SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1

Final Report

March 17, 2006

Prepared by:

In Association with: SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Volume I: Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...... 1 1.0 Project Definition...... 12 1.1 Project Background ...... 12 1.2 Project Definition Statement...... 12 1.3 Study Area...... 14 1.4 Study Process...... 16 1.4.1 Stakeholder’s Working Group ...... 18 1.4.2 Peer Review Panel...... 18 1.5 Primary Reference Materials ...... 19 2.0 Maglev Technology...... 20 2.1 Project Descriptions ...... 22 2.1.1 Baltimore – Washington...... 22 2.1.2 Pittsburgh ...... 23 2.1.3 Las Vegas – Primm...... 24 2.1.4 Operational Characteristics of FRA Maglev Demonstration Projects...... 25 2.2 Performance and Design Criteria ...... 26 2.2.1 Performance ...... 26 2.2.2 Grades and Vertical Geometry ...... 28 2.2.3 Curvature and Horizontal Geometry...... 29 2.3 Track and Facility ...... 29 2.3.1 Guideway...... 30 2.3.2 Facilities ...... 31 2.4 Systems...... 31 2.4.1 Vehicles...... 31 2.4.2 Train Control ...... 34 2.5 Costs ...... 35 2.5.1 Capital Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects...... 35 2.5.2 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs...... 38 2.6 Safety and Security...... 38 2.7 Cargo ...... 39 3.0 Stations and Air-Rail Integration...... 41 3.1 Air-Rail Stations...... 41 3.1.1 Station Operations...... 41 3.1.2 Airport Terminal/Rail Stations...... 42 3.2 Air-Rail Integration ...... 43 3.2.1 Ticketing and Check-in ...... 43 3.2.2 Security Issues ...... 44 3.3 Case Study: Frankfurt Airport AIRail System...... 46

March 17, 2006 Page i SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

3.3.1 Frankfurt Airport’s Catchment Area ...... 47 3.3.2 Baggage Security Review...... 49 3.4 Case Study: Chicago Airport Express...... 50 4.0 Alternatives Development...... 54 4.1 Assumptions...... 54 4.2 Planning Alignments in Mountainous Conditions...... 55 4.3 Base Alignment Alternative Routes...... 57 4.3.1 Alternative 1A: I-8 Corridor (Miramar)...... 57 4.3.2 Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm)...... 60 4.3.3 Alternative 2: Route 94 Corridor...... 63 4.3.4 Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment...... 66 4.3.5 Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor...... 68 4.4 Typical Cross Sections...... 70 4.4.1 At-Grade Guideway ...... 70 4.4.2 Aerial Guideway ...... 70 4.4.3 Bridge Structures ...... 72 4.4.4 Tunnel Structures ...... 72 4.5 Stations...... 75 4.5.1 Locations...... 75 4.5.2 Station Components and Considerations ...... 75 4.6 Additional Infrastructure...... 78 4.6.1 Wayside Equipment ...... 79 4.6.2 Operations and Maintenance Facilities ...... 79 4.7 Supplemental Segment...... 81 4.8 Conceptual Maglev Operations...... 83 4.9 Freight Opportunities...... 86 5.0 Capital, Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates...... 88 5.1 Introduction ...... 88 5.2 Unit Costs ...... 89 5.2.1 Right-of-Way Costs...... 89 5.2.2 Guideway and Track Elements ...... 89 5.2.3 Systems...... 90 5.2.4 Maintenance Facilities ...... 91 5.2.5 Stations and Parking ...... 91 5.2.6 Vehicle Acquisition ...... 91 5.2.7 Environmental Impacts ...... 91 5.2.8 Professional Services ...... 91 5.2.9 Contingency ...... 92 5.2.10 Peer Review Comments and Capital Costs ...... 92 5.3 Capital Cost Estimates...... 93 5.3.1 Study Estimates for High (Optimum) Speed ...... 93 5.3.2 Estimates for High Speed adjusted to Peer Review Unit Costs ...... 96

March 17, 2006 Page ii SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.3 Study Estimates for Lower Speed...... 98 5.3.4 Estimate for Lower Speed from Peer Review ...... 100 5.3.5 Comparison of Estimates by Cost Category and Guideway/Track Costs and Distribution by Percent and Miles ...... 102 5.3.6 Range of Capital Costs ...... 107 5.3.7 Summary...... 108 5.4 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost...... 108 5.5 Estimates for Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego...... 109 5.5.1 Estimates for Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego by Project Element ...... 110 6.0 Ridership Studies and Analysis...... 112 6.1 Ridership Estimation Methodology...... 112 6.1.1 Maglev Service Characteristics...... 112 6.2 Airport Passenger Demand ...... 114 6.2.1 SDIA Air Passenger Forecasts...... 115 6.2.2 SDIA Meeter/Greeters ...... 115 6.2.3 SDIA Employees...... 116 6.2.4 Other Passenger Demand...... 116 6.3 Transportation Model ...... 116 6.3.1 Mode Choice ...... 117 6.4 Ridership Forecasts...... 119 6.5 Limitations of the Ridership Estimating Effort...... 120 7.0 Comparative Analysis...... 122 7.1 Comparisons of Maglev and Other Modes...... 122 7.2 Highway Comparison ...... 127 7.2.1 Freeway Geometry...... 127 8.0 Environmental Analysis ...... 129 8.1 Study Area and Environmental Criteria ...... 129 8.2 Corridor Alternatives Review...... 133 8.2.1 Corridor 1A/1B – I-8 Corridor (Miramar/Qualcomm – Desert Site) ...... 133 8.2.2 Alternative 2: SR-94 Corridor (Santa Fe Depot – Desert Site) ...... 135 8.2.3 Corridor 3: Tunnel Corridor (Qualcomm – Desert Site)...... 137 8.2.4 Corridor 4: SD&AE Corridor (Santa Fe Depot – Desert Site)...... 137 8.3 Potential Mitigation Measures and Costs...... 139 8.3.1 Environmental Mitigation Cost Estimates...... 139 9.0 Institutional Issues ...... 142 9.1 Funding Background...... 142 9.2 Funding Sources for a Maglev System...... 142 9.2.1 Background ...... 142 9.2.2 Surface Transportation Funding Vehicles...... 143 9.2.3 Aviation Funding Vehicles...... 154 9.3 Strategy to Address Intermodal Transportation...... 157

March 17, 2006 Page iii SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

9.4 Funding Strategy Plan ...... 158 9.5 Project Delivery Options...... 160 9.5.1 Design-Build ...... 161 9.5.2 Public-Private Partnerships...... 162

Volume II: Final Report – Technical Appendices TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A: Alignment Data Appendix B: Environmental Analysis Appendix C: Stakeholder Working Group

March 17, 2006 Page iv SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Base Alignment Definition ...... 14 Table 1-2: Optional Supplemental Segments...... 14 Table 2-1: Maglev Crest and Sag Parameters...... 29 Table 2-2: Maglev Track and Facility Data ...... 29 Table 2-3: Maglev Vehicle Data...... 31 Table 2-4: Maglev Vehicle Interior and Characteristics...... 33 Table 2-5: Transrapid Vehicle Dimensions ...... 34 Table 2-6: Capital Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects ($ Millions) ...... 35 Table 2-7: O&M Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects ($ Millions)...... 38 Table 4-1: Alignment Alternatives...... 54 Table 4-2: Optional Supplemental Segments...... 81 Table 5-1: Estimate by Category and Alignment ...... 94 Table 5-2: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment ...... 95 Table 5-3: Estimate by Category and Alignment ...... 96 Table 5-4: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment ...... 97 Table 5-5: Estimate by Category and Alignment ...... 98 Table 5-6: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment ...... 99 Table 5-7: Estimate by Category and Alignment ...... 100 Table 5-8: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment ...... 101 Table 5-9: Alignment 1A – I-8 Corridor ...... 102 Table 5-10: Alignment 1B – I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm)...... 103 Table 5-11: Alignment 2 – Route 94 Corridor...... 104 Table 5-12: Alignment 3 – Tunnel Alignment ...... 105 Table 5-13: Alignment 4 – SD&AE Alignment ...... 106 Table 5-14: Range of Capital Costs by Alignment in $ Millions ...... 107 Table 5-15: Cost per Mile in $ Millions...... 107 Table 5-16: to Base Alignment Alternative by Cost Category ...... 110 Table 5-17: Maglev Capital Cost Estimate – Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego ...... 111 Table 6-1: Comparable Planned U.S. Maglev System Service Characteristics ...... 112 Table 6-2: Rail Mode Share at Rail Served Airports...... 119 Table 6-3: Preliminary Ridership Projections ...... 120 Table 6-4: Preliminary Maglev Mode Share for Desert Site Airport ...... 120 Table 6-5: Comparison Ridership Projections of Planned U.S. Maglev Systems...... 120 Table 7-1: Comparison of High-Speed Rail and Maglev...... 123 Table 7-2: Illustrative Capacities and Costs of Intercity Transportation Modes – Initial Approximation (Note A)...... 126 Table 7-3: Vehicle Equivalency...... 127 Table 8-1: Vegetation Sensitivity...... 129 Table 8-2: Mitigation Ratios and Per Unit Cost...... 140

March 17, 2006 Page v SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 8-3: Comparison of Mitigation Cost by Corridor ...... 140 Table 9-1: Potential Funding Sources...... 142 Table 9-2: FAA-Approved Projects Using PFCs...... 157

March 17, 2006 Page vi SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Project Study Area...... 15 Figure 2-1: Shanghai Maglev Project ...... 21 Figure 2-2: Transrapid Vehicle Components: Levitation, Guidance and Propulsion...... 26 Figure 2-3: Transrapid Vehicle Clearances...... 27 Figure 2-4: Maglev vs. High Speed Rail Performance...... 28 Figure 2-5: Maglev Guideway Types/Planning Specifications ...... 31 Figure 2-6: Transrapid Vehicles ...... 32 Figure 2-7: Transrapid Operation Control System...... 35 Figure 2-8: Capital Costs of Proposed Maglev Systems...... 37 Figure 2-9: Maglev Cargo Vehicle...... 39 Figure 3-1: Frankfurt Airport Catchment Area with High Speed Rail...... 47 Figure 3-2: Frankfurt Airport Satellite Terminals Locations...... 47 Figure 3-3: Remote Check-In Terminals in Stuttgart and Cologne...... 48 Figure 3-4: ICE High Speed Train and Lufthansa Car on ICE Train ...... 48 Figure 3-5: Frankfurt Airport’s Long Distance Train Station...... 49 Figure 3-6: Chicago Airport Express Route...... 50 Figure 3-7: Bypass Tracks for Midway Airport Express...... 50 Figure 3-8: Bypass Tracks for O’Hare Airport Express ...... 51 Figure 3-9: Downtown Remote Airport Terminal...... 52 Figure 4-1: Laguna Mountain Range Peaks and Valleys...... 56 Figure 4-2: Plan and Profile for Alternative 1A: I-8 Corridor (Miramar) ...... 59 Figure 4-3: Plan and Profile for Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm)...... 62 Figure 4-4: Plan and Profile for Alternative 2: Route 94 Corridor...... 65 Figure 4-5: Plan and Profile for Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment ...... 67 Figure 4-6: Plan and Profile for Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor ...... 69 Figure 4-7: At-Grade Guideway ...... 70 Figure 4-8: Aerial Guideway - Type A, Single Column...... 71 Figure 4-9: Aerial Guideway - Type B, Straddle Bents ...... 71 Figure 4-10: Bridge Structure...... 72 Figure 4-11: Shallow Tunnel Section – Type A ...... 73 Figure 4-12: Shallow Tunnel Elevation – Type A...... 73 Figure 4-13: Deep Tunnel Section – Type B ...... 74 Figure 4-14: Deep Tunnel Elevation – Type B...... 74 Figure 4-15: Conceptual Station...... 76 Figure 4-16: Maglev Platform ...... 78 Figure 4-17: Wayside Equipment...... 79 Figure 4-18: Central Maintenance Facility (Pittsburgh, PA)...... 80 Figure 4-19: Downtown Supplemental Segments ...... 82 Figure 4-20: Stringline of Train Operations During Peak Hours ...... 84 Figure 4-21: Interior Configuration of Maglev Vehicle ...... 85 Figure 6-1: Highway to Maglev Time Ratio...... 117

March 17, 2006 Page vii SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 6-2: Maglev to Highway Cost Ratio ...... 118 Figure 7-1: Travel Capacities – Auto, Shuttle Bus and Maglev ...... 124 Figure 8-1: Vegetation Sensitivity ...... 130 Figure 8-2: Section 4(f) Resources...... 132 Figure 9-1: Optimal Funding Approach...... 159 Figure 9-2: Public/Private Partnership Involvement Option ...... 164

March 17, 2006 Page viii Executive Summary

executive summary SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Executive Summary

Introduction The purpose of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Maglev Study – Phase I, is to present concepts and facts for decision makers and stakeholders about east-west alignments for a Maglev train system to connect San Diego and a potential new regional airport in the Imperial Valley.

Maglev Study Funding The multi-year transportation bill – Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), included a funding earmark for studying a Maglev link between the San Diego region and a potential regional international airport in the Imperial Valley known as the “Desert Site.” The high priority project earmark, sponsored by U.S. Representative Bob Filner of California, reads:

No. 3537 – Conduct preliminary engineering and design analysis for a dedicated Intermodal right of way link between San Diego and the proposed Regional International Airport in Imperial Valley including a feasibility study and cost benefit analysis evaluating the comparative options of dedicated highway or highway lanes, Maglev conventional high speed rail or any combination thereof.

Non-federal matching funds were provided by the Imperial Irrigation District, the County of Imperial, and SANDAG.

Airport Site Selection Program The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) supported the project through the sharing of technical work and background data developed for the Airport Authority as part of its Airport Site Selection Program.

Since the results of this Maglev study could have an impact on the Authority’s recommendation, it was critical to conclude the study by March 2006 to allow sufficient time for the SDCRAA to consider the information provided by the study in developing site selection recommendations. The state law that established SDCRAA requires a county-wide vote on a new airport site or a San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) expansion in November 2006.

March 17, 2006 Page 1 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Study Findings This study concludes that from an engineering perspective, the Maglev system is feasible, although there are many challenges and risks associated with an emerging technology. In summary: • Engineering Perspective o Feasible to build needed infrastructure • Emerging Technology o Technology is feasible, though there are risks and challenges o Limited existing commercial operations, only 19 miles in service o No existing operations in service in mountainous terrain o Limited research available for Maglev operations in long tunnels • Operations and Maintenance o Operations and maintenance costs appear reasonable o Based on estimated ridership levels, the fare box revenues should cover the projected operations and maintenance costs • Capital Costs o The costs range from $15.2 billion to $18.5 billion o Costs depend on if the alignment is designed for high speed or lower speed operations An estimate that was developed based on the industry peer review comments on the unit costs is shown as a comparison.

Range of Capital Costs by Alignment (Cost in 2005 $ Billions) High Speed Lower Speed Alignment Study Peer Study Peer Review Review I-8 Corridor $18.5 $17.1 $16.1 $ 15.2 (Miramar) I-8 Corridor $18.8 $17.4 $16.6 $ 15.7 (Qualcomm) Route 94 Corridor $19.6 $18.2 $17.2 $ 16.3 Tunnel Alignment $25.3 $22.1 $25.7 $ 22.5 SD&AE Corridor $19.9 $18.2 $16.6 $ 15.6

The highlights of the study are summarized below in the following categories: • Study Input • Maglev Technology • Alternatives Development • Air-Rail Interface • Maglev Operations • Freight

March 17, 2006 Page 2 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Ridership • Cost Estimates • Funding Opportunities • Project Delivery Options

Study Input A variety of inputs were made to this study, including from SDCRAA, a Stakeholders Working Group, and a Peer Review Panel.

Stakeholder’s Working Group A Stakeholder’s Working Group (SWG) was formed for this study to provide input for the technical process of this study. Technical staffs from numerous public agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties were invited to the SWG. Participating members of the SWG consisted of representatives from: • SANDAG • SDCRAA • Imperial Irrigation District • Imperial Valley Association of Governments • Caltrans District 11 • City of La Mesa

Other interested parties who attended and participated in the SWG workshops included representatives from the City of Coronado, City of Mexicali, and the office of Congressman Filner.

Peer Review Panel An industry Peer Review Panel (PRP) was formed and convened to review and comment on the Maglev Study. The PRP consisted of representatives from: • Transrapid • Seneca Group • American Magline Group

The panel’s discussions focused on the Maglev study travel time, differences in unit costs to build the infrastructure and the challenges of the mountainous terrain. The mountainous terrain is an important consideration for the Maglev system given the high value of minimum travel time desired for service to the Desert Site Airport from metropolitan San Diego.

March 17, 2006 Page 3 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Maglev Technology Maglev technology is an emerging, guided, ground-based transport system consisting of a vehicle that is lifted and propelled by magnetic force along a guideway without physical contact. Maglev trains can travel at very high speeds with reasonable energy consumption and noise levels. There is currently only one Maglev system in operation, a 19-mile system in Shanghai.

This study is based on rail technology information provided in the FRA Maglev Development Program Studies in: • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania • Baltimore – Washington • Las Vegas – Primm, Nevada

Both superconductive and electromagnetic technologies were reviewed, as demonstrated by the following systems: • Central Japanese Railway Company (Superconductor technology) • Transrapid (Electromagnetic technology) • General Atomics (Test track in operation here in San Diego)

The Japanese Railway and General Atomics technologies are under development and not in commercial operation. The Transrapid Technology is the technology used in the Shanghai Maglev operation.

Alternatives Development Conceptual alternatives are developed for an east-west Maglev system connecting metropolitan San Diego to a proposed Desert Site Airport in the Imperial Valley. Building on work previously done for SDCRAA for its Airport Site Selection Program, five dual-guideway base alignment alternatives were developed as part of this study.

March 17, 2006 Page 4 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Information presented for conceptual alternatives includes plans, profile, and typical cross sections. Based on the profile, guideway and track elements were designated as: • At-grade • Elevated-Type A (single column) • Elevated-Type B (straddle bents) • High Column Bridges • Shallow Tunnel – Type A • Deep Tunnel – Type B

The alignments studied included:

Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Miramar Desert Site 93 mi Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor Qualcomm Desert Site 92 mi (Qualcomm) Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 90 mi Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Qualcomm Desert Site 79 mi Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 98 mi

Alternative 1A: I-8 corridor (Miramar) is closely based on the SDCRAA I-8 alignment from Miramar to the Desert Site.

Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) is a variation of the I-8 corridor (Miramar) with the origin station location being shifted from Miramar to a location near Qualcomm Stadium. The primary purpose of the variation is to begin the alignment from within the I-8 Corridor.

Alternative 2: The Route 94 Corridor is based largely on the SDCRAA Route 94 alignment. A major refinement is in the origin station location. Because Route 94 is primarily in alignment with downtown San Diego, the origin station chosen for this study is the Santa Fe Depot.

Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment is a straight-line deep-tunnel alternative which attempts to provide a direct alignment and consistent grade line from Qualcomm Station to the Desert Site. This alternative is similar to the SDCRAA’s straight line alternative. A major refinement is in moving the origin station location from Miramar to Qualcomm.

Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor develops a Maglev alignment along the old 148-mile-long San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) railroad corridor from San Diego to El Centro that was constructed in 1919. The development of this alternative came as a result of looking north and south of the Laguna Mountains to find a flatter alignment for increased speed at a reduced cost. This alignment crosses into Mexico for approximately 28.5 miles.

March 17, 2006 Page 5 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Air-Rail Interface Stations are an integrated part of any Maglev train system. Air-rail integration becomes an additional consideration of the study, since this Maglev System connects metropolitan San Diego with the proposed Desert Site Airport in Imperial Valley.

Under an air-rail integration model, Maglev Stations are multimodal ground transportation centers serving as satellite check-in terminals located in urban population centers that operate as “airports without runways.” In this study’s case, San Diego would be the satellite check in terminal and the Imperial County airport site would be the runways. The major components of a Maglev station include: (1) landside facilities such as parking, curbside drop-off areas and pedestrian walkways; (2) ticketing lobby with Maglev and airline ticketing and baggage check-in facilities; and (3) passenger circulation, security screening and vehicle platform.

Ridership on the Maglev system will be impacted by passenger convenience and on how well the air and rail systems are integrated. A partnership of the Airport Authority, airline industry and the U.S. Transportation Security Agency is needed to develop creative solutions for ticketing, baggage handling and passenger security.

Maglev Operations In order to develop costs, the Maglev study assumed that that Maglev system would have the following conceptual operational characteristics: • 18- to 20-hour daily operation • 4-hour “peaks” in the AM and PM • 10-minute peak-hour headways • 20-minute off-peak headways • Trip time of 35 minutes or less

The Maglev system train configuration would be: • 10 Train Sets (incl. 2 spares) • 8 Cars per Train Set o 7 Passenger Cars (470 Seats) o 1 Baggage Car • Dual Guideways

March 17, 2006 Page 6 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

It was also assumed that the system could carry high priority freight with the following characteristics: • Standard aircraft shipping containers • High priority or express goods • Cargo trainsets - 2 to 8 sections • Speed same as passenger trains

Freight Freight service opportunities for high priority, high value air freight provide additional revenue opportunities for the Maglev system. Current technology is capable of carrying standard design light freight air cargo containers.

Technology for transporting heavier marine containers is currently under evaluation by the industry. The requirements for guideway structures and Maglev vehicles for heavier cargo are only now starting to be studied. Evaluation is needed of performance impacts to train speed and energy consumption as well as joint operation with passenger trains.

Ridership This study developed ridership forecasts for the proposed Maglev system. SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Model was the primary tool used to estimate ridership forecasts. Airport passenger demand for the Desert Site airport was provided from the SDCRAA’s Airport Site Selection Program studies.

The preliminary estimates indicate that the system would generate a total of 49,900 daily passengers. Of this total, 47,600 passengers would be associated with the Desert Site Airport (air passengers and employees). This translates to a total rail mode share of approximately 48%.

It is acknowledged that this mode share is higher than any world or United States rail connected airports. This is largely attributable to the fact that no other system in the world has a rail connection with the combined distance and speed of the system proposed for the San Diego region.

March 17, 2006 Page 7 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

SANDAG Model Input Assumptions Miramar - Desert Site Year 2030 Peak Period Headway (min) 10 Off-Peak Headway (min) 20 Avg. Travel Speed (mph) 175 Route Length (mi) 90 Travel Time (min) 30 Ave Fare per Passenger $20.00 Ave Fare per Passenger-Mile $0.22

Preliminary Ridership Projections Miramar- Desert Site- System Desert Site Miramar Total Year 2030 2030 2030

Avg. Daily 23,800 23,800 47,600 Passengers Annual Passengers 9.1 9.1 18.2 (millions) Peak Hour 2,380 2,380 4,760 Ridership

Cost Estimates

Capital Costs The conceptual costs were estimated to build, operate and maintain a transportation system using magnetic levitation technology from San Diego to the Desert Site.

The capital cost estimates for each base alignment are formatted into the following cost categories: • Right-of-Way (ROW) • Guideway and Track Elements • Systems • Maintenance Facilities • Stations and Parking

March 17, 2006 Page 8 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Vehicle Acquisition • Environmental Impacts • Professional Services • Contingency

The cost estimate for each project element within each cost category is established using the unit costs for each project element multiplied by the quantities for each base alignment.

The cost estimates assume a reserve for environmental impact mitigation. Environmental issues that would need to be studied in the planning for development of a Maglev system from San Diego to the Imperial Valley are discussed in this study.

During the development of this study, an industry peer review panel was asked to review the administrative draft and provide comments. The comments impacting the unit cost estimates were taken into consideration and were used in developing the peer review comparative cost estimates presented below.

The costs range for the I-8 Corridor (Miramar) is from $15.2 billion to $18.5 billion, depending on if the alignment allowed a high speed or lower speed operation of the Maglev system under study. The industry peer review panel’s estimate is also shown as a comparison.

Range of Capital Costs by Alignment (Cost in 2005 $ Billions) High Speed Lower Speed Alignment Study Peer Study Peer Review Review I-8 Corridor $18.5 $17.1 $16.1 $ 15.2 (Miramar) I-8 Corridor $18.8 $17.4 $16.6 $15.7 (Qualcomm) Route 94 Corridor $19.6 $18.2 $17.2 $16.3 Tunnel Alignment $25.3 $22.1 $25.7 $22.5 SD&AE Corridor $19.9 $18.2 $16.6 $15.6

The range of costs-per-mile for the I-8 Corridor (Miramar) is $148.1 Million to $198.8 Million, with a benchmark cost of $112.0 million for the Baltimore-Washington planned system. This compares favorably given the added complexity and terrain challenges which results in a higher infrastructure cost per mile for this Maglev system.

March 17, 2006 Page 9 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Range of Cost-Per-Mile by Alignment (Cost in $ Millions) High Speed Lower Speed Alignment Study Peer Study Peer Review Review I-8 Corridor (Miramar) $198.8 $183.1 $156.8 $148.1 I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) $205.2 $188.9 $163.8 $154.3 Route 94 Corridor $218.0 $202.0 $172.4 $163.7 Tunnel Alignment $319.2 $278.9 – – SD&AE Corridor $201.7 $185.3 $153.5 $144.8

Operations and Maintenance Costs A detailed operations and maintenance cost schedule was not developed for this level of study. Since the Baltimore –Washington (B–W) study was extensively studied, the cost estimates were compared to the costs presented in the B-W study.

The study found that an operating and maintenance cost range of $100 to $150 million per year was feasible. This was benchmarked against the Maglev system study in Baltimore Washington, which estimated its cost at $62.0 million per year. The differences between the San Diego to Imperial study system and the B-W study planned systems are the distance (93 miles vs. 39 miles), cars per train (8 cars vs. 3 cars) and mountainous terrain.

This study found that the operations and maintenance costs appear reasonable, and, based on ridership levels, the fare box revenues should cover the operations and maintenance costs.

Funding Opportunities This study also examines a variety of funding sources at the local, state and federal level, as well as innovative finance, private sector funding and air-rail integration funding options. In addition, shared corridor opportunities, such as light freight operations and utilities, are also explored.

A more detailed analysis would be needed to identify each funding source, potential use and the likelihood of availability for a Maglev system. A strategic approach and a funding strategy plan would help in coordinating all potential funding sources and financial techniques for the Maglev system under study.

March 17, 2006 Page 10 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Project Delivery Options Applying the right project delivery mechanism to the right projects will result in the projects being designed and built faster, more efficiently and more economically. Building a Maglev project requires an innovative approach to project delivery because of the large size, cost and the introduction of new technology of planned systems.

Several delivery techniques that could be considered in implementing a Maglev system, such as design/build and public/private partnerships, are discussed in the report. Depending on the technique chosen, legislative changes may be needed.

March 17, 2006 Page 11 1.0 Project Definition 1.0 Project Definition SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

1.0 Project Definition

1.1 Project Background The purpose of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Maglev Study Phase 1 is to present concepts and facts for decision makers and stakeholders about east-west alignments for a Maglev train system to connect San Diego and a potential new regional airport in the Imperial Valley.

The multi-year transportation bill – Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), signed by President Bush on August 10, 2005, included a funding earmark for studying a Maglev link between the San Diego region and a potential regional international airport in the Imperial Valley known as the “Desert Site.” The high priority project earmark, sponsored by U.S. Representative Bob Filner of California, is identified as follows:

No. 3537 – Conduct preliminary engineering and design analysis for a dedicated Intermodal right of way link between San Diego and the proposed Regional International Airport in Imperial Valley including a feasibility study and cost benefit analysis evaluating the comparative options of dedicated highway or highway lanes, Maglev conventional high speed rail or any combination thereof.

Non-federal matching funds, provided by the Imperial Irrigation District, the County of Imperial and SANDAG, were needed to qualify for the federal earmark funding. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) supported the project through the sharing of technical work and background data developed for the Airport Authority as part of its Airport Site Selection Program.

The SDCRAA is tasked with recommending airport sites and has indicated a final analysis would be presented no later than April 2006. Since the results of this Maglev study could have an impact on the Authority’s recommendation, it was critical to conclude the study by March 2006 to allow sufficient time for the SDCRAA to consider the information provided by the study in developing its site selection recommendations. The state law that established SDCRAA requires a county-wide vote on a new airport site or San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) expansion in November 2006.

1.2 Project Definition Statement Connecting San Diego with a potential regional international airport in the Imperial Valley via a high-speed Maglev system has become an important issue. Congressman Filner successfully sponsored a high priority project earmark in the recently approved transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, which enabled this Maglev study to proceed.

March 17, 2006 Page 12 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Work prepared by the SDCRAA, as part of its Airport Site Selection Program, served as a starting point for work on this Maglev study.

Three basic high speed transit alignments from the Airport program provided the initial reference for the development of East-West alignment alternatives. These included the:

1. I-8 Corridor, Miramar to Desert Site; 2. State Route 94 Corridor, Miramar to Desert Site; and 3. Straight-Line Corridor, Miramar to Desert Site.

In this study, these alignments were further reviewed and refined with a focus on increasing the speed of the Maglev system. Travel time is an important factor in attracting ridership to the system; therefore, the speed of the alignments was emphasized in this study.

All of the alignments would use several tunnels because of the mountainous terrain between San Diego and Imperial Valley. This terrain is challenging and costly for train operations, and requires high bridges and long tunnel sections over and through successive peaks and valleys in order to take full advantage of the speed potential of a Maglev system.

To increase the speed of this system without requiring as many bridges and tunnels, several parallel transportation and utility-corridors were researched to determine if a flatter alignment could be developed. This resulted in another alignment along the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railroad Corridor.

The point of origin for the high speed transit routes, based on the SDCRAA program, is the county’s population centroid south of Miramar. During the process of alignment refinements for this study, Qualcomm and the Downtown Sante Fe Depot were added as variations to the point of origin. The resulting station locations include:

• Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) • San Diego County Centroid (Miramar) • Qualcomm Stadium (Qualcomm) • Imperial County Proposed Desert Site Airport (Desert Site)

Connecting the Maglev system to downtown San Diego was considered in the study as a supplemental segment that could be considered as an add-on to the Base Alignment Alternatives. These supplemental segments would be from either Miramar or Qualcomm to the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The SD&AE alignment originates in downtown San Diego.

March 17, 2006 Page 13 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

1.3 Study Area The study area consists of a 100-mile swath between San Diego and western Imperial Counties. The five Base Alignment Alternatives presented in this study are shown in Table 1-1 and illustrated in Figure 1-1. Optional Supplemental Segments are shown in Table 1-2.

Table 1-1: Base Alignment Definition Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Miramar Desert Site 93 mi

Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Qualcomm Desert Site 92 mi Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 90 mi Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Qualcomm Desert Site 79 mi Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 98 mi

Table 1-2: Optional Supplemental Segments Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Supplement 1 Miramar Santa Fe Depot Miramar 9.5 mi Supplement 2 Qualcomm Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 7.6 mi Supplement 3 Tunnel (Qualcomm) Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 5.7 mi

March 17, 2006 Page 14 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 1-1: Project Study Area

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 15 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

1.4 Study Process Maglev is an emerging technology that can play an important role in the future of transportation in the United States. The federal government has and continues to show interest and provide funding for continued Maglev studies and eventual demonstration projects. The process for development of the SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 depended on data and information developed for projects that have used significant funding for concept development and preliminary engineering. The study also depended on information from the industry, Transrapid International in particular, representing technology studied for the planned Maglev systems authorized in the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Maglev Deployment Program. Transrapid also represents the only Maglev technology that is in revenue service today located in Shanghai, China, where it links the city’s downtown with its airport. Technology and modal characteristics of Maglev systems are presented in Chapter 2.0 of this study.

The Maglev system under study is intended to connect metropolitan San Diego with a proposed Desert Site airport in the Imperial Valley. The station concepts used needed to consider airline passengers beginning or ending their trips with a high-speed Maglev connection. These include consideration of check-in/ticketing, baggage and security, in addition to station site infrastructure considerations including parking, rental car and public transit connectivity. This study relies on information for air-rail operations serving Frankfurt, Germany as well as planning for air-rail service opportunities in Chicago. Station and air-rail integration information is presented in Chapter 3.0 of this report.

Development of Maglev system alternatives is presented in Chapter 4.0 of this study. Elements of each alternative include guideway alignment, stations, operations and maintenance facilities, as well as wayside facilities including power, signal and communications. The proposed Maglev system operations dictate use of a dual guideway system. Guideway alignments used work from the Airport Site Selection Program as its starting point. The east-west routes from San Diego to the Imperial Valley have significant terrain challenges which impact travel time, speed and cost. The study evaluated variables such as grade, curvature and guideway requirements to refine alignment alternatives.

Conceptual profiles helped define guideway types along the alignments including: • At-Grade Guideway • Single-Column Elevated Guideway • Straddle-Bent Elevated Guideway • High Column Bridges • Shallow Tunnel Sections • Deep Tunnel Sections

March 17, 2006 Page 16 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Additional infrastructure requirements for the Maglev alternatives include operations, maintenance and wayside components that were identified using information from the FRA Maglev Deployment Program reports.

Conceptual Maglev operations were developed for the San Diego Maglev system using ridership modeling results. Peak-hour passenger demand was used to define train headways and number of train sets (including numbers of consists, seated capacity and baggage capacity).

With the definition of alternative Maglev system concepts for San Diego, unit cost information and quantities were developed in Chapter 5.0 using data provided in the FRA Maglev Development Program reports for Pittsburgh, Baltimore – Washington and Las Vegas – Primm. These costs were adjusted to reflect the unique requirements of this Maglev system, in particular the greater length of the system and the higher cost of navigating through the challenging terrain between San Diego and the Imperial Valley. Costs presented by alternative included the following categories:

• Right-of-Way (ROW) • Guideway and Track Elements • Systems • Maintenance Facilities • Stations and Parking • Vehicle Acquisition • Environmental Impacts • Professional Services • Contingency

Other elements of the SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 process included:

Ridership Analysis - Chapter 6.0 reports on the ridership percent proposed using the SANDAG transportation model with airport passenger demand data from the SDCRAA site situation program.

Comparative Analysis -This work was based on highway planning work for San Diego and Imperial Counties and rail technology comparisons provided in the FRA Maglev Development Program Studies. Chapter 7.0 compares Maglev to highway and conventional (steel-wheeled) high-speed rail.

Environmental Analysis- Chapter 8.0 provides a high-level overview of environmental issues that need to be studied in the planning for development of a Maglev system from San Diego to the Imperial Valley. This information was developed from regional GIS information and

March 17, 2006 Page 17 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

One of the important realizations of PRP discussions was that Maglev travel time, differences in units costs to build the infrastructure, and the challenges of mountainous terrain. The mountainous terrain is an important consideration for the San Diego Maglev system given the high value of minimum travel time desired for service to the Desert Site Airport from metropolitan San Diego.

1.5 Primary Reference Materials Several sources of information have been used for this study, including:

• Report to Congress: Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, September 2005; • Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation, Maryland Transit Administration Office of Planning, October 2003; • Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, September 2005; • Transrapid International website at www.transrapid.com; • Transrapid International USA website at www.transrapid-usa.com; • Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project website at www.bwmaglev.com; • Pittsburgh Maglev Project website at www.maglevpa.com; • California-Nevada Maglev Project website at www.maglev-train.com/home.asp. Additionally, the Alternatives Analysis Draft Report (Ricondo & Associates, December 2005) for the SDCRAA’s Airport Site Selection Program provided important information, including base- map material for the development of alignment alternatives presented in this report.

March 17, 2006 Page 19 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

relevant studies encompassing the four corridors within which the Maglev system alignment concepts were developed.

Institutional Issues - Chapter 9.0 suggests strategies for funding and legislative actions that could enhance opportunities to meet the challenge of developing a Maglev system to connect San Diego with a Desert Site airport. Consideration was given to both highway and transportation as well as aviation programs and opportunities.

1.4.1 Stakeholder’s Working Group A Stakeholder’s Working Group (SWG) was formed for this study to provide input for the technical process of this study. Technical staffs from numerous public agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties were invited to the SWG. Participating members of the SWG consisted of representatives from:

• SANDAG • SDCRAA • Imperial Irrigation District • Imperial Valley Association of Governments • County of Imperial • Caltrans District 11 • City of La Mesa

Other interested parties who attended and participated in the SWG workshops included representatives from the City of Coronado, City of Mexicali and the office of Congressman Filner.

The WSG met two times: on January 11, 2006 in El Centro and on February 9, 2006 in San Diego. Copies of workshop agendas and/or meeting notes are provided in Volume II, Appendix C.

1.4.2 Peer Review Panel An industry Peer Review Panel (PRP) was formed and convened to review and comment on the San Diego Maglev Study. The PRP consisted of representatives from:

• Transrapid • Seneca Group • American Magline Group

The PRP met by videoconference on February 24, 2006 in Arlington, Virginia, and Irvine, California. Comments from PRP have been incorporated in to this study.

March 17, 2006 Page 18 2.0 maglev Technology 2.0 Maglev Technology SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

2.0 Maglev Technology Maglev technology is an emerging, guided, ground-based transport system consisting of a vehicle that is lifted and propelled by magnetic force along a guideway without physical contact. Maglev trains can travel at very high speeds with reasonable energy consumption and noise levels.

Maglev technology was first patented in 1969 by two American scientists, James R. Powell and Gordon T. Danby. Since the early 1970s, the Germans and Japanese have spearheaded further development. At, present the only revenue-generating service in operation is a line running between Pudong International Airport and Shanghai, China (shown at right), which was designed and constructed by German-owned Transrapid International.

Utilizing state-of-the-art electronic power and control systems, this technology eliminates the need for wheels, axles, gears and many other mechanical components, thereby minimizing wear and tear and permitting excellent acceleration, with cruising speeds of 300 mph or more. Transrapid’s Maglev system uses electromagnetic technology. The Central Japanese Railway Company has developed a technologically different system based on superconductor technology, using high-tech superconducting magnets. Superconducting magnets on the moving vehicle induce currents in short-circuit coils mounted on the sides of the “U” shaped concrete guideway. When the magnetic force is combined with forward thrust, the vehicle levitates in a manner very similar to an airplane in flight. The magnets provide a vertical clearance of 3.9 inches or more between the guideway and the vehicle -- an important feature for seismically active areas. Japan’s deployment of this system is anticipated within several years, with export anticipated to be additional years away.

In California, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has sponsored General Atomics to develop “Urban Maglev.” With this system, levitation is achieved by using simple, passive magnets permanently arranged in a “Halbach” array configuration. Propulsion and guidance are achieved by a linear synchronous motor mounted on the track. This approach is simple, rugged and performs exceptionally well. It is designed to operate up to a 7%

March 17, 2006 Page 20 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

grade, 50 m (164 feet) turn radius, with a 25mm (1 inch) levitation gap, offering quiet operation. General Atomics has built a test track, which is in operation in San Diego.

Maglev technology is being considered for new high-speed ground transportation projects throughout the United States and abroad. The world’s first commercial Maglev installation in Shanghai has been in service since 2003 and has carried more than five million passengers at operating speeds of up to 267 miles per hour. Project details, taken from the Transrapid-USA website, are presented in Figure 2-1 below.

Figure 2-1: Shanghai Maglev Project

Source: Transrapid website at www.transrapid-usa.com

In the United States, Maglev planning activities have been under way for the past five years. In 1998, Congress passed the six-year "Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,” creating a National Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program (MDP). The program is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), a unit of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The program’s goal is to deploy at least one commercial service approximately 40 miles long for later consideration toward a longer-distance, intercity corridor.

March 17, 2006 Page 21 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Under the MDP, the United States has spent approximately $70 million for pre-construction planning studies, but has not yet funded for construction a demonstration project in commercial service. Projects are being planned in five main locations: Baltimore (MD) – Washington (D.C.), Pittsburgh (PA), Las Vegas (NV) – Anaheim (CA), Atlanta (GA) – Chattanooga (TN), and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) – Riverside (CA). The first two projects are the furthest along, having advanced from preliminary engineering to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) phase of development.

In this section, Maglev technology and operational characteristics are presented, including: • Design Criteria and Performance • Systems (Vehicle, Train Control) • Track and Facility • Costs – Capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) • Safety and Security • Cargo

Three of the five U.S. Maglev projects mentioned earlier have been used as a resource for this study: Baltimore – Washington, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas – Primm, the first phase of the full Las Vegas – Anaheim project.

2.1 Project Descriptions Project descriptions for Baltimore – Washington, Pittsburgh, and Las Vegas – Primm are provided below.1 Draft environmental documents for the Baltimore and Pittsburgh projects are publicly available, but not yet available for the Las Vegas – Primm project.

2.1.1 Baltimore – Washington This is a 39.1-mile project linking center-city Baltimore’s Camden Yards (a sports complex and convention center) and Amtrak’s Union Station in Washington, D.C., with an intermediate stop at Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI). The project has been under study by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) since 1994. It would provide residents and visitors to Washington, D.C. with convenient access to a second airport only 12 minutes from the primary railroad station (Union Station) in the District. The access will relieve pressure on Ronald Reagan Washington (National) Airport, the primary Washington, D.C. airport for short- and medium- distance flights. The airport currently is operating at capacity. On a Maglev system, with an average speed of 126 mph, the trip from Baltimore to Washington, with a stop at BWI, would take 18 minutes. It would serve business travelers, tourists and commuters in the corridor. The project is visualized as the initial stage of a high-speed Maglev system for the entire Northeast Corridor between Boston (MA) and Charlotte (VA).

1 Project descriptions were derived from Report to Congress: Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, Federal Railroad Administration, September 2005.

March 17, 2006 Page 22 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Ridership for the Baltimore-Washington project is projected to be 9.2 million annual passengers by 2010. Daily operation would span 20 hours, with 10-minute peak and 20- to 30-minute off- peak headways.

The Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project was estimated to cost $3.74 billion in year 2002 dollars. This cost estimate includes: the construction of 39.1 miles of double-tracked guideway (16% in tunnel and 33% elevated); three underground stations; a maintenance facility; substations, transformers, and other electrical distribution facilities, 12 highway bridges and flyovers and 3,200 parking spaces. Only 22% of the total cost is attributable to the Maglev vehicles, propulsion, and control and communication systems. The total capital unit cost is $95.8 million per mile. Based upon the level of design information and the relative risk potential, a contingency allowance between 10% and 30% was added to each line item in the estimate.

The estimated annual cost of O&M for the project is estimated at $53 million, with 21% attributable to energy costs. The annual O&M estimates reflect the staffing plan, fringe benefits, material costs for maintaining the vehicles and guideway, utility costs for vehicle propulsion and station light and air conditioning, insurance and administrative costs. To reflect uncertainties and the level of detail in the study of operations and maintenance, a contingency factor of 30% was applied to the total O&M cost.

2.1.2 Pittsburgh This is a 55-mile project linking Pittsburgh Airport to center-city Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs. The project has been under study since 1990. Pre-construction planning for the project is being carried out by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (the provider of most of the transit service in the Pittsburgh area) and its private-sector partner, Maglev Inc. The rugged physical terrain, a full four-season climate and stops at an airport, downtown and in the suburbs would demonstrate the full potential of Maglev technology in a variety of U.S. urban environments. The project has a top speed of 249 mph and an average speed of 87 mph. The project is projected to be the first segment of an extensive Maglev network that would eventually provide high-speed intercity service between Cleveland and Philadelphia.

The project has been designed for staged construction. The 17.4-mile initial operating segment between the airport and downtown Pittsburgh was designed as an independent project, and the full Pittsburgh project would then follow.

Ridership for the full Pittsburgh project is forecast to be 14.2 million passengers in 2012. Daily operation would span 18 hours, with 8.5-minute peak headways and 10-minute off-peak headways.

The full Pittsburgh project is estimated to cost $3.82 billion in year 2003 constant dollars. This estimate includes the construction of five stations, with 33.6 miles of dual-track steel guideway

March 17, 2006 Page 23 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

linking four of the stations, and 20.5 miles of single-track steel guideway linking the system to the less-used easternmost fifth station. The project includes a major river crossing, maintenance/operations control and visitors' facility, and significant highway improvements to accommodate increased traffic generated by the project, primarily in the vicinity of the stations. For safety and aesthetic reasons, the guideway is designed to be supported on elevated structures for the full length of the project (the minimum column design height through cut sections is three meters). The project cost estimate includes contingencies of between 10% and 30%. The project design team estimates that only 12% of the project costs are attributable to the costs of Maglev vehicles, propulsion, and control and communication systems. The total capital unit cost is estimated at $70.3 million per mile.

The estimated annual O&M cost is $37.9 million, with the cost of energy accounting for 23% of the total. Included in the costs are all labor, materials and administrative costs and 12% for contingencies.

2.1.3 Las Vegas – Primm Part of the larger 269-mile Las Vegas – Anaheim Maglev Project is the 34.8-mile easternmost segment, Las Vegas – Primm. The 34.8-mile segment runs through a sparsely developed desert area along an existing highway right of way (I-15). It is primarily a single-track guideway constructed largely at grade or on low-elevated structures, and is the least expensive and least complicated project among the proposed U.S. Maglev projects.

Ridership for the Las Vegas – Primm project is forecast to be 7.9 million annual passengers in 2015. Daily operation would span 20 hours, with 10-minute peak headways and 20-minute off- peak headways.

The total capital cost is estimated at $1.3 billion in year 2000 constant dollars ($37 million per mile). The initial segment is designed to operate three eight-section trains between two stations at 20-minute headways. The design includes construction of 23.3 miles of steel single-track guideway and 11.5 miles of dual-track guideway, a maintenance facility and a maintenance/operations control and visitors facility. Only 34% of the guideway would be elevated, with the remainder constructed at grade. More than 35% of the capital cost would be for the Maglev vehicles, propulsion, and control and communication systems. The service would be operated at an average speed of 174 mph, with a top speed of 311 mph.

The annual cost of operation and maintenance in 2020 is estimated to be $36.7 million, with more than 30% attributable to energy costs. Initially, the primary market would be as a tourist attraction. However, with the completion of the proposed new Ivanpah Airport near Primm, the market would eventually shift to serving as an airport connector.

March 17, 2006 Page 24 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

2.1.4 Operational Characteristics of FRA Maglev Demonstration Projects Maglev federal demonstration projects in Baltimore – Washington, Las Vegas and Pittsburgh have defined operational characteristics (route lengths, consist lengths, fleet size, operations duration, etc.) after years of technical and environmental studies. According to project websites and a recent federal study,2 the system features for the three projects are:

Baltimore – Washington • Three (3) stations: (Washington, D.C., BWI and downtown Baltimore) • Full dual-track guideway • 39-mile route length • Fleet size of 7 train sets, including spares, each with three-section consists • 20-hour operation • 10-minute peak headways • Top speed: 258 mph • Average speed: 126 mph • End-to-end trip time: 18 minutes • Maximum grade: 3.2% • Projected annual ridership, in the year 2010: 9.17 million

Las Vegas – Primm • Three (3) stations: one in Las Vegas near its airport, a planned intermediate station at a future Ivanpah Airport, and a station near the state border in Primm • Mixed single- and dual-track guideway • 35-mile initial route length • Full six-station route of 269 miles (85% located in California) • Fleet size of 3 train sets, including spares, each with eight-section consists • 19-hour operation • 20-minute peak headways • Top speed: 311 mph • Average speed: 174 mph • End-to-end trip time: 11 minutes • Maximum Grade: 3.1% • Projected annual ridership, year 2010: 13.5 million

Pittsburgh • Three (3) stations: one located on the western end at Pittsburgh International Airport, a planned intermediate commuter / collector station near the airport, and a station in downtown Pittsburgh

2 Report to Congress: Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, Federal Railroad Administration, September 2005.

March 17, 2006 Page 25 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• 90% dual-track, 100% elevated guideway • 18-mile initial route length, airport to downtown • Full five-station route of 54 miles • Fleet size of 4 train sets, including spares, each with three-section consists • 18-hour operation • 10-minute peak headways • Top speed: 250 mph • Average speed: 88 mph • End-to-end trip time: 35 minutes • Maximum grade: 8.1% • Projected annual ridership, year 2010: 3.3 million

2.2 Performance and Design Criteria

2.2.1 Performance The primary components of Maglev technology and system are suspension and guidance, propulsion, guideway, vehicles, stations and support facilities. Maglev vehicles are securely wrapped around a fixed guideway that provides support (vertical direction), guidance (lateral direction) and propulsion, as shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2: Transrapid Vehicle Components: Levitation, Guidance and Propulsion

Source: Transrapid-USA website at www.transrapid-usa.com

The vehicle’s levitation and lateral guidance are the principal elements of the primary suspension. Levitation and guidance are controlled by varying the strength of the attractive magnetic forces acting between the vehicle and the guideway to maintain the proper separation gaps. The force generated by the electromagnets creates vertical and lateral gaps between the guideway and the undercarriage of the vehicle of approximately one centimeter (0.39 inches). The separation between the top of the guideway and the underside of the vehicle is 15 centimeters (six inches), allowing good clearance above the guideway deck during normal

March 17, 2006 Page 26 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

running operations. These clearances are shown in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3: Transrapid Vehicle Clearances

Source: Transrapid-USA website at www.transrapid-usa.com, with HNTB additions

In normal operations, vehicle-mounted electromagnets are powered by linear generators integrated in the support magnet assembly. For situations in which track power is lost, back-up batteries can generate levitation and lateral guidance.

Maglev propulsion, unlike conventional rail transportation systems, is installed not in the vehicle but in the guideway. The propulsion system functions much as a rotating electric motor in which the stator is cut open and stretched along both sides of the guideway. Instead of a rotating magnetic field, the motor generates a linear electromagnetic traveling field. Three-phase cable windings are attached underneath the guideway cantilever in modular stator packs which function as the stationary motor element. The support magnets form the rotor (excitation portion), allowing non-contact propulsion and braking in what is known as a long-stator linear synchronous motor, or LSM.

Transrapid’s performance features allow it to be much more flexible in alignment planning than a conventional high-speed train. Figure 2-4, which compares Maglev with Germany’s InterCity Express (ICE) train, shows that at the same speeds, Maglev can negotiate 50% tighter curves than the train. Maglev can travel through the same-radius curves at least 35% faster than the high- speed train.

March 17, 2006 Page 27 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 2-4: Maglev vs. High Speed Rail Performance

Source: Transrapid-USA website at www.transrapid-usa.com

2.2.2 Grades and Vertical Geometry Grades in Maglev systems present serious challenges to operational efficiency and create requirements for additional infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels to develop the geometry to accommodate vertical crest curves at the peaks and sag vertical curves of the valleys over a mountainous terrain. If the mountainous terrain is greater than 10 miles in length, numerous successive peaks and valleys may be encountered, resulting in several vertical crests and vertical sags on one alignment. Grades range from 3% to 8% for the three demonstration projects highlighted in this section. The Pittsburgh project includes some steep grades of up to 8.1%. However, the grades used for the other two projects are relatively flat, with maximum grades of about 3%. (In the full 269-mile California-Nevada corridor, the Cajon Pass section of the route, between Ontario and Victorville, will present some challenging terrain, featuring up to 7% grade over a stretch of about 10 miles.)

In a technical paper published in ZEVRAIL, “The System Technology of the Transrapid Guideway,” Gert Schwindt established vertical alignments parameters based on passenger comfort. These minimum parameters for crest (top of vertical curve) and sag (bottom of vertical curve) with grades of 10% cited by Schwindt are:

March 17, 2006 Page 28 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 2-1: Maglev Crest and Sag Parameters

Operating Crest Sag MPH (minimum length of vertical curve) (minimum length of vertical curve)

125 5,145 m (3.2 miles) 2,575 m (1.6 miles) 185 11,575 m (7.2 miles) 5,790 m (3.6 miles) 250 20,580 m (12.8 miles) 10,290 m (6.4 miles) 342 38,905 m (24.2 miles) 19,455 m (12.1 miles)

In mountainous terrain, these parameters for vertical curves need careful consideration in planning a Maglev route both for the impact on construction costs and the additional energy required to operate on grades.

2.2.3 Curvature and Horizontal Geometry To maximize speed and reduce capital costs, the ideal horizontal alignment for a Maglev system is a straight and flat line between two points. However, in practice the alignments must curve to avoid various natural obstacles and man-made development. The construction of a Maglev system through mountainous terrain over long distances with numerous peaks and valleys presents many challenges, especially for very high-speed operations. To avoid the peaks, curvature of the alignment is possible, but the curves substantially reduce the operational efficiency by lowering the attainable design speed and efficiency. Refer to the curve radii table in Figure 2-4.

2.3 Track and Facility Maglev’s basic track features — single- or double-track guideways, elevated structures, etc. — allow for flexible operations and alignment planning, as shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Maglev Track and Facility Data Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh, PA Las Vegas-Primm, NV Route Length (mi) 39.1 54.4 34.8 Track Length (mi) 78.2 88.0 46.3 % Track Length, Dual 100.0% 61.9% 33.0% % Track Length, Single 0.0% 38.1% 67.0% % Route Elevated 32.6% 100.0% 33.9% % Route At-Grade 51.7% 0.0% 66.1% %Route Tunnel 15.7% 0.0% 0.0% Number of Stations 3 5 2 Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005

March 17, 2006 Page 29 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

2.3.1 Guideway The estimates prepared for the U.S. Maglev projects typically assume that the guideway will be constructed of precision- manufactured steel beams. Dual-track guideways are designed for the Baltimore – Washington and the Pittsburgh Initial Operating Segment projects. The Las Vegas – Primm Project is designed as a mostly single-track guideway project, with dual-track sections providing access to the stations.

The Pittsburgh Project is designed to be on an elevated structure for the entire route. For safety and aesthetic reasons, the guideway is designed to be supported on an elevated structure, even through cut sections (the minimum column design height through cut sections is three meters). To minimize disruption to adjacent communities and provide access to stations, the Baltimore- Washington Project is designed with significant portions of the guideway to be located in tunnels (5.6 miles or 16% of route).

For the Baltimore –Washington Project, the double-track guideway construction footprint is 100 feet wide. This includes the clearance envelope needed for the dual-track guideway, space for construction and equipment access, noise berms or walls, landscaping treatments, and wayside features including switching stations, and emergency and auxiliary stopping areas. The guideway is completely separated from pedestrian and automobile traffic but can be constructed at-grade, in-tunnel or elevated. If constructed at-grade, the alignment would be fenced to assure public safety. Due to the high operating speeds, curves and grades must be gradual to maintain conservative passenger comfort parameters.

As illustrated in Figure 2-5, the guideway for any Transrapid Maglev Project will be an elevated structure, consisting of steel, concrete or hybrid concrete/steel guideway beams and reinforced concrete guideway piers. The Pittsburgh Project guideway has chosen to design a high-precision welded steel beam that requires stringent manufacturing tolerances and specific stiffness requirements for its design. The typical elevated guideway beam is Type I, with a maximum span length of 62 meters (203 feet). The project also will utilize Type II (maximum span of 25 meters or 82 feet), and Type III (six (6) meters span or 20.3 feet) beams as required. Other configurations also are possible up to the maximum of 62 meters (203 feet) in span length. The guideway will be constructed in varying heights, enabling the elimination of all at-grade crossings and providing improved safety over other transportation modes. The minimum height planned for the guideway is five (5) meters (16.5 feet). Guideway pier heights between 5 m (16.5 ft.) and 25 m (82 ft.) can be constructed without special civil structures (bridges). Secondary civil

March 17, 2006 Page 30 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

structures are planned for pier heights above 25 m (82 ft.) or span lengths greater than 37 m (121 ft.). Figure 2-5: Maglev Guideway Types/Planning Specifications

Source: Pittsburgh, PA Maglev Project website at www.maglevpa.com

2.3.2 Facilities All three proposed systems require support facilities, including a maintenance facility and operational control center, wayside power substations, cabling, various electrical controls and communication equipment. All support facilities would be located within the project’s right-of- way (ROW).

2.4 Systems

2.4.1 Vehicles Table 2-3: Maglev Vehicle Data Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm Train Sets Number (incl. spares) 7 8 3 Sections per Train Set 3 3 8 Seated Capacity per Train 190 148 720 Passenger Capacity per Train 396 344 940 Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005

March 17, 2006 Page 31 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

The U.S. Maglev projects are being planned with Transrapid equipment, which is closest to commercial deployment. Transrapid vehicles consist of two end sections, and up to eight middle sections, as illustrated in Figure 2-6. Different types of vehicle interiors are available according to the application, as shown in Table 2-5 on the next page, with variance in seated and passenger capacities presented in Table 2-4. Although the interior body design varies according to end use (passenger or cargo), the undercarriage and mechanics are identical. Since the Transrapid’s motor is in the guideway, the train’s performance is influenced neither by its length nor by its payload.

Each end section is fitted with a driver’s compartment, vehicle onboard operation control system, and the payload area for passengers, cargo or freight. The driver is passive, but available to monitor all vehicle functions via the operator consoles and to assist during unscheduled situations. Middle sections are similar in overall composition to end sections but do not have the driver’s compartment and onboard Operation Control System (OCS) equipment.

Figure 2-6: Transrapid Vehicles

Source: Transrapid International website at www.transrapid.com

March 17, 2006 Page 32 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 2-4: Maglev Vehicle Interior and Characteristics Transportation Purpose Characteristics Suburban Trains • Short – medium distance and traveling time • No toilets • Passengers with hand luggage Airport Shuttle • No toilets • Large amounts of baggage • Baggage transportation in separate baggage compartment and/or in baggage racks located near the seats Intercity • Long distance/long traveling time • Toilets • Medium amounts of baggage • Baggage transportation in separate baggage compartment and/or in baggage racks located near the seats • Comfortable seats (width, row distance, etc.) • Additional service equipment (e.g., drinks dispenser and vending machine) Cargo • No passengers • Transportation of containers, pallets, bulky baggage • Special car body (not pressure sealed, no air conditioning, etc.) Source: Transrapid International website at www.transrapid.com

Transrapid featuring the Transrapid 08 (shown below) includes the following system highlights:

• High cruising speeds of 200 - 300 mph • Fast acceleration and braking with outstanding passenger comfort • Ability to climb 10% grades • Safe operation on dedicated grade-separated track, or guideway • Vehicle wraps around guideway to reduce risk of derailment • Low electromagnetic field emission and interference potential • Standard super-elevation, or tilt, of 12 degrees (max. up to 16 degrees) to navigate curves • Proven and tested automatic operations control system with multiple levels of redundancy built in for safe operations at all speeds • Minimal guideway maintenance with small-footprint supports • Guideway energized sequentially for dynamic vehicle “block” control and reduced power demand • Sleek aerodynamic vehicle design for minimal turbulence

March 17, 2006 Page 33 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Final safety approval received in Germany and China for commercial operations • Technical evaluations and safety analyses by the U.S. Department of Transportation for potential deployment in Orlando, Florida in 1992 (The project was abandoned without being granted final system safety approval.)

The Pittsburgh Maglev project presents the following Transrapid vehicle dimensions on its website: Table 2-5: Transrapid Vehicle Dimensions End Section Middle Section Length 26.99 m 24.77 m Width 3.70 m 3.70 m Height 4.16 m 4.16 m Empty Weight 48.0 t 47.0 t Payload Capacity 14.0 t 17.5 t Passenger Capacity (seated and standing) 108 128 Total Weight 62.0 t 64.5 t Source: Pittsburgh, PA Maglev Project website at www.maglevpa.com

2.4.2 Train Control The Operation Control System (OCS) controls the operation and ensures the safety of the Transrapid Maglev system, including safeguarding vehicle movements, positioning of guideway switches and all other safety and operational functions. Vehicle location along the track is accomplished using an on-board system that detects digitally-encoded location flags on the guideway. A radio transmission system is used for communication between the central control center and the vehicles, as shown in Figure 2-7 below.

March 17, 2006 Page 34 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 2-7: Transrapid Operation Control System

Source: Transrapid International website at www.transrapid.com

2.5 Costs

2.5.1 Capital Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects Despite the diverse characteristics and designs of the projects presented, and the various methods used by different engineering teams to estimate costs, the percentage of total project costs to guideway cost is consistent. Between 45% and 48% of Total Capital Cost is attributable to the guideway. There is less consistency related to the percentage of costs allocated to other elements such as propulsion, control and communication systems. Table 2-7 below presents the capital costs for the three featured U.S. Maglev projects.

Table 2-6: Capital Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects ($ Millions) Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm Monetary Unit Base Year 2002 2003 2000 Contingency Factor Applied 10-30% 10-30% 10-20% Capital Costs ($M) Right-of-Way $92.00 $151.00 $10.10 Guideway $1,694.00 $1,802.30 $599.50 Propulsion, Control & $589.00 $246.80 $244.90 Communication Systems Maintenance Facilities $68.00 $44.40 $33.60 Power Distribution $47.00 $64.00 $36.50 Stations & Parking $396.00 $386.10 $20.80 Vehicle Acquisition $245.00 $208.80 $213.50 Financial & Other $610.00 $821.90 $127.70 Total Capital Cost $3,741.00 $3,725.30 $1,286.70

March 17, 2006 Page 35 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm Unit Capital Costs, Initial Year Guideway ($M/mi) $43.29 $33.15 $17.22 Propulsion, Control & Comm $15.13 $4.51 $7.08 Systems ($M/mi) Guideway Cost ($/Pass mi) $2.67 $2.17 $0.50 Maint Facilities Cost $3.20 $1.90 $1.40 ($M/vehicle) Power Distribution Cost $1.13 $1.13 $1.13 ($M/mi) Average Station Cost $132.00 $77.20 $10.40 ($M/station) Vehicle Cost ($M/vehicle) $11.70 $8.70 $8.90 Total Capital Cost ($M/mi) $95.76 $68.56 $37.01 Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005

As illustrated in Figure 2-8 on the following page, capital costs per route-mile have been estimated for a number of proposed Maglev projects in the United States. Some original cost estimates were generated in the 1990s and others were generated more recently. The more recent estimates (except for Munich generated during the federal Maglev Deployment Program), vary from $40 million per route-mile (Las Vegas) to $100 million per route-mile (Baltimore — Washington).

March 17, 2006 Page 36 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 2-8: Capital Costs of Proposed Maglev Systems

Per-Route-Mile Costs of Recently Estimated Maglev Systems (2004$ in millions)

$120 Estimated in Mid-1990s Estimated in Early 2000s $99 $100 $94 $89 $89

$80 $69 $61 $60 $54 $49

$38 $38 $40 $40 $37 $33 $30 $27 $28

$20

$0 Florida Munich Chicago Hub Baltimore-DC Full Pittsburgh Texas Triangle Texas L.A.-San Diego Chicago-Detroit Partial Pittsburgh Anaheim-Ontario Chicago-St.Louis Las Vegas-Primm Las Pacific Northwest Pacific Northeast Corridor Chicago-Milwaukee Bay Area-L.A.-San Diego

Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005 Note 1: Primarily Single Track Routes include: Florida, Texas Triangle, Chicago-Detroit, Pacific Northwest, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee, Los Angeles-San Diego, Las Vegas-Primm Note 2: Primarily Double Track Routes include: Bay Area-Los Angeles-San Diego, Northeast Corridor, Full Pittsburgh, Munich, Partial Pittsburgh, Anaheim-Ontario, and Baltimore-DC

March 17, 2006 Page 37 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

2.5.2 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs Since O&M costs vary more widely than those for capital costs, estimated values for O&M costs appear to be less useful in indicating their expected level. Table 2-7: O&M Costs of Planned U.S. Maglev Projects ($ Millions) Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm Annual O&M Costs ($M/yr.) Year 2020 2012 2020 Energy Consumption Cost $11.30 $10.20 $11.10 Total O&M Cost $53.00 $37.30 $35.70 Annual O&M Unit Costs ($M/Unit) Energy Cost ($/MWhr) $98.80 $56.00 $72.70 Energy Cost/Train mi $6.21 $2.95 $8.93 Total O&M Cost/Train mi $29.13 $10.78 $28.81 Total O&M Cost/passenger- $0.21 $0.11 $0.08 mi Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005

2.6 Safety and Security Maglev is considered by Transrapid International to be a safe mode of high-speed ground transportation for a number of reasons. According to the Transrapid website:

The vehicles are not subject to derailment because they wrap around the guideways. Since grade crossings are eliminated, no other types of vehicles can obstruct the guideway. Collisions between Transrapid vehicles are also ruled out due to the technical layout of the system and the progressive section-by-section switching of the guideway motor. The vehicles and the traveling field in the guideway's long-stator motor move synchronously; i.e., with the same speed and in the same direction. Additionally, the section of the long-stator linear motor in which the vehicle is moving is only switched on as the vehicle passes.

Even if the power from the public grid fails while the vehicle is running, only the propulsion system (motor) is lost. The vehicle levitation and guidance systems and all on-board equipment are supplied from on-board batteries, so the vehicle continues to levitate and move forward with its existing momentum. If the next station is too far away,

March 17, 2006 Page 38 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

the vehicle will be automatically braked to a stop at the next available auxiliary stopping area. These ‘safe stopping areas’ are planned in advance for this purpose along the route so that convenient access is provided for evacuation support services, should they be required.

For these and other reasons, including an ongoing federal-agency dialogue between Germany and the United States, the Transrapid Maglev technology being considered for U.S. corridors has been unofficially acknowledged as conforming to basic safety rules for intercity rail systems administered by the FRA.

2.7 Cargo The use of Maglev systems for freight and cargo is at an early state of development. Maglev vehicles are capable of carrying passengers (including normal hand luggage) and light cargo such as express mail and dedicated luggage compartments. As shown in Figure 2-10 below, cargo section interiors can be specially designed to handle express freight in standard aircraft shipping containers or pallets. They are designed by Transrapid to be capable of transporting up to 17.5 metric tons (19.25 U.S. tons) of high priority or express goods at the same speeds as passenger trains. Transrapid indicates that cargo sections may be assembled to form dedicated high-speed cargo trains or integrated into passenger train to carry baggage or goods. To date there are no cargo versions of Maglev in commercial operation. Figure 2-9: Maglev Cargo Vehicle

Source: Transrapid-USA website at www.transrapid-usa.com

While air-freight cargo transport has been researched and designed by manufacturers, heavy cargo applications are just beginning to be conceptually discussed. In particular, the Port of Los Angeles is looking at Maglev as a potential technology for shuttling marine containers from its terminals to near-port intermodal rail facilities. According to Transrapid International’s website, “The Maglev system is not designed to transport heavy or bulk goods because it isn't reasonable to transport coal, ore, steel or oil at [300 mph].” Even so, the capability to carry heavier types of cargo (i.e., marine containers) is being investigated for future application by such parties as the

March 17, 2006 Page 39 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As these concepts are further developed and studied, more information will become available as to compatibility with Maglev passenger operations, requirements for loading and unloading facilities, performance impacts to overall system speed, and impacts to capital costs to develop the guideway infrastructure capable of handling the heavier loads.

For the Pittsburgh project, the DEIS includes the following treatment of Maglev freight:

It is assumed a limited amount of light freight movement would occur during daily passenger operating hours, with the ability to support special freight vehicles following normal passenger operating hours. Light freight would consist of small packages that could be easily transferred to the vehicles at the Maglev stations. During normal passenger operating hours, light freight would be handled by authorized personnel and placed in secured areas on the vehicle by the freight handler. Upon arrival at the destination, the authorized freight handler would remove the light freight and transport it to the loading dock area of the station to be transferred to the final destination.

Should light freight volumes increase, freight could be loaded on special purpose vehicles in containers that would be loaded at an off-site central facility by the freight operator and transported to the station by truck or other means. Upon arrival, freight would be unloaded and transported to the ground level of the maglev station for distribution from loading docks. The containers may be transported to the platform level by an automated system. Distribution along the platform length and loading on the vehicle would occur in a separate platform area. Separate light freight vehicles would run independent of passenger trains and could also be loaded and unloaded at off-peak hours. During off-peak operating hours, runs of the special light freight vehicles could be inserted into the operating schedule based on demand.

March 17, 2006 Page 40 3.0 stations and air-rail integration 3.0 Stations and Air-Rail Integration SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

3.0 Stations and Air-Rail Integration Stations are an integrated part of any Maglev train system. Since the San Diego Maglev System connects metropolitan San Diego with the proposed Desert Site Airport in Imperial Valley, air- rail integration becomes an additional consideration of the study.

From the passenger’s perspective, the critical performance parameter for any air-rail system is total travel time from point of local trip origin (home, business, hotel, etc.) to arrival at the aircraft door or final destination. The consequence if the process is not seamless (if there are too many obstacles to getting to or from the rail link), is that passengers will forego the rail service for private vehicles.

An increasing number of communities are exploring the feasibility of remotely locating airports. Quality of life impacts on residential communities by airport operations have fostered well- organized opposition to locating or expanding airports in congested urbanized areas.

The question is not whether remote airports can address future aviation needs, given the availability of land and the community support from these inland cities; rather, the issue revolves around the region’s growing traffic congestion. How can quick and convenient access be developed to inland airports? How can the coastal area, with its dynamic business base and population core, be effectively connected to a remote inland airport, when travel times by car are expected to double in the next ten years? A key question to be addressed as San Diego evaluates the potential of a remote airport site is how to develop a reliable, fast and convenient surface access system that is convenient enough that airport customers will use it.

One strategy is to link high speed rail to airports, which will enhance mobility and reduce roadway congestion; however, linking high speed rail to airports does not ensure that the system will be cohesive. The focus must be air-rail integration, not simply connectivity, because integration creates a coordinated, synergistic system that moves people, goods and services much more efficiently than ever before. Air-rail integration produces one seamless travel path that entwines air and rail modes to essentially produce one trans-modal system.

3.1 Air-Rail Stations

3.1.1 Station Operations Under an air-rail integration model, satellite check-in terminals are multimodal ground transportation centers (GTCs) located in urban population centers that operate as “airports without runways.” At these stations, passengers can enjoy all of the services and benefits of checking into an airport such as ticket purchases, baggage checking, issuance of boarding passes, assignment of and completion of some or all of security screening procedures. Depending on the configuration of the airport satellite terminal, security check-in processes could range from an

March 17, 2006 Page 41 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

initial review of travel documents and passenger identification to a full final personal/carry-on baggage screening.

From an operational perspective, remote check-in of airline passengers is a relatively simple operation; many passengers do it now through Internet check-in. Remote check-in with baggage presents a more complex operation, especially from a security standpoint, but it is a critical feature that will positively impact air passenger ridership on air-rail connections. Passengers would be able to travel “hands-free,” which becomes more critical for those travelers who have small children, are disabled or have carry-on luggage that needs to be transported during the transition.

3.1.2 Airport Terminal/Rail Stations The location of air-rail stations is critical to the rail system’s ability to attract airport-bound riders. Two different station sittings are necessary with most air-rail models: airside and landside locations. Destination or airside stations are located at airports and are sometimes referred to as destination stations. Origin or landside stations are located away from airports at population and business centers and are sometimes called origin stations. An airside station must be strategically sited to make the rail to air transition as seamless as possible while still safeguarding the air terminal against security breaches.

A number of operational and physical features enhance an airside rail connection. Location is critical. The station should be within convenient walking distance of the airport terminal, avoiding the need to transport passengers to the terminal via shuttle bus, people mover, or taxi. The more transfers a passenger must make, the less seamless the travel path is and the more likely they will forego rail travel.

Ideally, the station should be within 300-500 feet of the air terminal building and have a minimal need to change levels, climb stairs or use elevators and escalators to reach the plane. Through- walkways eliminate the need to cross roadways, and excellent signage and directions to the air terminal ensures that the traveler reaches the flight gate quickly and easily. The goal is to make the transition between air and rail modes as convenient and seamless as possible. The time and effort it takes to disembark from the train and arrive at the departing flight gate should be quick and easy to maneuver; otherwise, the time advantage of using high-speed rail is negated.

Airside rail stations pose security challenges because of their close proximity to the airport terminal. Access control that secures doorways and entrances from the rail station to the airport terminal are important, but facility and equipment systems such as heating and cooling ducts, ventilation systems, lighting and electrical panels, fire/life safety systems and other building systems that may require a “passageway” must be secured. This will require special planning and design attention to address the multiple security challenges.

March 17, 2006 Page 42 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Landside stations are located away from airports and act as “feeder” hubs from population and business centers. These stations are the multi-modal ground transportation terminals, operated as satellite airport terminals, and are best located in areas which have large population and/or business density and the proper demographics to generate the passenger volumes necessary to support the air-rail operation. Demographically, this centralized location should serve a large community that has the disposable income available to fly frequently, and have businesses with employees who travel frequently or with products that require air transportation. These include high-tech, bio-medical and other businesses that require quick delivery times to remain competitive.

3.2 Air-Rail Integration

3.2.1 Ticketing and Check-in Code-sharing and through-ticketing ensures that passengers can book reservations and receive tickets for the entire trip -- both air and rail -- at one time. Code-sharing in the airline industry is the process in which a flight operated by one airline is jointly marketed as a flight for one or more other airlines. The term "code" refers to the identifier used in the flight schedule, generally the two-character International Air Transport Association (IATA) airline designator code and flight number. Thus, XX123 (flight 123 operated by the airline XX) might also be sold by airline YY as flight YY456 and by airline ZZ as flight ZZ9876. Under a code-sharing agreement, participating airlines can present a common flight number for connecting flights or flights from both airlines that fly the same route, thus appearing as if their frequency of service on the route is increased. Code-sharing allows one travel provider, usually an airline, to book an entire trip using different travel providers, usually other air carriers. Most major air carriers have code- sharing partnerships with other airlines, but very few have this arrangement with rail operators.

One barrier is that current airline reservation systems do not share common language and codes with those used by rail operators. There are a few key railway stations, including only one in the United States, that have their own IATA airport code and can be booked through the airline reservation process. These rail lines include:

• Amtrak out of Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey • Deutsche Bahn out of Frankfurt International Airport • SNCF French Rail out of Charles de Gaulle International Airport • Swiss Federal Railways out of Zurich International Airport • Thalys out of Charles de Gaulle International Airport • Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam, Netherlands

Unless a traveler’s destination includes one of these few rail stations, it is unlikely that a passenger will be given the option of a rail travel segment by an air carrier. Except for those rail stations which already possess an IATA code, current computer information systems for the “air

March 17, 2006 Page 43 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

world” and “rail world” cannot technically communicate. Hence, computer reservation systems cannot combine rail segments and air segments in order to sell air-rail products. Making such a sale possible requires that several conditions are fulfilled:

• Rail operators obtain the necessary IATA codes (location codes, metropolitan area codes, train equipment codes, train operator codes, train operator accounting codes); • Rail data for the information and sale of rail segments is translated into a format that airline computers understand; • Travel reservation computers can communicate with rail operators distribution systems to request data on schedules, availabilities, fares, and obtain the data and sell from the rail operators inventories; • Reservation systems can build itineraries that include air and rail legs; and • Tickets can be issued and accounting procedures permit rail operators to get their share of the air-rail sales revenues.

When this integrated system works, ticketing becomes more comprehensive. Passengers can be issued either a through-ticket or through-fare. Via through-ticketing, the passenger has a valid travel document for the entire intermodal journey. A through-fare passenger has paid for the intermodal journey, but has to exchange a voucher for a rail ticket. Either method provides the traveler a complete itinerary in one reservation and ticketing process.

3.2.2 Security Issues Passenger and baggage security presents one of the biggest challenges to successful remote terminal operations, but intermodality will never be fully achieved unless remote check-in and baggage security are resolved. European models have shown that security can be effectively addressed with proper design of the stations and clearly planned operational procedures.

There is precedence for a remote check-in system in the United States. A few airlines have contracted for remote check-in, mostly at resort hotels in Las Vegas and Orlando, with third- party private firms that provide these services for a nominal fee paid by the passenger. Guests check into their flights through an automated kiosk, check their luggage for $10-$15, and receive boarding passes at their hotels before proceeding to the airport. Bags are taken to the airport in a secure van and processed through airport security. Hotel employees do not handle bags following check-in, and the baggage handler must follow strict procedures as bags are moved from the transport into the airport security center. Employees of these baggage handling firms essentially work as an arm of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and must go through the same background check and training as TSA employees. While there are some restrictions for international travel, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) already has approved security procedures for off-airport baggage handling, including facilitating off-site ticketing and boarding passes for domestic flights.

March 17, 2006 Page 44 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

There are various procedural models that support seamless and efficient baggage check-in while ensuring the integrity of airport security. One model envisions a completely secure portion of the rail system where security screening for both passengers and baggage are performed onboard the train in secure, sterile cars while en route to the airport. Onboard security review increases the train’s attractiveness by eliminating the required security check at the airport terminal. Instead, transit time between the rail station and the airport is used for security processing. Using this model, the Maglev would unload screened passengers and baggage in a secure area of the airport rail station, ensuring direct entry into the secure airside area of the air terminal. Rather than needing an additional hour at the airport for security processing, the passenger can proceed directly to the gate and board the plane. A variation of this model is onboard check-in, where passengers not only complete the security screening process on the train, but also complete their flight check-in. Train or airport staff could check-in passengers via a laptop through an Internet connection. Thalys, a high-speed rail company, is studying how to offer Internet connections on board their trains. For the passenger, the possibility of check-in on board the train improves the seamless travel experience and saves even more processing time.

The challenge with this model is that it requires either of the following operational configurations: • Independent train operations (one for pre-screened airside travelers and one for unscreened landside travelers), making the system less efficient, more costly, and more cumbersome for rail operators; or • Split-train configurations (with secure sterile sections for airside passengers and separate unsecured sections for landside passengers), complicating airport rail station design by necessitating split-train/platform layouts that accommodate simultaneous handling of both non-secure landside passengers/bags and secure screened airside passengers and carry-on bags.

A second model is remote passenger check-in at the satellite ground transportation center, with security screening for both passengers and luggage done at the destination airport. Baggage could be handled at the remote terminal by airport personnel or the passengers themselves, but upon arrival at the airport rail terminal the passengers would need to complete baggage and passenger security screening before proceeding to their flight. A variation of this model is the Frankfurt Airport system, where airport personnel take control of baggage at the remote terminals in Stuttgart or Cologne, but don’t process bags through security review until arriving at the airport. The advantage of this model is that it permits both commuters and air passengers to co-mingle in non-secure, non-sterile train cars; however, it is not as seamless or time-efficient for air travelers as the previous model.

A third model envisions airport-to-airport connections, linked by high speed rail. For example, San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) air terminals could be connected to the Imperial County Airport by a direct Maglev link. San Diego air passengers would continue to check-in at Lindbergh Field using on-site security and check-in infrastructure and then be

March 17, 2006 Page 45 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

transported via Maglev to aircraft boarding areas at the remote airport. Security would be performed at the Lindbergh terminals with airside-to-airside connections through a sterile rail system, which would facilitate seamless handling of air connections and protect the Maglev from potential sabotage. The benefit to this model is cost. Using existing security and processing systems at an existing airport cancels the need to duplicate equipment and personnel at a landside remote terminal.

3.3 Case Study: Frankfurt Airport AIRail System This integrated approach, epitomized by Frankfurt Airport’s well-designed AIRail system, creates enough demand for the rail service that traffic congestion and use of private vehicles have dropped significantly. After being in service for only five years, AIRail boasts a rail mode share of 28%; that is, 28% of all airport passengers arrive at Frankfurt Airport by train.

Frankfurt’s state-of-the-art AIRail Service is an excellent example of seamless integration of air and rail services. A joint-venture of Lufthansa Airlines, Deutsche Bahn (the German rail company) and Fraport (the airport managers), these AIRail partners agreed to focus on shifting passengers from accessing the airport by private vehicles to regional and long-distance trains, with the ultimate goal to reduce ground traffic congestion and expand the airport’s catchment area. A catchment area is the geographic zone that is closest to an airport as defined in travel time, usually about 60 minutes from origin point to airport, which takes into consideration traffic conditions and availability of alternate modes of transportation. By expanding the catchment zone with convenient and fast ground access, the airport also expands its aviation market.

The map on the following page (Figure 3-1) graphically illustrates how Frankfurt Airport uses high-speed rail to increase the size of its catchment area by enhancing its relative accessibility versus another airport. By using high speed rail to transport passengers to the airport, Frankfurt can now serve communities more than 100 miles away, because rail travel reduces the airport travel time to less than an hour.

March 17, 2006 Page 46 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 3-1: Frankfurt Airport Catchment Area with High Speed Rail

Source: Fraport AG

3.3.1 Frankfurt Airport’s Catchment Area For San Diego, the goal is the same for a remote airport location -- to expand the catchment area of the airport so that passengers from the San Diego area can access the remote airport in less than 60 minutes.

The heart of Frankfurt’s AIRail Service is the remote satellite airport terminals. Passengers can check in and purchase tickets, check baggage and receive their aircraft boarding passes at remote check-in terminals in Stuttgart or Cologne.

Figure 3-2: Frankfurt Airport Satellite Terminals Locations

‰ Stuttgart to Frankfurt – 126 miles • Plane – 55 minutes

• Train – 67 minutes

‰ Koln to Frankfurt

– 119 miles

• Plane – 55 minutes

• Train – 47 minutes

‰ ICE High-Speed Train – 180 mph

Source: Fraport AG

March 17, 2006 Page 47 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 3-3: Remote Check-In Terminals in Stuttgart and Cologne

Source: Photo by M. Walbrun

Reservations and ticketing for both plane and train travel are integrated into a complete through- ticket process; passengers book both modes at the same time. The high-speed rail segment is booked by the airline on Germany’s ICE train. Lufthansa leases 1-2 train cars on each rail trip for air passengers, and the airline then books the seat for the air passenger on the Lufthansa train cars. Lufthansa provides check-in services for all air carriers, and logistics such as baggage handling is managed by Fraport, the Frankfurt Airport management company. Once air passengers board the ICE train, Lufthansa provides complementary beverage services, as they would if this was an air trip.

Figure 3-4: ICE High Speed Train and Lufthansa Car on ICE Train

Source: Fraport AG

March 17, 2006 Page 48 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Upon arrival at Frankfurt Airport's long-distance train station, passengers have only to complete their final personal security screening. All flight baggage is checked through from the remote terminal to the final destination airport. Sophisticated train-to-plane baggage logistics ensure the prompt transfer of baggage. Baggage checked at the remote terminals is secured in separately locked compartments on the high-speed train for direct transfer to the Frankfurt baggage security system. Figure 3-5: Frankfurt Airport’s Long Distance Train Station

Source: Fraport AG

3.3.2 Baggage Security Review Baggage is secured throughout the entire rail trip and is unloaded at Frankfurt by airport personnel. Once baggage arrives at the Frankfurt Airport, it is transferred to the baggage security system for a final review. Once cleared, baggage is taken by airport personnel to the plane for loading. If a problem is encountered during the security check, bags are tagged with the passenger’s flight information, so the passenger can be easily located for further security review.

Frankfurt’s intermodal code-shared service has been so successful that Lufthansa canceled half its flights between Cologne and Frankfurt and now books passengers on the high speed train for the “feeder” segment of the trip. In 2005, more than 1.6 million passengers at Frankfurt Airport (FRA) took advantage of the “Rail and Fly” integrated travel system, freeing valuable airport runway slots and reducing highway congestion. Direct transfers from the train to plane, and vice versa, are becoming a regular feature of traveling via Germany’s largest airport. Frankfurt’s goal is to ultimately reach a 60% rail mode share.

March 17, 2006 Page 49 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

3.4 Case Study: Chicago Airport Express The City of Chicago is taking an innovative approach to air-rail integration by planning an airport express service using its existing metro rail lines that already link to O'Hare and Midway airports. To decrease airport travel time, increase travel reliability, and reduce traffic congestion, the Chicago Airport Express will link downtown to both airports via a non-stop express train. Figure 3-6: Chicago Airport Express Route Currently, Chicago travelers must allocate as many as O’Hare two hours to drive to the airport, and even more during rush hours. An Airport Express trip to Downtown O’Hare will take about 28 minutes, as Chicago compared to 45-50 minutes via the current metro system, and about 18 minutes to Midway, as compared to 30 minutes by metro train today. The Express service would run every 15 minutes. Midway To accommodate the non-stop express service on the same tracks as the metro rail lines, additional passing Source: TranSystems Corporation tracks will be built in the right-of-way, passing on the Corporation outside of the existing tracks to enable express trains to overtake metro trains while they are stopped at interim stations. Based on computerized simulations, the passing system is expected to have a 96% reliability rate.

March 17, 2006 Page 50 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 3-7: Bypass Tracks for Midway Airport Express

Downtown Airport Express Terminal Midway Airport Express: Trains will use existing Orange Line tracks and special new passing tracks at key locations. Service features are:

• Under 30-minute one-way travel time Local • Every 15 minutes in both directions Orange Line Tracks • 5 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week

Passing Tracks Midway Airport

Source: TranSystems Corporation

Figure 3-8: Bypass Tracks for O’Hare Airport Express

O’Hare Airport O’Hare Airport Express: Trains will use existing Blue Line tracks and special new passing tracks at Express key locations. Service features are: Route Passing Tracks • Under 30-minute one-way travel Local Blue time Line • Every 15 minutes in both directions Tracks • 5 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week

Downtown Airport Express Terminal

Source: TranSystems Corporation

March 17, 2006 Page 51 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 3-9: Downtown Remote Airport Terminal

Source: TranSystems Corporation

A downtown remote airport terminal is planned, with a hotel above the station and amenities in the station such as a food court and other retail outlets typical of an airport. Airport services would include check-in and baggage checks. Baggage would continue to be screened at the airport, similar to the Frankfurt Airport model. Outbound passengers would check baggage at the downtown terminal and then pick it up at their destination airport. The luggage would be transported to the airport on the same trains as passengers and be off-loaded at the airport station for screening. Inbound passengers could have their luggage checked through to downtown Chicago. The baggage facility downtown would operate like a left-luggage room at which bags would be held for pickup.

The train will be operated in six-car segments, or four passenger cars and two baggage cars per train. Chicago also has explored the feasibility of selling the train space to consolidated delivery firms such as FedEx, DHL or UPS instead of running their trucks to the airport. Plans also call for more comfortable trains. Express cars would have upholstered seats, conference compartments, baggage racks and a vending area. Seat-back video screens would display airline

March 17, 2006 Page 52 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report flight status when traveling from the city center to the airport and information on hotels and attractions when traveling towards downtown.

There are a variety of other innovative and proven “best practices” that air-rail projects have developed and refined around the world that provide a means to create an efficient and effective air-rail integrated system.

March 17, 2006 Page 53 4.0 alternatives Development 4.0 Alternatives Development SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.0 Alternatives Development In this Chapter, conceptual alternatives are developed for an east-west Maglev system connecting metropolitan San Diego to a proposed Desert Site Airport in the Imperial Valley. Building on work previously done for SDCRAA for its Airport Site Selection Program, five dual-guideway base alignment alternatives were developed as part of this study:

Table 4-1: Alignment Alternatives

Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Miramar Desert Site 93 mi Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Qualcomm Desert Site 92 mi Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 90 mi Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Qualcomm Desert Site 79 mi Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 98 mi

Information presented for conceptual alternatives includes plans, profile, and typical cross sections. Based on the profile, guideway and track elements were designated as: • At-grade • Elevated-Type A (single column) • Elevated-Type B (straddle bents) • High Column Bridges • Shallow Tunnel – Type A • Deep Tunnel – Type B

Additional information is discussed in the study for other elements of the alternatives including: stations and parking, wayside components (systems, power and communications), operations and maintenance facilities, conceptual Maglev operations and cargo opportunities.

4.1 Assumptions In order to develop the system elements, the following major assumptions were made: • The entire alignment for each alternative is dual-guideway. • The alignment segments are categorized as urban, mountain or desert. • A 100-foot.-wide right-of-way (ROW) was assumed where the alignment was outside any existing highway or railroad ROW. • Where the alignment is on a highway ROW in a shared transportation corridor, the alignment was assumed to be on an aerial structure in the ROW. • On a railroad ROW, the alignment was located either on an aerial structure or in a tunnel. (Use of a rail ROW is subject to approval by the ROW owner.)

March 17, 2006 Page 54 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• The alignment was assumed to be on an aerial structure or in a tunnel through the urban areas to minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and development. • In order to minimize the ROW take within the urban area, 8,500-foot plus radii curves were used to the extent possible. • In mountain and desert segments, where the ROW is less constrained, 11,300-foot-plus curve radii were utilized to achieve maximum speed for the alignment. • The maximum grade used is 8%. • For guideway elevations between 6.5 feet and 22 feet in mountain and desert areas it was assumed the guideway could be built on embankment and the alignment segments where classified as at-grade. • For guideway elevations between 22 feet and 65 feet,. this was assumed as elevated guideway structure and the alignment segments were classified as either Type A “single column” or Type B “straddle bents”. • For guideway elevations above 65 feet, these segments were classified as high bridges with 5-to-1 span-to-column height ratios. • Long tunnels are conceptually designed as twin tubes with 37-foot diameters and a third service and ventilation tube 20 feet in diameter. For short tunnels, the 20-foot diameter service and ventilation tube is not required. • In the design of alignments for Maglev systems, the normal practice is to use transition curves to move from a straight path into a turn involving vehicle cant angles or super- elevation. This practice minimizes undesirable accelerations (known as “jerk”) and provides maximum passenger comfort. However, due to the conceptual nature of this study, the horizontal alignment was developed by using a series of circular curves and tangents. This will need to be refined in future study phases using more specialized curves, including different transition curves for the horizontal and vertical alignments and superposition of the vertical and the horizontal alignment elements to gauge their interactions.

4.2 Planning Alignments in Mountainous Conditions The stated purpose of this Maglev system is to transport air passengers from metropolitan San Diego to a proposed remote desert site airport in the Imperial Valley. Passenger travel time is an important consideration. In undertaking this conceptual level of study, the alignment alternatives have been refined for very high-speed Maglev operations by removing speed restrictive curves from Miramar to the Desert Site. The average speed was maximized to reduce travel time between the two points and to provide a positive input for the ridership model. In analyzing the alignments developed, the impact of the vertical geometry requirements needed to achieve these high-speed operations raises uncertainties concerning the ability to achieve very high-speed operations in mountainous conditions without a further increase in construction cost estimates.

Planning to maintain high speeds through the mountainous conditions is impacted by both the horizontal and vertical geometry. A curvature of less than 0 degrees, 27 minutes is needed to

March 17, 2006 Page 55 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report maintain a 250-mph operation. The need to virtually “stay straight” in mountainous conditions to achieve operational efficiency requires more gradient. As the alignments increase grade, the vertical crest and sag constraints need to be considered. The closer the peaks of the mountainous range, the slower the design speed that can be achieved based on the length of the vertical curves.

The need to achieve operational efficiency (reduced travel time and high ridership) and take advantage of Maglev technology speed requires a profile that uses tunnels through ridge lines and high bridges across valleys to produce a horizontal profile with minimum vertical curvature.

The challenges presented by alignment segments in mountainous conditions are detailed for each base alignment alternative route in section 4.3. Information is provided demonstrating that the terrain of the Laguna Mountains limits Maglev operation to speeds far less than 250 mph because of constraints associated with the vertical geometry of the alignment. The analysis further concludes that weaving through the mountains with increased horizontal curvature will not achieve higher speeds, since those curves also will limit speeds.

The photographs in Figure 4-1 below show peaks and valleys in the terrain that would be navigated by the Maglev system as it crosses the Laguna Mountain Range

Figure 4-1: Laguna Mountain Range Peaks and Valleys

March 17, 2006 Page 56 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.3 Base Alignment Alternative Routes

4.3.1 Alternative 1A: I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Alternative 1A: I-8 corridor (Miramar) is closely based on the SDCRAA I-8 alignment from Miramar to the Desert Site. Horizontal and vertical geometry were refined to reduce curvature in an effort to increase the maximum speed for the route and reduce travel time.

The I-8 (Miramar) corridor begins at the Miramar Station, which is conceptually located near the Route 163/Route 52 Interchange just south of the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The alignment travels east generally following State Route 52. The alignment turns south at Route 125 and follows along Route 125 to I-8. Turning northeast to merge into the I-8 corridor, the alignment closely follows I-8 until leaving the urbanized area past El Cajon and Santee. The alignment rises and continues to follow the I-8 corridor east/southeast into and through the Laguna Mountains reaching a maximum elevation of approximately 4,300 feet.

The alignment crosses the Laguna Summit, the Crestwood Summit and the Tecate Divide. As the alignment begins to descend in elevation at the eastern edge of San Diego County, the alignment travels northeasterly through the very rugged In-Ko-Pah gorge, where the existing ground profile descends more than 2,000 feet in a distance of about three miles. Leaving the Laguna Mountains and entering Imperial County, the alignment turns east and descends to nearly sea-level in elevation and follows a nearly flat desert profile. The alignment maintains an easterly direction until turning south in the vicinity of Dunway Road towards the proposed Desert Site Airport location and Airport Maglev Station.

The alignment plan and profile are shown on the attached plan and profile drawing for the I-8 (Miramar) corridor. Note that this graphic shows both the base alignment alternative from Miramar to the Desert Site, as well as the optional supplemental segment from Miramar to Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The challenges associated with the base alignment are: • The Laguna Mountain range along Alternative Alignment 1A begins at Station 1400+00 and ends at Station 4500+0, a distance of 58.7 miles; • The mountain alignment contains three summits and four valleys; and • Two of the summits are approximately 4,300 feet above sea level and the third summit is 3,700 feet above sea level; • The distance between the summit at Station 2600+00 and the summit at Station 3350+00 is 14.29 miles with grades near 3% which permits 250 mph operational speed but requires tunnels and bridge piers of at least 250 feet to carry the guideway above the valleys; • The distance between the summits at Station 3350+00 and Station 4000+00 is 12.3 miles with grades of 8 % and requires reduced speeds to approximately 185 mph to accommodate the need for passenger comfort. • Fifteen (15) tunnels varying in length from 2,000 feet to 50,000 feet with ten (10) of the tunnels greater than 5,000 feet and twelve (12) bridge structures with 5 bridges greater

March 17, 2006 Page 57 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

than 5000 feet varying in length from 2,000 feet to 16,000 feet are needed to maintain an alignment to maximize speed and maintain operational efficiency. • The grades vary from 3 to 8%. • The average speed for this alignment assuming that vertical curves are adjusted for passenger comfort is 180 MPH

The distribution of guideway and track elements for this optimum alignment is as follows: • At-Grade Guideway 33.0% • Aerial Guideway Type A 15.2% • Aerial Guideway Type B 5.9% • Bridge 13.6% • Tunnel Type A 20.3% • Tunnel Type B 12.0%

March 17, 2006 Page 58 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-2: Plan and Profile for Alternative 1A: I-8 Corridor (Miramar)

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 59 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.3.2 Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) is a variation of the I-8 corridor (Miramar) with the origin station location being shifted from Miramar to a location near Qualcomm Stadium. The primary purpose of the variation is to begin the alignment from within the I-8 Corridor.

The I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) begins at a Qualcomm Station located in the vicinity of Qualcomm Stadium. The alignment follows I-8 east-northeast until leaving the urbanized area beyond El Cajon and Santee. The alignment rises and continues to follow the I-8 corridor east- southeast into and through the Laguna Mountains reaching a maximum elevation of approximately 4,300 feet.

The alignment crosses the Laguna Summit, the Crestwood Summit and the Tecate Divide. As the alignment begins to descend in elevation at the eastern edge of San Diego County, the alignment travels northeasterly through the very rugged In-Ko-Pah gorge, where the existing ground profile descends more than 2,000 feet in a distance of about three miles. Leaving the Laguna Mountains and entering Imperial County, the alignment turns east and descends to nearly sea-level in elevation and follows a nearly flat desert profile. The alignment maintains an easterly direction until turning south in the vicinity of Dunway Road towards the proposed Desert Site Airport location and Airport Maglev Station.

The alignment plan and profile is shown on the attached plan and profile drawing for the I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm). Note that this graphic shows both the base alignment alternative from Qualcomm to the Desert Site, as well as the optional supplemental segment from Qualcomm to Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The challenges associated with the base alignment are: • The Laguna Mountain Range for Alternative Alignment 1B begins at Station 1200+00 and ends at Station 4500+00, a distance of 62.5 miles. • The mountain segment of Alignment 1B has four summits and three valleys. • Three of the summits are approximately 4,300 feet above sea level and one is 3,800 feet above sea level. • The distance between the summit at Station 2200+00 and the at 2450+00 is 4.7 miles with grades between 3 and 5% requiring a reduction in speed below optimum • The distance between the summit at Station 2450+00 and the summit at 3150+00 is 13.2 miles with grades between 3 and 5.5% . • The distance between the summit at Station 3150+00 and 3900+00 is 14.2 miles with grades between 3 and 8% requiring a reduction in speed below optimum. • Eighteeen (18) tunnels varying in length from 2,000 feet to 18,000 feet with fourteen (14) of the tunnels greater than 5,000 feet and seventeen (17) bridge structures varying in length from 2,000 feet to 16,000 feet with ten (10) bridges greater than 5000 feet are needed to maintain an alignment to maximize speed and maintain operational efficiency.

March 17, 2006 Page 60 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• The grades vary from 3 to 8%. • The average speed for this alignment assuming that vertical curves are adjusted for passenger comfort is 163 MPH

The distribution of guideway and track elements for this optimum alignment is as follows: • At-Grade Guideway 33.3% • Aerial Guideway Type A 10.3% • Aerial Guideway Type B 2.9% • Bridge 22.6% • Tunnel Type A 20.6% • Tunnel Type B 10.3%

March 17, 2006 Page 61 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-3: Plan and Profile for Alternative 1B: I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm)

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 62 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.3.3 Alternative 2: Route 94 Corridor Alternative 2: The Route 94 Corridor is based largely on the SDCRAA Route 94 alignment. A major refinement is in the origin station location. Because Route 94 is primarily in alignment with downtown San Diego, the origin station chosen for this study is the Santa Fe Depot.

Beginning at the Santa Fe Depot, the alignment travels eastward to intersect the Route 94 corridor on the east side of downtown San Diego. The alignment continues east-northeast through urban San Diego past Route 125 and through Lemon Grove until leaving the urbanized area south of El Cajon. The alignment rises and continues to follow the Route 94 corridor east- southeast through the Laguna Mountains reaching a maximum elevation of just over 4,000 feet. The alignment crosses the Laguna Summit ridge, the Crestwood Summit ridge and the Tecate Divide. As the alignment nears the U.S./Mexico border, it shifts to the northeast.

The Route 94 Corridor merges with the I-8 corridor in eastern San Diego County, at which point Alt. 2 follows the same alignment as Alts. 1A & 1B in northeasterly directions through the remainder of the Laguna Mountains and through the In-Ko-Pah Gorge. Leaving the Laguna Mountains and entering Imperial County, the alignment turns east and descends to nearly sea- level in elevation and then follows a nearly flat desert profile. The alignment maintains its easterly direction until turning south in the vicinity of the I-8/Dunway Road intersection towards the proposed Desert Site Airport location and the airport Maglev Station.

The alignment plan and profile is shown on the drawing for the SR-94 Corridor. Note this graphic shows both the base alignment alternative from Santa Fe Depot to the Desert Site as well as the optional supplemental segment from Santa Fe Depot up to Miramar. The challenges associated with the base alignment are: • The Laguna mountain range along Alternative Alignment 2 begins at Station 1450+00 and ends at Station 4500+00 a distance of 57.8 miles. • Alignment 2 contains four summits and five valleys. • Starting from the East, the first summit is approximately 2,000 feet above sea level, the second summit is at 3,500 feet, the third summit is at 4,000 feet and the fourth summit is 3,700 feet above sea level. • The distance between the summit at station 2050+00 and the summit at 2700+00 is 12.3 miles with grades to 7.3% requiring a reduction of speed below optimum. • The distance between the summit at Station 2700+00 and 3400+00 is 13.2 miles with grades to 3.2% permitting operations near optimum speeds. • The distance between the summit at Station 3400+00 and 4000+00 is 11.3 miles with grades to 6% requiring a reduction of speed below optimum. • Twenty (20) tunnels varying in length from 1,000 feet to 24,000 feet with nine (9) tunnels greater than 5,000 feet and fifteen (15) bridge structures varying in length from 2,000 feet

March 17, 2006 Page 63 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

to 10,000 feet with seven (7) bridges greater than 5000 feet are needed to maintain an alignment to maximize speed and maintain operational efficiency. • The grades vary from 3 to 8%. • The average speed for this alignment assuming that vertical curves are adjusted for passenger comfort is 220 MPH

The distribution of guideway and track elements for this optimum alignment is as follows: • At-Grade Guideway 30.6% • Aerial Guideway Type A 16.8% • Aerial Guideway Type B 3.6% • Bridge 15.4% • Tunnel Type A 22.0% • Tunnel Type B 11.6%

March 17, 2006 Page 64 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-4: Plan and Profile for Alternative 2: Route 94 Corridor

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 65 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.3.4 Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment is a straight-line deep-tunnel alternative which attempts to provide a direct alignment and consistent grade line from Qualcomm Station to the Desert Site. This alternative is similar to the SDCRAA’s straight line alternative. A major refinement is in moving the origin station location from Miramar to Qualcomm. Based on the success of tunneling 43 miles under the English Channel, the concept of a deep transportation tunnel through the Laguna Mountains appears feasibility. However, additional engineering analysis is required to prove the concept.

Beginning at Qualcomm, this alignment proceeds directly to the Desert Site in an easterly direction. The alternative uses both tunnel and aerial structures through the urban area of San Diego. The deep tunnel section traverses through the Laguna Mountains beginning at Station 400+00 to Station 3700+00 at a distance of 62.5 miles. The maximum profile grade for the tunnel is 1%, which approaches a maximum elevation of 1,100 feet above sea-level for the tunnel alignment. From Station 3700+00 east to the Desert Site Airport, the alignment follows an at- grade profile.

The alignment plan and profile is shown on the drawing for the Tunnel Alignment. Note this graphic shows both the base alignment alternative from Qualcomm to the Desert Site, as well as the optional supplemental segment from Qualcomm to the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego.

The average speed for this alignment assuming that vertical curves are adjusted for passenger comfort is 225 MPH.

The distribution of guideway and track elements for this optimum alignment is as follows: • At-Grade Guideway 18.8% • Aerial Guideway Type A 0.0% • Aerial Guideway Type B 0.0% • Bridge 5.5% • Tunnel Type A 0.0% • Tunnel Type B 75.7%

March 17, 2006 Page 66 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-5: Plan and Profile for Alternative 3: Tunnel Alignment

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 67 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.3.5 Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor develops a Maglev alignment along the old 148-mile-long San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) railroad corridor from San Diego to El Centro that was constructed in 1919. The development of this alternative came as a result of looking north and south of the Laguna Mountains to find a flatter alignment for increased speed at a reduced cost. A complication of this alignment is that it crosses into Mexico for approximately 28.5 miles (Station 800+00 to Station 2300+00). Operational, security and travel time impacts of the border crossings would need to be developed. The railroad right-of-way in the United States was purchased by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) in 1979. The portion passing through Mexico is owned by the Mexico National Railway Ferrocarril Sonora Baja California Line.

The alignment layout, stations and profile are shown on the attached plan and profile drawing for the SD&AE Corridor. The portion in Mexico has been analyzed only from the profile of the railroad alignment. Information concerning the topography of the alignment in Mexico is not available, limiting the ability to analyze this alignment in detail.

The average speed for this alignment assuming that vertical curves are adjusted for passenger comfort is 194 MPH.

The distribution of guideway and track elements for this optimum alignment is as follows: • At-Grade Guideway 34.0% • Aerial Guideway Type A 12.5% • Aerial Guideway Type B 2.9% • Bridge 15.1% • Tunnel Type A 23.6% • Tunnel Type B 11.9%

March 17, 2006 Page 68 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-6: Plan and Profile for Alternative 4: SD&AE Corridor

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 69 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.4 Typical Cross Sections Typical cross sections and elevations have been developed for six types of guideway structures that will be employed to address the challenges of the San Diego to Imperial Valley alignment alternatives. Conceptual profiles helped define the following guideway and track elements needed, including configurations for:

• At-Grade Guideway • Elevated Guideway: Type A, Single Column • Elevated Guideway: Type B, Straddle Bents • High Column Bridges • Shallow Tunnels Type A • Deep Tunnels. Type B

4.4.1 At-Grade Guideway The At-Grade Guideway configuration, shown in Figure 4-7, is applicable to open, flat rural regions, where the guideway can be placed at grade and not intersect roadways, utilities, streams and other topographical features. In this configuration, the precast concrete beams with spans up to 25 feet support the trains and associated propulsion systems. These precast beams can be curved and super elevated to match acceleration and alignment requirements. At each support, concrete grade beams serve as either pile caps and/or spread footings, and the respective foundation type depends on the bearing strata.

Figure 4-7: At-Grade Guideway

50 ’ - 0 ”

3 ’ - 4 ”

25 ’ - 0 ”

4.4.2 Aerial Guideway The Aerial Guideway configuration, shown in Figure 4-8, is applicable to urban settings where columns can be placed in the median of a freeway and the guideway can travel over parkways, intersecting roadways and other facilities. The precast concrete girders, with spans up to 100 feet, are similar to the ones tested at the Transrapid Test Facility in Emsland, Munich. As with the At-Grade girders, the Aerial Guideway can be curved and super elevated to meet geometric

March 17, 2006 Page 70 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

and lateral acceleration requirements. These beams are supported with single column (Type A) or two-column (Type B) straddle bents with heights of up to 65 feet assumed for this study. Therefore, the amount of ROW required in the heavily congested regions of San Diego is minimized.

Figure 4-8: Aerial Guideway - Type A, Single Column

100 ’- 0”

” 6 ’ - 6” 0

< 65’ - 0”

Figure 4-9: Aerial Guideway - Type B, Straddle Bents

March 17, 2006 Page 71 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.4.3 Bridge Structures Bridge structures are required for spans exceeding 100 feet or column heights greater than 65 feet. Since these limits are exceeded primarily in remote and mountainous terrain, it is anticipated that the bridges are precast concrete segmental structures constructed using the balanced cantilever method. The span lengths for this type of construction are assumed to be limited to 200 feet. It should be noted that the bridge structures support the at-grade girders, which are mounted to the deck of the bridge with small pedestals.

Figure 4-10: Bridge Structure

5 ’- 0 ” 0 3 ’- 4 ”

8’ – 0”

> 65’ – 0”

20 ’- 0 ” 0

4.4.4 Tunnel Structures To maintain slope and vertical curve requirements, Tunnel Structures are required where the alignments pass through the mountain regions. Two types of tunnels were selected for these conceptual alignments. Type A is a two bore tunnel for use in shallow tunnels. Type B tunnels are a two bore and a third bore for a service and relief tunnel for use in deep tunnels. At this level of study, it is assumed that 67% of the tunnel length is Type A and 33% is Type B. Each track requires a separate 37-foot diameter tunnel due to the high train speeds. Type B requires an additional 20-foot diameter service and relief tunnel. Within the tunnel structures, the At-Grade girders are required to support the trains and associated propulsion systems.

March 17, 2006 Page 72 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-11: Shallow Tunnel Section – Type A

37’ - 0”

Figure 4-12: Shallow Tunnel Elevation – Type A

50’ - 0”

March 17, 2006 Page 73 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-13: Deep Tunnel Section – Type B

20’-0” 30’-0”

37’-0”

30 ’- 0 ”

Figure 4-14: Deep Tunnel Elevation – Type B

Duct to equalize air pressure, @ 500 ’ +

50 ’ - 0”

March 17, 2006 Page 74 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.5 Stations Each Alternative has an origin station in the San Diego Metropolitan area and a destination at the Desert Site Airport in the Imperial Valley.

4.5.1 Locations The following station locations are used in the development of the alternatives:

Miramar Station: This station would be located in the vicinity of the Route 163/Route 52 Interchange southeast of MCAS Miramar. This location is near the San Diego County population centroid. Miramar is the origin station location used in all SDCRAA alignments.

Qualcomm Station: This station would be located near Qualcomm Stadium along the I-8 freeway. This location provides connectivity to the San Diego Trolley system.

Santa Fe Depot: This location provides a downtown San Diego station alternative. The urban location has high density of surrounding development. Connectivity is provided with Amtrak, Coaster and the trolley.

Desert Site Airport Station: This location would be the destination station at the proposed new airport site in the Imperial Valley and would serve as a main access point for passengers arriving and departing the airport. Site infrastructure would likely be incorporated into the overall airport site plan. Consideration would be developed for non-airport Maglev passengers commuting to and from San Diego.

4.5.2 Station Components and Considerations While the design of each station would be site-specific, the main station components would be similar. The major components of a Maglev station include: (1) landside facilities such as parking, curbside drop-off areas and pedestrian walkways; (2) a ticketing lobby with Maglev and airline ticketing and baggage check-in facilities, and (3) passenger circulation, security screening and vehicle platforms. For illustrative purposes, Figure 4-15 depicts a conceptual station planned for the Pittsburgh Maglev Project. As illustrated in the figures, the landside components include vehicular parking and curbside drop-off areas for private or commercial vehicles adjacent to the ticketing lobby. This concept illustrates a station with an elevated guideway and platform and ground level ticketing lobby. Parking may be provided in a surface lot or multi-level parking structure.

March 17, 2006 Page 75 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Based on surveys completed in 2004, the parking supply serving SDIA was approximately 12,000 public stalls (on-airport + off-airport) and 1,600 employee stalls equating to a total of 13,600. The daily O&D passenger level in 2004 was 51,000. This roughly translates to 0.267 stalls per O&D passenger. Applying this ratio to the projected number of O&D passengers projected to use the Miramar station yields a parking demand of 7,500 stalls. This is considered a very preliminary estimate and assumes the current parking characteristics of SDIA translate directly to the Maglev station. This assumption has a number of caveats that must be considered, not the least of which is how short-term parking demand (traditionally a significant component of parking demand) would change t]due to the operational shift of meter/greeter activities. Further analysis of parking demand would be necessary to more closely define the parking requirements for each station.

Figure 4-15: Conceptual Station

Source: Pittsburgh, PA Maglev Project website at www.maglevpa.com

4.5.2.1 Landside Facilities A curbside drop-off area adjacent to the station would be provided similar to an airport terminal curbside. Commercial vehicles (e.g., public transit or taxi) also would have a curbside area adjacent to the station. Bus shelters would be provided to shelter passengers as they wait on the curb, and can be configured either linearly or with designated bus bays to help identify passenger waiting zones and clarify passenger wayfinding. Accommodations for bicycles such as bicycle racks or lockers also would be provided.

March 17, 2006 Page 76 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Public and employee parking would be provided at all proposed stations. Two types of public parking facilities would be provided: short-term parking closest to the station for commuters and those waiting to pick-up passengers on arriving Maglev vehicles, and long-term parking to accommodate overnight parking for air travelers. These spaces can be provided in a surface lot or in a multi-level parking structure.

4.5.2.2 Ticketing Lobby, Passenger Circulation, Security Screening, and Maglev Platform Each station would have a ticketing lobby where passengers purchase tickets for the Maglev system. At a minimum, these functions include airline ticket kiosks and flight information displays (FIDs). Sufficient space for passenger circulation among the external access point, ticketing area, Maglev platform and passenger queuing space in the areas would be provided. In addition, a portion of these passengers will be airline passengers traveling with baggage. The concept for providing baggage check-in/delivery at the Maglev stations would be developed as key to passenger convenience. The typical station design assumed in this study is two levels, with vehicular access and a ticketing lobby on one level and Maglev guideway and platform on a second level.

Vertical circulation cores (including escalators, stairs and elevators) would be provided between the ticketing lobby and Maglev platform. The specific number of cores required would be based upon the number of originating and terminating passengers at each station.

Passenger waiting areas would be provided on the platform and in the ticketing lobby. Seating would be provided in these areas in addition to amenities such as public restrooms and vending or concessions space. Figure 4-16 on the following page depicts a typical passenger waiting area on a Maglev platform.

The concept for passenger security screening would be developed between the ticketing area and Maglev platform. If a security system is developed that provides for screening at the Maglev stations, checked baggage storage facilities would be required.

March 17, 2006 Page 77 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-16: Maglev Platform

Source: Transrapid-International website at www.maglev.com

4.6 Additional Infrastructure In addition to the guideway and track elements needed for a Maglev system, major types of additional infrastructure needed are:

1. Wayside equipment, including electrical cabling, power substations, switch stations, communication masts and other ancillary equipment that is to be installed in the right- of-way space, and 2. Operations and Maintenance facilities.

March 17, 2006 Page 78 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.6.1 Wayside Equipment Some of the general components that comprise wayside equipment for Maglev operations can be seen in Figure 4-17. Figure 4-17: Wayside Equipment

Noise Protection

Radio Transmission Masts

Wayside Wayside Wayside Wayside Switching Cabling Cabling Switching Station Station

Elevated At-grade Guideway

Source: California Maglev website at www.calmaglev.org

Wayside components are needed in the right-of-way to provide basic operations of the Maglev system and are of five distinct types, each with its own size/space requirements and specialized technical functions. These types include:

• Propulsion System Switch Stations • Transformer Stations • Radio Transmission Masts/Transceivers • Guideway Switch Stations • Cable Routes/Trenches

4.6.2 Operations and Maintenance Facilities Normal maintenance functions include daily cleaning, washing, inspection, repairs, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, condition monitoring, replacement of vehicle or facility components and storage.

March 17, 2006 Page 79 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

When planning for Maglev maintenance facilities, the size of the facility is an important consideration and will vary depending on the purpose and available locations along the route. For a first approximation, normal maintenance functions (vehicle parking, washing, preventive maintenance, inspection, etc.) are sized according to the length of complete consists or train sets. Therefore, the size of the maintenance facility needed is based on the 10- 8-section train sets. Refer to section 4.8, which presents the method for determining the number of train sets required for this proposed system. The eight-section train set is more than twice the length of the train sets needed for Maglev operations at Baltimore-Washington and Pittsburgh. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pittsburgh projects includes a drawing of a combined operation control center /maintenance facility that requires approximately 35 acres, as shown in Figure 4-18.

Figure 4-18: Central Maintenance Facility (Pittsburgh, PA)

Source: Pittsburgh, PA Maglev Project website at www.maglevpa.com

March 17, 2006 Page 80 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.7 Supplemental Segment One refinement of the alternatives that has been conceptually evaluated is to add segments from either the Miramar or Qualcomm stations into downtown San Diego. This may be a desirable enhancement to the Maglev system; however, the cost of the ROW and construction of Maglev through the urban and downtown environment is more than through underdeveloped areas. In addition, more traditional transit and highway options are available within the urban sphere, although at an increased travel time. The Downtown Supplemental Segments are shown in Figure 4-19.

Table 4-2: Optional Supplemental Segments Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Supplement 1 Miramar Santa Fe Depot Miramar 9.5 mi Supplement 2 Qualcomm Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 7.6 mi Supplement 3 Tunnel (Qualcomm) Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 5.7 mi

March 17, 2006 Page 81 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-19: Downtown Supplemental Segments

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 82 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.8 Conceptual Maglev Operations The successful operation of a high speed Maglev system connecting San Diego to a proposed Desert Site in Imperial County is dependent on the number of Maglev train sets; the number of seats available to satisfy travel demand during peak hours of operation; and the selection of dual guideway versus single guideway configuration. Therefore, the decision on the number of train sets to purchase, the selection of the number of cars needed for each train set, and layout of the individual car configuration is critical.

For this study, several assumptions were made that must be considered in selecting the number of train sets, the number of cars per train set and the car configuration. These assumptions are: • All seated operation; no standees • 10-minute peak headway and 20-minute off-peak headway • Travel time on base alignments less than 35 minutes • Baggage checked at station and transported in a secure car to the airport • Checked baggage delivered by train to station on return.

The number of train sets required is directly related to travel time. The travel time between stations is assumed to be less than 35 minutes. When the train reaches the station, approximately five minutes is needed to unload passengers and baggage and load passengers and baggage for a return trip. One train can travel between stations every 40 minutes. Refer to Figure 4-14 for a string-line of a proposed operating scenario. This string-line shows that eight train sets are required for efficient operations. For this type of operation, two spare train sets are needed. Therefore, a total of 10 train sets (eight operating plus two spares during peak hours) are required.

March 17, 2006 Page 83 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 4-20: Stringline of Train Operations During Peak Hours

The selection of the car configuration and number of cars for each train set is related to the ridership forecast of 23,800 passengers traveling one way between stations on an average day. Based on the ridership forecasts, the peak hour passenger load is 10% of the average daily passengers, or 2,380. Six one-way trips are made in one hour when operating at 10-minute headways. The estimated average travel demand per trip is 393 passengers (2,380 divided by six). In order to meet the assumption of no standees, a car configuration of 60 seats in the end section and 70 seats in the middle section is required. This car configuration provides space for passengers with carry-on bags. Figure 4-20 shows the interior configuration. A six-car consist (two end sections and four middle sections) provides 400 seats for 393 passengers. It would be difficult for 393 passengers to be seated in 400 seats within a two-minute dwell time. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that another passenger car is needed. This additional passenger car provides a consist with 470 seats.

Additionally, a secure baggage car is needed to transport baggage to the airport. The space requirement for checked baggage is determined on the basis of 1.2 checked bags for each domestic air passenger and 1.5 checked bags for each international passenger. Two square feet of space is required for each checked bag. The source of this data is the HNTB Aviation Planning Group. This study assumes 1.3 checked bags for each passenger, which equates to 520 bags per train. The study assumes that one car could carry the containers necessary to transport an

March 17, 2006 Page 84 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

estimated 520 bags per train. Based on proposed air rail link operations involving checked baggage and security issues, and for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the 520 bags would be placed in containers that fit within car that is designated for secured baggage. Six to eight containers are required to hold 520 bags.

The selection of either dual guideway or a single guideway configuration is a function of the number of “meet” points occurring during peak hour operations. Refer to Figure 4-19 indicates that there are seven (7) “meet” points along the approximate ninety (90) mile alignment between San Diego and the Desert Site. The segment length between these “meet” points is approximately twelve (12) miles. The elapsed time between “meet” points for a train traveling at 240 MPH during peak hour operation is 3 minutes. Therefore, a dual guideway configuration is needed to satisfy travel demand.

Figure 4-21: Interior Configuration of Maglev Vehicle

March 17, 2006 Page 85 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

4.9 Freight Opportunities Given the airport-connector nature of the Maglev project, a natural option to consider would be express freight service along the route. It has been well-publicized over the years that Maglev offers the option for high-speed transport of express freight and/or cargo. Freight opportunities also would help maximize revenue for the Maglev system. Depending on the type of freight transported, cargo facilities and operations can be designed in coordination with passenger operations or segregated from passenger operations. According to the technology supplier, Transrapid, on its Web site:

Cargo facilities and operations can be designed in coordination with passenger services for a particular Transrapid application to maximize system revenue. Such service can provide an opportunity to transport time-sensitive freight between airports and city centers independent of congestion on existing highways, allowing for more efficient loading and distribution. Standard designs allow for a capacity per vehicle section of nearly 20 U.S. tons, with train sets of two to twenty sections possible. Interiors can be customized to the needs of the operator, including designs to accommodate the same containers carried on airliners.

Two types of freight transport may be considered for the SANDAG Maglev Project: standard design/light freight/air containers, and special design/heavy freight/marine containers.

The standard design cargo-configured train sets can be two to eight sections in length, with no reduction in operating speeds. However, where additional capacity is required, there would be maximum speed restrictions of 249 mph (for a 10-section train set) and 125 mph (for a 20- section train set).The standard design technology exists today, is flexible and would have no impact on guideway. Scheduling during off-peak hours is recommended by the manufacturer, Transrapid. Designing loading and off-loading cargo facilities “off-line” also avoids disruption to mainline operations.

The special design cargo train set is still in the research and development stage, but can be designed into an original project, such as the SANDAG project, since both the guideway and vehicles must be adapted for the heavier payloads. It is an idea that has gained momentum in the last year with the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Other ports that have expressed interest in Maglev capabilities for heavy freight transport include San Diego and the State of Baja, Mexico. The heavy-freight Maglev system is being looked at as a separate dedicated corridor by SCAG for an alignment along the Alameda Corridor.

Freight trains could utilize shipping pallets, standard seaborne containers, tractor-trailer containers and/or customer-specific containers. The vehicle could be enclosed or open as desired, since at lower speeds, aerodynamic effects would not be as significant. Heavy cargo train sets would have maximum speeds in the range of 100 to 125 mph, would typically not be mixed

March 17, 2006 Page 86 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

with passenger sections and would likely operate during off-peak periods. Specially designed freight vehicles can transport up to 33 tons per section. A maximum of 10 sections is allowed to form a special design cargo train set (per Transrapid).

March 17, 2006 Page 87 5.0 Cost Estimates

5.0 cost estimates SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.0 Capital, Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates

5.1 Introduction This section presents the conceptual cost estimates to build, operate and maintain a transportation system using magnetic levitation technology from San Diego to the Desert Site Airport on base alignments as described in Chapter 3. These base alignments are: Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Miramar Desert Site 93 mi Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Qualcomm Desert Site 92 mi Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 90 mi Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Qualcomm Desert Site 79 mi Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Santa Fe Depot Desert Site 98 mi

The capital cost estimates for each base alignment are formatted into the following cost categories:

• Right-of-Way (ROW) • Guideway and Track Elements • Systems • Maintenance Facilities • Stations and Parking • Vehicle Acquisition • Environmental Impacts • Professional Services • Contingency

The cost estimate for project elements within each cost category is established using the unit costs for each project element multiplied by the quantities for each base alignment.

For the study, the cost estimates for guideway and track elements, systems, maintenance facilities, stations and parking, and vehicle acquisition were compared to the costs presented in the Baltimore- Washington (B-W) study. The B-W study progressed to the preliminary engineering phase and detailed cost estimates were developed. Where the unit costs used in this study are different than the B-W unit costs, the reason for the difference is presented in the unit-cost section below.

A detailed operating and maintenance cost schedule was not developed for this level of study. Since B-W was extensively studied, a range of total operating and maintenance costs is presented.

During the development of this study, a peer review panel was asked to review the administrative draft and provide comments. The comments impacting the cost estimates were taken into

March 17, 2006 Page 88 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

consideration in developing the final cost estimates. The peer panel expressed concern that the guideway and track elements and the station and parking estimates are high when compared to the B-W estimates of costs. The peer panel also expressed concern that the upper range presented for the operating and maintenance costs is high. The characteristics of the base alignment that increase the unit cost of the project elements with these cost categories of this study are identified in the unit-cost section with an explanation for the increase.

5.2 Unit Costs

5.2.1 Right-of-Way Costs Right-of-way (ROW) costs were developed for each alternative using the conceptual alignments in conjunction with San Diego and Imperial Counties assessor maps and General Plan land use designations. A 100-foot-wide ROW was assumed. Where the alignment fell within an existing public ROW, such as highway, street, or rail, no cost to the project for that particular ROW is assumed. Where the geometric requirements for Maglev take the alignment outside of the public ROW, impacted parcels were evaluated as partial or full ROW takes and a square foot quantity calculated accordingly. Costs per acre ranged from $5000 to $8,500,000, depending on rural or urban and the designated General Plan land use. This estimate is based only on the current conceptual alignments and will change as the project development progresses.

5.2.2 Guideway and Track Elements Guideway costs were developed for at-grade, aerial and bridge structures and tunnels using information from Chapter 3. The guideway line schematics are attached as Appendix A. The guideway system is comprised of a concrete and/or steel guideway to support the vehicles, stator packs, power rails, low-speed switches and high-speed switches. The types of guideways used in this estimate are detailed in Figures 4-7 through 4-10. The tunnel sections are detailed in Figures 4-11 through 4-14. All civil engineering costs associated with the construction of the guideways are included in the unit costs. The unit costs were developed by engineers within the study team with knowledge of track, guideway, bridge, and tunnel design and construction.

A unit cost of $3,000 per lineal feet is used for at grade guideways and was developed from information from projects cited in Chapter 2.0. This unit cost is consistent with the unit cost used in the FRA Maglev demonstration projects

A unit cost of $5,920 per lineal feet is used for Type A aerial structures. The unit cost includes an allowance of 15% for special guideways required for project elements such as crossovers between guideways and tail structures at end stations for storage of train sets in off-peak hours.

A unit cost of $7,820 per lineal feet is used for the Type B aerial structure. Type B is a straddle- bent aerial structure needed to carry the guideway over public roadways and other obstacles encountered on the alignment. The unit cost includes an allowance of 15% for special guideways

March 17, 2006 Page 89 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

required for project elements such as crossovers between guideways and tail structures at end stations for storage of train sets in off-peak hours.

A unit cost of $23,000 per lineal feet is used for the bridge structure required to carry the guideway over deep valleys. The heights of the piers in some cases exceed 200 feet. The span assumed for these bridge structures is 200 feet. The span length is constrained by the need to maintain stiffness in the girder due to tight deflection tolerances required for the guideway beam.

A unit cost of $30,000 per lineal feet is used for a Type A tunnel section consisting of two tunnels for the guideway. A unit cost of $40,000 per lineal feet is used for a Type B tunnel section consisting of two tunnels and a service/relief tunnel. These unit costs are greater than tunneling costs used in the Baltimore – Washington Maglev project study. The difference in unit costs is because geologic conditions are different between the Baltimore – Washington project and this project, for the depth of the tunnels below surface, the accessibility to the project site for tunnel construction, and for additional costs associated with building in a seismic area. The San Diego County Water Authority conducted a recent study evaluating the feasibility of a Regional Colorado River Conveyance, which provides information on geotechnical considerations for tunnels in the general area of this study.

This report states that the tunnel portions would pass through high strength granite and metamorphic rocks. Furthermore, Baltimore – Washington has five miles of tunnels at shallow depths compared to several deep cuts. The tunnels through the Laguna Mountains must be constructed on up-and-down grades in remote areas. The depth of tunnels below surface adds additional costs for ventilation and safety requirements, since the distance to the surface is greater. These differing characteristics between this study and others increase the unit costs for both Type A and Type tunnels. At this level of study, it is not possible to precisely determine which tunnels section should be Type A or Type B. Therefore, it is assumed that 67% of the tunnels on the base alignments 1A, 1B, 2 and 4 are Type A, and 33% of the tunnels are Type B.

The unit cost of the guideway and track elements includes consideration for building of aerial structures, bridges, and tunnels in an area with seismic activity. The study area is dominated primarily by northwest-trending faults, generally of a right-lateral strike-slip nature. However, faults of every type and orientation can be found. The unit costs for tunnels include consideration for a seismic sleeve to be constructed at a known fault.

5.2.3 Systems Propulsion, Control and Communication systems include: civil structures for substations and cable trenches; propulsion blocks; propulsion equipment for low, medium, and high power; motor windings; wayside equipment; propulsion maintenance equipment; operation control subsystems for communication and data collection, and associated civil structures. A unit cost of $16,400,000 per mile is used to estimate the cost for each alignment alternative. The unit cost was developed from the Baltimore —Washington study and adjusted to year 2005 dollars.

March 17, 2006 Page 90 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Power distribution unit costs were determined by a review of similar costs for the FRA demonstration projects. The cost per mile estimated for these projects was $1,130,000 per mile. The unit cost used for this study is $1,240,000 per mile after adjustments to year 2005 dollars.

5.2.4 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities and Yards include the construction and all equipment necessary to properly maintain the fleet of vehicles. The size of the maintenance facility is related to the size of the Maglev fleet needed for this program. The unit cost of $2,750,000 per section of a train set for this study is determined by averaging the cost of the maintenance facilities for Baltimore- Washington and the Pittsburgh projects adjusted to year 2005 dollars.

5.2.5 Stations and Parking Stations and Parking Facilities include platforms, circulation, lighting, security measures and all auxiliary spaces. Space is provided for ticket sales, passenger information, station administration, baggage handling and commercial space. The average cost per station used in this estimate is $167,000,000, which is about $20,000,000 more than the average station costs at Baltimore — Washington and the Pittsburgh projects after adjustments for inflation. The reason for the higher cost is the lengths of platforms required for an eight-car train set versus the three-car train set proposed for the other Maglev project studies.

5.2.6 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition includes the purchase of ten (10) train sets with each train set comprised of eight (8) cars. Refer to Section 3.6, which explains the need for this number of train sets. The unit cost of $12,830,000 per section for this study was determined from the Baltimore – Washington project adjusted to 2006 dollars.

5.2.7 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts are presented in Chapter 5.0. Table 5.7 details the mitigation costs for the base alignments 1A, 1B, and 2. The environmental impact costs between base alignment and extensions was prorated on the basis that 67% of the base alignments and 33% of the costs to the extensions. An estimated “ball-park” mitigation cost of $350,000,000 is applied to base alignment 3, $150,000 is applied to the extension of alignment 3, and $500,000 is applied to alignment 4.

5.2.8 Professional Services The project elements that are included in the Professional Services category are design engineering, program management, construction management and inspection, engineering during construction, and integrated testing and commissioning. For a project of this size, an overall program manager with several section designers are needed to provide conceptual engineering, preliminary engineering, environmental studies, geotechnical engineering, final

March 17, 2006 Page 91 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

engineering and engineering during construction. Field and construction management services and integrated testing services and commissioning of various project elements also are required.

For the purpose of this study, the project elements of the professional services are estimated on the basis a percentage of certain cost categories as following: • Design engineering is estimated at 7% of the total capital costs for guideway and track elements; systems; maintenance facilities; and stations and parking. • Program Management is estimated at 4% of the total capital costs for guideway and track elements; systems; maintenance facilities; stations and parking; vehicle acquisition; and environmental impacts. • Construction Management and Inspection is estimated at 10% of the total capital costs for guideway and track elements, systems, maintenance facilities and stations and parking. • Engineering during Construction is estimated at 2% of the total capital costs for guideway and track elements; systems; maintenance facilities; and stations and parking. • Integrated Testing and Commissioning is estimated at 2% of the total capital costs for guideway and track elements, systems, maintenance facilities, stations and parking, and vehicle acquisition.

5.2.9 Contingency Contingency is added as an overall percentage of the total construction cost. This is an allowance added to the estimate of costs to account for items and conditions that cannot be realistically anticipated. The contingency is expected to be needed as the project develops. The contingency is estimated at 25% of the construction cost elements.

5.2.10 Peer Review Comments and Capital Costs Industry representatives were given an opportunity review the administrative draft of the report. A Peer Review meeting was conducted. The capital costs were presented by the study team. After the meeting, industry representatives submitted written comments. The comments focused on the difference in the unit cost estimates for the guideway and track elements, stations, and the number of train sets required.

The study team and the industry representatives communicated after the peer review meeting to focus on the differences in unit costs for the guideway and track elements, such as:. • At-grade Guideways – Peer reviewers stated that the unit cost of $15.8 million per mile ($3000 per LF) was reasonable. • Aerial Guideway – Peer reviewers stated that the unit cost of $8100 per LF is high and that $32 million per mile ($6060 per LF) from the B-W study should be used. The project team reviewed the type of aerial structure needed in urban and rural areas. Aerial structures were classified as Type A and Type B as presented in Chapter 4.0. The study unit cost for Type A is $31.3 million per mile ($5720 per LF). The unit cost for Type B aerial structure is $41.3 million per mile ($7820 per LF).

March 17, 2006 Page 92 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Bridges – The industry peer review based the unit cost of the bridge on the B-W study of $80 million per mile. Adjusting this cost to 2005 dollars yields a cost of $93.6 million per mile. This cost did not include the cost of the guideway. Adding the at grade guideway unit cost of $15.8 million dollars per mile gives a peer review unit cost for bridges of $109.4 million per mile or $20,700 per LF • Shallow Tunnels – The peer review unit tunnel cost was based on the B-W study. After discussion between the peer reviewers and the project team, the adjusted unit costs for shallow tunnels on B-W after inflation and adding the cost of the guideway gives a peer review unit cost of $141.1 million per mile or $26,700 per LF. • Deep Tunnels – After discussion between the peer review team and the project team, the peer review unit cost for deep tunnels is $177.9 million per mile or $33,700 per LF. • Stations – The peer review unit costs for stations is $125 million each.

In addition to the guideway and track elements, the industry submitted comments on the number of cars required for each train set required to accommodate passengers and baggage. The peer reviewers stated that one car could be eliminated resulting in a lowering the cost of vehicles and the cost of the maintenance facilities. The study team acknowledged that further refinements in operations and loading patterns at stations could reduced the train set by one car. However, for the purpose of this study, the estimate of the number of cars per train set needed to satisfy the travel demand is the 10 train sets with 8 car for each train set. Therefore, in the development of the estimate of the study and peer review costs, the ten (10) train sets with eight(8) cars each is used.

After the peer review meeting, industry submitted a comparison capital cost utilizing reduced unit costs for specific elements. A comparison of Study costs and Peer Review costs using the quantities developed for each alignment and the study and peer review unit costs is completed for this report. As noted previously, the number of train sets and cars used in the Study and Peer estimates is as determined by the Study. The comparison of study costs and peer review costs for the high speed and lower speed operations is presented in Section 5.3

5.3 Capital Cost Estimates

5.3.1 Study Estimates for High (Optimum) Speed Cost estimates were developed for each of the base alignments assuming high speed operations necessary to satisfy travel demand and achieve a travel time of 35 minutes or less between San Diego and the Desert Site. The cost estimates are presented for high speed operations showing costs by category for each alignment and costs of project elements for each alignment.

March 17, 2006 Page 93 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.1.1 Estimate by Category and Alignment Table 5-1: Estimate by Category and Alignment Alignment STUDY - HIGH SPEED Cost Category Align 1A Align 1B Align 2 Align 3 Align 4 Right-of-Way $1,535 $777 $1,948 $500 $977 Guideway & Track $8,058 $8,421 $8,071 $13,445 $8,984 Systems $1,644 $1,623 $1,587 $1,399 $1,778 Maintenance Facilities $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 Stations & Parking $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 Environmental Impacts $200 $800 $900 $350 $500 Professional Services $2,695 $2,774 $2,728 $3,945 $2,949 Contingency $2,820 $2,906 $2,809 $4,106 $3,085

Total Costs $18,534 $18,883 $19,626 $25,327 $19,855 Cost in $ Millions - 2005 Dollars

March 17, 2006 Page 94 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.1.2 Estimate by Project Element and Alignment

Table 5-2: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Cost in thousands Align 1A - I- Align 1B- Align 2 - SR- Align 3 Base Alignments 8 I-8 94 Tunnel Align 4 Cost Elements Unit Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Distance LF 492,200 486,000 475,300 418,900 519,799 Distance Miles 93.2 92.0 90.0 79.3 98.4 Right of Way Right-of-Way Lump Sum $1,535,360 $777,247 $1,948,062 $500,000 $977,607 Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway LF $3.0 162,200 $486,600 162,000 $486,000 145,300 $435,900 78,900 $236,700 176,886 $530,658 Aerial Guideway Type A LF $5.9 75,000 $444,000 50,000 $296,000 80,000 $473,600 0 $0 65,013 $384,877 Aerial Guideway Type B LF $7.8 29,000 $226,780 14,000 $109,480 17,000 $132,940 0 $0 15,000 $117,300 sub % Aerial Bridge LF $23.0 67,000 $1,541,000 110,000 $2,530,000 73,000 $1,679,000 23,000 $529,000 78,584 $1,807,432 Tunnel Type A LF $30.0 100,000 $3,000,000 100,000 $3,000,000 105,000 $3,150,000 $0 122,877 $3,686,310 Tunnel Type B LF $40.0 59,000 $2,360,000 50,000 $2,000,000 55,000 $2,200,000 317,000 $12,680,000 61,439 $2,457,560 sub % Tunnel Sub Guideway & Track $8,058,380 $8,421,480 $8,071,440 $13,445,700 $8,984,137 Systems Propulsion, C& C Systems Mile $16,400 93.2 $1,528,803 92.0 $1,509,545 90.0 $1,476,311 79.3 $1,301,129 100.8 $1,653,120 Power Distribution Mile $1,240 93.2 $115,592 92.0 $114,136 90.0 $111,623 79.3 $98,378 100.8 $124,992 Sub Systems $1,644,395 $1,623,682 $1,587,934 $1,399,507 $1,778,112 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities Sections $2,750 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 Stations & Parking Stations & Parking each $167,000 2.0 $334,000 2 $334,000 2 $334,000 2 $334,000 2 $334,000 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition Sections $12,830 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts Lump Sum $200,000 $800,000 $900,000 $350,000 $500,000 Professional Services Design Engineering 7% $717,974 $741,941 $714,936 $1,077,944 $792,137 Program Management 4% $520,741 $528,112 $563,513 $691,024 $552,810 Construction Mgt & Insp 10% $1,025,678 $1,059,916 $1,021,337 $1,539,921 $1,131,625 Engineering during Const 2% $205,136 $211,983 $204,267 $307,984 $226,325 Integrated Testing & Com 2% $225,664 $232,511 $224,795 $328,512 $246,853 Sub Prof Services $2,695,192 $2,774,464 $2,728,850 $3,945,386 $2,949,751 Contingency Contingency 25% $2,820,794 $2,906,390 $2,809,944 $4,106,402 $3,085,662

Base Alignment Costs $18,534,522 $18,883,664 $19,626,630 $25,327,394 $19,855,669 Cost Per Mile $198,826 $205,156 $218,028 $319,238 $201,689 Travel Time in Minutes 30.95 33.77 31.68 27.50 26.20

March 17, 2006 Page 95 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.2 Estimates for High Speed adjusted to Peer Review Unit Costs Cost estimates were developed for high speed operations on the base alignment adjusted to the Peer Review unit costs.. The cost estimates are presented for high speed operations showing costs by category for each alignment and costs of project elements for each alignment.

5.3.2.1 Estimate by Category and Alignment

Table 5-3: Estimate by Category and Alignment Alignment PEER REVIEW - HIGH SPEED Cost Category Align 1A Align 1B Align 2 Align 3 Align 4 Right-of-Way $1,535 $777 $1,948 $500 $977 Guideway & Track $7,162 $7,505 $7,191 $11,395 $7,993 Systems $1,644 $1,623 $1,587 $1,399 $1,778 Maintenance Facilities $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 Stations & Parking $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 $1,026 Environmental Impacts $200 $800 $900 $350 $500 Professional Services $2,450 $2,524 $2,487 $3,411 $2,681 Contingency $2,575 $2,656 $2,569 $3,572 $2,817

Total Costs $17,064 $17,384 $18,181 $22,126 $18,243 Cost in $ Millions - 2005 Dollars

March 17, 2006 Page 96 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.2.2 Estimate by Project Element and Alignment

Table 5-4: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Cost in thousands

From Peer Review Align 1A - I- Align 1B- Align 2 - SR- Align 3 Base Alignments 8 I-8 94 Tunnel Align 4 Cost Elements Unit Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Distance LF 492,200 486,000 475,300 418,900 519,799 Distance Miles 93.2 92.0 90.0 79.3 98.4

Right of Way Right-of-Way Lump Sum $1,535,360 $777,247 $1,948,062 $500,000 $977,607 Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway LF $3.0 162,200 $486,600 162,000 $486,000 145,300 $435,900 78,900 $236,700 176,886 $530,658 Aerial Guideway Type A LF $6.1 75,000 $454,500 50,000 $303,000 80,000 $484,800 0 $0 65,013 $393,979 Aerial Guideway Type B LF $6.1 29,000 $175,740 14,000 $84,840 17,000 $103,020 0 $0 15,000 $90,900 sub % Aerial Bridge LF $20.7 67,000 $1,386,900 110,000 $2,277,000 73,000 $1,511,100 23,000 $476,100 78,584 $1,626,689 Tunnel Type A LF $26.7 100,000 $2,670,000 100,000 $2,670,000 105,000 $2,803,500 $0 122,877 $3,280,816 Tunnel Type B LF $33.7 59,000 $1,988,300 50,000 $1,685,000 55,000 $1,853,500 317,000 $10,682,900 61,439 $2,070,494 sub % Tunnel Sub Guideway & Track $7,162,040 $7,505,840 $7,191,820 $11,395,700 $7,993,536 Systems Propulsion, C& C Systems Mile $16,400 93.2 $1,528,803 92.0 $1,509,545 90.0 $1,476,311 79.3 $1,301,129 100.8 $1,653,120 Power Distribution Mile $1,240 93.2 $115,592 92.0 $114,136 90.0 $111,623 79.3 $98,378 100.8 $124,992 Sub Systems $1,644,395 $1,623,682 $1,587,934 $1,399,507 $1,778,112 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities Sections $2,750 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 80 $220,000 Stations & Parking Stations & Parking each $125,000 2.0 $250,000 2 $250,000 2 $250,000 2 $250,000 2 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition Sections $12,830 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 80 $1,026,400 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts Lump Sum $200,000 $800,000 $900,000 $350,000 $500,000 Professional Services Design Engineering 7% $649,350 $671,967 $647,483 $928,564 $716,915 Program Management 4% $481,528 $488,127 $524,969 $605,664 $509,826 Construction Mgt & Insp 10% $927,644 $959,952 $924,975 $1,326,521 $1,024,165 Engineering during Const 2% $185,529 $191,990 $184,995 $265,304 $204,833 Integrated Testing & Com 2% $206,057 $212,518 $205,523 $285,832 $225,361 Sub Prof Services $2,450,107 $2,524,554 $2,487,945 $3,411,886 $2,681,100 Contingency Contingency 25% $2,575,709 $2,656,480 $2,569,039 $3,572,902 $2,817,012 Base Alignment Costs $17,064,012 $17,384,204 $18,181,200 $22,126,394 $18,243,767 Cost Per Mile $183,052 $188,865 $201,971 $278,891 $185,316 Travel Time in Minutes 30.95 33.77 31.68 27.50 26.20

March 17, 2006 Page 97 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.3 Study Estimates for Lower Speed Cost estimates were developed for lower speed operations on the base alignment adjusted to the Peer Review unit costs. The cost estimates are presented for lower speed operations showing costs by category for each alignment and costs of project elements for each alignment.

5.3.3.1 Estimate by Category and Alignment Table 5-5: Estimate by Category and Alignment

Alignment STUDY- LOWER SPEED Cost Category Align 1A Align 1B Align 2 Align 4 Right-of-Way $1,535 $777 $1,948 $977 Guideway & Track $6,046 $6,524 $6,033 $6,570 Systems $1,811 $1,790 $1,754 $1,778 Maintenance Facilities $264 $264 $264 $264 Stations & Parking $334 $334 $334 $334 Vehicle Acquisition $1,231 $1,231 $1,231 $1,231 Environmental Impacts $200 $800 $900 $500 Professional Services $2,257 $2,365 $2,284 $2,369 Contingency $2,422 $2,536 $2,404 $2,544

Total Costs $16,102 $16,624 $17,155 $16,569 Cost in $ Millions - 2005 Dollars

March 17, 2006 Page 98 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.3.2 Estimate by Project Element and Alignment

Table 5-6: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Cost in thousands Assumptions low range for 1A, 1B, 2 and 4 Eliminate Type A tunnel - 50 % to bridges and Type A aerial structures Eliminate 50% Type B tunnels - 50% to bridges and Type A aerial structures Increase distance by 50,000 LF with all to type A aerial structure Increase vehicles to 12 train sets due to increased travel time Base Alignments Align 1A - I-8 Align 1B- I-8 Align 2 - SR-94 Align 4 Cost Elements Unit Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Distance LF 542,200 536,000 525,300 569,799 Distance Miles 102.7 101.5 99.5 107.9 Right of Way Right-of-Way Lump Sum $1,535,360 $777,247 $1,948,062 $977,607 Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway LF $3.0 162,200 $486,600 162,000 $486,000 145,300 $435,900 176,886 $530,658 Aerial Guideway Type A LF $5.9 189,750 $1,123,320 162,500 $962,000 196,250 $1,161,800 192,750 $1,141,080 Aerial Guideway Type B LF $7.8 29,000 $226,780 14,000 $109,480 17,000 $132,940 15,000 $117,300 sub % Aerial Bridge LF $23.0 131,750 $3,030,250 172,500 $3,967,500 139,250 $3,202,750 154,444 $3,552,212 Tunnel Type A LF $30.0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Tunnel Type B LF $40.0 29,500 $1,180,000 25,000 $1,000,000 27,500 $1,100,000 30,719 $1,228,760 sub % Tunnel Sub Guideway & Track $6,046,950 $6,524,980 $6,033,390 $6,570,010 Systems Propulsion, C& C Systems Mile $16,400 102.7 $1,684,106 101.5 $1,664,848 99.5 $1,631,614 100.8 $1,653,120 Power Distribution Mile $1,240 102.7 $127,335 101.5 $125,879 99.5 $123,366 100.8 $124,992 Sub Systems $1,811,441 $1,790,727 $1,754,980 $1,778,112 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities Sections $2,750 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 Stations & Parking Stations & Parking each $167,000 2.0 $334,000 2 $334,000 2 $334,000 2 $334,000 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition Sections $12,830 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts Lump Sum $200,000 $800,000 $900,000 $500,000 Professional Services Design Engineering 7% $591,947 $623,960 $587,046 $626,229 Program Management 4% $456,937 $468,905 $498,644 $466,216 Construction Mgt & Insp 10% $845,639 $891,371 $838,637 $894,612 Engineering during Const 2% $169,128 $178,274 $167,727 $178,922 Integrated Testing & Com 2% $193,761 $202,908 $192,361 $203,556 Sub Prof Services $2,257,413 $2,365,417 $2,284,416 $2,369,536 Contingency Contingency 25% $2,422,018 $2,536,347 $2,404,512 $2,544,451 Base Alignment Costs $16,102,862 $16,624,399 $17,155,040 $16,569,395 Cost Per mile $156,811 $163,763 $172,432 $153,539

March 17, 2006 Page 99 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.4 Estimate for Lower Speed from Peer Review Cost estimates were developed for lower speed operations on the base alignment adjusted to the Peer Review unit costs. The cost estimates are presented for lower speed operations showing costs by category for each alignment and costs of project elements for each alignment.

5.3.4.1 Estimate by Category and Alignment Table 5-7: Estimate by Category and Alignment Alignment PEER REVIEW- LOWER SPEED Cost Category Align 1A Align 1B Align 2 Align 4 Right-of-Way $1,535 $777 $1,948 $977 Guideway & Track $5,533, $5,968 $5,537 $6,021 Systems $1,811 $1,790 $1,754 $ 1,778 Maintenance Facilities $264, $264 $264 $264 Stations & Parking $250 $250 $250 $250 Vehicle Acquisition $1,231 $1,231 $1,231 $1,231 Environmental Impacts $200 $800 $900 $500 Professional Services $2,108 $2,205 $2,139 $2,211 Contingency $2,272 $2,376 $2,259 $2,386

Total Costs $15,206 $15,664 $16,285 $15,621 Cost in $ Millions - 2005 Dollars

March 17, 2006 Page 100 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.4.2 Estimate by Project Element and Alignment Table 5-8: Estimate by Project Element and Alignment CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Cost in thousands Assumptions low range for 1A, 1B, 2 and 4 Eliminate Type A tunnel - 50 % to bridges and Type A aerial structures Eliminate 50% Type B tunnels - 50% to bridges and Type A aerial structures Increase distance by 50,000 LF with all to type A aerial structure Increase vehicles to 12 train sets due to increased travel time Base Alignments Align 1A - I-8 Align 1B- I-8 Align 2 - SR-94 Align 4 Cost Elements Unit Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Distance LF 542,200 536,000 525,300 569,799 Distance Miles 102.7 101.5 99.5 107.9 Right of Way Right-of-Way Lump Sum $1,535,360 $777,247 $1,948,062 $977,607 Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway LF $3.0 162,200 $486,600 162,000 $486,000 145,300 $435,900 176,886 $530,658 Aerial Guideway Type A LF $6.1 189,750 $1,149,885 162,500 $984,750 196,250 $1,189,275 192,750 $1,168,065 Aerial Guideway Type B LF $6.1 29,000 $175,740 14,000 $84,840 17,000 $103,020 15,000 $90,900 sub % Aerial Bridge LF $20.7 131,750 $2,727,225 172,500 $3,570,750 139,250 $2,882,475 154,444 $3,196,991 Tunnel Type A LF $26.7 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Tunnel Type B LF $33.7 29,500 $994,150 25,000 $842,500 27,500 $926,750 30,719 $1,035,230 sub % Tunnel Sub Guideway & Track $5,533,600 $5,968,840 $5,537,420 $6,021,844 Systems Propulsion, C& C Systems Mile $16,400 102.7 $1,684,106 101.5 $1,664,848 99.5 $1,631,614 100.8 $1,653,120 Power Distribution Mile $1,240 102.7 $127,335 101.5 $125,879 99.5 $123,366 100.8 $124,992 Sub Systems $1,811,441 $1,790,727 $1,754,980 $1,778,112 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities Sections $2,750 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 96 $264,000 Stations & Parking Stations & Parking each $125,000 2.0 $250,000 2 $250,000 2 $250,000 2 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition Sections $12,830 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 96 $1,231,680 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts Lump Sum $200,000 $800,000 $900,000 $500,000 Professional Services Design Engineering 7% $550,133 $579,150 $546,448 $581,977 Program Management 4% $433,043 $443,300 $475,446 $440,930 Construction Mgt & Insp 10% $785,904 $827,357 $780,640 $831,396 Engineering during Const 2% $157,181 $165,471 $156,128 $166,279 Integrated Testing & Com 2% $181,814 $190,105 $180,762 $190,913 Sub Prof Services $2,108,075 $2,205,382 $2,139,423 $2,211,494 Contingency Contingency 25% $2,272,680 $2,376,312 $2,259,520 $2,386,409 Base Alignment Costs $15,206,837 $15,664,189 $16,285,085 $15,621,146 Cost Per Mile $148,086 $154,304 $163,688 $144,752

March 17, 2006 Page 101 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.5 Comparison of Estimates by Cost Category and Guideway/Track Costs and Distribution by Percent and Miles A comparison of the estimates by cost category shows that the guideway and track category is the category with the most significant difference. The estimates for the guideway and track elements are presented and show that the significant difference is in the bridge and tunnel estimates

The distribution of the guideway and track elements by percent of alignment and by miles in the alignment show the effect of the elimination of the tunnels.

5.3.5.1 Alignment 1A – I-8 Corridor Table 5-9: Alignment 1A – I-8 Corridor Alignment Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Right-of-Way $1,535,360 $1,535,360 $1,535,360 $ 1,535,360 Guideway & Track $8,058,380 $7,162,040 $6,046,950 $ 5,533,600 Systems $1,644,395 $1,644,395 $1,811,441 $ 1,811,441 Maintenance Facilities $220,000 $220,000 $264,000 $ 264,000 Stations & Parking $334,000 $250,000 $334,000 $ 250,000 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026,400 $1,026,400 $1,231,680 $ 1,231,680 Environmental Impacts $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $ 200,000 Professional Services $2,695,192 $2,450,107 $2,257,413 $ 2,108,075 Contingency $2,820,794 $2,575,709 $2,422,018 $ 2,272,680

Total Costs $18,534,522 $17,064,012 $16,102,862 $15,206,837

Alignment Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor (Miramar) Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway $486,600 $486,600 $486,600 $ 486,600 Aerial Guideway Type A $444,000 $454,500 $1,123,320 $ 1,149,885 Aerial Guideway Type B $226,780 $175,740 $226,780 $ 175,740 Bridge $1,541,000 $1,386,900 $3,030,250 $ 2,727,225 Tunnel Type A $3,000,000 $2,670,000 $0 $ - Tunnel Type B $2,360,000 $1,988,300 $1,180,000 $ 994,150 Total Guideway & Track $8,058,380 $7,162,040 $6,046,950 $ 5,533,600

Alignment 1A I-8 Corridor Distribution Percent/Miles Study High Study Low High-Miles Low-Miles At Grade Guideway 33.0% 29.9% 30.7 30.7 Aerial Structures 21.1% 40.3% 19.7 41.4 Bridges 13.6% 24.3% 12.7 25.0 Tunnels 32.3% 5.4% 30.1 5.6

March 17, 2006 Page 102 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.5.2 Alignment 1B – I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Table 5-10: Alignment 1B – I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Alignment Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Right-of-Way $777,247 $777,247 $777,247 $777,247 Guideway & Track $8,421,480 $7,505,840 $6,524,980 $ 5,968,840 Systems $1,623,682 $1,623,682 $1,790,727 $1,790,727 Maintenance Facilities $220,000 $220,000 $264,000 $264,000 Stations & Parking $334,000 $250,000 $334,000 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026,400 $1,026,400 $1,231,680 $1,231,680 Environmental Impacts $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Professional Services $2,774,464 $2,524,554 $2,365,417 $2,205,382 Contingency $2,906,390 $2,656,480 $2,536,347 $2,376,312

Total Costs $18,883,664 $17,384,204 $16,624,399 $15,664,189

Alignment Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway $486,000 $486,000 $486,000 $486,000 Aerial Guideway Type A $296,000 $303,000 $962,000 $984,750 Aerial Guideway Type B $109,480 $84,840 $109,480 $84,840 Bridge $2,530,000 $2,277,000 $3,967,500 $3,570,750 Tunnel Type A $3,000,000 $2,670,000 N/A N/A Tunnel Type B $2,000,000 $1,685,000 $1,000,000 $842,500

Total Guideway & Track $8,421,480 $7,505,840 $6,524,980 $5,968,840

Alignment 1B I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) Distribution Percent/Miles Study High Study Low High -Miles Low-Miles At Grade Guideway 33.3% 30.2% 30.7 30.7 Aerial Structures 13.2% 32.9% 12.1 33.4 Bridges 22.6% 32.2% 20.8 32.7 Tunnels 30.9% 4.7% 28.4 4.7

March 17, 2006 Page 103 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.5.3 Alignment 2 – Route 94 Corridor Table 5-11: Alignment 2 – Route 94 Corridor Alignment Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Right-of-Way $1,948,062 $1,948,062 $1,948,062 $1,948,062 Guideway & Track $8,071,440 $7,191,820 $6,033,390 $5,537,420 Systems $1,587,934 $1,587,934 $1,754,980 $1,754,980 Maintenance Facilities $220,000 $220,000 $264,000 $264,000 Stations & Parking $334,000 $250,000 $334,000 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026,400 $1,026,400 $1,231,680 $1,231,680 Environmental Impacts $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Professional Services $2,728,850 $2,487,945 $2,284,416 $2,139,423 Contingency $2,809,944 $2,569,039 $2,404,512 $2,259,520

Total Costs $19,626,630 $18,181,200 $17,155,040 $16,285,085

Alignment Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway $435,900 $435,900 $435,900 $435,900 Aerial Guideway Type A $473,600 $484,800 $1,161,800 $1,189,275 Aerial Guideway Type B $132,940 $103,020 $132,940 $103,020 Bridge $1,679,000 $1,511,100 $3,202,750 $2,882,475 Tunnel Type A $3,150,000 $2,803,500 $0 $0 Tunnel Type B $2,200,000 $1,853,500 $1,100,000 $926,750

Total Guideway & Track $8,071,440 $7,191,820 $6,033,390 $5,537,420

Alignment 2 Route 94 Corridor Distribution Percent/Miles Study High Study Low High-Miles Low-Miles At Grade Guideway 30.6% 27.7% 27.5 27.5 Aerial Structures 20.4% 40.6% 18.4 40.4 Bridges 15.4% 26.5% 13.8 26.4 Tunnels 33.7% 5.2% 30.3 5.2

March 17, 2006 Page 104 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.5.4 Alignment 3 – Tunnel Alignment Table 5-12: Alignment 3 – Tunnel Alignment Alignment Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Cost Category Study High Peer High Right-of-Way $500,000 $500,000 Guideway & Track $13,445,700 $11,395,700 Systems $1,399,507 $1,399,507 Maintenance Facilities $220,000 $220,000 Stations & Parking $334,000 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026,400 $1,026,400 Environmental Impacts $350,000 $350,000 Professional Services $3,945,386 $3,411,886 Contingency $4,106,402 $3,572,902

Total Costs $25,327,394 $22,126,394

Alignment Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Cost Category Study High Peer High Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway $236,700 $236,700 Aerial Guideway Type A $0 $0 Aerial Guideway Type B $0 $0 Bridge $529,000 $476,100 Tunnel Type A $0 $0 Tunnel Type B $12,680,000 $10,682,900

Total Guideway & Track $13,445,700 $11,395,700

Alignment 3 Tunnel Alignment Distribution Percent/Miles Study High High-Miles At Grade Guideway 18.8% 14.9 Aerial Structures 0.0% 0.0 Bridges 5.5% 4.4 Tunnels 75.7% 60.0

March 17, 2006 Page 105 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.5.5 Alignment 4 – SD&AE Alignment Table 5-13: Alignment 4 – SD&AE Alignment Alignment Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Right-of-Way $977,607 $977,607 $977,607 $977,607 Guideway & Track $8,984,137 $7,993,536 $6,570,010 $6,021,844 Systems $1,778,112 $1,778,112 $1,778,112 $1,778,112 Maintenance Facilities $220,000 $220,000 $264,000 $264,000 Stations & Parking $334,000 $250,000 $334,000 $250,000 Vehicle Acquisition $1,026,400 $1,026,400 $1,231,680 $1,231,680 Environmental Impacts $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Professional Services $2,949,751 $2,681,100 $2,369,536 $2,211,494 Contingency $3,085,662 $2,817,012 $2,544,451 $2,386,409

Total Costs $19,855,669 $18,243,767 $16,569,395 $15,621,146

Alignment Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Cost Category Study High Peer High Study Low Peer Low Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway $530,658 $530,658 $530,658 $530,658 Aerial Guideway Type A $384,877 $393,979 $1,141,080 $1,168,065 Aerial Guideway Type B $117,300 $90,900 $117,300 $90,900 Bridge $1,807,432 $1,626,689 $3,552,212 $3,196,991 Tunnel Type A $3,686,310 $3,280,816 – – Tunnel Type B $2,457,560 $2,070,494 $1,228,760 $ 1,035,230

Total Guideway & Track $8,984,137 $7,993,536 $6,570,010 $ 6,021,844

Alignment 4 SD&AE Corridor Distribution Percent/Miles Study High Study Low High-Miles Low-Miles At Grade Guideway 34.0% 31.0% 33.5 33.5 Aerial Structures 15.4% 36.5% 15.2 39.3 Bridges 15.1% 27.1% 14.9 29.3 Tunnels 35.5% 5.4% 34.9 5.8

March 17, 2006 Page 106 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.6 Range of Capital Costs The range of costs among the study high speed estimates and the lower speed estimates is presented in Table 5-14. The range of costs on a per mile basis is presented in Table 5-15

5.3.6.1 By Total Capital Costs

Table 5-14: Range of Capital Costs by Alignment in $ Millions LOW HIGH SPEED SPEED Alignment Study Peer Review Study Peer Review I-8 Corridor (Miramar) $18,534 $17,064 $16,102 $15,206 I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) $18,883 $17,384 $16,624 $15,664 Route 94 Corridor $19,626 $18,181 $17,155 $16,285 Tunnel Alignment $25,327 $22,126 N/A N/A SD&AE Corridor $19,855 $18,243 $16,569 $15,621

5.3.6.2 By Capital Cost per Mile Table 5-15: Cost per Mile in $ Millions HIGH SPEED LOW SPEED Alignment Study Peer Review Study Peer Review I-8 Corridor (Miramar) $198.8 $183.1 $156.8 $148.1 I-8 Corridor (Qualcomm) $205.2 $188.9 $163.8 $154.3 Route 94 Corridor $218.0 $202.0 $172.4 $163.7 Tunnel Alignment $319.2 $278.9 SD&AE Corridor $201.7 $185.3 $153.5 $144.8

March 17, 2006 Page 107 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

5.3.7 Summary The capital costs developed by the project team and the estimates developed using the unit costs from the peer review process are within $1.5 Billion dollars. Therefore, the project team is confident that the estimates presented are valid at this level of study.

Furthermore, the cost per mile of the Baltimore–Washington project in 2005 dollars is $112.0 Million. The range of the I-8 Corridor is $148.1 Million to $198.8 Million. The differences between the Study per mile and the B-W per mile are attributed to the following route characteristics:

• B–W is in a urban area and the terrain is relatively flat whereas more than 50% of the Study corridors are in mountainous terrain with multiple summits more than 4000 feet above sea level • B–W has 6 miles of shallow tunnels whereas the Study corridors average 10 miles of deep tunnels and 20 miles of shallow tunnels for the high speed alignment and average 7 miles of deep tunnels on the lower speed alignment.

Given the substantial difference in route characteristics between the Study and the Baltimore- Washington project, the range of costs for the Study are considered reasonable.

5.4 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost The operating and maintenance costs for the FRA demonstration projects are detailed in Chapter 2.0. The source of these costs is FRA’s “Report to Congress – Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation”. In this report, FRA cautions against extracting operating and maintenance (O&M) costs from these studies for estimating O&M costs in other studies. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, a range of annual O&M costs has been developed using the annual O&M cost of $62 million per year in 2005 dollars for the B-W project. The O&M range proposed for this study is $100 million to $150 million per year. This range was reported to the Peer Review Panel. The industry representative stated that due to several similarities between this study and the B-W project, such as dual guideway operation, peak headways of 10 minutes, air-rail connections, and urban area operations, the overall O&M costs could be used for comparison. However, the industry representative also stated that the upper range proposed for this study is high.

The range of $100 million to $150 million per year for annual O&M costs is used because: • B–W is 39 miles in length. The average base alignment for this study is 90 miles. Therefore, by a length of system comparison the annual O&M would be $148 million per year. • B–W alignment is relatively flat compared to the base alignments. The Laguna Mountain range requires that 62 miles or 70% of the alignment is built at grades in excess of 5%. The additional energy required to operate on the Laguna grades compared to the B-W alignment could be significant.

March 17, 2006 Page 108 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• B–W uses three-car consists for their train sets, whereas this study uses eight-car consists. The energy required to propel an eight-car consist versus a three-car consist could be significant. • This study assumes secure checked baggage at stations whereas B–W did not assume check baggage. The additional security costs would add to the O&M costs.

Because of the reasons outlined above, a range of $100 million to $150 million appears reasonable for this level of study.

5.5 Estimates for Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego This section presents the conceptual cost estimates for the optional supplemental segments to connect the Maglev system from the Miramar or Qualcomm station to Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The optional supplemental alignments are:

Designation Name Origin Destination Distance Supplement 1 Miramar Santa Fe Depot Miramar 9.5 mi Supplement 2 Qualcomm Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 7.6 mi Supplement 3 Tunnel (Qualcomm) Santa Fe Depot Qualcomm 5.7 mi

Cost estimates are presented in Table 5-16 illustrating options for the supplemental segments to extend base alignments 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 into downtown San Diego. Extending these base alignments into downtown San Diego would increase total travel time between downtown San Diego and the Desert Site beyond 40 minutes. The base alignment can provide efficient operations to meet travel demand with eight train sets. In order to operate efficient service with a travel time greater than 40 minutes, two additional train sets are required. Refer to Section 4.6, Conceptual Maglev Operations, for an explanation on the number of train sets selected for the base alignment. Therefore, the cost estimate for the extensions includes the cost to add two train sets (16 sections). The cost estimates for the extensions also include the cost to expand the size of the maintenance facilities for maintain these additional train sets.

March 17, 2006 Page 109 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 5-16: Optional Supplemental Segments by Cost Category Cost Category Supplement 1 Supplement 2 Supplement 1 Tunnel Cost in $Millions Miramar Qualcomm (Qualcomm) Right of Way $150 $70 $100 Guideway & Track $1,465 $1,046 $837 Systems $167 $133 $100 Maintenance $44 $44 $44 Facilities Stations & Parking $167 $167 $167 Vehicles $12 $12 $12 Environmental $1,44 $345 $150 Professional $484 $376 $309 Services Contingency $512 $398 $338 Total $3,340 $2,786 $2,251 Current costs in 2006 dollars

5.5.1 Estimates for Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego by Project Element

March 17, 2006 Page 110 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 5-17: Maglev Capital Cost Estimate – Optional Supplemental Segments to Downtown San Diego

Cost in thousands Extensions Supplement 1 Miramar Supplement 2 Qualcomm Supplement 3 Qualcomm (Tunnel) Cost Elements Unit Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Distance LF 50,000 40,000 30,000 Distance Miles 9.5 7.6 5.7 Right of Way Right-of-Way Lump Sum $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Guideway & Track At Grade Guideway LF $3.0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Aerial Guideway Type A LF $5.9 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Aerial Guideway Type B LF $7.8 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Bridge LF $23.0 5,000 $115,000 22,000 $506,000 9,000 $207,000 Tunnel Type A LF $30.0 45,000 $1,350,000 18,000 $540,000 21,000 $630,000 Tunnel Type B LF $40.0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sub Guideway & Track $1,465,000 $1,046,000 $837,000 Systems Propulsion, C& C Systems Mile $16,400 9.5 $155,303 7.6 $124,242 5.7 $93,182 Power Distribution Mile $1,240 9.5 $11,742 7.6 $9,394 5.7 $7,045 Sub Systems $167,045 $133,636 $100,227 Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Facilities Sections $2,750 16 $44,000 16 $44,000 16 $44,000 Stations & Parking Stations & Parking each $167,000 1.0 $167,000 1 $167,000 1 $167,000 Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle Acquisition Sections $12,830 16 $205,280 16 $205,280 16 $205,280 Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts Lump Sum $144,960 $345,320 $150,000 Professional Services Design Engineering 7% $129,013 $97,345 $80,376 Program Management 4% $127,731 $97,649 $60,140 Construction Mgt & Insp 10% $184,305 $139,064 $114,823 Engineering during Const 2% $36,861 $27,813 $22,965 Integrated Testing & Com 2% $40,967 $31,918 $27,070 Sub Prof Services $518,877 $393,789 $305,374 Contingency Contingency 25% $512,081 $398,979 $338,377 Base Alignment Costs $4,224,243 $3,234,004 $2,147,258 Travel Time in Minutes 5.11 6.16 4.37

March 17, 2006 Page 111 6.0 ridership Studies 6.0 Ridership Studies

and Analysis and Analysis

SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

6.0 Ridership Studies and Analysis This section describes the methodology, assumptions, inputs and results of studies and analyses to develop ridership forecasts for the proposed Maglev system. SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Model was the primary tool used to estimate ridership forecasts. Working closely with SANDAG staff, the Consultant developed inputs to the SANDAG model, and post- processed model outputs. SANDAG staff conducted the actual model runs. In addition, airport passenger demand for the Desert Site airport was provided from the SDCRAA’s Airport Site Selection Program.

6.1 Ridership Estimation Methodology Ridership estimates for the proposed Maglev system involved the following tasks: • Developing Maglev service characteristics for input to the transportation model • Developing air passenger ground access and employee person trips for input to the transportation mode. • Transportation modeling • Reviewing model outputs and comparative analysis • Refining transportation model

6.1.1 Maglev Service Characteristics Maglev service characteristics were developed for the alternative alignments by:

• Identifying station locations • Estimating average station-to-station run times based on the proposed alignments • Specifying service frequencies during peak and off-peak periods • Specifying station-to-station fares • Specifying boarding restrictions (if any), such as non-airport trips

Comparison data from other planned Maglev systems is provided in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1: Comparable Planned U.S. Maglev System Service Characteristics Baltimore – Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm Peak Period Headway (min) 10 8.5 20 Off-Peak Headway (min) 20-30 10 30 Average Travel Speed (mph) 126 92 174 Route Length (mi) 39.1 54.4 34.8 Travel Time (min) 18.5 35.0 11.0 Average Fare per Passenger $20.07 $6.80 $5.82 Average Fare per Passenger-mile $0.76 $0.31 $0.16 Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005

March 17, 2006 Page 112 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Based on the comparable data and knowledge of the local San Diego region, specific assumptions were made for the proposed Maglev system as discussed below.

6.1.1.1 Station Locations This study assumed that the proposed Maglev system would have four possible station locations as follows:

• Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) • Miramar (County Centroid of Population) • Qualcomm • Desert Site

6.1.1.2 Transition Time Transition time refers to the time in minutes it takes a Maglev passenger to make the transition between travel modes. Factors influencing transition time include facility size, parking access, level of activity, level changes, baggage, security screening, walking distances and headways between trains. At the current level of detail, the transition times were assumed to be comparable to those experienced at common airport terminals minus the time for baggage check-in and TSA level security screening. The transition times assumed for each station are as follows:

Location Transition Time Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) 10 minutes Miramar (County Centroid of Population) 15 minutes Qualcomm 15 minutes Desert Site 15 minutes

6.1.1.3 Service Frequency/Headway The term “headway” refers to the consecutive block of time between trains at each station. In this study, it was assumed that all trains stop at all locations and operate on 10-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak periods.

6.1.1.4 Boarding Restrictions No boarding restrictions were assumed.

6.1.1.5 Average Travel Speed Average travel speeds are indicative to calculating link travel times. Average travel speeds for the Maglev system were estimated as follows:

Location Average Travel Speed Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) to Miramar or Qualcomm 80 mph Miramar/Qualcomm to Desert Site 175 mph

March 17, 2006 Page 113 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

6.1.1.6 Route Length Assumed route lengths between stations were based on the preliminary alignment studies. The route lengths shown below are representative of a general alignment along the SR-163 and I-8 corridors. The station-to-station route lengths for the alternatives vary and could impact the ridership forecasts. However, the route length assumptions made in this study are commensurate with the current level of definition for the route alignments.

Location Approx. Route Length Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) to Miramar 13 Miles Miramar to Desert Site 90 Miles

6.1.1.7 Travel Time Using the respective travel speeds and estimated route lengths, travel times on each system link were estimated. The results are as follows:

Location Estimated Travel Time Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) to Miramar 10 minutes Miramar to Desert Site 30 minutes

6.1.1.8 Fares System fares were estimated based on cost per passenger-mile data available from previous studies. The results are as follows:

Location Estimated Fare Downtown San Diego (Santa Fe Depot) to Miramar $5.00 Miramar to Desert Site $20.00

The above assumptions were provided to the SANDAG modeling staff as inputs to the transportation model.

6.2 Airport Passenger Demand The ridership profile for the proposed Maglev system could potentially include the following population groups: • San Diego International Airport (SDIA) air passengers • Meeters/greeters of SDIA air passengers • SDIA employees (airport, airline, concessions, etc.) • Non-air passengers traveling between San Diego County and Imperial County

March 17, 2006 Page 114 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

6.2.1 SDIA Air Passenger Forecasts Long-range air passenger demand forecasts (up to 2030) for SDIA were prepared for SDCRAA in 2004.3 The forecasts were prepared for constrained and unconstrained scenarios. The unconstrained forecasts represent growth in air passenger activity without consideration of facility constraints at SDIA. The constrained forecasts reflect these limitations, particularly the single runway configuration at SDIA. The unconstrained forecasts were deemed applicable for the proposed Desert Site location and were used in this analysis.

Under the unconstrained scenario, air passenger demand for the San Diego region is projected to grow by 2.8% per year from approximately 15.8 million annual passengers (MAP) in 2004 to 32.7 MAP in 2030. This forecast took into account the effects of regional economic growth, the influence of low fare carriers, continuing impacts of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and trends in load factors and fleet composition.

The 2030 unconstrained forecast of 32.7 MAP translates to approximately 89,600 total air passengers daily. Approximately 96% of existing air passengers are non-connecting, origin and destination (O&D) passengers, i.e., they originate or terminate their flights at SDIA. Assuming the ratio remains the same in the future, the estimated 2030 non-connecting O&D passengers is approximately 86,000 air passengers daily.

6.2.2 SDIA Meeter/Greeters Air passenger surveys conducted at SDIA prior to Sept. 11 indicated a ratio of 0.73 meeter/greeters per non-connecting O&D passenger. A meeter/greeter is not an air passenger, but travels to and from the airport to see the air passenger off at the start of a trip or meet the air passenger upon arrival from a trip.

Meeter/greeters who ride the train would make two train trips per person, as they travel to and from the airport. In the case of the Desert Site, the consultant team proposed to set the number of such riders on the Maglev train at zero. Experience at remote airports with rail links indicates that few meter/greeters will ride the train due to the extended duration and cost of the accompanying journey. Since the basis to predict a specific percentage of riders was absent, zero was considered to be a conservative approach.

3 SH&E, “San Diego International Airport Aviation Activity Forecasts,” prepared for SDCRAA, June 2004.

March 17, 2006 Page 115 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

6.2.3 SDIA Employees This group includes employees of the SDCRAA, including tenant airlines, concessionaires and service providers whose job requires the employee to be present at the airport. Employment figures vary widely between airports. For this study, the current ratio between employees and air passengers at SDIA was used to estimate the number of employees at the Desert Site. Based on this ratio, the estimated number of employees was 13,900. It should be noted that this study did not attempt to account for employees who would likely change their location of residence in response to the closing of SDIA and the opening of the Desert Site.

6.2.4 Other Passenger Demand While the proposed Maglev system would offer convenient links to the remote airport site, it is entirely possible that the system would be used by non-air passengers as well. This group would include those who may choose to travel by Maglev between the Desert Site and the San Diego urban area.

As previously discussed, it was assumed that there would not be any boarding restrictions for the non-air passenger group. With that said, it must be noted that a limitation of the modeling process was that the potential land uses surrounding the Desert Site have not yet been defined. As such, the transportation model generated a negligible number of non-air passengers on the link between the Desert Site and the stations at MCAS Miramar and Downtown San Diego. It is expected that measurable levels of ridership would be associated with the intensity and type of land uses surrounding a major airport; however, the effort to define those land uses is beyond the scope of this analysis. It is therefore concluded that the ridership levels estimated in this study are conservative.

6.3 Transportation Model Using the inputs provided by the Consultant team, SANDAG modeling staff ran the transportation model to produce preliminary Maglev ridership forecasts by:

• Coding transit networks to represent the Maglev service characteristics as previously described; • Modifying transit access procedures to represent long distance Maglev auto access connections; • Modifying 2030 trip generation by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to include the airport person trip forecasts previously described; • Running the trip distribution model with the revised person trip forecasts; • Running the standard mode choice model based on Maglev transit networks • Considering Maglev conventional urban rail, and • Running the transit assignment model to produce Maglev ridership and station boardings.

March 17, 2006 Page 116 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

6.3.1 Mode Choice The forecast of ridership is based on the population available as potential riders, adjusted by the propensity of candidates to choose the Maglev mode. The SANDAG model includes a number of variables, all of which relate to the two primary factors on which travelers make their mode choice decision, time and cost. The SANDAG model compares the time and cost of competing modes, namely vehicles and transit, and assigns person trips based on a host of socioeconomic factors. To illustrate this process, Figures 6-1 and 6-2 on the following pages show the ratios between highway and Maglev systems in terms of time and cost, respectively. Figure 6-1: Highway to Maglev Time Ratio

Source: SANDAG Regional Transportation Model

March 17, 2006 Page 117 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 6-2: Maglev to Highway Cost Ratio

Source: SANDAG Regional Transportation Model

In addition to analyzing the data generated by the SANDAG model, a further test of reasonableness was made whereby the project rail mode share of the Desert Site was compared to actual results at other rail-served airports. However, a distinct limitation to this comparison is that there is not another system in the world with characteristics similar to this proposed system. Table 6-2 on the following page presents a summary of rail mode share at both international and domestic airports that presently have rail service.

March 17, 2006 Page 118 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 6-2: Rail Mode Share at Rail Served Airports International Airports Rail Mode Share (%) Service Type Oslo 43 Express and Intercity Rail Tokyo Narita 36 Express Rail Geneva 35 Metro Zurich 34 Express and Intercity Rail Munich 31 Commuter Rail Frankfurt 27 Commuter Rail and Metro Stansted 27 Express Rail Amsterdam 25 Express and Intercity Rail London Heathrow 25 Express Rail and Metro Hong Kong 24 Express Rail London Gatwick 20 Express Rail Brussels 16 Metro Paris de Gaulle 15 Express and Intercity Rail Mexico City 10 Metro Shanghai 7 Maglev Paris Orly 6 APM to Commuter Rail US Airports Rail Mode Share (%) Type of Rail Reagan National (Washington DC) 12 Metro Chicago Midway 8 Metro Atlanta Hartsfield 8 Metro Boston Logan 7 Subway Newark 6 APM to Commuter Rail Chicago O’Hare 4 Metro/Commuter Rail St. Louis Lambert 3 Metro Cleveland Hopkins 3 Metro New York JFK 2 APM to Metro/Commuter Rail Philadelphia 2 Commuter Rail Baltimore Washington 2 Amtrak Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Reports 62 and 83, TRB 2000 and 2002; IATA Airport Development Reference manual. Rail Service: http://www.sky-guides.com

6.4 Ridership Forecasts Using the modeling assumptions noted above, ridership results were generated by the SANDAG model and are presented in Table 6-3 on the following page. As shown, preliminary estimates indicate that the system would generate a total of 49,900 daily passengers. Of this total, 47,600 passengers would be associated with the Desert Site Airport (air passengers and employees). This translates to a total rail mode share of approximately 48% as shown in Table 6-4. It is acknowledged that this mode share is higher than even the most successful rail connected airports in the world and is five to six times that of existing rail-served airports in the United States. This is largely attributable to the fact that no other system in the world has a rail

March 17, 2006 Page 119 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

connection with the combined distance and speed of the system proposed for the San Diego region. Further, there were several limitations of the ridership modeling effort which are explained in the following section of this report.

Table 6-3: Preliminary Ridership Projections Downtown- Downtown- Miramar-Desert Miramar Desert Site Site System Total Year 2030 2030 2030 2030 Average Daily Passengers 2,300 19,300 28,300 49,900 Annual Passengers (millions) 0.8 7.0 10.3 18.2 Source: HNTB Estimates

Table 6-4: Preliminary Maglev Mode Share for Desert Site Airport Desert Site Airport Maglev System Air Passengers Employees Total Riders Mode Share Year 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 Average Daily Activity 86,000 13,900 99,900 47,600 48% Source: HNTB Estimates

For comparison purposes, ridership data for other planned U.S. Maglev systems is provided in Table 6-5 below. Table 6-5: Comparison Ridership Projections of Planned U.S. Maglev Systems

Baltimore-Washington Pittsburgh Las Vegas-Primm SANDAG Year 2010 2012 2010 2030 Average Daily Passengers 25,100 38,900 37,000 49,900 Annual Passengers 9.17 14.2 13.5 18.2 (millions) Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005; HNTB

6.5 Limitations of the Ridership Estimating Effort

As previously discussed, the ridership estimation for this level of analysis is very coarse and preliminary. A number of factors require significantly more detailed definition in order to improve the accuracy of the ridership forecasts: • Market Research – The introduction of a new high speed technology to the San Diego region would create a new mode of access for travelers. Maglev will affect the travel choices of commuters, visitors and residents much differently than other modes of travel. In order to understand these effects, a broad-based market research effort is required to provide more refined statistical data for input into the existing SANDAG model. • Air Passenger Allocation – As previously discussed, the modeling effort undertaken in this study assumed that all air passengers in the San Diego region would use the Desert

March 17, 2006 Page 120 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Site airport. It is likely that a portion of these passengers would instead elect to use another airport that could be more convenient. • Special Event and Visitor Trips – This modeling effort did not attempt to account for potential riders who might use the Maglev system to attend special events or those who might ride the train as visitors the San Diego region • Induced Demand – The modeling effort did not attempt to gauge the impact of induced demand on the Maglev system. Induced demand represents those potential riders who would not otherwise make a trip.

In order to more fully understand the impact of the proposed Maglev system on travel mode choice behavior, further, more definitive analysis would need to be undertaken.

March 17, 2006 Page 121 7.0 comparative Analysis 7.0 Comparative Analysis SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

7.0 Comparative Analysis This section presents a brief comparative analysis summarizing the characteristics of highway, high-speed rail and Maglev modes. Information comparing Maglev with high-speed rail modes and Maglev with highway has been compiled and is presented herein. This first part of this section contains factual comparative data as presented by a variety of sources that include technical articles, FRA data, and information from FRA demonstration projects. The second part of this section provides a comparison with the capital cost and travel time associated with widening I-8.

7.1 Comparisons of Maglev and Other Modes Studies done since the late 1980s have documented the apparent advantages of using Maglev to move passengers and goods when compared to more conventional trains, automobiles and short- haul aircraft. In the past couple of years especially, several papers have focused on the commercial installation of the Transrapid Maglev in Shanghai, China, to project future travel trends. One engineering magazine4 presented three items of general interest:

• Because up to eight vehicle sections can form one Maglev consist, the potential passenger throughput capacity of the system is several times greater than the adjacent six-lane airport highway, negating any immediate need for additional highway expansion. • The low maintenance and labor costs, combined with the advantages the system confers in the areas of speed, reliability and safety, mean that [the Chinese] can expect a steady and rapid return on investment and even a profit. [Program manager] Wu reported last July that even with a daily volume of only 7,000 passengers, which is lower than expected, the system was already able to cover its operating costs. This is significant. No transit system in the world could make that claim based on such low passenger numbers. • The reinforced-concrete support piers, [6 feet square] and typically [26.5 feet] high, are designed to withstand the seismic forces of earthquakes measuring up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. Each support pier sits atop a pile cap…cover[ing] 20 to 24 piles, each [2 feet] in diameter, that are driven to depths reaching [230 feet] to counter seismic forces and liquefaction.

Other studies, most notably from Europe, cite the importance of long-term cost-of-ownership comparisons between high-speed rail and Maglev. In one report5 for the transport ministry in Germany, the consultant company Dornier compared an eight-car high-speed ICE train to a five-section Maglev and found:

4 Engineering World (Australia), “Shanghai: Levitating Beyond Transportation Theory,” April/May 2005. 5 “Technical-Economical System Comparison of High-Speed Rail Systems,” October 2004.

March 17, 2006 Page 122 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Maglev has the potential to carry 7% more passengers at a 50% faster operating speed using 40% lighter, 35% shorter vehicles.

Table 7-1 shows the specific train parameters for both high-speed systems.

Table 7-1: Comparison of High-Speed Rail and Maglev Parameter High-Speed Rail High-Speed Maglev System Carriages/Sections per Train 8 5 Seats (average) 415 (+ 24 in the dining car) 446 Operational Speed 300 km/hr 450 km/h Max. Engine Power 8,000 KW Approx. 25,000 KW Net Weight of the Train 409 t 247 t Weight/Seat Approx. 930 kg Approx. 550 kg Total Length of Train 200 m 128.3 m Width 2.95 m 3.70 m Height 3.89 m 4.16 m Axel Load 17 t (2.1 t/m) 2.2 t/m Source: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1863, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 19-27.

Further, the same study concluded that:

• [While Maglev capital costs were approximately 20% higher than rail,] …both have the same overall transport performance with the Maglev System possessing definite lower operational costs and a smaller vehicle fleet. • On the basis of little wear and tear and related low maintenance, the maintenance costs of the High Speed Maglev System are less than half that of the Wheel/Rail System. • The life cycle examination shows the obvious lower costs for maintenance and operation, [and] results in the expectations that the Maglev can be cheaper than a comparable Wheel/Rail System after several years, in spite of high initial investment costs.

A British planning project, called “UK Ultraspeed,” has issued a factbook6 citing performance and cost figures for connecting cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow with auto, rail and Maglev. Even though major city pairs are much closer together than here in the United States., with some averaging 30 – 40 miles apart, the UK Ultraspeed project is committed to Maglev technology as a means to “enhance Britain’s environment, empower Britain’s economy and transform Britain’s transport system.” In one analysis, the project compared travel capacities for moving passengers by auto, shuttle bus and Maglev in a short-range (24.5-mile) high-capacity shuttle operation planned for the 2012 Olympics, as shown in Figure 8-1 on the following page.

6 UK Ultraspeed Factbook, October 15, 2005, available at www.500kmh.com

March 17, 2006 Page 123 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 7-1: Travel Capacities – Auto, Shuttle Bus and Maglev

Source: UK Ultraspeed website at www.expall.com/ultraspeed.html

In 2003, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project developed a comparison7 of local travel modes between the cities of Baltimore, MD, and Washington, D.C., highlighting Maglev’s performance, capacity levels, and economic competitiveness. It analyzed costs from available sources and compared an equivalent eight-lane freeway (capital cost: $76 million per mile), conventional high-speed rail (capital cost: up to $110 million per mile), and high-speed Maglev (capital cost: $87 million per mile). Four summary findings included:

• Maglev construction costs will generally be comparable to costs for a new freeway of equivalent eight (8) lane capacity, with the freeway exhibiting slower travel time and higher accident exposure. • Maglev capital costs will be comparable with the cost of a new steel-wheel high-speed rail on a new right of way and, when operation and maintenance costs are considered, the life-cycle cost of a Maglev system may be significantly less.

7 “Cost Comparison: Maglev with Freeway, Light and Heavy Rail,” KCI Technologies Inc./Parsons Brinckerhoff Joint Venture, TRB Annual Meeting, January 13, 2004.

March 17, 2006 Page 124 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• O&M cost estimates for Maglev will generally be less than for autos or high-speed rail when measured by cost per passenger-mile. • Maglev travel time and cost between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. will generally compare favorably with competing modes.

From a different perspective, findings from a peer-reviewed research paper8 analyzing the potential travel time benefits accruing to Maglev, as opposed to high-speed rail, in a long, complicated corridor (Beijing – Shanghai in China) are cited below:

• When examining the alignment between stations in detail, we discovered many locations where neither HSR nor Maglev is able to operate at maximum speed due to curvature limitations or urban environments. Taking one of the proposed alignments (Shen, 2000), the total length is [908 miles] long, with 1,382 curves, 62% of the guideway is on tangents and 38% is along curved alignment. • In this case, Maglev may have inherent advantages to negotiate various curves or other diversified profiles, due to its higher acceleration rates and superior curving performance. Maglev is capable of attaining its top speed quickly once passing the curve limitations. The deceleration time and distance are both shorter so it can maintain ideal speed much longer. • It is not surprising therefore that if the eventual travel time via HSR doubles that of Maglev, even though the ideal analysis only presented about 50% difference. That is, the true travel time for HSR may be closer to eight hours verses four hours [for Maglev], as opposed to our preliminary estimate of five hours [for HSR] versus three and a half hours [for Maglev] presented.

The California-Nevada Maglev project, responding to local news articles in 2002, performed a comparison9 between Transrapid Maglev and a rail competitor from Bombardier called “JetTrain” that reported the following conclusions:

• From a station stop, Transrapid attains two and a half times the speed and covers twice the distance of JetTrain in the same amount of time. • Transrapid requires only one-quarter the time and distance to attain JetTrain’s top speed. • JetTrain is almost twice as noisy as Transrapid at similar operational speeds. • Transrapid can climb grades from two-and-a-half times to eight times steeper than JetTrain with no loss of speed. • Transrapid’s unique guideway precludes interfacing with heavy freight trains, locomotives and grade crossings.

8 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1863, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 19-27. 9 “Technology Comparison: High Speed Ground Transportation, Transrapid Superspeed Maglev and Bombardier JetTrain,” December 2002.

March 17, 2006 Page 125 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Finally, the most recent FRA report on Maglev10 contains a table (shown in part in Table 7-2 below) citing a series of advantages for Maglev when compared to highway, air and rail modes.

Table 7-2: Illustrative Capacities and Costs of Intercity Transportation Modes – Initial Approximation (Note A) Freeway Air Row Line Item (see Note B) Urban Rural IHSR 110 New HSR Maglev A Facility Runway: 8000 1 lane 1 lane 110 mph 200 mph 300 mph Assumptions ft x 150 ft, top speed unidirectional operation B Hourly Capacity in 2,430 3,588 3,634 2,640 5,600 7,728 One Direction passengers passengers passengers passengers passengers passengers per runway per lane per lane C Capital Cost $22 million $4.9-$10.3 $3.9-$6.6 $2.9 $17.6 $25.1 per runway million million million million million per lane per lane per track- per track- per single mile mile guideway- mile D = C/B Unit Capital Cost $6,349 $2,090 $1,376 $1,098 $3,143 $3,248 (capital cost per hourly passenger in one direction) Source: Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September 2005 Note A: Site-specific analysis would be required for comparisons of the capacities and costs of modal alternatives in real-world applications. Note B: Air is not comparable with the ground modes as there is no permanent way construction cost (except control/communications systems) for use of the atmosphere. The figures for runways are included solely as a matter of interest, not of comparability.

• Under the assumptions of Table 7-2, a single Maglev guideway could accommodate approximately the same number of unidirectional passengers per hour that three airport runways or two lanes of highway could handle. • Maglev may enable higher speed and reduced energy use compared to rail due to lighter vehicles, greater banking ability, lack of contact and use of linear motors. • With speeds up to 310 mph, Maglev is envisioned as filling a niche, and making ground transportation fully competitive with highway and air travel in certain corridors for trips of about 150 to 500 miles.

The same FRA report has the following general statement about the use of Maglev for airport access:

10 Report to Congress - Costs and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, FRA, September, 2005.

March 17, 2006 Page 126 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Maglev, with its expected ability to attract passengers from airlines, might assist in reducing the growth of local highway congestion generated by airport access and egress. The potential for such assistance at a specific air terminal would depend on the market reach of available, air-competitive Maglev service; the origin/destination mix of the air passengers using the terminal; and their habitual modes of ground travel to and from the airport.

7.2 Highway Comparison This section provides a comparison with the capital cost and travel time of widening I-8, connecting San Diego and the Imperial Valley to provide additional capacity equivalent to the Maglev system.

As shown in Table 7-3, estimating the Equivalent Freeway Capacity of the proposed SANDAG Maglev System involves the following assumptions: 1) the Maglev train capacity for a six-section train (seated riders) is 400 persons per trip; and 2), using 10-minute headway for a six-section train, the Maglev capacity is calculated as (400) x (6), or 2,400 persons per direction during a one-hour peak period. This estimate correlates with the 2,380 person peak-hour per direction from the San Diego-Imperial Valley ridership analysis.

As presented in Table 7-3, to convert the Maglev capacity, expressed in person per direction per hour into an equivalent number of motor vehicles per hour, a vehicle occupancy factor of 1.18 persons per vehicle was assumed. This is based on information for the I-8 corridor from SANDAG’s December 2004 report “Commute Characteristics-San Diego Region”.

Table 7-3: Vehicle Equivalency MAGLEV Capacity Peak Hour Headway (minutes) 10 minutes Train Capacity (Six-section train) 400 persons Trains per Hour (peak) 6 trains Peak Hour Seated Capacity (persons/direction/hour) 2400 persons Peak Hour Ridership (HNTB estimate) 2380 persons Peak Hour Highway Capacity (auto 2033 vehicles equivalent/direction/hour) Vehicle Occupancy Factor 1.18 (Commute Characteristics-San Diego Region) SANDAG, December 2004

7.2.1 Freeway Geometry Equivalent freeway capacity would be achieved through adding lanes to the existing I-8 freeway. We are assuming a peak hour capacity of 1,300-1,600 vehicles per hour per additional lane based

March 17, 2006 Page 127 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

on information from the San Diego 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030, Technical Appendix 3. The number of freeway lanes needed to provide a highway capacity greater than 2,033 vehicles per direction per hour is two-lanes eastbound and two-lanes westbound.

7.2.1.1 Estimated Highway Capital Cost The 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) reports a range of average costs per lane mile from approximately $5 million to $20 million for planned freeway expansion projects in San Diego County. The cost of expanding the existing highway network is influenced by a number of factors, including right-of-way, terrain and environmental consideration. Projects with high right-of way costs, complex structural work and other factors will have a higher cost per lane mile than widening of highways that can be accommodated within existing right of ways and with minimal earthwork. From the 2030 RTP, planned projects along the I-8 freeway show costs per lane mile varying from $8 million to $11 million. The distance from San Diego to the Imperial Valley is approximately 103 miles. Using an average cost of $8.5 million per lane mile this calculates to an estimated cost of approximately $3.5 billion.

(4 lanes) ($8.5 million per mile) (101 miles) = $3.502 B

7.2.1.2 Highway Travel Time To travel by automobile along I-8 from San Diego to the proposed Desert Site in Imperial Valley will take significantly longer than the estimated travel time for any of the Maglev system alignments.

Highway Maglev Downtown San Diego to Desert Site 2 hour 07 minutes 38 minutes Miramar/MCAS Station to Desert Site 1 hour 50 minutes 29 minutes

March 17, 2006 Page 128 8.0 Environmental Analysis 8.0 Environmental Analysis SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

8.0 Environmental Analysis This purpose of this chapter is to describe existing environmental conditions for the four corridor alternatives, evaluate the potential environmental impacts and constraints associated with constructing and operating the Maglev system, and present potential mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce those impacts. The chapter is a summary of a more detailed analysis which is included in Appendix B.

This environmental analysis is based on existing information from the following reports: • SDCRAA Airport Site Alternatives Analysis (Ricondo and Associates, 2005) • IID Water Transfer Project Environmental Assessment (Black and Veach, 1999) • San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Vegetation Mapping • California Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Vegetation Mapping for Imperial County • County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan GIS Database • Blueline drainages as depicted on U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps

8.1 Study Area and Environmental Criteria As described previously, the study area is a 100-mile corridor from San Diego to western Imperial County. This analysis reviews the following four environmental criteria for each alignment alternative:

Vegetation: This section focuses on sensitive vegetation communities, and rare and endangered plants and animals along each proposed corridor. There are as many as 58 different vegetation communities within the four proposed corridors, generally categorized into Wetland, Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Grassland, and Woodland (Figure 8-1). The vegetation communities are also grouped into three basic sensitivity levels: high, moderate and low (Table 8-1 and Figure 8-1). For example, high-value vegetation falls into two subsets: wetlands and uplands. All wetland areas are considered high-value. High-value uplands include woodlands and sage scrub, which support sensitive species.

Table 8-1: Vegetation Sensitivity High Moderate Low − Regulated waters, − Non-regulated native − MSCP Tier IV habitats including wetlands habitats − Non-regulated agricultural or (USACE, CDFG, − MSCP Tier III upland developed lands RWQCB) habitats habitats − MSCP Tier I and II upland habitats Source: Ricondo & Associates Team 2005

March 17, 2006 Page 129 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 8-1: Vegetation Sensitivity

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 130 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Architectural, Archeological, and Native American Resources: Architectural, archaeological, and Native American resources reflect Southern California's history and enhance its environmental value. Archeological resources include prehistoric-era resources (which date back several thousand years and are usually attributable to Native American activities) and historic resources, which date from the late 1700s and are usually attributable to Euro-American activities. Architectural resources are standing structures and buildings with historical significance. Detailed resource-specific information for the corridors studied is very limited, and comprehensive inventories do not exist at this time. However, a general discussion of potential environmental impacts is provided, based upon a brief literature review of known historical and Native American sites.

Visual Resources: Visual resources are the composite characteristics -- basic terrain, geologic features, scenic vistas, hydrologic features, vegetative patterns— create our visual environment and influence an area’s visual appeal. Visual resources are first identified and evaluated as to the key visual assets in the project area, and then the degree of visual impact attributable to the project is determined.

Section 4(f) Resources: The basic purpose of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is to protect “public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites” from encroachment by public transportation facilities. Section 4(f) declares a national policy to preserve, where possible, “the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites” (Figure 8-2 Section 4(f) Resources). Projects can only cross these special lands if there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and the sponsoring agency demonstrates that all possible planning to minimize harm has been accomplished.

A summary for each proposed Corridor that describes the current condition for each environmental criterion, and evaluates the potential environmental impacts is provided on the following pages.

March 17, 2006 Page 131 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 8-2: Section 4(f) Resources

Space intentionally left blank.

See figure on next page.

March 17, 2006 Page 132 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

8.2 Corridor Alternatives Review

8.2.1 Corridor 1A/1B – I-8 Corridor (Miramar/Qualcomm – Desert Site) Both Alignments 1A and 1B follow the I-8 Corridor. 1A traverses from Miramar to the Desert Site. Alternative 1B differs only slightly in that is serves Qualcomm Stadium rather than Miramar. Otherwise, the alignment through the I-8 Corridor is similar, and therefore the environmental situation will be essentially the same.

Vegetation: East of Miramar, there are two major open spaces that have coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands as well as several drainages, including Sycamore Creek. In the Cleveland National Forest and Laguna Mountains, there is sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, oak, Jeffery pine, and riparian and mountain alder woodlands. Once in the desert, the vegetation primarily consists of creosote, saltbush and cholla-prickly pear.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Potential environmental impacts on sensitive vegetation and endangered plant and animal species include direct and indirect impacts from construction activities and Maglev system operations. Plants or animals within the 100-foot right-of-way are assumed to be directly impacted during construction and will most likely experience direct mortality, habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. While some disrupted habitat would be restored after construction, residual loss of habitat would continue from habitat displacement by support columns and/or service roads. In addition, areas outside of the right-of-way are anticipated to be impacted by disposal of material excavated from tunnels. However, as no location for the disposal of this excavated material is known at this time, no predictions are possible relative to the biological impacts of offsite disposal.

Indirect impacts would occur during construction or system operation. Elevated noise levels generated by construction or passing trains could discourage wildlife activities near the train corridor. Construction lighting could adversely impact endangered animals by disrupting their habitat and exposing them to night-time predation. Construction-related dust and air pollutants could indirectly impact sensitive species.

East of the Miramar Station, the train traverses the easterly open space areas and the former Camp Elliott, west of Santee, and could potentially impact coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grasslands. The tracks will be elevated for the crossing of the San Diego River, west of Santee, generating minimal water-related impacts. The Corridor then returns goes into a tunnel which avoids wetland vegetation in the Sycamore Canyon area.

Approaching the community of Alpine, the project could potentially impact coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grasslands. At Alpine, the tracks would run through a tunnel that would extend most of the way between Alpine and Boulder Oaks. From this point to Live Oak Springs, the tracks would be elevated and travel through coastal sage scrub and chaparral. At Live Oak Springs, the

March 17, 2006 Page 133 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

train would again be located primarily in a tunnel to just east of Bankhead Springs, where it would be mostly elevated as it approaches the county boundary. It would again be in and out of tunnels until just west of Ocotillo. Both tunneling and elevated guideways could reduce the impact on sensitive and rare animal and plant species. Potentially impacted vegetation along this section of the route would include sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands and some oak, Jeffery pine and mountain alder woodlands. Construction and operation of the Maglev through the desert portion of the Corridor would impact creosote, saltbrush and cholla-prickly pear.

Architectural, Archeological, and Native American Resources: The I-8 Corridor runs adjacent to Viejas Indian Reservation and crosses the La Posta and Campo Indian Reservations. Prehistoric archeological resources along this Corridor include habitation sites, temporary camps, rock shelters, rock art sites, lithic and ceramic scatters, bedrock milling features, ceremonial features, and isolated finds. Historic archeological resources consist of trash scatters and dumps, foundations, stacked rock walls, machinery, dams and segments of Old Highway 80.

The Corridor’s eastern segment transects the Table Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) which has archeological resources and the Yuha Basin ACEC, which has prehistoric and historic cultural attributes including geoglyphs which are particularly significant. An area of noteworthy geoglyphs is located just west of the proposed Imperial Valley airport site. In addition, the Yuha Basin ACEC is valued for DeAnza’s expeditions to coastal California.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Based on the site settlement history and recorded resource findings, this Corridor has a high potential for adverse impacts to architectural, archaeological and Native American resources. Construction and ground-disturbing activities or temporary alterations to the setting could disrupt or destroy significant resources. It is unknown if any human remains would be affected. Operationally, the Maglev system could disturb important cultural resources that are located in close proximity to ongoing maintenance and other operational activities. In addition, increased noise and visual intrusion could adversely impact the setting of architectural, archaeological and Native American resources.

Visual Resources: The western segment of the Corridor is largely urbanized and visually dominated by buildings, roadways, structures and ornamental landscaping. Uninterrupted or unobstructed viewsheds are relatively limited. As the Corridor moves eastward, the visual setting is more suburban and rural in nature, with views characterized primarily by undeveloped natural topography and structures that are primarily residential or business/retail centers. This viewshed is observed by motorists, business patrons and residents. In the far easterly segment, the visual setting is dominated by undeveloped, natural lands and an unobstructed viewshed observed primarily by motorists.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Visual impacts will most likely occur if construction activities are located directly within a viewshed of sensitive observers, such as in populated areas or along SR-52, SR-125, and I-8. As the corridor progresses east along I-8, there are fewer established

March 17, 2006 Page 134 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

communities so affected viewer groups would be less substantial. In areas with no development nearby, the visual impacts would generally be limited to motorists. Depending on how construction is managed, once the Corridor leaves urbanized areas, impacts could be contained, given the population and land use patterns.

Once constructed, a Maglev system along the I-8 Corridor would cross both densely- populated urbanized areas, as well as sparsely-populated undeveloped areas. The views of the proposed system would be primarily from existing residents surrounding the Corridor, particularly in more densely populated and urbanized areas, and from motorists. Given that the existing natural terrain and rural appearance of the area would be changed by an ongoing Maglev system operation, impacts to visual resources could be substantial.

Section 4(f) Resources: The I-8 Corridor extends through numerous areas with 4(f) resources, including the City of San Diego Urban Area and Eastern Area Multi-Habitat Planning Areas (MHPAs), Mission Trails Regional Park, East County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, Cleveland National Forest, Carrizo Gorge Wilderness Area, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, and BLM public lands, including the Jacumba National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area, and Table Mountain ACEC. Imperial County includes the BLM’s Yuha Basin ACEC, which was designated to protect and prevent irreparable damage to

important historic, cultural, or scenic and wildlife resources. The Yuha Basin ACEC hosts the flat-tailed horned lizard management area.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Both construction and Maglev operations along the I-8 Corridor could potentially impact Section 4(f) resources. Given that the proposed Corridor crosses some 4(f) resources, impacts may be unavoidable. Should the Maglev system impact the use of these resources or substantially impact the public use function, impacts would be considered adverse. Increased noise and visual intrusion could also adversely impact the setting of public lands and be considered a constructive use impact. A complete inventory and assessment of these resources would need to be made to determine which sites would be defined as Section 4(f) resources.

8.2.2 Alternative 2: SR-94 Corridor (Santa Fe Depot – Desert Site) The SR-94 Corridor starts at the Santa Fe Depot, and then east along SR-94 to the desert site.

Vegetation: From the Santa Fe Depot traveling east through urbanized area, the SR-94 Corridor would pass through limited areas of native vegetation consisting of coastal sage scrub and non- native grassland. Leaves the urbanized area, the SR-94 Corridor would cross Sweetwater River riparian habitat. Heading east, the Corridor passes through the same types of resources associated with the mountain portion of the I-8 Corridor. Once it reaches through the desert, the SR-94 Corridor then follows the same path as the I-8 Corridor and would travel through similar vegetation types.

March 17, 2006 Page 135 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Potential Environmental Impacts: From the Santa Fe Depot east through the urbanized area, the primary resources affected would coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland, but the guideway would be elevated to minimize potential impacts.

As it leaves the urban area, the Maglev along SR-94 Corridor would be placed in a tunnel that would cross under the Sweetwater River and surface again west of Jamul, avoiding sensitive habitat. The tracks would be primarily elevated between Jamul and the point where the SR-94 Corridor converges with the I-8 Corridor. The primary vegetation along this segment includes sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands and some areas of oak woodland. The SR-94 Corridor would follow the same path as the I-8 Corridor through the desert and result in comparable impacts.

Architectural, Archeological, and Native American Resources: Crossing the Campo Indian Reservation and running adjacent to the Jamul Indian Reservation, the SR-94 Corridor goes through a number of historic settlements and areas occupied by Native Americans. In addition, it passes near Tecate Peak, a sacred mountain, and another site sacred to the Ewiiaapaayp. Known prehistoric archaeological resources such as habitation sites, temporary camps, rock shelters and historic archaeological resources such as trash scatters, foundations, and segments of the SD&AE Railway are along the Corridor. The eastern portion of the Corridor crosses the Table Mountain ACEC, which has archaeological resources, and the Yuha Basin ACEC, which has prehistoric and historic cultural attributes.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Given that the SR-94 Corridor follows prehistoric and historic routes, and passes through historic and Native American settlements, including Tecate Peak, a sacred mountain, it is likely that adverse impacts to architectural, archaeological and Native American resources would occur.

Visual Resources: The western portion of this Corridor extends through a largely urbanized area, but reaches rural and undeveloped areas sooner than the I-8 Corridor. SR-94 from SR-125 in La Mesa to I-8 near Boulevard is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. I-8 from Boulevard to SR-98 near Ocotillo is also eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway.

Potential Environmental Impacts: As the Corridor traverses east generally along SR-94, there are fewer established communities; therefore, affected viewer groups would be less substantial and in areas with no development nearby, the visual impacts would generally be limited to motorists.

Section 4(f) Resources: The SR-94 Corridor extends through numerous communities that have Section 4(f) resources: Balboa Park in the City of San Diego, the South County and East County Multiple MSCP Subarea Plans, Carrizo Gorge Wilderness Area, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, and BLM public lands, including the Jacumba National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area, Table Mountain ACEC and Yuha Basin ACEC as well as architectural,

March 17, 2006 Page 136 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

archaeological and Native American resources such as the Jamul Indian Reservation and Campo Indian Reservation.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Construction activities and the Maglev system operation could potentially affect these Section 4(f) resources. A complete inventory and assessment would need to determine which of these areas are considered Section 4(f) resources. Should the Maglev system impact the use of these resources or substantially impact the public use function, impacts would be considered adverse. Increased noise and visual intrusion could also adversely impact the setting of public lands and be considered a constructive use impact.

8.2.3 Corridor 3: Tunnel Corridor (Qualcomm – Desert Site) Eighty percent of this Corridor is within a tunnel and is the most direct and shortest of the four alternatives. It also has the least potential impacts to the environment.

Vegetation: As the train would be located in a tunnel through the urban and mountain portions of the route, no biological resources would be impacted. Once it reaches the desert, the Tunnel Corridor then follows the same path as the I-8 Corridor, traveling through similar vegetation types.

Architectural, Archeological, and Native American Resources: As the train would be located in a tunnel through the urban and mountain portions of the route, no resources would be impacted. Once it reaches the desert, the Tunnel Corridor then follows the same path as the I-8 Corridor.

Visual Resources: As the train would be located in a tunnel through the urban and mountain portions of the route, no visual resources would be impacted. Once it reaches the desert, the Tunnel Corridor then follows the same path as the I-8 Corridor. I-8 from Boulevard to SR-98 near Ocotillo is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway.

Section 4(f) Resources: As the train would be located in a tunnel through the urban and mountain portions of the route, no Section 4(f) resources would be impacted. Once it reaches the desert, the Tunnel Corridor then follows the same path as the I-8 Corridor.

8.2.4 Corridor 4: SD&AE Corridor (Santa Fe Depot – Desert Site) The SD&AE Corridor begins at the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego and extends south along I-5 to Tijuana, then generally follows the SD&AE route east to Tecate, Jacumba and Ocotillo. At Ocotillo, the I-8, SR-94 and the SD&AE Corridors are identical.

Vegetation: From the Santa Fe Depot Station, this route would travel south along I-5 through urbanized areas of National City and Chula Vista toward the Mexican border. It would cross wetland vegetation at the Sweetwater, Otay and Tijuana Rivers and would cross the Mexican border near San Ysidro. Although detailed vegetation information is not available on the Corridor route through Mexico, generalizations are made for the sake of comparison to the other

March 17, 2006 Page 137 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Corridors. Once across the border, the SD&AE Corridor would travel through Tijuana. Although urbanized, a substantial amount of coastal sage scrub and natural drainage courses are expected at this segment of the Corridor. As it approaches Rodriguez Reservoir, the Corridor would head north and cross the U.S. border just southwest of Jacumba, where it would converge with the SR-94 Corridor east of Ocotillo. The SD&AE Corridor would follow the same path as the other three Corridors through the desert, with the same biological conditions as the other desert segments.

Potential Environmental Impacts: This route would cross three major drainages: Sweetwater River, Otay River and Tijuana River as it travels south to the Mexican border. As the crossings would be elevated, impacts would be limited to footings and shading. Once across the border, the Corridor would traverse the urbanized area of Tijuana. A substantial amount of coastal sage scrub and natural drainage courses could be impacted. As it approaches Rodriguez Reservoir, the route could potentially impact coastal sage scrub and chaparral. East of Ocatillo, this segment would impact sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands and some areas of oak woodland. The SD&AE Corridor would follow the same path as the other three Corridors through the desert, resulting in comparable impacts.

Architectural, Archeological, and Native American Resources: SD&AE Corridor travels through a number of historic settlements and areas occupied by Native Americans, including a portion of the Campo Indian Reservation. In addition, it passes near Tecate Peak, a sacred mountain. Prehistoric archaeological resources include habitation sites, temporary camps, rock shelters, rock art sites, lithic and ceramic scatters, bedrock milling features, ceremonial features, and isolated finds. Historic archaeological resources consist of trash scatters and dumps, foundations, stacked rock walls, machinery, dams, segments of Old Highway 80, and segments of the SD&AE Railway. The eastern portion of the Corridor crosses the In-Ko-Pah Gorge ACEC, which has archaeological resources, and the Yuha Basin ACEC, which has prehistoric and historic cultural attributes.

Given that the SD&AE Corridor traverses portions of historic settlements and areas occupied by Native Americans, including passing near Tecate Peak, In-Ko-Pah Gorge ACEC, and Yuha Basin ACEC, it is likely that adverse impacts to architectural, archaeological and Native American resources would occur.

Maglev operation impacts would include the disturbance of resources that are located in proximity to ongoing maintenance and other operations activities. In addition, increased noise and visual intrusion could also adversely impact the setting of architectural, archaeological, and Native American resources, which could be significant.

Visual Resources: I-5 from SR-75 to the U.S.-Mexico Border is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. I-8 from Jacumba to SR-98 near Ocotillo is also eligible for designation as a

March 17, 2006 Page 138 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

State Scenic Highway. The SD&AE Corridor extends through the fewest cities and established communities, thus reducing urban impacts.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Visual impacts may occur if construction activities are located directly within a viewshed with sensitive observers. This would result in visual impacts within the more populated areas occurring along the western end of the Corridor. As the Corridor traverses east the affected viewer groups would become less substantial with respect to established communities, and in areas with no development nearby, the visual impacts would generally be limited to motorists. Therefore, no substantial impacts to visual resources are anticipated during construction.

Section 4(f) Resources: SD&AE Corridor extends through numerous cities and communities that have 4(f) resources such as the East County Multiple MSCP Subarea Plan and BLM public lands, including the In-Ko-Pah Gorge ACEC and Yuha Basin ACEC; as well as architectural, archaeological and Native American resources such as the Campo Indian Reservation.

Potential Environmental Constraints: Construction activities along the SD&AE Corridor could affect Section 4(f) resources that are potentially significant. A complete inventory and assessment of these resources would need to occur to determine which of these areas are considered Section 4(f) resources.

8.3 Potential Mitigation Measures and Costs As part of the alternatives analysis, mitigation measures are identified that would serve to reduce environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Corridor alternatives under consideration. The purpose of this section is to describe the overall mitigation strategy and to provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the costs. Costs are provided as total costs, where possible, and as unit costs, if total costs cannot be quantified at this time. Costs are identified by Corridor alternative only where they would vary between the Corridors.

8.3.1 Environmental Mitigation Cost Estimates

8.3.1.1 Biology Mitigation measures for vegetation generally take the form of vegetation creation, enhancement or preservation. Depending on the overall value of the impacted vegetation, compensation ratios may range from 0.5:1 to as high as 5:1. Mitigation for upland habitat is generally accomplished by preservation and/or creation. Unlike uplands, wetland mitigation is required to include creation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 because of “no net loss” policies established by state and federal agencies. The balance of the mitigation ratio applied to wetlands can be satisfied through restoration.

Table 8-6 identifies the impacted vegetation, mitigation ratios and estimated costs per acre. The costs are based on estimates made in the Ricondo study. Because the value of the land will depend on its location, the cost varies greatly. This is important, because typically the agencies

March 17, 2006 Page 139 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report desire to see the mitigation occur in the same area as the loss. Since land in the coastal and urban areas is typically more valuable, this land establishes the high end of the range while the land in the desert areas would be expected to represent the lower end of the range. Mitigation ratios vary with the quality of the vegetation and the rarity of the subgroup.

Table 8-2: Mitigation Ratios and Per Unit Cost Mitigation Cost per

Acre1 ($ in thousands) Sensitivity Mitigation Ratio Range Creation Restoration Preservation

Wetlands

High 2:1 to 4:1 $125 - $250 $75 - $200 NA

Uplands

High 1:1 to 4:1 NA NA $30 - $120

Moderate 0:5 to 2:1 NA NA $30 - $120 1 Includes base land cost, planning, implementation and monitoring but not long-term management or permitting cost.

Table 8-7 presents estimated mitigation cost for each Corridor based on the ratio and per unit cost identified in Table 8-6 and the impacts for each sensitivity level contained in Appendix B, Table 8-5.

Table 8-3: Comparison of Mitigation Cost by Corridor Vegetation Alignment Sensitivity Cost ($ in thousands) 1A 1B 2 3 4 Wetland1 High 2,800 –14,000 1,400 – 7,000 3,600 – 15,300 NA Unknown Upland2 High 19,110 – 41,970 – 15,690 – NA Unknown 305,760 671,520 125,520 Moderate 29,175 – 15,240 – 1,575 – 25,200 NA Unknown 466,800 243,840 Total 23,485 – 72,545 – 34,530 – NA Unknown 344,960 1,145,320 384,660 1 Assumes creation at a ratio of 1:1 with the balance being restoration. 2 Assumes mitigation ratios all met through preservation.

March 17, 2006 Page 140 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

8.3.1.2 Architectural, Archeological and Native American Resources This estimate for architectural resources includes the costs to conduct surveys, evaluation, HABS/HAER documentation and curation. The estimate for archaeological resources includes the costs to conduct surveys, testing and evaluation, curation, data recovery and consultation. Archaeological survey costs are estimated on an acreage basis. Testing and evaluation costs are estimated by assuming that density of resources (i.e., number of resources per acre) for each of the Corridors is consistent with the density of resources identified through previous surveys. Curation costs are estimated based on the estimated number of artifacts to be curated.

There is one identified Native American sacred site associated with the I-8 Corridor, three Native American sacred sites associated with the SR-94 Corridor, and two identified Native American sacred sites associated with the SD&AE Corridor. The total estimated cost for mitigation of architectural, archaeological and Native American resources is estimated to be $9,465,000 for the I-8 Corridor, $9,515,000 for the SR-94 Corridor, $0 for the Tunnel Corridor, and $9,490,000 for the SD&AE Corridor. (Please see Appendix B for a complete explanation of cost estimates).

8.3.1.3 Visual Quality/Aesthetics Implementation of any Maglev Corridor alternative would result in visual impacts to offsite receptors. General measures have been identified that would be integrated into site design to reduce potential impacts on visual resources, such as incorporating setbacks into site design, concealing certain facilities from surrounding views and designing facilities to blend in with the surrounding landscape. For cost estimating purposes, these costs are considered to be site- preparation and facility-related costs. No additional measures have been identified to address impacts to visual resources. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, there are no costs associated with environmental mitigation for visual impacts.

8.3.1.4 Section 4(f) Impacts to Section 4(f) resources are likely to be unavoidable. Although agency consultation would be required to address these impacts, no specific mitigation measures have been identified at this level of planning. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, there are no costs associated with environmental mitigation pertaining to Section 4(f) resources.

March 17, 2006 Page 141 9.0 Institutional Issues 9.0 Institutional Issues SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

9.0 Institutional Issues

9.1 Funding Background This chapter outlines potential funding sources as well as the institutional, regulatory and funding barriers for the San Diego to Imperial Valley Maglev system under study. This study also examines a variety of funding sources at the local, state and federal level, as well as innovative finance, private sector funding and air-rail integration funding options.

9.2 Funding Sources for a Maglev System

9.2.1 Background The potential funding sources outlined in this section are shown on Table 9-1. All are available for capital expenditures unless otherwise noted as an operational funding source. A more detailed analysis would be needed to identify each funding source, its potential use and the likelihood of its availability for a Maglev system. A strategic approach and a funding strategy plan would assist in this analysis and in coordinating all potential funding sources and financial techniques for the Maglev system under study (see Section 9.4). Table 9-1: Potential Funding Sources

Surface Transportation Aviation Private Parking Bonds Passenger Facility Public/Private Partnerships Charges (PFC) Parking Revenue Cargo Waybill Tax Development, Redevelopment and Business Impact Fees: Public Transportation Land Sales Jet Fuel And Aviation Benefit Assessment District Programs Gas Tax Operational Funding Sources Passenger Ticket Tax Joint Development/Transit Oriented • Farebox Revenues Development • Promotions and Advertisement • High Value Freight (light cargo) • Utility Lease Revenue The California Transportation Commission Passenger Flight (CTC) State Transportation Improvement Segmentation Tax Program (STIP) Funds, including the Interregional STIP programmed by Caltrans Other Regionally-Controlled Federal Formula Passenger Security Funds Surcharge • Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds flexible for transit purposes • Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds flexible for transit purposes • Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE)

March 17, 2006 Page 142 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Surface Transportation Aviation Private funding • Federal transit formula funds allocated directly to the region • Public Transportation Account, including the State Transit Assistance Fund Program Proposed State Infrastructure Bonds International Departure Tax Proposed State Project Delivery Legislation International Arrival Tax Federal Earmarks INS User Fee

FTA Discretionary New Starts Program Customs and Border Protection User Fees under Homeland Security Administration Next Generation High -Speed Rail Program AIP Grants

Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) State Infrastructure Banks

Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Fund (RRIF) Capital uses unless noted

9.2.2 Surface Transportation Funding Vehicles The following are the potential local, state, federal and private surface transportation funding sources available for the Maglev system under study:

9.2.2.1 Local/Regional Funding

There would be a variety of local/regional capital and operating funds potentially available for the Maglev system under study. Some of the local sources can only be used for the operation of the system, and those funds are so noted.

Local Fees • Parking Bonds • Parking Revenue • Public Transportation Land Sales

March 17, 2006 Page 143 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Operational Revenues These revenues would be generated from the running of the Maglev system under study. Further study would be necessary to determine if these sources could fully fund the estimated operating costs or whether additional operating subsidies would be needed. • Farebox revenues • Promotions and Advertisement • High Value Freight (light cargo) • Utility Lease Revenue To use some of these local revenues for Maglev construction may require local legislative or ordinance changes.

9.2.2.2 State Funds

Potential state funds (capital funds only) include:

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Interregional STIP

Upon recommendation from the regional agencies, such as SANDAG, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programs 75% of the federal formula funds and state funds in its State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Caltrans programs 25% of these funds into an Interregional STIP.

Pursuant to Senate Bill 45, 75% of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds are allocated to the regions, providing SANDAG full authority to program its allocation. The program is submitted to the California Transportation Commission for final approval. The remaining 25% of those funds is programmed by Caltrans in its Interregional STIP.

It is important to note that STIP funds have been extremely limited in recent years due to shortfalls in state funding and competition from state highway funding needs.

The 2006 STIP is scheduled for adoption by the CTC in June 2006. Of each county’s programming target, most of the funding is programmed for existing 2004 STIP projects and cost increases to 2004 STIP Caltrans highway projects. The majority of any remaining funds are transit-related state funds.

The 2008 STIP will have new money available in FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Most of the unreserved new funds are transit eligible. If SB 1024 or other bond initiative were to be passed by the voters in 2006, then those funds may be available earlier than the new 2008 STIP funds, perhaps starting in 2008-09. See discussion below on state bonds.

March 17, 2006 Page 144 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

It is unlikely that near-term STIP funds would be available for the Maglev system under study, given the lack of funding for new projects in the 2006 STIP. There may be some opportunities in the 2008 STIP or beyond.

Other Regionally-Controlled Federal Formula Funds

Some of the other federal sources that are controlled regionally by SANDAG and are available for rail transit funding include: • Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds flexible for transit purposes • Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds flexible for transit purposes • Federal Transportation Environmental Enhancement funding • Federal transit formula funds allocated directly to the region • State Public Transit Fund programs

The bills and specific provisions that would potentially assist in the funding of the Maglev system under study would be:

Proposed State Infrastructure Bonds

The California State Legislature is considering proposed state infrastructure bond legislation ranging from $12 billion to $222 billion. These measures require voter approval in 2006. If these measures were to pass and receive voter approval in 2006, there would be an opportunity for this project to compete for new state funding.

The bills and specific provisions that would potentially assist in the funding of the Maglev project would be:

SB 1024 (Senator Perata): • $1 billion to the California High Speed Rail Authority. Allocation would be divided into $200 million allotments for specified corridors. The corridors eligible are those in the authority’s Program EIS/EIR. The proposed high speed rail corridor to San Diego would be through the Inland Empire via the I-215/I-15 corridor to downtown San Diego. The authority has approved a steel wheel on steel rail high speed rail technology and not Maglev technology. • A Maglev technology study or project could compete under the general transportation categories or could be specified in the bill or earmarked, if the author of the bill accepted earmarking of specific projects.

March 17, 2006 Page 145 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

AB 1783 (Assemblyman Núñez): • No specified dollar amounts, but includes a set of principles for state infrastructure • Specifies intent to fund public transportation including inter city passenger rail, but does not provide details SB 1165 (Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan): • Would invest only in State’s intercity rail program. (Amtrak California) • Includes up to $222 billion total, including $68 billion in new bond proceeds with an initial $12 billion with $6 billion scheduled for the June 2006 ballot and $6.0 billion for the November 2008 ballot. • Assumes several new funding sources, including: o $3.1 billion in new GARVEE bonds since the State can legally bond against federal funds. These bonds will likely occur in later years of the ten-year plan as construction spending ramps up. o $14 billion in new Gas Tax and Weight Fee Revenue bonds since the State can legally bond up to 25 percent of such revenues. This equates to about $969 million in 2015 which will generate about $14 billion in bond proceeds. o $90 million annual savings from design-build/design-sequencing authority totaling $0.9 billion. o $5 billion in additional federal earmarks for national trade corridors will be sought and which bond and private moneys will leverage. o Existing local sales tax measures, and future measures currently planned.

Note that the Governor’s plan assumes that existing and future local/regional sales tax funds will be available to match the state bond funds and are included in the total dollars. The legislators’ plan is to develop one consensus bill in time to put an initiative on the June 2006 ballot.

Proposed Project Delivery Legislation

The Governor-sponsored “GoCalifornia” bills currently in the California Legislature will provide flexibility in project delivery techniques, but not new revenue. They are: AB 850, Cianciamilla • Public Private Partnerships/HOT Lanes. • Authorizes Caltrans to accept private sector investment and enter into franchise agreements with the private sector.

March 17, 2006 Page 146 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Also authorizes Caltrans to construct and operate value-pricing programs involving High Occupancy Toll Lanes. AB 1266, Niello • Design Sequencing. • Authorizes design sequencing method of contracting, allowing Caltrans to begin construction prior to the full completion of the design phase SB 705, Runner • Design Build. • Authorizes Caltrans to select a contractor that will complete project design and construction under one agreement.

9.2.2.3 Federal Funds The federal government has funded Maglev study projects and, in fact, helped fund this Maglev study with an earmark of $800,000 in the recently approved reauthorization bill.

This bill, called the SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users) authorizes federal transit and highway programs through Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on August 10, 2005 (Public Law109- 59).

Building on the success of two previous surface transportation authorization laws, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21; P.L. 105-178), SAFETEA-LU:

• Provides a record level of federal transit investment, $52.6 billion over 6 years, an increase of 46 percent over the amount guaranteed in TEA 21; • Increases annual guaranteed transit funding from a level of $7.2 billion in FY 2003 (the last year of TEA 21) to $10.3 billion in FY 2009.

Securing the funding for Maglev system under studies would require a strategy that incorporates a funding from several if not all of the following federal modal departments:

Funding Agency Function Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Federal Railway Administration (FRA) Railways Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highways

March 17, 2006 Page 147 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

There is the potential to form a cooperative agreement among the various federal agencies to fund a Maglev system. For example, for links to airports, as is the case for this study, an agreement could be formed among the FAA, for aviation funds, the FTA for transit funds and the FRA for specially earmarked funds. See Section 9.3 for a discussion on a potential air/rail program.

The most viable federal funding sources are the new high-speed rail programs and innovative finance programs. These sources plus others are described below.

Potential federal sources for a Maglev system include: • Project Earmarks • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Discretionary New Starts Program • Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program • The Next Generation High Speed Rail Program • Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) • State Infrastructure Banks • Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Fund (RRIF)

Federal Earmarks SAFETEA-LU includes the following programs that were developed for specific project earmarks: • High Priority projects • Projects of National and Regional Significance - funding for high cost projects of national or regional importance • National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program projects • Transportation Improvements projects

The San Diego/Imperial Valley Maglev study received an $800,000 earmark for feasibility and engineering studies.

Similar programs may be continued in the reauthorization of this bill in FY 2009/10. It is not too early to start positioning for project needs in the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU.

FTA New Starts Program The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) discretionary New Starts program is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally planned, implemented and

March 17, 2006 Page 148 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

operated major transit capital investments. It is a competitive national program. The New Starts program includes $1.5 billion in 2006, growing to $1.8 billion in 2009.

The New Starts program funds new and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems in every area of the country. These projects include commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, trolleys and ferries.

The law includes four categories of earmarks: • Specific annual funding levels for projects that have Full Funding Grant Agreements, • A listing without any funding amounts for projects authorized for final design and construction grants , • A listing without any funding amounts for projects authorized for preliminary engineering grants and • A listing with maximum amounts during the SAFETEA-LU period for additional projects not categorized by their status.

It is difficult for high-speed rail projects to compete in this program because of the higher priority generally given to public transit projects.

Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was authorized in the previous reauthorization bill, TEA-21, to initiate a competition to plan and build a Maglev project in the United States. This program, which the FRA manages, is called the Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program, which funds demonstration projects selected for feasibility studies in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas.

The TEA-21 legislation authorized $55 million for pre-construction planning to select the most viable candidates and up to $950 million of funding to fund a system, with the local or state agency funding at least 1/3 of the project. Only funding for environmental work for these projects has been appropriated to-date.

SAFETEA-LU earmarked a $90 million earmark, subject to appropriation, for Maglev feasibility studies, environmental work and preliminary design. Of this amount, $45 million was dedicated to the Las Vegas Maglev project and the remaining $45 million to “a Maglev project east of the Mississippi River” (see Section 1307(d) of SAFETEA-LU).

There may an opportunity for the Maglev system under study in this report to compete for these funds in the future, if and when the federal government expands its Maglev program.

March 17, 2006 Page 149 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

The Next Generation High Speed Rail Technology Demonstration Program Funds

Congress has funded in SAFETEA-LU and the appropriation bills a new Next Generation High Speed Rail Technology Demonstration Program. The program is for research, development and technology demonstration programs and the planning and analysis required to evaluate technology proposals under the program. Congress appropriated: • $20.0 million in 2005; and • $18.0 million in 2006.

The Next General High Speed Rail Program Funds

Congress has funded in SAFETEA-LU and the appropriation bills a new Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. The program is for research, development and technology demonstration programs and the planning and analysis required to evaluate technology proposals under the program. Congress appropriated: • $20.0 million in 2005; and • $18.0 million in 2006.

The President has requested no funds for his proposed 2007 appropriations bill, although there is congressional interest to add dollars to this category for 2007.

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) is an innovative finance program that provides federal credit assistance to nationally or regionally significant surface transportation projects, including highway, transit and rail. The program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment by providing projects with supplemental or subordinate debt.

SAFETEA-LU has TIFIA authorization for the federal government of $130 million per year, which can leverage over $2.5 billion of TIFIA loans to eligible and selected projects.

TIFIA provides federal credit assistance to major transportation investments of critical national importance, such as intermodal facilities; border crossing infrastructure; highway trade corridors; and transit and passenger rail facilities with regional and national benefits.

This TIFIA credit program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private investment by providing supplemental and subordinate capital. The TIFIA credit program offers three distinct types of financial assistance, designed to address projects’ varying requirements through their life cycles:

March 17, 2006 Page 150 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Direct Federal loans to project sponsors, which offer flexible repayment terms and provide combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs, • Loan guarantees, which provide full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the federal government to institutional investors such as pension funds, which make loans for projects, • Standby lines of credit, which represent secondary sources of funding in the form of contingent Federal loans. These loans may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first ten years of project operations.

Each project must meet certain objectively measurable threshold criteria to qualify. • A project must cost at least $50M or 1/3 of the State's annual apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds, whichever is less. • Freight projects with a common objective of improving the flow of goods may be combined to meet project thresholds. • A project must be consistent with the State's long-range transportation plan and be included in the transportation improvement program. • The projects also must be supported in whole or in part from user charges of other non-federal dedicated funding sources.

Qualified projects meeting the initial threshold criteria are evaluated by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and selected based on the extent to which they generate economic benefits, leverage private capital, promote innovative techniques and meet other program objectives. Each project must receive an investment grade rating on its senior debt obligations before federal credit assistance will be provided.

State Infrastructure Bank Program

SAFETEA-LU, Section 1602, establishes a new State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) innovative finance program under which all States are authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish infrastructure revolving funds eligible to be capitalized with Federal transportation funds authorized for fiscal years 2005-2009.

The new program gives States the capacity to increase the efficiency of their transportation investment and significantly leverage Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private investment. The program provides greater flexibility to the States by allowing other types of project assistance in addition to grant assistance.

March 17, 2006 Page 151 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Fund (RRIF) The federal transportation authorization, TEA-21, gave the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) the authority to provide financial assistance to freight and passenger railroads in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees, similar to the TIFIA program. The financing can cover the acquisition, improvement or rehabilitation of rail equipment and facilities, refinancing of existing debt (provided it was secured for the previously listed purposes), and the establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities.

By law, loan amounts are limited to $210 million (or 6% of the total program authorization of $3.5 billion). Loans and guarantees are required to be 100% collateralized (to the extent possible).

9.2.2.4 Private Sector Funds

Potential private sources are listed and described below: • Public/Private Partnerships • Development, Redevelopment and Business Impact Fees • Benefit Assessment District Programs

• Joint Development/Transit Oriented Development

Public Private Partnerships

Public/Private Partnerships are becoming more popular as transportation infrastructure funds are becoming scarcer. In fact, a major component of the Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan includes the encouragement of Public-Private Partnerships (P3).

"Public-private partnerships" (PPP) refer to contractual agreements formed between a public agency and private sector entity that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery of transportation projects. The term “public-private-partnership” is used for any scenario under which the private sector assumes a greater role in the planning, financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a transportation facility compared to traditional procurement methods.

Traditionally, private sector participation has been limited to separate planning, design or construction contracts on a fee for service basis – based on the public agency’s specifications. Expanding the private sector role allows the public agencies to tap private sector technical, management and financial resources in new ways to achieve certain public agency objectives such as greater cost and schedule certainty, supplementing in-house staff, innovative technology applications, specialized expertise or access to private capital.

March 17, 2006 Page 152 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

The private partner can expand its business opportunities in return for assuming the new or expanded responsibilities and risks. Some of the primary reasons for public agencies to enter into public-private partnerships include: • Private ventures can share some of the risk, while making a profit appropriate to that risk. • Public agencies build desired projects now rather than later. • Public agencies can save on maintenance costs by extending the private sector role not just through design and construction, but also through operations and maintenance. Other public-private benefits include: • Expedited completion compared to conventional project delivery methods • Project cost savings • Improved quality and system performance from the use of innovative materials and management techniques • Substitution of private resources and personnel for constrained public resources • Access to new sources of private capital

In order to attract private investment, a revenue stream must be generated or paid to the developer as a reasonable return on its investment. These revenue streams are more difficult for a transit project, since the fare charged rarely fully covers the operating costs, unlike a toll road facility.

If the Maglev system under study generates a profit and/or the public agency is willing to subsidize or “buy down” the cost of the project, then public/private partnerships could be a way to help fund the project.

Development, Redevelopment and Business Impact Fees

Development impact fees are one-time charges against new development to raise new revenue for new or expanded public facilities necessitated by new development. This technique could be used for the Maglev system under study in the downtown areas and at station sites along the corridor.

Development impact fees emerged as a local financing technique for public facilities in the 1970s and 1980s when state and federal funding for local infrastructure improvements was declining yet the need for public facilities continued to grow.

Development impact fees should comply with the rational nexus test, which requires, in general, that there is a connection established between new development and the new or expanded facilities required to accommodate such development.

March 17, 2006 Page 153 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Business Improvement Districts (BID’s) could be expanded or formed for specific improvements.

Benefit Assessment District Programs

In California, local governments can assess local properties to finance the provision of public services, including transportation. A benefit assessment district could be formed around the station locations.

State law prescribes a process for setting up benefit assessment districts that includes studies and reports, notification of property owners and a process to solicit and consider public comment. A vote of the affected property owners is often required, and assessments are added to annual property tax bills. The process provides for opposition to the assessment, and significant power rests with property owners to block a proposed district.

Joint Development/Transit Oriented Development

Joint development allows transit agencies to realize benefits from their ownership of real property or attract development around its station sites. This technique could be used around the Maglev station locations.

Many transit properties, especially rail operators, own parcels related to the construction and/or operation of their systems. Construction staging areas, surplus right-of-way, station areas and park and ride lots are prime candidates for joint development. These partnerships between the public agency and a private developer result in benefits to both parties, i.e. a profit for the private developer and a cash payment or long-term income stream for the transit agency. Long term, the transit agency can expect to see increased ridership.

Infrastructure needs for transit-oriented development can often be achieved by using tax increment and/or benefit assessment type financing structures. The future value of property appreciation and incremental property taxes, or benefits to property owners from new and/or improved rail, road, and utility services provides the revenue needed to service debt for the infrastructure improvements.

9.2.3 Aviation Funding Vehicles A few airport access projects have been able to use airport-related revenues, but given current federal legislation and FAA policy there are significant barriers. Section 9.3, below, discusses ways to work within the existing legislation for short term funding and the need for legislative change for long term funding of a Maglev system.

The main sources of funds for airport projects are: • Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants: Funded by aviation-user taxes, airports receive grants through entitlement funds apportioned to airports based on

March 17, 2006 Page 154 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

passenger traffic and cargo landed weights, and discretionary funds which are distributed based on the airport’s project significance in relation to other projects deemed important for the national air transportation system. • Passenger Facility Charges (PFC): Commercial airports can impose a $1, $2, $3, $4, or $4.50 PFC per enplaned passenger. PFC revenues can be used directly to pay for capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis or to retire debt service on bonds. • Bond Proceeds • Revenue from fees, rentals and leases

For large and medium size airports, airport revenue bonds constitute the most significant source of funds for capital projects. The reliability of airport revenue streams, coupled with the PFC income, creates a bond market that is very stable and very attractive to many investors. To be able to leverage future income that is virtually assured, backed by federal legislation to ensure the continuity of PFCs, airports are able to secure bond indebtedness to fund capital improvements that often run into the billions of dollars. Capital of this size and magnitude is what is needed to finance a high-speed rail system.

Two user-based aviation revenue streams are Airport Improvement Program grants (AIP) and Passenger Facility Charges (PFC). The Airway Revenue Act of 1970 established the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is funded from aviation-related taxes or user fees such as the airline ticket tax, a tax on air-freight waybills, an international departure fee, and a tax on general aviation gasoline and jet fuel. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund supports the AIP, which provides grants to public-use airports.

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (as amended) authorized AIP funding levels, specifies eligible airport projects, and provides a formula for distributing AIP funds. Concerned whether the AIP program would meet the future infrastructure capital needs of U.S. airports, Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 which authorized airports to assess Passenger Facility Charges, a fee charged on every enplaned airport passenger. Airlines collect the fees and pass them directly through to the airport operator. PFCs are intended to augment AIP by providing financing runways, taxiways, terminals, gates and other high cost airport infrastructure.

Once Congress enacts specific legislation on a particular grant or aviation revenue authority, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA issue orders and advisory circulars to provide guidance and establish regulations and procedures to administer the authorized grants or fees. For AIP, FAA approved eligibility regulations regarding access roads to airports that established the criteria the FAA uses to evaluate funding eligibility for transit operations at airports. Facilities within the airport boundary that are necessary to provide connection to a rapid transit

March 17, 2006 Page 155 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

system may be eligible if they will primarily serve the airport. The FAA reviews each transit program on a case-by-case basis to determine AIP eligibility.

FAA regulations provide that AIP funds can be used for airport access roads (and transit) under these circumstances:

• The access road may extend only to the nearest public highway of sufficient capacity to accommodate airport traffic. • The access road must be located on airport property or within right-of-way acquired by the airport sponsor. • The access road must exclusively serve airport traffic. Any part of the road that does not exclusively serve airport traffic is ineligible to use PFC funds.

To use PFCs for intermodal projects, the FAA has relied on the AIP access road criteria for establishing eligibility. Facilities within the airport boundary that are necessary to provide a connection to a rapid transit system may be eligible for PFC revenues if they will primarily serve the airport.

In PFC decisions on fixed guideway access projects that involve construction of rail or guideway segments, the FAA has ruled that where an on-airport facility would have both airport and general use, AIP or PFC funding cannot be used for any component of the project that would be subject to general use because the project would not be for exclusive airport use.

The 1991 final rules regulating PFC funding stipulated that ground transportation projects are eligible for PFC funding if the public agency owns or acquires the right-of-way and any necessary land. Airport ownership is necessary for a transit project under PFC funding. The final rule does not set any eligibility restrictions on the mode of transportation for airport access projects, nor does it impose any requirement on the geographical proximity of the project to the airport. The final rule states that these issues will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as part of the FAA Administrator’s review and approval of an application to use PFC revenue.

Four projects that were approved by the FAA to use PFCs are presented in Table 9-2 on the following page.

March 17, 2006 Page 156 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Table 9-2: FAA-Approved Projects Using PFCs Location Project Description Funding Amount Light rail extension and new station at Portland, OR $43 million Portland International Airport. People mover system 1-mile connection Newark, NJ from Newark Liberty International Airport $357 million to new Northeast Corridor rail station. People mover system 3-mile connection New York, NY from JFK International Airport to two $1.3 billion transit rail stations. On-airport transit station at St. Louis St. Louis, MO $4 million Lambert Field International Airport.

In 1999, the FAA issued its final policy concerning the use of airport revenue, Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges. Key provisions of the final policy include:

• Ground Access Capital Costs: Airport revenue may be used for capital costs of an airport ground access project that is owned and operated by the airport owner or operator and is directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property, including airport visitors and employees. • Ground Access Operating Costs: Airport revenue may also pay operating costs of an airport ground access project if it is owned and operated by the airport owner, and is directly and substantially related to air transportation of passengers and property. • Use of Airport Property: Airport property can be made available at less than fair market value for public transit terminals, rights-of-way, and related facilities if the transit facility is publicly owned and operated and the facilities are directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property.

For example, FAA approved the use of airport revenue to finance construction of the rail link between SFO and the BART rail system. PFC’s could be used for the actual construction costs for the BART airport terminal station and the rail connector between the airport station and the BART extension.

9.3 Strategy to Address Intermodal Transportation Based on previous FAA rulings and the 1991 final policy, it is evident that airport revenue can be used under certain, very restricted circumstances for intermodal facilities at airports. In all cases, the transit system must be owned and operated by the airport and be for the exclusive use of airport operations. This ruling results in the continuation of the independent financing of separate modes.

March 17, 2006 Page 157 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

While a comprehensive strategy may be needed to identify new funding sources for high-speed rail, a short-term strategy may be to initially create more flexibility in the aviation and the highway and transit programs. Both currently restrict the usage of their trust fund dollars. More flexibility could permit them to use their funds for expanded purposed that are critical to mobility.

Some of these modifications could include:

• Allow the use of AIP funds and other revenue sources to be used off airport and within the region for public transit links when the airport is a major beneficiary. • Allow intermodal projects which serve both aviation passengers and ground commuters to pool their respective funding sources together so they could share the cost of an intermodal project based proportionately on the share of passengers the project serves for each mode. • Allow AIP funds which are lost when an airport imposes a PFC of $4 or $4.50 to remain with the airport if it invests it into intermodal airport-rail connections. • Permit the use of PFC-type fees to be applied to rail segments that integrate into airport operations and earmark these funds specifically for intermodal capital projects. • Create a new revenue stream by authorizing a new user fees on airport parking, rental car operations or some other private vehicle operations that shifts the burden of financing transit projects at airports to passengers and visitors who continue to access airports by private vehicle.

These changes could be considered within the context of existing legislation and focus on a short-term implementation strategy. However, for significant long term financing of high-speed rail, especially Maglev, a more comprehensive federal approach with legislative change for funding intermodal projects and creating an integrated air-rail system would be required.

9.4 Funding Strategy Plan Given the complexity of funding options for the Maglev system under study, the development of a comprehensive funding strategy would increase the success of securing funding. This plan would provide a consistent starting point for all stakeholders as an agency seeks support from federal, state, local and private decision-makers.

The optimal funding approach will be iterative and progressive, which is illustrated in Figure 9-1.

March 17, 2006 Page 158 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 9-1: Optimal Funding Approach

Volume Project Demand Capacity

Optimum Solution Funding & Financing Project Cost & Schedule

Rate & Revenue

A funding strategy would follow four steps:

Step 1: Develop a Funding Strategy A funding strategy is important to fully fund the Maglev system under study. The following tasks are included in this step: • Develop a financial plan and project schedule • Identify funding sources and financing techniques • Prepare a risk analysis of the likelihood of obtaining these funds and the potential amounts that could be available. • Explore multiple funding strategies and scenarios

Some of the inputs that will be critical to the funding strategy include: • Ridership volume & capacity

March 17, 2006 Page 159 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

• Project costs • Rates & other sources of revenue • Operating & funding options

Step 2: Develop Informational Materials In order to communicate the need for funding, a clear, compelling story should be told. The story should detail not only the need for a project, but also its benefits to local communities, the region and the nation. Messages about the project must include the anticipated cost, schedule, funding plan and benefits, and should be quantified. Messages must also be simple, memorable and tailored to targeted audiences. These messages could be relayed through a variety of means: brochures, videos, etc. Through implementation of this plan, appropriate informational materials would be developed to contain these persuasive messages that encourage funding support.

Step 3: Negotiate with Funding Agencies Once the funding strategies have been developed and ranked for relative ease of implementation, and the informational materials have been developed, it is now time to secure the funding. The goal is to negotiate funding commitments for short-term and long- term funding at the local, regional, state, federal and private level.

Step 4: Develop and Implement a Legislative Strategy Only when the various potential funding agencies/parties have each agreed that a project is a priority and that the project costs, schedule and funding strategies are reasonable, can an agency successfully fully fund its project at the legislative level. Without a coherent plan for large infrastructure projects, the agency will not be able to secure a full package of funding that will allow the project to be completed.

The plan would outline the monthly tasks and deadlines. Local, state and federal legislative contacts would be identified. Implementation of the legislative tasks would be coordinated through the agency’s legislative staff.

A comprehensive funding plan can lead to greater success in securing funding for the Maglev system under study.

9.5 Project Delivery Options Every transportation infrastructure project is unique in its location (rural versus urban, for example), complexity of environmental permitting, anticipated traffic loadings, and tie-ins to other local issues, to name a few variables. Correspondingly, an agency should have a

March 17, 2006 Page 160 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report comprehensive toolbox of project delivery mechanisms that can be used to most effectively design and build its varied projects.

Applying the right project delivery mechanism to the right projects will result in the projects being designed and built faster, more efficiently and more economically.

Building a Maglev project requires an innovative approach to project delivery because of the large size, cost and the introduction of new technology of planned systems.

Described below are several delivery techniques that could be considered in implementing a Maglev system.

9.5.1 Design-Build

Design-build is a method of project delivery in which an agency executes a single contract with one entity (the Design-Builder) for design and construction services to provide a finished product.

In a traditional contract, the design process is completed independent of the construction contract (design-bid-build). This separation allows an agency to minimize potential impacts to third parties by removing time as a critical component of the design. Right of way, environmental permits, local agency agreements, and utility agreements are all either very well defined or in place prior to awarding a construction contract.

This process minimizes potential risks, but requires a very linear approach toward completing the project. Possible design improvements during construction can become costly and time consuming since they are made after the design is 100 percent complete and frequently under a very tight contractual timeline.

The attractiveness of design-build is the promise of innovation stemming from the designer/builder collaboration. If the process is applied to the right project, with the right controls in place, the public gets a quality product in a shorter time. Throughout the design- build process, the owner performs full review to ensure that the project is built according to its parameters and specifications.

Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) is an extension of the design-build project approach. Under this arrangement, the same team that designs and builds the project also operates it and maintains it for a finite period of time, after which the project is turned over to the agency. An extension of this technique is the addition of financing by the private sector team.

March 17, 2006 Page 161 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

9.5.2 Public-Private Partnerships

The sharing or blending of assets and resources between the public and private sector is not new. The advantages include cost-reducing solutions that maintain the same or better levels of quality, and the ability to leverage the increasingly limited resources of government agencies to complete high-cost, high-need projects. New transportation infrastructure is built using private funds in lieu of or to leverage local or state transportation funds.

California’s AB 680 legislation, which passed in 1989, authorized an agency to award up to four franchises to private firms to finance, design, construct and operate toll road facilities within the state – at no cost to the state or federal government. A couple of those projects were in San Diego, including Rte. 125.

In this model, a public agency seeks partners that can guarantee project delivery for a fixed price and deadline. The private partners fund, design and construct the project. The state assists with environmental permitting, right-of way acquisition, plans and specifications review, and construction oversight. After some period of time (typically 30 to 35 years), the public agency becomes the owner of the infrastructure.

9.5.2.1 Benefits of Expanded Private Sector Role

Some of the primary reasons for public agencies to enter into public-private partnerships include: • Private ventures can share some of the risk, while making a profit appropriate to that risk; • Public agencies build desired projects now rather than later; and • Public agencies can save on maintenance costs by extending the private sector role not just through design and construction, but also through operations and maintenance

Other public-private benefits include: • Expedited completion compared to conventional project delivery methods; • Project cost savings; • Improved quality and system performance from the use of innovative materials and management techniques; • Substitution of private resources and personnel for constrained public resources; and, • Access to new sources of private capital.

Public-private partnerships provide benefits by allocating the responsibilities to the party – either public or private – that is best positioned to control the activity that will produce the desired result. These partnerships are accomplished by specifying the roles, risks and rewards contractually, so as to provide incentives for maximum performance and the flexibility necessary to achieve the desired results.

March 17, 2006 Page 162 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Transportation agencies are using new rewards for private investment, including new and creative ways of giving developer a return on investment. Some agencies have developed an incentive fee concept tied to value, such as cost and schedule savings.

9.5.2.2 Range of Private Sector Roles

Public-private partnerships can be applied to a large range of transportation functions across all modes. These include: • Project conceptualization and origination; • Design; • Financial Planning and finance; • Construction; • Operation; • Maintenance; • Toll Collection; and, • Program Management.

These activities are typically bundled into contract packages reflecting the public agency’s objectives related to: schedule and cost certainty; innovative finance; or transfer of management and/or operational responsibility.

March 17, 2006 Page 163 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

Figure 9-2: Public/Private Partnership Involvement Option

The following are some of the types of public/private partnerships for transportation projects:

Developer and Design/Build Role: The private sector could contribute equity or deferred payment funds to jump start a project. This usually entails partial funding of preliminary engineering and environmental work. Traditional state funding with tolls and state funds would be used to construct the project and the private developer could provide the design/build services. Although this scenario would increase the project’s priority, it does not solve the problem of constructing the project if state funds are not available soon enough to complete the project in a timely way.

Concessions: A newer technique in the United States is a concession role for the private sector. Under this case, the developer would pay an upfront payment to the agency for the privilege of designing, financing, building, operating and maintaining the facility. The agency could also contribute funds, but all reasonable profits would accrue to the private developer. Some public

March 17, 2006 Page 164 SANDAG Maglev Study Phase 1 Final Report

entities negotiate a sharing of the surplus toll revenue, after debt service on the bonds, maintenance and other costs are paid.

9.5.3 Potential Legislative Changes Needed

Many states have legislation inhibiting public-private partnerships. This type of legislation ranges from requirements for low bid awards on construction contracts and prohibitions against design/build or outsourcing certain agency functions. In addition, there may also be prohibitions against tolling or commingling public and private funds.

California has laws restricting design/build as well as public/private partnerships. The passage of California’s pending GoCalifornia legislation, described above, is needed to allow more flexibility in project deliver techniques. Legislation may also be required for a local or regional agency to enter into public/private partnerships or alternative delivery techniques for the Maglev system under study.

March 17, 2006 Page 165