provided, as well as fourth main track up the busy Cajon Pass that is the primary rail corridor between Las Vegas and Southern California. Estimated costs for the rail improvement projects identified as part of Alternative A1 range from $1.1B for the Low-Build option to $3.5B for the High-Build option.

Expanded Scope of Work

At the completion of the initial feasibility study, RTC directed IBI Group, who conducted the project, to provide an additional assessment, including:

• Additional ridership and revenue forecasting; • Identification of the elements needed for a Las Vegas passenger rail terminal, as well as for a maintenance and layover facility; and • A review of three conceptual locations for the facilities, using a variety of criteria.

This information will assist RTC, FRA and other stakeholders as the service is advanced through the planning stage toward implementation.

The results of the expanded scope are incorporated in this technical report.

2 Factors would include the day and time of travel, as well as could reflect discounts for advance purchase. Travel during peak periods such as weekends and holidays could be higher.

Page 5 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Ridership and Revenue Sensitivity Analysis

The initial ridership assessment forecast an annual ridership for Alternative A1 of 362,000 passengers. The underlying assumption for this forecast was a travel time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles of approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes, at an average one-way fare of $57.25.

In order to gauge the impact of different variables on ridership and revenue, an additional analysis was conducted. Variables analyzed included:

• Longer travel times of 6 hours and 6 hours 30 minutes; • Additional frequencies (34 roundtrips per week, rather than the 24 roundtrips originally analyzed); • Lower frequencies (15 and 10 roundtrips per week); • Higher and lower average fares; and • Higher fares combined with additional frequencies

A complete description of the additional sensitivity analysis can be found as an Appendix to this technical report.

Table 1 provides a comparative summary showing information on Alternative A1 from the original feasibility study, as well as the three most productive scenarios from the sensitivity analysis. The results provided by AECOM were refined to include estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs and the potential farebox recovery ratio for each scenario.

Table 1 Comparative Summary of Alternative A1 Scenarios

Alternative A1 Sensitivity 3 Sensitivity 6 Sensitivity 9 Year 2010 Forecasts Ridership 362,200 276, 800 279,100 361,300 Revenue (2006$) $18,730,000 $14,420,000 $21,160,000 $27,180,000 Estimated O&M Costs $34,000,000 $23,100,000 $32,700,000 $43,100,000 Net Operating Loss $15,270,000 $8,680,000 $11,540,000 $15,920,000 Fare Recovery Percentage 55.09% 62.42% 64.71% 63.06% Average Riders per Train 145 157 112 102 Average Rail Travel Time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 Average Rail Fare 57.25 57.25 85 85 Average Weekly Rail Roundtrips 24 15 24 34 Coaches per trainset 5544

The apportionment of costs associated with any potential net operating loss has not yet been determined, and would be the subject of future discussions between those agencies and stakeholders involved with the service.

Page 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Additionally, the costs in Table 1 include only a general provision for station O&M costs and terminal and maintenance facility O&M costs, and may be found to be higher upon further development of the alternatives. They do not include costs associated with debt retirement and other such costs3

Of the additional sensitivity runs exhibiting good potential, Sensitivities 3, 6, and 9 show that very favorable farebox recovery ratios are possible with several scenarios. While it would not reduce the need for significant capital investment for rail improvement projects to provide needed capacity, as well as the costs of facilities, rolling stock and other needs, this scenario could offer an attractive option for initial service establishment.

Travel Time

The additional sensitivity analysis shows that travel time continues to be the most important factor in determining potential ridership.

Table 2 shows how longer travel times beyond the 5 hours and 30 minutes trip used in the feasibility study would impact ridership.

Table 2 Travel Time Sensitivity Travel Time 5 Hours 6 Hours 6 Hours 30 Minutes 30 Minutes (Alternative A1) Ridership 362,000 288,100 229,200 Change from - 21% - 36% Alternative A1

Frequency of Rail Service

The feasibility study established 24 weekly roundtrips for the new service. Sensitivity analysis reveals that ridership and farebox recovery ratios would continue to meet a commonly-accepted standard with either fewer (15) or more (34) weekly roundtrips. This offers the possibility that the service could initially offer the 15 roundtrips, and add additional frequencies as dictated by ridership, demand, and available resources. Table 3 compares the ridership and revenue associated with the 15, 24, and 34 roundtrip scenarios.

3 These costs will be further refined in a future phase concurrent with the development of a financing plan for the project.

Page 7 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 3 Frequency of Rail Service Number of 24 15 34 Weekly (Alternative Roundtrips A1) Ridership 362,000 276,800 361,300 Change from - 24% - 0.2% Alternative A1

Fares

Lastly, the feasibility study used an average forecast fare of $57.25. Impacts to ridership as a result of a higher fare, a lower fare, and a higher fare combined with increased frequencies were modeled as part of the sensitivity analysis. The results of this work are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Average Fares Paid Average $57.25 $50.00 $70.00 $85.00 $85.00 Forecast (Alternative (24 weekly (34 weekly Fare (One- A1) roundtrips) roundtrips) way) Ridership 362,000 391,000 320,800 279,100 361,300 Change + 8% - 11% - 23% - 0.2% from Alternative A1

It is interesting to note that a combination of higher fares, offset by more frequent trains between Las Vegas and Los Angeles would attract a ridership very similar to that in the original Alternative A1.

Page 8 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Terminal Needs A Las Vegas passenger rail terminal would need to provide, at a minimum, the following features.

• Ticketing/Customer Service counter and electronic ticket vending machines • Station Agent and Employee Area (including security) • Baggage handling/Storage area • Passenger waiting area • Restrooms • Café/Retail space to provide meals, snacks, and sundries • On-site parking (short- and long-term) • Passenger pick-up/drop-off area • Transit, taxi, resort shuttle pick-up and drop-off area

A 10-12,000 square-foot facility is seen as providing sufficient space for all these needs. Conceptually, parking facilities (both a parking structure and a surface lot) would accommodate approximately 500 cars.

Number, size of platforms

A single, center platform would provide access to two station tracks. The platform would be 600’ feet long, sufficient to accommodate a Pacific-Surfliner- type trainset of five coaches and two locomotives, with elevators and escalators connecting the platform and the terminal via a tunnel.

Amenities to be provided within Terminal

Initial terminal amenities would consist of a small café and retail space. As needed, this retail and dining area could be expanded by using standalone kiosks and carts to provide more retail and service options. A spacious waiting area would provide seating for passengers and guests, with restrooms located nearby. A staffed ticket counter would provide ticket sales and passenger services. Baggage handling would be provided.

Expected Annual Passenger Loads

Based on the forecast for Alternative A1, approximately 1,000 passengers per day (362,000 annually), would use the facility, with higher volumes during peak weekend and holiday travel periods.

Page 9 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Maintenance and Layover Facility Needs A maintenance and layover facility would provide for the cleaning, fueling, inspection, minor maintenance and storage of trains in Las Vegas. The facility needs would include:

• Storage tracks, • Inspection track, • Train car wash, and • Maintenance stores and administrative offices for railroad operator personnel, including facilities for train crews

Major maintenance of trains and locomotives would be performed at existing facilities in Los Angeles or elsewhere.

Conceptual Terminal Locations

Three locations were considered for the Las Vegas passenger rail terminal. They are:

• Downtown Las Vegas, • Mid-Strip, and • South Strip

The examination of these three conceptual sites provides a representative sampling of the potential locations available for the Las Vegas – Los Angeles service, and lays out the issues to be resolved and options available as the project is advanced.

For comparative purposes, and to ease maintenance activities and “deadhead” (non-revenue) train moves, the maintenance and layover facility would be ideally located close to the passenger terminal site. Figure 2 shows the location of the three conceptual sites relative to each other, Downtown Las Vegas, the Strip, and to McCarran International Airport. A description of each of the conceptual candidate sites is provided in the following paragraphs. Beyond discussions of issues with members of the Las Vegas-Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study’s Technical Advisory Committee, which includes representation from Union Pacific Railroad, no contacts have been made with any of the landowners of the sites conceptually considered in this technical report. The inclusion of any site does not represent the agreement of, or participation by any party in the findings of this technical assessment.

Page 10 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Downtown – This traditional location would be sited close by the long-time station stops of previous Las Vegas-bound passenger rail services, on an RTC- owned property located at the intersection of Main Street and Bonneville Avenue, across the rail line from the Clark County Government Center and RTC’s offices. The passenger platforms would be located on the south side (compass direction – from the perspective of the I-15 freeway corridor, it would be considered east) of the Union Pacific’s mainline. A maintenance and layover facility would be located directly west (south) of the terminal and its platforms. Figure 3 shows a more detailed view of the Downtown terminal’s potential location. Figure 4 provides a conceptual layout of the terminal station itself. Figure 5 shows the footprint that would be required for locating the maintenance facility adjacent to the Downtown site.

Page 11

Figure 3 Downtown Terminal station area Figure 4 Downtown Terminal conceptual layout Figure 5 - Downtown Terminal and Maintenance Facility footprint REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Mid-Strip – A mid-strip location near Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, considered in 1999’s effort to restore passenger rail service remains an interesting conceptual site. In the Mid-Strip option, the terminal and its accompanying maintenance and layover facility would be located on the north (west) side of UP’s main line, just west of I-15, near Flamingo Road. Figure 6 shows the general area of the Mid-Strip terminal area. The station layout at this location would be similar to that proposed for the Downtown station, so no layout drawing was produced for the Mid-Strip location. Figure 7 shows the footprint required for locating the maintenance facility adjacent to the Mid-Strip terminal location.

Page 16 Figure 6 - Mid-Strip Terminal station area Figure 7 - Mid-Strip Terminal and Maintenance Facility footprint REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

South Strip – Unlike the Downtown or Mid-Strip terminal locations, the conceptual location for a South Strip terminal is a site located on the Henderson Branch Line, off the UP Main Line, on Las Vegas Boulevard, east of Sunset. The South Strip terminal location could offer a passenger rail station directly fronting Las Vegas Boulevard, with easy access to McCarran International Airport, to Citizen Area Transit’s South Strip Transfer Terminal, and to the Regional Fixed Guideway. A maintenance and layover facility would also be located on the less- utilized Henderson Branch, just north of the I-15. Figure 8 shows a view of the existing South Strip station area. Figure 9 provides a layout of the terminal, parking and passenger pick-up and drop-off areas. Figure 9a provides a conceptual layout of the terminal building itself. Figure 10 shows the footprint required for the nearby maintenance facility.

Page 19 Figure 8 - South Strip Terminal station area

Figure 10 - South Strip Terminal and Maintenance Facility footprint REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Criteria for Comparison of Conceptual Alternative Locations To provide for an initial discussion and comparison of the conceptual sites for a Las Vegas terminal, a list of eight criteria has been developed. The intent is not to identify a preferred terminal location at this time, but more to lay out for RTC and other stakeholders the relative strengths and weaknesses of each conceptual site. It is anticipated that a more-detailed analysis of the three station areas will be conducted as part of environmental clearance, and a preferred location determined as part of that effort.

The criteria include: • Location near major activity centers, • Sufficient land for the terminal, • Sufficient land for an adjacent maintenance and layover facility, • Connectivity with transit, • Access, • Availability of land, • Compatibility with surrounding land uses, and • Operational considerations

Each site will be assigned a value from one to five as to how well (or poorly) they meet the factors in the criteria, ranging from excellent (1) to poor (5), with a lower score being better.

1. Proximity to major activity centers? All three sites generally meet this criterion, though the Downtown and South Strip sites are more convenient than is the Mid-Strip site, due to their direct proximity to existing and planned activity centers.

Downtown – In addition to the existing hotels, casinos, government buildings and offices in the downtown area, there are a number of significant projects under consideration for the area adjacent to the conceptual terminal. Of these, Union Park, a major mixed-use development, would see new office, residential and retail uses built in the currently undeveloped parcel bounded by the UP ROW, West Bonneville Avenue, and Grand Central Parkway. A new City Hall site has also been identified on the south side of the rail line.

Mid-Strip – This area, other than the Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, is generally less densely developed than is the downtown location, with some high- density residential and low-density commercial uses nearby. There are significant other casino properties located off Las Vegas Boulevard, east across the I-15 freeway.

South Strip – The proximity of McCarran International Airport limits the uses in this area. This location essentially constitutes the south end of the Las Vegas Boulevard Strip. Major hotels and casinos, beginning with Mandalay Bay are located just north of the site. A major commercial development is planned off

Page 24 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Sunset, just south of the site. Future plans of the Clark County Department of Aviation include the establishment of a new airport near Primm, in addition to McCarran International Airport.

Assessment: Downtown: 1 Mid-Strip: 3 South Strip: 2

2. Sufficient land to accommodate the terminal at this location There is sufficient land at each of the three conceptual locations to accommodate the terminal. At this stage, no discussions with the landowners (other than RTC, which owns the property on which the Downtown terminal could be located) have been held. In all three cases, the land is undeveloped, or could be made available relatively easily (there is an existing service station adjacent to the South Strip location).

Assessment: Downtown: 1 Mid-Strip: 1 South Strip: 2

3. Sufficient land available to accommodate the maintenance and layover facility at this location There are issues associated with each of the conceptual sites with this criterion. In order to accommodate the maintenance facility at the Downtown site, the switching and layout for the various elements, particularly the train wash, would be very tight. The Mid-Strip location is also constrained, but rather as a result of available ROW, as well as from the presence of a number of lead tracks that serve businesses just off the main line. Finally, the South Strip location would require that the maintenance facility be located slightly further away from the terminal, relatively speaking. The maintenance facility would be located on the north side of the I-15 corridor, while the terminal would be located on the south side, separated by a single-track bridge over which the rail line runs.

Assessment: Downtown: 3 Mid-Strip: 3 South Strip: 2

4. Connectivity and integration with existing or planned transit services Providing good connectivity between the passenger rail terminal and Citizen’s Area Transit bus services would provide an intermodal linkage and encourage increased use of transit.

Page 25 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Downtown – The Downtown terminal location would use Alternative Site 1, identified as one of two options for the proposed Central City Intermodal Transfer Terminal (CCITT), to which ACE Bus Rapid Transit and other bus routes will relocate from the existing Downtown Transportation Center (DTC). The CCITT is also going to be the terminus of the Regional Fixed Guideway. The combination of these two locations would provide excellent connectivity between the rail service and transit services that could provide a transfer and carry passengers almost anywhere within the region. This combination could also provide potential connectivity with the California-Nevada Super Speed Train (Maglev)4, which could use the space over the rail platform tracks linking the Maglev terminal with that of the conventional rail service.

Mid-Strip – The Mid-Strip location offers poor connectivity options by comparison with the other two conceptual sites. RTC route 202 is the only current transit service that passes the site. In order to provide good transit access, routes would have to be adjusted. Transfers to other routes would be necessary, which would reduce the attractiveness of transit as a travel mode to and from the passenger rail terminal. This location would not offer a direct connection to the Regional Fixed Guideway. It could potentially offer a shared connection with the Maglev service.

South Strip – The South Strip location, while not offering the direct advantages that the Downtown location could offer, would be very near the South Strip Transfer Terminal at Sunset. Existing services which could serve a terminal here include Routes 109 and “The Deuce”. Additionally, the alignment of the Regional Fixed Guideway along South Las Vegas Boulevard would provide an opportunity for easy access to and from a South Strip terminal. This site could potentially provide a connection to the Maglev service.

Assessment: Downtown: 1 Mid-Strip: 4 South Strip: 2

5. Terminal access Vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the terminal facility would vary greatly. It is likely that there would be a need for new signals at intersections around the terminal, to provide for safe and efficient ingress and egress to the facility.

Downtown This site is located near the interchange of I-15 and I-515. Freeway connectivity would be good, with access at Charleston Boulevard and Grand Central

4 The California-Nevada Super Speed Train would provide service with rail vehicles using magnetic levitation. Ultimately, the project envisions operating Maglev service between Anaheim, California, and Las Vegas, with intermediate stops at Ontario, Victorville, and Barstow, California, and Primm, Nevada.

Page 26 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Parkway. Street access would be good, with potential access from Main Street, and Bonneville Avenue. Signal controls in the area would need to be reviewed to provide for efficient vehicle movements in and out of the passenger terminal, as well as the CCITT, potentially across Main Street from the terminal. Pedestrian and bicycle access appears to be excellent.

Mid-Strip There would be significant access and circulation issues at this site. Freeway connectivity would be fair, with access from I-15 at Flamingo. Primary access in and out of the facility would be via Hotel Rio Drive. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be poor.

South Strip Access to this site is generally good. Freeway access would be by way of I-215, with an exit located at Las Vegas Boulevard. Street access would be good, from both Las Vegas Boulevard and from Post Road. Pedestrian access from Las Vegas Boulevard would be average, given the existing land uses and distance between the terminal and nearby hotels. Bicycle access would be excellent, because a bike trail is planned for the Branch Line ROW.

Assessment: Downtown: 1 Mid-Strip: 5 South Strip: 2

6. Availability of Land Currently, the property for all of the conceptual sites appears available. As to ownership, the Downtown site is largely owned by RTC, the Mid-Strip site is owned by Harrah’s (owner of the Rio), and the South Strip site is owned by Clark County. Should the Bonneville and Main site be selected for the CCITT, the terminal could be reconfigured to be accommodated as part of the CCITT. At the Mid-Strip site, it is possible that future plans for the Rio’s expansion might preclude its availability as a terminal. Given limitations on potential uses surrounding the airport, particularly at this location, it is possible that the South Strip land could be acquired by RTC for use as a terminal.

Assessment: Downtown: 2 Mid-Strip: 2 South Strip: 2

7. Compatibility with adjoining land uses With all three sites, the terminal facility would constitute an acceptable, and, in fact, a desirable land use. The Las Vegas to Los Angeles service would provide an new and exciting transportation option, which could stimulate increased economic development and growth, now and in the future.

Page 27 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

However, the adjoining maintenance facility would not be compatible. While it has been shown to provide a sense of its scale and needed footprint in both the Downtown and Mid-Strip locations, by its nature, the maintenance and layover facility is an industrial use, with noise and visual impacts that would make it an unattractive neighbor to nearby residential or commercial uses. Only the South Strip location would provide an existing industrial area that would be a highly compatible use.

Downtown As noted above, the area directly adjacent to the conceptual terminal location is beginning an extensive development process which will continue the transformation of the downtown Las Vegas area. A passenger rail terminal could be very supportive of this development and other proposed land uses, as it would provide residents, employees, and visitors with convenient access to the Las Vegas – Los Angeles service. However, it is likely that locating the maintenance and layover facility near the terminal would not be supportive of the existing and planned land uses, as a result of the industrial character of the layover facility, and potential noise and visual impacts.

Mid-Strip The major land uses on both sides of the I-15 freeway mid-strip at Flamingo Road are primarily hotel and gaming properties. As was the case when last considered in 1999, a Mid-Strip passenger rail terminal would be supportive of the adjacent hotels and casinos, on both sides of I-15, though its relative distance from many of these uses reduces its benefit. The maintenance and layover facility would not be supportive of the existing and planned land uses. As currently shown, it would be located next to a residential complex.

South Strip The land uses currently surrounding the South Strip location are aviation (the airport), a golf course, a light commercial/industrial complex, and I-15. The maintenance and layover facility would be sited next to an industrial area consisting of warehouses and a recycling facility.

Assessment: Downtown: 6 (1 for terminal, 5 for maintenance facility) Mid-Strip: 7 (3 for terminal, 5 for maintenance facility) South Strip: 3 (2 for terminal, 1 for maintenance facility)

8. Operational Considerations

Rail Operations at Stations

Under the planned service arrangement in the near term, there would be between four and nine daily passenger train movements between Las Vegas and

Page 28 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Los Angeles, depending on the day of the week. At the Las Vegas end, each such ‘revenue’ (passenger-carrying) movement would need to move as directly as possible between one of the two station platform tracks and the mainline of the UP Cima Subdivision.

On a daily basis, four or five non-revenue train movements would be required between the storage facility and car wash and the passenger station. Ideally, such non-revenue movements should not require use of mainline track. However, conditions at some locations may require this (e.g. when there is insufficient length available for storage tracks). Where this is required, the non- revenue passenger train movements may be subject to delays from freight operations on the mainline.

This section presents a preliminary comparison of the initially proposed station configurations in terms of passenger train operations. Characteristics of the stations, storage tracks, and connections to mainline tracks may be modified to improve their performance if sites are highly advantageous, or upon more detailed consideration of operating requirements.

Downtown

The downtown station site is near the former Las Vegas passenger train station, on a short three-track section of the UP Cima Subdivision mainline. At this point the line carries about 20-25 daily freight trains; however, one or more of the main tracks are frequently occupied because Las Vegas is both a freight train crew change point and a location where ‘meets’ can be made between trains in opposing directions. To mitigate the likely delays from stopped or slowly moving freights in this vicinity, an additional mainline track would be provided in conjunction with the station, allowing room for an additional train to stop between the Wyoming Avenue and Sands Avenue interlockings as shown below. An additional crossover at the new control point for the station would allow passenger trains to use either mainline track 1 or 2 to approach or leave the station. These improvements notwithstanding, passenger trains arriving in or leaving Las Vegas would still be subject to occasional delays in the station vicinity. Figure 11 shows the track improvements necessary for a Downtown terminal.

Page 29 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 11 Downtown Terminal – Needed Track Improvements

TROPICANA AVE MAULE AVE MP 328.64 MP 326.38 MP 327.1

Henderson Control Point (BMI) Branch (interlocking)

SANDS AVE WYOMING AVE STEWART AVE MP 330.54 MP 332.76 OWENS AVE MP 334.45 MP 335.29

Mid-Strip

The Mid-Strip station site is located on a two-track section of the UP Cima subdivision mainline south of downtown, and would also be subject to delays from freights stopping at Las Vegas. Its location on the west side of the tracks is not favorable for a third main track extension, because of industrial lead tracks in the section between the Sands Avenue and Tropicana Avenue control point (as shown below) and because this location is farther removed from the crew change point. In lieu of major reconstruction, the station would be directly connected to both mainline tracks 1 and 2 at a new interlocking, and a former crossover at Tropicana Avenue would be restored to provide full routing flexibility between that control point and the station. Figure 12 shows the track improvements necessary for a Mid-Strip station.

Internally, the site does allow direct transit between the station and storage yard without using the UPSF mainline. Because a highway overpass restricts the available height at the preferred location for a train wash, this would be located so that trains would be washed inbound to the station, blocking the routes to and from the station during part of the process. An alternative to this would be to take the wash off the direct route, requiring additional non-revenue movement.

Page 30 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

The overall site appears to be constrained by an industrial lead track to the south. The proposed storage yard is also adjacent to land uses which may require some additional measures to mitigate possible noise impacts (e.g. sound barriers, ‘ground air’ and power systems to minimize train idling.)

Figure 12 Mid-Strip Terminal – Needed Track Improvements

TROPICANA AVE MAULE AVE MP 328.64 MP 326.38 MP 327.1

Henderson Control Point (BMI) Branch (interlocking)

WYOMING AVE SANDS AVE STEWART AVE OWENS AVE MP 330.54 MP 332.76 MP 334.45 MP 335.29

There could be a fair risk that non-revenue moves between the terminal and the maintenance and layover facility could be blocked or delayed by freight trains at this location, even if the maintenance and layover facility were off the main lines. Installing a third main track between CP Sands and CP Tropicana might alleviate this, but at significant cost for relocation of the many active lead tracks in the area.

Locating the maintenance and layover facility off the main on the Henderson Branch Line would create additional problems at this location by increasing the potential for both revenue and non-revenue train movements to experience delays as a result of UP freight activity.

Page 31 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

South Strip

Site considerations led to a separation of the station platform tracks from the storage and wash facilities. This will require the 4-5 daily non-revenue movements to traverse the Henderson branch main track over the single-track bridge over I-15. At present, the branch is not signaled, and the relatively infrequent local freights can be authorized to serve the entire branch before obtaining authorization to return to the Cima Subdivision main track. With the South Strip station in service, the branch would most likely be signaled, from a new control point (interlocking) at the Cima Subdivision mainline (MP 327.1) to a point just east of where the station tracks join the branch mainline. All revenue and non-revenue passenger train movements to and from the station would be made on signal authorization, most likely by UP dispatchers for the Cima Subdivision.

Because the present freight frequency is not likely to increase significantly, the freight operation would be fairly similar to today’s, with permission for use of the branch east of the station being handled as at present. Local freight movements between the station and the Cima Subdivision mainline would be subject to signals. Very occasionally, passenger train movements will be subject to delay from local freight operations. Pre-departure time allowances from the storage facility to the station may need to account for this. Given the relatively low level of both freight and passenger train traffic, it should be possible to schedule revenue passenger train movements to minimize interference with local freight service on the branch. At present, there do not appear to be more than two active customers in this section. Figure 13 shows the track improvements necessary for a South Strip terminal.

Page 32 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 13 South Strip Terminal – Needed Track Improvements

TROPICANA AVE MAULE AVE MP 328.64 MP 326.38 MP 327.1

Control Point (interlocking)

Henderson (BMI) Branch

Summary of Operational Considerations

From a passenger train operations perspective, the key factors in evaluating station sites are:

• The extent to which revenue train movements are subject to delays from freight operations; • The extent to which non-revenue movements (e.g. between storage tracks and station) are subject to delays from freight operations; • Whether the train wash can be accessed on a direct route between the storage tracks and the station; • Whether the routine train wash activity would conflict with access between the main line and the station; and • Potential ‘good neighbor’ issues with land use adjacent to storage tracks. In the table below, each site (in the configuration described above) is rated on each of these factors, from advantageous (1) to unsuitable (5). A weighted ranking is also shown, assigning weights ranging from 1 to 4 for the factors.

Page 33 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 2 Operational Considerations for Las Vegas Terminal Sites

Downtown Mid-Strip South Strip Revenue train movements subject 3 4 1 to freight delays (weight = 4) Non-revenue train movements 3 1 2 subject to freight delays (weight = 2) Wash on direct route from station 4 1 1 to storage (weight = 1) Wash activity conflicts with station 1 3 1 access (weight = 1) Land use adjacent to storage 1 3 1 tracks (weight = 1) Total Weighted Ranking (lower 24 25 11 scores are preferable)

Under this preliminary rating system, the South Strip site is indicated as being the most favorable. The sites on the mainline are less favorable. It is possible that the mainline sites could be made more attractive by making further mainline improvements, though this might require considerable expense.

Assessment: Downtown: 4 Mid-Strip: 4 South Strip: 2

Assessment Summary Table 3 provides a summary of the values assessed for each of the conceptual terminal sites. Again, this summary is meant to facilitate discussion and review of the criteria used and the values associated with each. More-detailed analysis of conceptual terminal locations and the identification of a preferred location would be conducted in a future phase of the project.

Page 34 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 3 Assessment Summary for Las Vegas Terminal Sites

Criteria Downtown Mid- South Strip Strip Proximity to major activity centers 1 3 2 Sufficient land for terminal 1 1 2 Sufficient land for maintenance facility 3 3 2 Connectivity with transit 1 4 2 Access 1 5 2 Availability of land 2 2 2 Land use compatibility 6 7 3 Operational considerations 4 4 2 Total of all values (a lower value is 19 29 17 better)

Other Issues

Future Bicycle Path – RTC’s long-range bicycle master plans identify the Henderson Branch Line as the alignment for a future bicycle path. Moving from Henderson north, the bicycle path’s proposed alignment would bring it directly past the conceptual location for a South Strip terminal. Planning documents show the bicycle path continuing along the Union Pacific’s main line, at which point it would continue in both directions along the UP corridor.

Conceptually, the bicycle path has been incorporated into planning for a possible South Strip terminal facility, providing additional connectivity. The timeline for the bicycle path appears to be some years off, as it is not shown on a map which covers a period out to 2016.

Nevertheless, the placement of the bicycle path’s route bears consideration. While there are clear advantages to having the path include the passenger rail terminal, as the path travels north toward I-15, a new overcrossing to accommodate the bicycle path would need to be constructed. This could be a standalone structure for the bicycle path, or could be designed to provide a second rail crossing over I-15, which would provide additional capacity as the LV- LA rail service expands to meet future demand. Alternatively, the bicycle path’s route could divert from the terminal to nearby surface streets, crossing I-15 via Sunset. The advantage of this option would be to eliminate the cost associated with the new structure.

Between the South Strip terminal location and the UP main line, train speeds will be low, as trains slow to enter or leave the terminal or maintenance and layover facility. This segment will have a number of train movements throughout the day,

Page 35 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LAS VEGAS TO LOS ANGELES RAIL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHERN NEVADA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

and having the bicycle path pass adjacent to the proposed maintenance and layover facility area could raise a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

• Liability and insurance issues, • Security concerns, • Impacts on Maintenance-of-Way activities, and • Potential loss of ROW for future use.

Should the bicycle path seek to use UP’s main line as a north-south corridor, this could impact either the Downtown or Mid-Strip terminal locations. As well, UP would have to agree to the use of its ROW for the bicycle path.

Likely UP concerns regarding a Bicycle Path adjacent to its ROW (which could extend through the Henderson Branch Line segment as well as the main line) would be similar to those raised about the path’s proximity to a South Strip maintenance and layover facility.

McCarran International Airport Issues – There are potential issues with a South Strip terminal that are different from either of the other two conceptual locations under consideration. The South Strip terminal is proposed to be located on land owned by the Clark County Department of Aviation which operates McCarran International Airport. The terminal would be located opposite Las Vegas Boulevard from the airport’s runways. It would be necessary to work closely with Clark County Department of Aviation on noise and safety issues related to the disposition of the runways and the rail terminal facility.

Future Integration with Maglev

The initial phase of the proposed California-Nevada Super Speed Train project, which would operate trains using magnetic levitation technology (Maglev), would run between downtown Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, with the potential for a stop at the new Ivanpah Airport.

The Maglev project is beginning a more-detailed environmental assessment of the initial segment, which will include a refinement of potential alignment alternatives. Ultimately, the project envisions operating Maglev service between Anaheim, California, and Las Vegas, with intermediate stops at Ontario, Victorville, and Barstow, California, in addition to Primm, Nevada. Ideally, potential alignments would consider the advantages of integration with other transportation modes, such as the conventional passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Construction of the Maglev project is not yet funded.

Page 36 Appendix 2A Automobile Travel Costs

APPENDIX A: Average Automobile Travel Costs

Average Mid-Size Automobile Miles Avg. Price @ Avg. Price @ Avg. Price Avg. Avg. Tank Miles per # Tank Fill- Avg. Cost Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Destination (1-Way) Orig Dest. per Gal.1 Mile/Gal.2 Size (Gal)3 Tank Ups per Mile3 Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas 332$ 3.06 $ 2.94 $ 3.00 27.5 17.7 487 0.7 $ 0.485 $ 197.13 $ 394.25 Orange County Las Vegas 268 $ 3.13 $ 2.94 $ 3.04 27.5 17.7 487 0.6 $ 0.485 $ 159.77 $ 319.53 Los Angeles (LAX) Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 27.5 17.7 487 0.6 $ 0.485 $ 170.09 $ 340.18 Burbank Las Vegas 273 $ 3.27 $ 2.94 $ 3.11 27.5 17.7 487 0.6 $ 0.485 $ 163.06 $ 326.12 Ontario Las Vegas 235 $ 3.04 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 27.5 17.7 487 0.5 $ 0.485 $ 139.41 $ 278.81

Bakersfield Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 27.5 17.7 487 0.6 $ 0.485 $ 170.05 $ 340.10 San Bernardino Las Vegas 226 $ 3.12 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 27.5 17.7 487 0.5 $ 0.485 $ 134.69 $ 269.38 Palmdale Las Vegas 239 $ 3.19 $ 2.94 $ 3.07 27.5 17.7 487 0.5 $ 0.485 $ 142.36 $ 284.71 Ventura Las Vegas 332 $ 3.11 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 27.5 17.7 487 0.7 $ 0.485 $ 197.53 $ 395.06 Long Beach Las Vegas 284 $ 3.16 $ 2.94 $ 3.05 27.5 17.7 487 0.6 $ 0.485 $ 169.05 $ 338.11

Average SUV (Mid-Size & Full-Size) Miles Avg. Price @ Avg. Price @ Avg. Price Avg. Avg. Tank Miles per # Tank Fill- Avg. Cost Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Destination (1-Way) Orig Dest. per Gal.1 Mile/Gal.3 Size (Gal)3 Tank Ups per Mile3 Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas 332$ 3.06 $ 2.94 $ 3.00 22.0 23.5 517 0.6 $ 0.588 $ 240.35 $ 480.70 Orange County Las Vegas 268 $ 3.13 $ 2.94 $ 3.04 22.0 23.5 517 0.5 $ 0.588 $ 194.81 $ 389.62 Los Angeles (LAX) Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 22.0 23.5 517 0.6 $ 0.588 $ 207.39 $ 414.77 Burbank Las Vegas 273 $ 3.27 $ 2.94 $ 3.11 22.0 23.5 517 0.5 $ 0.588 $ 198.85 $ 397.70 Ontario Las Vegas 235 $ 3.04 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 22.0 23.5 517 0.5 $ 0.588 $ 169.97 $ 339.95

Bakersfield Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 22.0 23.5 517 0.6 $ 0.588 $ 207.33 $ 414.67 San Bernardino Las Vegas 226 $ 3.12 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 22.0 23.5 517 0.4 $ 0.588 $ 164.23 $ 328.46 Palmdale Las Vegas 239 $ 3.19 $ 2.94 $ 3.07 22.0 23.5 517 0.5 $ 0.588 $ 173.59 $ 347.18 Ventura Las Vegas 332 $ 3.11 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 22.0 23.5 517 0.6 $ 0.588 $ 240.85 $ 481.70 Long Beach Las Vegas 284 $ 3.16 $ 2.94 $ 3.05 22.0 23.5 517 0.5 $ 0.588 $ 206.14 $ 412.28

Average Light Truck Miles Avg. Price @ Avg. Price @ Avg. Price Avg. Avg. Tank Miles per # Tank Fill- Avg. Cost Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Destination (1-Way) Orig Dest. per Gal.1 Mile/Gal.2 Size (Gal)3 Tank Ups per Mile3 Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas 332$ 3.06 $ 2.94 $ 3.00 21.6 20.0 432 0.8 $ 0.532 $ 222.61 $ 445.22 Orange County Las Vegas 268 $ 3.13 $ 2.94 $ 3.04 21.6 20.0 432 0.6 $ 0.532 $ 180.47 $ 360.94 Los Angeles (LAX) Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 21.6 20.0 432 0.7 $ 0.532 $ 192.06 $ 384.12 Burbank Las Vegas 273 $ 3.27 $ 2.94 $ 3.11 21.6 20.0 432 0.6 $ 0.532 $ 184.29 $ 368.58 Ontario Las Vegas 235 $ 3.04 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 21.6 20.0 432 0.5 $ 0.532 $ 157.42 $ 314.83

Bakersfield Las Vegas 287 $ 3.03 $ 2.94 $ 2.99 21.6 20.0 432 0.7 $ 0.532 $ 192.01 $ 384.02 San Bernardino Las Vegas 226 $ 3.12 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 21.6 20.0 432 0.5 $ 0.532 $ 152.14 $ 304.27 Palmdale Las Vegas 239 $ 3.19 $ 2.94 $ 3.07 21.6 20.0 432 0.6 $ 0.532 $ 160.84 $ 321.68 Ventura Las Vegas 332 $ 3.11 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 21.6 20.0 432 0.8 $ 0.532 $ 223.11 $ 446.21 Long Beach Las Vegas 284 $ 3.16 $ 2.94 $ 3.05 21.6 20.0 432 0.7 $ 0.532 $ 190.98 $ 381.96

1. Automobile Association of America 2. Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks established by Congress in Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. 3. Average based on a comparison of 8 typical cars for each class of vehicle Appendix 2B Airline Travel Costs

APPENDIX B: Average Airline Travel Costs

United Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas $ 71.40 $ 118.80 Orange County Las Vegas $ 66.90 $ 138.30 Los Angeles Las Vegas $ 59.20 $ 98.40 Glendale Burbank Las Vegas $ 71.40 $ 118.80 Riverside Ontario Las Vegas $ 62.90 $ 117.30 Bakersfield Las Vegas $ 116.20 $ 232.40 San Bernardino Las Vegas Palmdale Las Vegas Ventura Oxnard Las Vegas $ 79.40 $ 138.80

American Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas $ 118.40 $ 130.80 Orange County Las Vegas $ 135.90 $ 311.30 Los Angeles Las Vegas $ 59.20 $ 108.40 Glendale Burbank Las Vegas $ 211.60 $ 423.20 Riverside Ontario Las Vegas $ 210.10 $ 421.70 Bakersfield Las Vegas San Bernardino Las Vegas Palmdale Las Vegas Ventura Las Vegas

Southwest Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas $ 49.20 $ 98.40 Orange County Las Vegas Los Angeles Las Vegas $ 49.20 $ 98.40 Glendale Burbank Las Vegas $ 49.20 $ 98.40 Riverside Ontario Las Vegas $ 47.70 $ 96.90 Bakersfield Las Vegas San Bernardino Ontario Las Vegas Palmdale Las Vegas Ventura Las Vegas Note: Costs based on Non Refundable Fare: Internet Special APPENDIX B: Average Airline Travel Costs

Northwest Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas $ 221.40 $ 440.29 Orange County Las Vegas $ 515.09 $ 743.00 Los Angeles Las Vegas $ 49.20 $ 285.40 Glendale Burbank Las Vegas $ 395.60 $ 734.19 Riverside Las Vegas $ 337.10 $ 629.19 Bakersfield Las Vegas San Bernardino Las Vegas Palmdale Las Vegas Ventura Las Vegas

America West Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas $ 59.20 $ 108.40 Orange County Las Vegas $ 104.70 $ 154.90 Los Angeles Las Vegas $ 137.20 $ 186.40 Glendale Burbank Las Vegas $ 49.20 $ 98.40 Riverside Ontario Las Vegas $ 42.70 $ 86.90 Bakersfield Las Vegas San Bernardino Las Vegas Palmdale Las Vegas Ventura Las Vegas

jetBlue Airlines Total Cost (1- Total Cost Origin Airport Destination Way) (2-Ways) Long Beach Las Vegas $ 47.70 $ 96.90

Appendix 2C Bus Travel Costs

APPENDIX C: Average Bus Travel Costs

Average Greyhound Fares Miles Total Cost Total Cost Origin Destination (1-Way) (1-Way) (2-Ways) San Diego Las Vegas 332$ 54.50 $ 104.00 Orange County Las Vegas 268 $ 43.00 $ 83.00 Los Angeles Las Vegas 270 $ 43.00 $ 83.00 Glendale Las Vegas 273 $ 43.00 $ 83.00 Riverside Las Vegas 238 $ 41.00 $ 77.00

Bakersfield Las Vegas 287 $ 50.50 $ 91.00 San Bernardino Las Vegas 226 $ 41.00 $ 77.00 Palmdale Las Vegas 239 $ 57.00 $ 114.00 Ventura Las Vegas 332 $ 70.50 $ 141.00 Long Beach Las Vegas 284 $ 43.00 $ 83.00

Appendix 4 Physical and Operating Conditions on Study Area Rail Lines

PAGE 1

PHYSICAL & OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

This appendix provides background on the physical and operating characteristics for the UP and BNSF over their respective lines within the study area.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

PROJECT STUDY AREA – LAS VEGAS, NEVADA TO DAGGETT, CALIFORNIA

Cima Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) Las Vegas, NV to Yermo, 334.3 162.0 172.3 CA.

Los Angeles Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) Yermo, CA. to Daggett, CA. 162.0 158.9 3.1

Route Description and Overview

Trackage: Single Track with Sidings (Multiple Main tracks as shown in Timetable) Operation: Centralized Traffic Control – Omaha, Nebraska Maximum train speed: Passenger 79 mph – Freight 70 mph (exceptions in Timetable) Elevations: Highest 4207’ Cima, California, Lowest 968’ Crucero, California. Elevations: Las Vegas, Nevada, 2040’ and Daggett, California, 1829’ Maximum Grade: Cima, California, to Kelso, California, 2.2 percent - (19 miles) Switching Yards: Arden, Nevada, and Yermo, California. Train Frequency: 25 – 35 daily Train Type: Coal, Grain, Auto, Intermodal, Cement, General Manifest

PAGE 2

Timetable Information

Nevada Speed Limit Main Track Siding Length Mile Post Miles Stations Passenger/Freight CTC (ft) Las Vegas 334.3 20 / 20 3 MT 172.3 Wyoming 332.7 20 / 20 2 MT 170.7 Ave. Sands Ave. 330.5 20 / 20 2 MT 168.5 Tropicana 328.6 20 / 20 2 MT 166.6 Ave. Boulder Jct. 327.8 20 / 20 2 MT 165.8 Maule Ave. 326.4 20 / 20 2 MT 164.4 Arden 323.9 60 / 55 1 MT 8467 161.9 (Arden Yard) 321.3 159.3 Sloan 315.3 40 / 30 1 MT 6282 153.3 314.0 152.0 Erie 310.0 65 / 60 1 MT 8843 148.0 308.1 146.1 Jean 301.9 79 / 70 1 MT 5721 139.9 300.7 138.7 Borax 297.0 79 / 70 1 MT 135.0 295.8 133.0 Calada, NV. 288.8 79 / 70 1 MT 8791 126.8 287.0 125.0 Nipon, CA. 278.2 79 / 70 1 MT 5767 116.2 114.9 Moore 273.0 79 / 70 1 MT 5765 111.0 271.8 109.8 Ivanpah 268.0 79 / 70 1 MT 9835 106.0 266.0 104.0 Brant 263.0 79 / 70 1 MT 5751 101.9 262.8 100.8 Joshua 258.5 79 / 70 1 MT 6066 96.5 257.2 95.2 Cima 253.3 45 / 45 2 MT N 6266 – 92.6 S 9862 252.6 90.6

PAGE 3

Nevada Speed Limit Main Track Siding Length Mile Post Miles Stations Passenger/Freight CTC (ft) Chase 251.1 70 / 60 1 MT 5765 89.1 249.8 87.8 Elora 247.9 45 / 45 1 MT 5780 85.9 246.7 84.7 Dawes 243.9 79 / 70 1 MT 9025 81.9 242.0 80.0 Hayden 240.0 79 / 70 1 MT 5780 78.0 238.7 76.7 Kelso 236.5 79 / 70 1 MT N 9190 - 74.5 S 9190 234.5 72.5 Kerens 226.7 79 / 70 1 MT 5754 64.7 225.4 63.4 Sands 219.5 79 / 70 1 MT 9017 57.5 217.7 55.7 Balch 212.2 79 / 70 1 MT 5765 50.2 211.0 49.0 Crucero 204.2 79 / 70 1 MT 5775 42.2 202.9 40.9 Basin 197.6 55 / 45 1 MT 6168 35.6 196.3 34.3 Afton 191.8 45 / 45 1 MT 29.8 Dunn 188.0 65 / 60 1 MT 9529 26.0 186.1 24.1 Field 182.9 79 / 70 1 MT 5760 20.9 181.7 19.7 Manix 178.2 79 / 70 1 MT 5775 16.2 176.9 14.9 Toomey 168.7 40 / 40 1 MT 6.7 Minneola 166.4 40 / 40 2 MT 4.4 Road East Yermo 163.8 79 / 60 Track 2 2 MT Yard 1.8 40 / 40 Track 1 Yermo 162.0 79 / 60 Track 2 2 MT Yard 0.0

PAGE 4

Nevada Speed Limit Main Track Siding Length Mile Post Miles Stations Passenger/Freight CTC (ft) 40 / 40 Track 1 West Yermo 160.5 79 / 60 Track 1 2 MT Yard 40 / 40 Track 2 Daggett 158.9 79 / 60 Track 2 2 MT Connection to 40 / 40 Track 1 BNSF

Other Speed Restrictions

Restricted Speed Reason (mph) Thru Sidings and Turnouts West Switch Calada 20 North Siding Cima (MP 253.2 and MP 252.8) 20 East Switch Dawes 20 East Witch Kelso Siding #1 and #2 20 Kelso Siding #1 20 Dual Control Switch Turnouts Toomey (MP 168.0) 40 Miscellaneous Speed Restrictions MP 332.6 and MP 326.4 (Track 1) 40 WB passenger trains handled with dynamic brakes in operation or light 45 engines with operative dynamic brake (MP 254.0 and MP 236.0)

LOCAL AND YARD OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA

Las Vegas (MP 334.3)

Las Vegas is the district crew change point for all crews operating on trains arriving from either the south or the north. This requires that all trains stop at the Union Pacific office located in the downtown area near Mile Post 334.3 to change crews. With the present train operation supporting 28 to 30 trains each day there are trains arriving and parked on one of the three main tracks at most times during the day or night.

Las Vegas has two small switching yards located at either end of the city. In the study area, the yard at Arden, Milepost (MP) 321.3, supports most of the inbound and outbound traffic for the general Las Vegas area, with the exception of autos and intermodal traffic which are handled in the north yard facility. There are twelve local switching assignments which provide service to the Las Vegas area on a seven day a week basis. Since there is not a central yard to support all of the inbound or outbound traffic there is a certain number of movements to and from the two different yards via the main tracks between the north and south part of the city, which adds to the train traffic density on the main track. During the past five years rail traffic volume has continued to increase to support the general growth of the greater Las Vegas area.

PAGE 5

Inbound rail car traffic is shown below: (This chart does not include the inbound auto or intermodal traffic to the area).

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 January 12,427 12,079 13,612 13,746 13,349 February 12,863 11,505 12,399 13,221 12,871 March 14,152 13,106 14,534 15,765 15,365 April 12,782 13,090 12,353 16,473 15,027 May 13,671 13,619 12,948 15,703 15,971 June 13,773 13,143 12,503 15,239 16,439 July 12,858 12,783 12,866 15,494 16,034 August 13,574 14,186 12,690 14,564 15,769 September 12,690 13,133 12,409 15,074 13,645 October 15,454 14,566 13,674 15,256 - November 12,628 13,021 13,459 14,332 - December 10,963 12,202 14,800 14,417 - Totals 157,835 156,436 158,247 179,284 - (The amount of additional car load traffic handled by the Intermodal and auto unload facility amounts to approximately 500 cars a month).

Due to a projected increase in rail business levels for the Las Vegas area, the Union Pacific has a future plan to add additional yard track capacity in the Arden Yard, which currently has five tracks, as well as to extend the second main track from where it ends now, near MP 326, to MP 321 south of Arden Yard.

Yermo Yard (MP 162.0)

Yermo Yard has eight receiving/departure tracks and 15 classification tracks. There is also a small mechanical car repair facility and a major locomotive fueling and servicing facility, where through trains receive fuel during crew changes. This yard operates four yard assignments and a local freight assignment. The Yermo Yard supports traffic moving to and from the Las Vegas and Los Angeles areas. On a daily basis the yard builds one train for Las Vegas with blocks of cars set out in the two different Las Vegas yards.

Las Vegas also builds one outbound train for Yermo Yard to switch from traffic moving out of the Las Vegas area to that moving into the Los Angeles area. Yermo is also the crew change point for trains operating to and from Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

Passenger Train Service

Presently there is no passenger service on this track segment. The last regular service was provided by Amtrak’s Desert Wind, which originated out of Chicago through Denver, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas terminating in Los Angeles. The service was discontinued on May 12, 1997, due to low ridership. At that time the schedule running time between Los Angeles and Las Vegas was 7 hours and 15 minutes, but many times the trains operated over one hour late due to conflicts with freight train traffic moving on either the UPRR owned track between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Daggett, , California, or BNSF owned tracks between Daggett,

PAGE 6

California, and San Bernardino, California. One of the major trackage segments for congestion on the UPRR is the portion between Kelso, California (MP 234.5) and Cima, California (MP 253.3) known as Cima Hill. This is a single track segment, 19 miles long, with only four sidings (passing tracks), in between the two stations, on a 2.2 percent grade, with over 2,000 feet of elevation change. Due to the grade conditions many of the freight trains operate at speeds of 25 mph or less, which can create much congestion and delay to a faster passenger train.

At the time passenger service was discontinued, the scheduled running time, for the Amtrak Desert Wind, operating between Barstow, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, was 3 hours and 15 minutes, operating over a distance of 184 miles, at an average speed of 56.6 MPH.

In 1998, the UPRR identified the section of track between Kelso and Cima, by a method of train operations modeling, as a major bottleneck to operations in a plan to reinstate passenger service in this corridor.

As a proposal to implement new passenger service that would be cost effective and provide a faster trip time, combined with on time performance, the proposed service would have to operate in the existing rail corridor unimpeded by slower freight trains. To minimize passenger train run times between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and achieve a schedule closer to six hours, which would be imperative to attract riders, consideration would have to be given to construction of capacity improvements in certain sections of track. The 19 mile segment between Kelso and Cima would demand that type of consideration. Construction of a second main track adjacent to and west of the existing main track would provide a route unimpeded by slow moving freight trains. The four existing sidings are all located on the east side of the present main track. The scope of this project was given consideration by Amtrak with an estimated cost of $28,000,000. This project ultimately failed as a result of the length of time it took to get the approvals necessary. The changes of economic climate during that time rendered the project infeasible. The railroads saw a significant increase in demand of freight services in and out of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, increasing the demand on the freight railroads and taking away the additional capacity necessary to operate passenger rail service.

PROJECT STUDY AREA – SILVERWOOD JUNCTION TO RANCHO JUNCTION (CAJON PASS)

Route Description and Overview

Trackage: Single Main Track with sidings. Operation: Centralized Traffic Control – San Bernardino, CA, Maximum train speed: Passenger 40 MPH, Freight 40 mph (Exceptions shown in Timetable). Elevations: Highest: Silverwood 3690’, Lowest: Rancho (Colton) 1,100’. Maximum Grade: Silverwood, MP 464.7 to Rancho (Colton), MP 492.7, averages 2.2-percent. Train Frequency: 10 - 15 daily. Average - 12. Train Type: General Manifest, Cement, Potash.

PAGE 7

Timetable Information

Speed Limit Main Track Stations Milepost Siding Length Miles Passenger/Freight CTC Silverwood – (BNSF) 464.7 40 / 40 1 MT 28.0 Connection Canyon 470.0 30 / 30 9515’ 23.4 – 21.4 Keenbrook - (BNSF) 479.0 30 / 30 1 MT 13.7 Connection Dike 481.0 30 / 30 7705’ 12.5 – 10.9 Bench – (SCAX) 489.8 40 / 40 1 MT 2.9 – 2.7 Connection Slover 491.1 30 / 30 9127’ 2.7 - 0.8 East Wye Bypass 492.6 15 / 15 0.1 Rancho 492.7 15 / 15 Yard 0.0

Other Speed Restrictions:

On descending grade between Silverwood, MP 464.7 and Rancho, MP 492.7, trains operating with tons per operative brake exceeding 80 and tons per axle of dynamic brake above 250 per axle are restricted to 20 MPH.

PROJECT STUDY AREA – MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA TO PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA AND SILVERWOOD JUNCTION

Mojave Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) S. Mojave, CA. to 381.3 464.7 83.4 Silverwood Jct. via Palmdale

Route Description and Overview

Trackage: Single Main Track with sidings. Operation: Centralized Traffic Control – San Bernardino, California. Maximum Train Speed: 70 MPH Passenger Trains: None Trackage Rights: None Elevations: Mojave, California, - 2757’. Hiland, California, – 3290’. Maximum Grade: 2.2 percent between Hiland and Silverwood. Grade between Mojave and Hiland, not exceed 1.2 percent. Switching Yards: Mojave, California. Train Frequency: 12 – 18 daily.

PAGE 8

Train Type: Coal, Grain, Auto, Intermodal, Cement, Potash, General Manifest.

Timetable Information

Speed Limit Main Track Stations Milepost Siding Length Miles Passenger/Freight CTC South Mojave 381.3 25 / 25 1 MT 111.4 (BNSF) Connection Fleta 384.4 70 / 65 108.3 Ansel 390.4 70 / 65 8340’ 103.2 Rosamond 394.3 70 / 65 98.4 Oban 399.9 70 / 65 8350’ 93.4 N. Lancaster 404.3 70 / 65 88.4 S. Lancaster 406.1 70 / 65 86.6 Dennis 409.8 70 / 65 8350’ 83.5 Palmdale JCT. 414.4 35 / 35 78.3 (SCAX) Palmdale 417.3 60 / 60 7370’ 76.2 Wash 435.1 60 / 60 9000’ 58.4 Phelan 451.1 60 / 60 9000’ 42.6 Hivolt 460.0 50 / 50 32.7 Hiland 463.0 40 / 40 9097’ 30.8 Silverwood (BNSF) 464.7 30 / 30 28.0 Connection

PAGE 9

BNSF RAILWAY

PROJECT STUDY AREA – DAGGETT, CALIFORNIA TO SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

Needles Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) Daggett, CA. to Barstow 737.3 745.9 8.6 CA.

Cajon Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) Barstow, CA. to San 0.0 81.4 81.4 Bernardino, CA.

Route Description and Overview

Trackage: Multiple Main tracks (2 Main tracks or more as shown in the Timetable) Operation: Centralized Traffic Control – San Bernardino, California. Maximum train speed: Passenger 79 mph – Freight 70 mph (exceptions shown in Timetable) Passenger Trains: Amtrak Southwest Chief - Trains #3 and #4. Trackage Rights: Union Pacific Railroad trains use BNSF track between Daggett, California, and San Bernardino, California. Multiple Main Track Elevations: Highest: Summit 3717’, Lowest: San Bernardino 1046’. Elevations: Daggett, California, - 1829’, Barstow, California, - 2106’, and San Bernardino, California, - 1046’. Tunnels: MP 58.9 - No. 1 Track - 380’, MP 59.2 No. 1 Track - 468’. Maximum Grade: Summit MP 55.9 to Baseline MP 79.9, varies between 2 percent and 3 percent, over approximately 24 miles through the Cajon Pass. Mileage Equations: MP 64.8 = MP 62.8. Switching Yards: Barstow, California, and San Bernardino, California. Train Frequency: 88 – 111 daily. Average 97 trains per day. Train Type: Passenger, Coal, Grain, Auto, Intermodal, Cement, Potash, General Manifest.

PAGE 10

Timetable Information

Speed Limit Main Track Stations Milepost Siding Length Miles Passenger/Freight CTC Daggett (UPRR) 737.3 79 / 70 2 MT 8.6 West Daggett 739.6 79 / 70 2 MT 6.3 Nebo 741.6 79 / 70 2 MT 4.3 East Barstow 743.6 79 / 70 2 MT 2.3 Barstow 745.9 50 / 50 2 MT Yard 0.0 Barstow 0.0 50 / 50 2 MT Yard 84.1 East D Yard 0.9 50 / 50 4 MT Yard 83.2 West D Yard 2.7 65 / 60 4 MT Yard 81.0 Valley Jct. 3.4 65 / 60 2 MT Yard 80.1 West R Yard 4.3 65 / 60 2 MT Yard 79.2 CP Jewel Track No. 5.4 65 / 60 2 MT 78.1 1 Lenwood 6.7 79 / 70 2 MT 76.8 Hodge 13.6 79 / 70 2 MT 69.9 Helendale 21.1 79 / 70 2 MT 62.4 Bryman 26.1 79 / 70 2 MT 57. 4 East Oro Grande 29.4 79 / 70 2 MT 54.1 Oro Grande 31.5 79 / 70 2 MT 52.0 East Victorville 34.6 65 / 45 2 MT 48.9 Victorville 36.7 79 / 70 2 MT 46.8 Frost 38.0 50 / 45 2 MT 45.5 Thorn Track No. 1 41.1 50 / 45 2 MT 42.4 Hesperia 45.1 79 / 70 2 MT 38.4 Lugo 50.1 55 / 50 2 MT 33.4 Martinez No. 1 52.8 55 / 50 2 MT 28.6 Track Summit 55.9 55 / 50 2 MT 25.9 Silverwood UPRR 56.6 45 / 45 2 MT 24.9 No. 1 Track Alray No. 1 Track 59.7 30 / 30 2 MT 23.8 Cajon 62.8 40 / 35 2 MT 18.6 Blue Cut 65.0 35 / 35 2 MT 16.4 Old Keenbrook 67.3 40 / 35 2 MT 14.1

PAGE 11

Speed Limit Main Track Stations Milepost Siding Length Miles Passenger/Freight CTC Keenbrook 69.4 40 / 35 2 MT 12.0 Devore No.2 Track 71.0 40 / 35 2 MT 10.4 Verdemont 73.9 50 / 35 3 MT 7.5 Ono No.3 Track 76.2 50 / 35 3 MT 6.4 Baseline 79.9 50 / 35 3 MT 1.5 Seventh Street 80.6 50 / 35 3 MT 0.8 San Bernardino 81.4 30 / 30 3 MT Yard 0.0

Passenger Train Service

Presently Amtrak operates passenger service between Barstow and Los Angeles, with one train operating in each direction daily. This is a through service, which originates in Chicago, IL., and operates via Kansas City, MO., Albuquerque, NM., Flagstaff, AZ., Barstow, California, San Bernardino, California, and terminates in Los Angeles. An eastward train originates in Los Angeles daily operating the reverse route. Present operations provide for stops at Barstow, Victorville, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Fullerton. Schedule run time between Barstow and San Bernardino is 1 hour and 50 minutes. Total schedule run time between Barstow and Los Angeles is 4 hours and 25 minutes westbound and 3 hours and 58 minutes eastbound.

The BNSF railroad between Barstow and San Bernardino, California consists of mostly double track, which passes through the San Bernardino Mountains via the “Cajon Pass”. The route for westward trains involves a steady climb from Barstow (MP 745.9) to Summit (MP 55.9). At Summit, the track begins a descent of up to 3 percent on one track and 2 percent, on the other track, to Baseline (MP 79.9). Passenger service in this corridor is impacted by the grade conditions, between Summit and Baseline, and the high frequency of freight trains that operate in the double track segment. With respect for the grade conditions, within this segment of track, many of the freight trains operating on the descending grade must operate at speeds below 25 mph in order to provide safe braking and proper control of train speed.

PROJECT STUDY AREA – BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA TO MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA

Mojave Subdivision

Mileposts Distance Segment Beginning End (miles) Barstow, CA. to Mojave, 749.8 814.7 64.9 CA.

Route Description and Overview

Trackage: Single Main Track with sidings Operation: Centralized Traffic Control – Fort Worth, Texas Maximum Train Speed: Passenger 70 mph – Freight 70 MPH.

PAGE 12

Passenger Trains: None Trackage Rights: Union Pacific Railroad trains use BNSF track between Valley JCT. to South Mojave. Elevations: Barstow, California, 2106’, and Mojave, California, 2757’. Maximum Grade: 1 percent Switching Yards: Barstow, California. Train Frequency: 23 – 28 daily Train Type: Auto, Intermodal, Coal, Grain, Cement, Potash, Cement, and General Manifest.

Timetable Information

Speed Limit Main Track Siding Stations Milepost Miles Passenger/Freight CTC Length Valley Jct. 749A.8 40 / 40 1 MT 136.3 Hutt 749A.9 50 / 50 136.2 Waterman 751.3 60 / 60 134.8 Hinkley 757.2 70 / 70 8011’ 128.9 Jim Grey 772.9 70 / 70 8034’ 113.2 Boron 784.0 70 / 70 8052’ 102.1 Silt 789.6 70 / 70 8004’ 96.5 Edwards 797.1 70 / 70 8007’ 89.0 Bissell 803.6 70 / 70 8019’ 82.5 Sanborn 810.1 70 / 70 8772’ 76.0 South Mojave 814.7 25 / 25 70.4 Mojave (UPRR) 380.7 45 / 45 Yard 69.8 Connection

PAGE 13

Appendix 6A Detailed TPC Modeling Results by Alternative

Table 1: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 1:01:10 1:01:10 56.5 55.4 79 343.2 112.1 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:03:10 0 53.6 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:55:15 1:58:25 44.5 48.4 79 342.5 138.8 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 2:00:25 0 46.7 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 0:33:07 2:33:31 36.3 65.7 79 343 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:35:31 0 61.9 16.7 0.6 Primm Arrival 1:59:464:35:18 138.2 69.2 79 343.2 210.1 Primm Departure 0:02:004:37:18 0 68.1 16.7 0.6 Las Vegas Arrival 0:44:51 5:22:09 46.3 62 79 343.1 58.1 Total (with Dwells) 5:22:09 321.8 59.9 79 343.2 548.2 Total (without Dwells) 5:14:09 321.8 61.5 79 343.2 546

Table 2: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:59:05 0:59:05 56.5 57.3 79 334.5 93.4 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:01:05 0 55.4 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:49:03 1:50:08 44.5 54.5 79 334.0 118.5 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:52:08 0 52.4 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:432:24:51 36.3 66.5 79 335.1 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:26:51 0 62.7 23.1 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:52:414:19:32 138.2 73.6 79 335.2 181.8 Primm Departure 0:02:004:21:32 0 72.3 23.1 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:45:08 5:06:40 46.3 61.6 79 335.2 51.9 Total (with Dwells) 5:06:40 321.8 63.0 79 335.2 475.5 Total (without Dwells) 4:58:40 321.8 64.7 79 335.2 472.4

Table 3: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:52:53 0:52:53 56.5 64.0 79 349.7 118.9 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:54:53 0 61.7 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:43:41 1:38:34 44.5 61.2 79 349.4 149.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:40:34 0 58.5 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:492:13:23 36.3 66.3 79 349.8 30.9 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:15:23 0 62.5 23.7 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:55:584:11:21 138.2 71.5 79 350.1 231.4 Primm Departure 0:02:004:13:21 0 70.3 23.7 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:43:10 4:56:32 46.3 64.4 79 349.7 62.2 Total (with Dwells) 4:56:32 321.8 65.1 79 350.1 595.6 Total (without Dwells) 4:48:32 321.8 66.9 79 350.1 592.5

Table 4: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:45:120:45:12 46.3 61.5 79 342.7 89.1 Primm Departure 0:02:000:47:12 0 58.9 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 1:58:132:45:25 138.2 70.1 79 343.5 212.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:47:25 0 69.0 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:33:04 3:20:29 36.3 65.8 79 343.1 60.9 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:22:29 0 62.0 16.7 0.6 San Bernardino Arrival 0:55:01 4:17:30 44.5 48.6 79 343.9 78.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:19:30 0 46.9 16.7 0.6 Los Angeles Arrival 1:00:27 5:19:56 56.5 56.0 79 343.0 76.5 Total (with Dwells) 5:19:56 321.8 60.4 79 343.9 520.3 Total (without Dwells) 5:11:56 321.8 61.9 79 343.9 518.1

Table 5: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:050:42:05 46.3 66.1 79 334.8 79.9 Primm Departure 0:02:000:44:05 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:53:112:37:16 138.2 73.3 79 334.7 182.4 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:39:16 0 72.0 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:30 3:11:46 36.3 66.9 79 334.6 54.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:46 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:48:21 4:02:07 44.5 55.3 79 334.7 71.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:04:07 0 53.1 23.1 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:55:18 4:59:25 56.5 61.2 79 335.8 70.4 Total (with Dwells) 4:59:25 321.8 64.5 79 335.8 461.5 Total (without Dwells) 4:51:25 321.8 66.3 79 335.8 458.4

Table 6: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:460:42:46 46.3 65.0 79 349.6 100.6 Primm Departure 0:02:000:44:46 0 62.1 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:51:452:36:32 138.2 74.2 79 349.9 232.6 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:38:31 0 72.9 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:51 3:11:23 36.3 66.2 79 349.5 68.5 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:23 0 62.4 23.7 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:44:40 3:58:02 44.5 59.9 79 350.5 84.1 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:00:02 0 57.3 23.7 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:52:59 4:53:02 56.5 63.9 79 350.4 73.0 Total (with Dwells) 4:53:02 321.8 65.9 79 350.5 562.0 Total (without Dwells) 4:45:02 321.8 67.7 79 350.5 558.8

Table 7: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A3, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Riverside Departure 0:00:000:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:14:13 0:14:13 9.8 41.1 60 342.7 20.9 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:16:13 0 36.1 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:54:23 1:10:36 44.5 49.2 79 342.5 138.6 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:12:36 0 47.4 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 0:33:071:45:43 36.3 65.7 79 343.0 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 1:47:43 0 61.9 16.7 0.6 Primm Arrival 1:59:463:47:28 138.2 69.2 79 343.2 210.2 Primm Departure 0:02:003:49:28 0 68.1 16.7 0.6 Las Vegas Arrival 0:44:51 4:34:20 46.3 62.0 79 343.1 58.1 Total (with Dwells) 4:34:20 275.1 60.2 79 343.2 456.9 Total (without Dwells) 4:26:20 275.1 62.0 79 343.2 454.6

Table 8: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A3, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Riverside Departure 0:00:000:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:13:42 0:13:42 9.8 42.7 60 334.9 18.5 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:15:42 0 37.2 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:49:04 1:04:46 44.5 54.5 79 334.0 118.6 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:06:46 0 52.4 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:431:39:29 36.3 66.5 79 335.1 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 1:41:29 0 62.7 23.1 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:52:413:34:10 138.2 73.6 79 335.2 181.8 Primm Departure 0:02:003:36:10 0 72.3 23.1 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:45:08 4:21:18 46.3 61.6 79 335.2 51.9 Total (with Dwells) 4:21:18 275.1 63.2 79 335.2 400.8 Total (without Dwells) 4:13:18 275.1 65.2 79 335.2 397.7

Table 9: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A3, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Riverside Departure 0:00:000:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:11:44 0:11:44 9.8 49.8 60 349.6 22.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:13:44 0 42.6 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:43:42 0:57:27 44.5 61.2 79 349.4 149.3 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 0:59:27 0 58.5 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:491:32:15 36.3 66.3 79 349.8 30.9 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 1:34:15 0 62.5 23.7 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:54:303:28:45 138.2 72.4 79 350.1 231.7 Primm Departure 0:02:003:30:45 0 71.2 23.7 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:43:10 4:13:55 46.3 64.4 79 349.7 62.2 Total (with Dwells) 4:13:55 275.1 65.0 79 350.1 499.9 Total (without Dwells) 4:05:55 275.1 67.1 79 350.1 496.7

Table 10: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A3, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:45:090:45:09 46.3 61.6 79 329.1 88.5 Primm Departure 0:02:000:47:10 0 59.0 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 1:58:162:45:26 138.2 70.1 79 329.2 212.1 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:47:26 0 68.9 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:33:08 3:20:34 36.3 65.7 79 329.1 60.7 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:22:34 0 61.9 16.7 0.6 San Bernardino Arrival 0:53:58 4:16:32 44.5 49.6 79 329.2 77.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:18:32 0 47.8 16.7 0.6 Riverside Arrival 0:14:13 4:32:45 9.8 41.1 60 328.6 11.6 Total (with Dwells) 4:32:45 275.1 60.5 79 329.2 452.7 Total (without Dwells) 4:24:45 275.1 62.4 79 329.2 450.5

Table 11: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A3, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:060:42:06 46.3 66.1 79 334.8 79.8 Primm Departure 0:02:000:44:06 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:53:112:37:17 138.2 73.3 79 334.7 182.4 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:39:17 0 72.0 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:30 3:11:47 36.3 66.9 79 334.6 54.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:47 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:48:23 4:02:10 44.5 55.3 79 334.7 71.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:04:10 0 53.1 23.1 0.8 Riverside Arrival 0:11:27 4:15:37 9.8 51.1 60 334.3 14.0 Total (with Dwells) 4:15:37 275.1 64.6 79 334.8 405.0 Total (without Dwells) 4:07:37 275.1 66.7 79 334.8 401.9

Table 12: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A3, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:460:42:46 46.3 65.0 79 349.6 100.6 Primm Departure 0:02:000:44:46 0 62.1 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:51:452:36:32 138.2 74.2 79 349.9 232.6 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:38:31 0 72.9 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:51 3:11:23 36.3 66.2 79 349.5 68.5 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:23 0 62.4 23.7 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:44:42 3:58:05 44.5 59.8 79 350.5 84.1 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:00:05 0 57.3 23.7 0.8 Riverside Arrival 0:11:41 4:11:46 9.8 50.1 60 350.0 12.4 Total (with Dwells) 4:11:46 275.1 65.6 79 350.5 501.4 Total (without Dwells) 4:03:46 275.1 67.7 79 350.5 498.3

Table 13: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route C1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Montclair Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Los Angeles Arrival 0:39:37 0:39:37 34.3 52.0 79 343.1 49.7 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 0:47:37 0 43.2 16.7 2.2 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:39:10 1:26:48 34.2 52.4 79 343.5 83.9 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 1:28:47 0 49.8 16.7 0.6 Palmdale Arrival 0:44:49 2:13:36 35 46.9 79 342.6 117.8 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 2:15:36 0 44.9 16.7 0.6 Mojave Arrival 0:29:17 2:44:53 32.1 65.9 70 342.8 39.2 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 2:50:53 0 54.7 16.7 1.7 Barstow Arrival 1:03:59 3:54:52 69 64.6 70 342.9 51.1 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 3:56:52 0 62.7 16.7 0.6 Primm Arrival 1:59:41 5:56:33 138.2 69.3 79 343.2 210.8 Primm Departure 0:02:00 5:58:34 0 68.1 16.7 0.6 Las Vegas Arrival 0:44:52 6:43:25 46.3 62.0 79 343.1 58.2 Total (with Dwells) 6:43:25 389.1 57.9 79 343.5 616.9 Total (without Dwells) 6:21:25 389.1 61.2 79 343.5 610.8

Table 14: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route C1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Montclair Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Los Angeles Arrival 0:37:55 0:37:55 34.3 54.3 79 335.8 46.8 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 0:45:55 0 44.8 23.1 3.1 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:37:05 1:23:00 34.2 55.4 79 334.8 76.3 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 1:25:00 0 52.5 23.1 0.8 Palmdale Arrival 0:44:46 2:09:46 35 46.9 79 334.9 115.1 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 2:11:46 0 44.9 23.1 0.8 Mojave Arrival 0:29:11 2:40:57 32.1 66.1 70 335.4 36.1 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 2:46:57 0 54.8 23.1 2.3 Barstow Arrival 1:03:17 3:50:14 69 65.4 70 335.1 54.1 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 3:52:14 0 63.4 23.1 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:52:45 5:44:59 138.2 73.5 79 335.2 189.2 Primm Departure 0:02:00 5:46:59 0 72.3 23.1 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:45:07 6:32:06 46.3 61.6 79 335.2 52.0 Total (with Dwells) 6:32:06 389.1 59.5 79 335.8 578.1 Total (without Dwells) 6:10:06 389.1 63.1 79 335.8 569.6

Table 15: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route C1, Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Montclair Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Los Angeles Arrival 0:35:52 0:35:52 34.3 57.4 79 350.2 43.9 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 0:43:52 0 46.9 23.7 3.2 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:36:53 1:20:45 34.2 55.6 79 350.4 93.5 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 1:22:45 0 52.8 23.7 0.8 Palmdale Arrival 0:43:32 2:06:17 35 48.2 77.04 349.6 134.3 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 2:08:17 0 46.1 23.7 0.8 Mojave Arrival 0:29:20 2:37:37 32.1 65.7 70 349.7 45.4 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 2:43:37 0 54.6 23.7 2.4 Barstow Arrival 1:02:31 3:46:08 69 66.2 70 349.8 65.0 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 3:48:08 0 64.1 23.7 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:54:01 5:42:09 138.2 72.7 79 350.1 233.7 Primm Departure 0:02:00 5:44:09 0 71.5 23.7 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:43:09 6:27:18 46.3 64.4 79 349.7 62.3 Total (with Dwells) 6:27:18 389.1 60.28 79 350.4 686.8 Total (without Dwells) 6:05:18 389.1 63.91 79 350.4 678.1

Table 16: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route C1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:45:12 0:45:12 46.3 61.5 79 342.7 89.1 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:47:12 0 58.9 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 1:58:15 2:45:26 138.2 70.1 79 343.5 212.3 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:47:27 0 69.0 16.7 0.6 Mojave Arrival 1:04:00 3:51:26 69 64.6 70 342.6 78.5 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 3:57:26 0 59.1 16.7 1.7 Palmdale Arrival 0:29:17 4:26:43 32.1 65.9 70 343.1 33.8 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 4:28:43 0 61.7 16.7 0.6 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:44:29 5:13:12 35 47.2 79 343.1 56.2 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 5:15:12 0 45.2 16.7 0.6 Los Angeles Arrival 0:39:16 5:54:28 34.2 52.3 79 343.2 39.5 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 6:02:28 0 43.4 16.7 2.2 Montclair Arrival 0:39:53 6:42:21 34.3 51.6 79 343.2 91.5 Total (with Dwells) 6:42:21 389.1 58.0 79 343.5 606.9 Total (without Dwells) 6:20:21 389.1 61.4 79 343.5 600.8

Table 17: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route C1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:05 0:42:05 46.3 66.1 79 334.8 79.9 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:44:05 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:53:21 2:37:26 138.2 73.1 79 334.7 187.7 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:39:26 0 71.9 23.1 0.8 Mojave Arrival 1:04:48 3:44:14 69 63.8 70 334.9 75.2 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 3:50:13 0 58.4 23.1 2.3 Palmdale Arrival 0:29:11 4:19:25 32.1 66.1 70 335.5 31.6 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 4:21:25 0 61.9 23.1 0.8 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:44:23 5:05:47 35 47.3 79 336.0 65.7 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 5:07:47 0 45.3 23.1 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:37:09 5:44:57 34.2 55.2 79 336.0 39.7 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 5:52:57 0 45.4 23.1 3.1 Montclair Arrival 0:41:53 6:34:50 34.3 49.2 79 334.5 74.6 Total (with Dwells) 6:34:50 389.1 59.1 79 336.0 562.9 Total (without Dwells) 6:12:49 389.1 62.6 79 336.0 554.4

Table 18: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route C1, Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:46 0:42:46 46.3 65.0 79 349.6 100.6 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:44:46 0 62.1 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:51:30 2:36:16 138.2 74.4 79 349.6 233.6 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:38:16 0 73.0 23.7 0.8 Mojave Arrival 1:04:41 3:42:58 69 63.9 70 349.7 93.6 Mojave Departure 0:06:00 3:48:58 0 58.5 23.7 2.4 Palmdale Arrival 0:29:22 4:18:20 32.1 65.7 70 349.9 39.5 Palmdale Departure 0:02:00 4:20:20 0 61.5 23.7 0.8 Santa Clarita Arrival 0:40:25 5:00:44 35 52.0 79 350.2 68.8 Santa Clarita Departure 0:02:00 5:02:44 0 49.5 23.7 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:36:39 5:39:23 34.2 56.0 79 350.4 44.5 Los Angeles Departure 0:08:00 5:47:23 0 46.0 23.7 3.2 Montclair Arrival 0:35:27 6:22:50 34.3 58.1 79 349.7 96.4 Total (with Dwells) 6:22:50 389.1 61.0 79 350.4 685.6 Total (without Dwells) 6:00:50 389.1 64.7 79 350.4 676.9

Table 19: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Montclair Arrival 0:39:32 0:39:32 34.2 51.9 79 343.2 91.0 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 0:41:32 0 49.4 16.7 0.6 San Bernardino Arrival 0:23:00 1:04:32 22.3 58.0 79 342.6 27.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:06:32 0 53.4 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:55:15 2:01:47 44.5 48.4 79 342.5 138.8 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 2:03:47 0 46.7 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 0:33:072:36:53 36.3 65.7 79 343.0 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:38:53 0 61.9 16.7 0.6 Primm Arrival 1:59:364:38:29 138.2 69.3 79 343.2 209.8 Primm Departure 0:02:004:40:29 0 68.2 16.7 0.6 Las Vegas Arrival 0:44:47 5:25:16 46.3 62.1 79 343.2 56.9 Total (with Dwells) 5:25:16 321.8 59.4 79 343.2 553.7 Total (without Dwells) 5:15:16 321.8 61.2 79 343.2 551.0

Table 20: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Montclair Arrival 0:41:16 0:41:16 34.2 49.7 79 334.5 74.4 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 0:43:16 0 47.4 23.1 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:18:53 1:02:09 22.3 70.6 79 334.5 24.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:04:09 0 63.9 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:49:03 1:53:12 44.5 54.5 79 334.0 118.5 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:55:12 0 52.4 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:432:27:55 36.3 66.5 79 335.1 26.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:29:55 0 62.7 23.1 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:52:414:22:36 138.2 73.6 79 335.2 181.7 Primm Departure 0:02:004:24:36 0 72.3 23.1 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:45:08 5:09:43 46.3 61.6 79 335.2 51.9 Total (with Dwells) 5:09:43 321.8 62.3 79 335.2 481.8 Total (without Dwells) 4:59:43 321.8 64.4 79 335.2 477.9

Table 21: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Montclair Arrival 0:34:56 0:34:56 34.2 58.8 79 349.7 95.9 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 0:36:56 0 55.6 23.7 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:19:24 0:56:20 22.3 68.8 79 349.5 30.3 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:58:20 0 62.4 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:43:41 1:42:01 44.5 61.2 79 349.4 149.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:44:01 0 58.5 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:32:492:16:50 36.3 66.3 79 349.8 30.9 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:18:50 0 62.5 23.7 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:54:204:13:10 138.2 72.5 79 350.1 231.1 Primm Departure 0:02:004:15:10 0 71.3 23.7 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:43:10 4:58:20 46.3 64.4 79 349.7 62.2 Total (with Dwells) 4:58:20 321.8 64.7 79 350.1 603.4 Total (without Dwells) 4:48:20 321.8 67.0 79 350.1 599.5

Table 22: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:45:12 0:45:12 46.3 61.5 79 342.7 89.1 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:47:12 0 58.9 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 1:58:13 2:45:25 138.2 70.1 79 343.5 212.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:47:25 0 69.0 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:33:04 3:20:29 36.3 65.8 79 343.1 60.9 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:22:29 0 62.0 16.7 0.6 San Bernardino Arrival 0:55:01 4:17:30 44.5 48.6 79 343.9 78.7 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:19:30 0 46.9 16.7 0.6 Montclair Arrival 0:22:34 4:42:04 22.3 59.1 79 342.6 33.8 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 4:44:04 0 54.3 16.7 0.6 Los Angeles Arrival 0:39:09 5:23:13 34.2 52.4 79 343.1 49.6 Total (with Dwells) 5:23:13 321.8 59.7 79 343.9 527.7 Total (without Dwells) 5:13:13 321.8 61.7 79 343.9 524.9

Table 23: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:05 0:42:05 46.3 66.1 79 334.8 79.9 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:44:05 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:53:11 2:37:16 138.2 73.3 79 334.7 182.4 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:39:16 0 72.0 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:30 3:11:46 36.3 66.9 79 334.6 54.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:46 0 63.1 23.1 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:48:21 4:02:07 44.5 55.3 79 334.7 71.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:04:07 0 53.1 23.1 0.8 Montclair Arrival 0:19:01 4:23:08 22.3 70.2 79 333.2 29.6 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 4:25:08 0 63.5 23.1 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:37:27 5:02:35 34.2 54.8 79 335.8 46.7 Total (with Dwells) 5:02:35 321.8 63.8 79 335.8 468.1 Total (without Dwells) 4:52:35 321.8 66.0 79 335.8 464.2

Table 24: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1 revised (stopping at Montclair), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:42:46 0:42:46 46.3 65.0 79 349.6 100.6 Primm Departure 0:02:00 0:44:46 0 62.1 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:51:45 2:36:32 138.2 74.2 79 349.9 232.6 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:38:31 0 72.9 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:32:51 3:11:23 36.3 66.2 79 349.5 68.5 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:13:23 0 62.4 23.7 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:44:40 3:58:02 44.5 59.9 79 350.5 84.1 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:00:02 0 57.3 23.7 0.8 Montclair Arrival 0:18:58 4:19:00 22.3 70.4 79 350.4 36.7 Montclair Departure 0:02:00 4:21:00 0 63.7 23.7 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:35:25 4:56:25 34.2 58.0 79 350.2 43.8 Total (with Dwells) 4:56:25 321.8 65.1 79 350.5 570.4 Total (without Dwells) 4:46:25 321.8 67.4 79 350.5 566.4

Table 25: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 1:01:18 1:01:18 56.5 55.3 90 343.2 121.5 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:03:18 0 53.5 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:55:27 1:58:44 44.5 48.2 79 342.9 139.3 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 2:00:44 0 46.6 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 0:31:102:31:54 36.3 69.8 90 343.0 33.1 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:33:54 0 65.6 16.7 0.6 Primm Arrival 1:48:504:22:44 138.2 76.2 90 343.2 217.7 Primm Departure 0:02:004:24:44 0 74.8 16.7 0.6 Las Vegas Arrival 0:44:11 5:08:55 46.3 62.9 90 343.1 67.1 Total (with Dwells) 5:08:55 321.8 62.5 90 343.2 580.9 Total (without Dwells) 5:00:55 321.8 64.2 90 343.2 578.7

Table 26: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 1:01:06 1:01:06 56.5 55.4 90 334.5 99.0 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 1:03:06 0 53.7 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:49:28 1:52:34 44.5 54.1 79 334.0 119.7 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:54:34 0 52.0 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:30:372:25:11 36.3 71.0 90 335.1 27.8 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:27:11 0 66.7 23.1 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:42:484:09:59 138.2 80.7 90 335.2 186.3 Primm Departure 0:02:004:11:59 0 79.1 23.1 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:43:24 4:55:22 46.3 64.1 90 335.2 53.3 Total (with Dwells) 4:55:22 321.8 65.4 90 335.2 489.2 Total (without Dwells) 4:47:22 321.8 67.2 90 335.2 486.1

Table 27: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Eastbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Los Angeles Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 San Bernardino Arrival 0:50:55 0:50:55 56.5 66.5 90 349.3 111.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 0:52:55 0 64.0 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:43:39 1:36:33 44.5 61.3 79 349.4 149.1 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 1:38:34 0 58.6 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 0:30:432:09:17 36.3 70.8 90 349.8 32.4 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:11:17 0 66.5 23.7 0.8 Primm Arrival 1:43:243:54:40 138.2 80.2 90 350.1 228.1 Primm Departure 0:02:003:56:40 0 78.7 23.7 0.8 Las Vegas Arrival 0:40:49 4:37:29 46.3 68.1 90 349.7 63.2 Total (with Dwells) 4:37:29 321.8 69.6 90 350.1 587.5 Total (without Dwells) 4:29:29 321.8 71.7 90 350.1 584.3

Table 28: TPC Result for California Surfliner (3”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:44:260:44:26 46.3 62.6 90 342.7 96.8 Primm Departure 0:02:000:46:26 0 59.9 16.7 0.6 Barstow Arrival 1:48:162:34:42 138.2 76.6 90 343.5 219.4 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:36:42 0 75.2 16.7 0.6 Victorville Arrival 0:31:06 3:07:48 36.3 69.9 90 343.1 68.2 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 3:09:48 0 65.7 16.7 0.6 San Bernardino Arrival 0:55:25 4:05:13 44.5 48.3 79 343.9 80.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 4:07:13 0 46.6 16.7 0.6 Los Angeles Arrival 1:00:45 5:07:58 56.5 55.8 90 343.0 85.3 Total (with Dwells) 5:07:58 321.8 62.7 90 343.9 552.5 Total (without Dwells) 4:59:58 321.8 64.4 90 343.9 550.2

Table 29: TPC Result for Talgo Tilt Train (5”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:40:220:40:22 46.3 68.9 90 334.8 81.3 Primm Departure 0:02:000:42:22 0 65.7 23.1 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:42:552:25:17 138.2 80.6 90 334.7 186.2 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:27:17 0 79.0 23.1 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:30:25 2:57:42 36.3 71.5 90 334.6 55.7 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 2:59:42 0 67.1 23.1 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:48:18 3:48:00 44.5 55.4 79 334.7 71.3 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 3:50:00 0 53.2 23.1 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:54:42 4:44:42 56.5 61.9 90 335.8 73.6 Total (with Dwells) 4:44:42 321.8 67.8 90 335.8 471.2 Total (without Dwells) 4:36:42 321.8 69.8 90 335.8 468.1

Table 30: TPC Result for Bombardier JetTrain (9”), Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Westbound

Average Max Peak Energy Event Interval Elapsed Distance Station ID Speed Speed Power Consumption State Time Time (Miles) (Mph) (Mph) (G/h) (Gallons) Las Vegas Departure 0:00:00 0:00:00 0 0 Primm Arrival 0:41:100:41:10 46.3 67.6 90 349.6 102.4 Primm Departure 0:02:000:43:10 0 64.4 23.7 0.8 Barstow Arrival 1:41:402:24:50 138.2 81.6 90 349.9 236.3 Barstow Departure 0:02:00 2:26:50 0 80.0 23.7 0.8 Victorville Arrival 0:30:47 2:57:37 36.3 70.7 90 349.5 70.9 Victorville Departure 0:02:00 2:59:37 0 66.3 23.7 0.8 San Bernardino Arrival 0:44:38 3:44:15 44.5 59.9 79 350.5 84.6 San Bernardino Departure 0:02:00 3:46:16 0 57.4 23.7 0.8 Los Angeles Arrival 0:52:25 4:38:40 56.5 64.6 90 350.4 77.2 Total (with Dwells) 4:38:40 321.8 69.3 90 350.5 574.7 Total (without Dwells) 4:30:40 321.8 71.3 90 350.5 571.5

Table 31: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1, Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfline (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") LAUPT to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:10:50 1:08:41 1:02:21 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 1:06:55 0:59:33 0:55:00 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:43:16 0:42:52 0:42:58 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 2:24:10 2:16:53 2:20:16 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:56:28 0:56:45 0:54:43 Total Time with Pad 6:29:39 6:12:44 6:03:18

Table 32: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1, Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Las Vegas to Primm Time with Pad 0:54:27 0:51:14 0:51:36 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Barstow Time with Pad 2:22:33 2:17:26 2:16:48 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Victorville Time with Pad 0:43:14 0:42:36 0:42:59 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:06:42 0:59:51 0:56:04 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to LAUPT Time with Pad 1:11:29 1:06:12 1:03:49 Total Time with Pad 6:26:25 6:05:19 5:59:16

Table 33: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A3, Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Riverside to San Bernardino Time with Pad 0:18:32 0:18:00 0:16:03 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 1:06:55 0:59:33 0:55:00 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:43:16 0:42:52 0:42:58 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 2:25:10 2:16:53 2:20:16 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:56:28 0:56:45 0:54:43 Total Time with Pad 5:38:21 5:22:03 5:17:00

Table 34: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A3, Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Las Vegas to Primm Time with Pad 0:54:27 0:51:14 0:51:36 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Barstow Time with Pad 2:22:33 2:17:26 2:16:48 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Victorville Time with Pad 0:43:14 0:42:36 0:42:59 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:06:42 0:59:51 0:56:04 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to Riverside Time with Pad 0:20:52 0:18:03 0:18:17 Total Time with Pad 5:35:48 5:17:10 5:13:44

Table 35: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route C1, Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Montclair to LAPUT Time with Pad 0:45:55 0:44:11 0:42:04 LA Union Station Station Dwell 0:08:00 0:08:00 0:08:00 LAUPT to Santa Clarita Time with Pad 0:54:11 0:52:05 0:51:53 Santa Clarita Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Santa Clarita to Palmdale Time with Pad 0:53:43 0:53:40 0:52:24 Palmdale Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Palmdale to Mojave Time with Pad 0:40:36 0:40:30 0:40:40 Mojave Station Dwell 0:06:00 0:06:00 0:06:00 Mojave to Barstow Time with Pad 1:25:47 1:24:59 1:24:12 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 2:24:14 2:16:58 2:18:16 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:56:26 0:56:45 0:54:43 Total Time with Pad 8:22:52 8:11:08 8:06:12

Table 36: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route C1, Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Las Vegas to Primm Time with Pad 0:54:27 0:51:14 0:51:56 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Barstow Time with Pad 2:22:33 2:17:26 2:15:33 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Mojave Time with Pad 1:21:03 1:21:50 1:21:45 Mojave Station Dwell 0:06:00 0:06:00 0:06:00 Mojave to Palmdale Time with Pad 0:45:17 0:45:11 0:45:22 Palmdale Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Palmdale to Santa Clarita Time with Pad 0:53:22 0:53:18 0:49:10 Santa Clarita Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Santa Clarita to LAUPT Time with Pad 0:47:58 0:45:57 0:45:16 LA Union Station Station Dwell 0:08:00 0:08:00 0:08:00 LAUPT to Montclair Time with Pad 0:55:03 0:57:05 0:50:24 Total Time with Pad 8:21:43 8:14:01 8:01:26

Table 37: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (stopping at Montclair), Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") LAUPT to Montclair Time with Pad 0:46:50 0:48:36 0:42:06 Montclair Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Montclair to San Bernardino Time with Pad 0:30:15 0:26:00 0:26:34 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 1:06:55 0:59:33 0:55:00 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:43:16 0:42:52 0:42:58 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 2:24:10 2:16:53 2:20:16 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:56:28 0:56:45 0:54:43 Total Time with Pad 6:37:54 6:20:39 6:11:37

Table 38: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (stopping at Montclair), Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Las Vegas to Primm Time with Pad 0:54:27 0:51:14 0:51:36 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Primm to Barstow Time with Pad 2:22:33 2:17:26 2:16:48 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Barstow to Victorville Time with Pad 0:43:14 0:42:36 0:42:59 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Victorville to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:06:42 0:59:51 0:56:04 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 San Bernardino to Montclair Time with Pad 0:29:48 0:26:07 0:26:04 Montclair Station Station Dwell 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 Montclair to LAUPT Time with Pad 0:47:49 0:46:05 0:44:01 Total Time with Pad 6:34:33 6:13:19 6:07:32

Table 39: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfline (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") LAUPT to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:10:15 1:10:02 0:59:35 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 1:00:03 0:53:54 0:47:55 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:34:42 0:34:09 0:34:14 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 2:00:37 1:54:26 1:55:03 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:49:05 0:48:16 0:45:37 Total Time with Pad 6:00:14 5:46:19 5:27:57

Table 40: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (with Low Build Improvement), Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") Las Vegas to Primm Time with Pad 0:51:20 0:47:09 0:47:59 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Primm to Barstow Time with Pad 1:58:43 1:53:14 1:51:57 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Barstow to Victorville Time with Pad 0:34:38 0:33:56 0:34:19 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Victorville to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:00:01 0:52:42 0:48:56 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 San Bernardino to LAUPT Time with Pad 1:06:41 1:00:28 0:58:07 Total Time with Pad 5:56:55 5:33:02 5:26:51

Table 41: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (with High Build Improvement), Eastbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfline (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") LAUPT to San Bernardino Time with Pad 1:08:33 1:08:21 0:57:53 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 0:59:28 0:53:19 0:47:20 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:34:14 0:33:40 0:33:46 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 1:57:02 1:50:51 1:51:28 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 0:48:04 0:47:15 0:44:36 Total Time with Pad 5:52:52 5:38:58 5:20:36

Table 42: Final Travel Time including Pad for Route A1 (with High Build Improvement), Westbound

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier Route Segments and Station Stops Surfliner (3") Train (5") JetTrain (9") LAUPT to San Bernardino Time with Pad 0:50:19 0:46:08 0:46:58 San Bernardino Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 San Bernardino to Victorville Time with Pad 1:56:26 1:50:58 1:49:40 Victorville Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Victorville to Barstow Time with Pad 0:34:10 0:33:28 0:33:50 Barstow Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Barstow to Primm Time with Pad 0:59:26 0:52:07 0:48:22 Primm Station Station Dwell 0:06:23 0:06:23 0:06:23 Primm to Las Vegas Time with Pad 1:05:00 0:58:47 0:56:26 Total Time with Pad 5:50:53 5:26:59 5:20:48

Table 43: TPC Parameters in Simulations

California Talgo Tilt Bombardier TPC parameters Surfliner (3”) Train (5”) JetTrain (9”) Track maximum speed Obey Obey Obey Civil speed limits Obey Obey Obey Calculated curve speed limits Ignore Ignore Ignore Velocity smoothing None None None Jerk limiting Yes Yes Yes Brakepipe Propagation Type Electric Electric Electric Comfort braking margin 40% 40% 40% Enforced braking reaction time 3 sec 3 sec 3 sec Blended Braking Transition Speed 1 mph 1 mph 1 mph Station stopping Yes Yes Yes Offset at station stop 0 0 0 Schedule Margin Calculation Mode None None None Schedule Margin Specification Type Percent Percent Percent Make-up time 0 0 0 Default Distance Based Schedule Margin 0 0 0 Canadian Canadian Canadian Resistance equation National National National Length algorithm Distributed Distributed Distributed Grade Grade Grade Curve Resistance Algorithm Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent 5250 5250 5250 Radius Based Curve Resistance (pounds/ton) x (pounds/ton) (pounds/ton) x feet x feet feet Curve resistance factor 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% Curve unbalance/cant def. 3" 5" 9" Average passenger weight 150 lbs 150 lbs 150 lbs 32.16 32.16 32.16 Gravitational constant feet/sec/sec feet/sec/sec feet/sec/sec Time Step 0.25 sec 0.25 sec 0.25 sec Constant acceleration No No No Constant deceleration No No No Diesel Fuel Conversion Efficiency 46% 46% 46% Run type End to End End to End End to End Associated Associated Computed by Tractive force curve Tractive Force Tractive Force TPC Curve Curve Computed by Computed by Computed by Braking force curve TPC (service) TPC (service) TPC (service) Dynamic braking available for auxiliary load No No No

Appendix 6A Velocity Profiles

1 Velocity for Route A1 Eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Los Angeles San Bernardino Victorville Barstow Primm Las Vegas

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A1 Westbound (Las Vegas to Los Angeles)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Las Vegas Primm Barstow Victorville San Bernardino Los Angeles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A3 Eastbound (Riverside to Las Vegas)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Riverside San Bernadino Victorville Barstow Primm Las Vegas

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A3 Westbound (Las Vegas to Riverside)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Las Vegas Primm Barstow Victorville San Bernadino Riverside

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route C3 Eastbound (Montclair to Las Vegas)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Montclair Los Angeles Santa Clarita Palmdale Mojave Barstow Primm Las Vegas

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route C1 Westbound (Las Vegas to Montclair)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Las Vegas Primm Barstow Mojave Palmdale Santa Clarita Los Angeles Montclair

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A1 Eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Stopping at Montclair)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Los Angeles Montclair San Bernardino Victorville Barstow Primm Las Vegas

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A1 Westbound (Las Vegas to Los Angeles, Stopping at Montclair)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Las Vegas Primm Barstow Victorville San Bernadino Montclair Los Angeles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A1 Eastbound (Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Low Build Improvement)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Los Angeles San Bernardino Victorville Barstow Primm Las Vegas

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train Velocity for Route A1 Westbound (Las Vegas to Los Angeles, Low Build Improvement)

40 Velocity (mph)

0 Station Stops Las Vegas Primm Barstow Victorville San Bernardino Los Angeles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 California Conventional Train Distance (miles) Talgo Tilt Train Bombardier Jet Train