Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study Interim Legislative Committee on Transportation January 23, 2008 Results of Feasibility Study ReestablishmentReestablishment ofof passengerpassenger railrail serviceservice betweenbetween LasLas VegasVegas andand LosLos AngelesAngeles isis feasiblefeasible •• Within existing rail corridors • Using conventional (non-electric) equipment • In a shared-use rail environment 2 Elements of Service Feasibility ThereThere is:is: •• A strong travel market • Good ridership potential with opportunity for growth • Acceptable farebox recovery ratio 3 Technical Advisory Committee Members 4 Track Ownership 5 ALTERNATIVE A1 Most Feasible 6 ALTERNATIVE A2 7 ALTERNATIVE A3 8 ALTERNATIVE B 9 ALTERNATIVE C1 10 ALTERNATIVE C2 11 Conceptual A1 Time Reductions Schedule Times By Level of Project Improvement 7.5 7 Hours 15 Minutes – Desert Wind 7.0 - 45 Minutes 6.5 - 1 Hour 15 Minutes - 1 Hour 22 Minutes 6.0 - 1 Hour 15 Minutes 5.5 Schedule Hours, Las Vegas to LAUPT via A1 via toLAUPT Vegas Las Hours, Schedule - 1 Hour 45 Minutes 4 Hours 55 Minutes – Auto, No Traffic - 1 Hour 52 Minutes 5.0 Unimproved Low Improvements High Improvements Amtrak 1997 Surfliner Talgo JetTrain 12 Need for Rail Improvements •• LimitedLimited availableavailable rightsrights--ofof--wayway •• SharedShared--useuse withwith freightfreight andand commutercommuter railrail servicesservices •• SignificantSignificant growthgrowth inin goodsgoods movementmovement •• CajonCajon PassPass constraintsconstraints ¾¾ HighHigh traintrain volumesvolumes ¾¾ RailRail capacitycapacity issuesissues 13 Examples of Needed Rail Improvement Projects • TrackTrack upgradesupgrades •• AdditionalAdditional mainmain trackstracks •• StationStation improvementsimprovements •• IncreasingIncreasing ““superelevationsuperelevation”” onon curvescurves •• NewNew railrail sidingssidings andand sidingsiding extensionsextensions 14 Needed Rail Improvement Projects • ProjectsProjects wouldwould provideprovide benefitsbenefits toto bothboth passengerpassenger railrail andand freightfreight servicesservices •• LowLow-- && HighHigh--BuildBuild improvementimprovement plansplans rangerange fromfrom $1.1B$1.1B toto $3.5B$3.5B 15 Impact of Fare & Schedule on Ridership Year 2010 Forecasts Alternative A1 # of Trips Fare Fare & Trips Average Rail Travel Time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles 5-1/2 hours 5-1/2 hours 5-1/2 hours 5-1/2 hours Average One Way Fare $ 57.25 $ 57.25 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 Average Weekly Roundtrips 24 15 24 34 Average Riders per Train 145 157 112 102 Ridership 362,200 276,800 279,100 361,300 Revenue (2006$) $ 18,730,000 $14,420,000 $ 21,160,000 $ 27,180,000 Estimated O&M Costs $ 34,000,000 $23,100,000 $ 32,700,000 $ 43,100,000 Net Operating Loss $ 15,270,000 $ 8,680,000 $ 11,540,000 $ 15,920,000 Fare Recovery Percentage 55.09% 62.42% 64.71% 63.06% Coaches per Trainset 55 4 4 16 Impacts of Increased Travel Time on Ridership & Revenue Year 2010 Forecasts Alternative A-1 +1/2 Hour +1 Hour Average Rail Travel Time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles 5-1/2 hours 6 hours 6-1/2 hours Average Riders per Train 145 115 92 Ridership 362,200 288,100 229,220 Revenue (2006$) $ 18,730,000 $14,930,000 $ 11,900,000 Average One Way Fare $ 57.25 $ 57.25 $ 57.25 Average Weekly Roundtrips 24 24 24 Change from A-1 -21% -36% 17 Three Conceptual Station Areas Considered Downtown Mid-Strip South Strip 18 Regional Transportation Commission NEXTNEXT STEPSSTEPS 19 Future Phases of Project Development •• RailRail CapacityCapacity ModelingModeling •• ConceptualConceptual EngineeringEngineering •• ImplementationImplementation andand FinancingFinancing PlanPlan •• ConstraintsConstraints andand OpportunitiesOpportunities AssessmentAssessment •• EnvironmentalEnvironmental AssessmentAssessment asas neededneeded toto preservepreserve additionaladditional ROWROW 20 Thank You!.